Case for AV choice

MS Godman Law's article, '˜Parliament could soon be full of second choice MPs', on 20 April brought up several points I would like to address. She stated in the article that First Past the Post (FPTP) was '˜tried and tested' as one reason for keeping it. It is indeed '˜tried and tested'. However, it is no longer relevant in our multi-party democracy.

FPTP worked when the two main parties got more than 90 per cent of the votes in general elections and MPs were elected with a majority of the votes, but not any more. Nearly two-thirds of MPs were elected in last year’s general election without a majority.

Ms Godman Law also displays a complete lack of understanding of the Alternative Vote system (AV) when she argues that AV will result in ‘numerous recounts and possible fiddling of [the] votes’.

Only if a candidate fails to get over 50 per cent of the vote do votes get redistributed on second preference, and only when the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. This means that a candidate needs to get the widest possible support to get elected and reduces wasted votes.

Furthermore FPTP makes it easier for extremists to get into power. AV would make it harder for them to get in.

Later on she argues that AV will result in more coalitions. This is simply wrong. Australia has had two hung parliaments since the adoption of AV, whereas we have had five, as well as three instances where the governing party has had a wafer-thin majority. Canada has also had the same problems with FPTP - they have had hung parliaments for most of this century. I am not sure how that constitutes ‘strong government’, as she puts it.

AV will bring about strong, workable, more accountable governments where MPs will have to work harder for their votes.

Harry Angers

Greyfriars Lane, Storrington,