Not my words but those of Winston Churchill in 1931, he is right isn't he?
AV would mean that elections would be determined by 'the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates'
AV would mean that elections would be determined by 'the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates'
1 comment:
I'm afraid that Mr. Churchill had it wrong. All votes are equal and all votes count under AV. It is the only fair and practical means of ensuring that a majority elects its representative, a state of affairs as fundamental to democracy as the vote itself. It is the same as having people return to the polls as many times as it takes to gain that majority, but without the treks. If someone has decided not to rank any candidates other than their first preference and no-one has earned a majority, if their candidate is dropped from contention it will be as if they decided not to vote in the second round. They would be allowing others to make the decision for them.
Member recall is the wrinkle which should cause electors concern. How will we get the best people to run for office if they can be turfed out with ease?
You might consider the reforms at http://www.democraticrenewal.com . They are designed for the Canadian system which, as you know, is essentially the same as yours. It would give you the advantages of AV without the sinmgular disadvantage - a dearth of smaller parties and independents elected to Parliament.
Post a Comment