X marks the spot

Hugh Bayley York Central MP

AT last year’s General Election, neither I nor Julian Sturdy won anything like half of the votes. But, under first-past-the-post, we were both elected.

York is not unusual. Two-thirds of MPs are elected without a majority of the votes. It is not democratic and it doesn’t have to be like this. If people vote “Yes” in tomorrow’s referendum, this unfair system will end.

In York Central, I attracted 40 per cent of the votes. For every four people who backed me, six plumped for other parties.

Under the Alternative Vote (AV), the Liberal Democrats, Greens and other smaller parties would probably still lose, but their votes would not be wasted.

Their supporters’ second preferences would have decided whether I was re-elected or not.

Julian Sturdy did slightly better in York Outer, gaining 42 per cent of the votes. He secured 23,000 Conservative votes, the Lib Dems 19,000 and Labour 9,000. If I lived in York Outer, I would have voted Labour, but under first-past-the-post, my vote would have been wasted.

There are three big advantages with AV:

• It is more democratic, because every vote counts.

• It makes candidates from all parties reach out and talk to people who are not their supporters.

• It makes MPs accountable to every voter in their constituency, not just their party members.

There are two recent York elections where AV might have made a difference.

In the 1987 General Election, I lost by 147 votes. 600 people voted Green, and 10,000 Lib Dem. Their second preferences could have tipped the balance.

And last year, in York Outer, Labour second preferences would have decided the result.

With AV, every voter has an equal say.

Under first-past-the-post, thousands of votes are wasted.

That’s why I’m voting “Yes” to change the system.

Julian Sturdy - York Outer MP

WITH the referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) system now just around the corner, I urge all voters to ignore the recent political bickering and instead strip the debate back to the core arguments.

And when simply looking at the facts of the two systems, I firmly believe there exists a compelling case to vote “No” on May 5.

As a firm believer in democracy, I reverently respect the principle of one person, one vote. Our current system, first-past-the-post (FPTP), enshrines and promotes this simple democratic theory.

FPTP produces a clear winner in each constituency – quite simply, whoever gets the most votes wins. As with a sporting race, the difference between first and second may, at times, be small, but it is absolutely fair that the winner of any such race should be the one who comes first.

In addition, the negative consequences of AV cannot be overlooked. My greatest fear is that pre-election manifestos will be totally weakened by AV. Under this system, hung parliaments, where no party has an overall majority, are far more likely to occur and, in my view, coalitions sadly encourage grubby backroom deals between interest-driven politicians.

Voters deserve an electoral system which is capable of producing strong governments with clear majorities, able to offer radical choices. Under AV, however, tactical and cynical campaigning for second-preference votes, with little or no regard for pre-election promises, and an overly-complicated ballot paper will further erode confidence, interest and faith in our politics.

Lastly, if truth be told, this referendum itself is a poor compromise.

A real debate on the electoral system should focus on FPTP versus full proportional representation. Voting for a compromised system which will only ever produce compromised governments and politicians is simply not a vote for progressive change.

I strongly urge all York’s residents, regardless of usual party affiliation, to vote “No” tomorrow.