The Independent today reports new analysis from the Institute for Public Policy Research - also covered by The Guardian yesterday - showing that AV would hinder the BNP.
The Independent today reports new analysis from the Institute for Public Policy Research – also covered by The Guardian yesterday – showing that AV would hinder the BNP. The research fundamentally rebuts claims made earlier this month by the No to AV Campaign which were promoted by Guido Fawkes.
On April 1st, the right-wing blogger published an article which claimed:
“Research out today from the No to AV campaign suggests that in the region of 35 constituencies could have their outcomes determined by the second preferences of BNP voters. This is the unwelcome empowerment that the AV system brings to democracy.”
The analysis by ippr from a forthcoming report examining the case for AV looks at each of the 35 constituencies in turn. Using analysis from a British Election Study survey of voting intentions of 13,356 people, it found that in 25 of these seats the outcome of the 2010 general election would have been the same under AV.
In the remaining ten seats, which would have changed hands under AV, the BNP vote was not decisive. This was calculated using polling from the BES paper which outlines the second preferences of BNP supporters. It found that BNP supporters gave 45 per cent of their second preferences to Ukip, 29% to the Tories, 10% to Labour, 9% to the Greens, and just 7% to the Lib Dems.
Using this information, the table below shows the vote share for each party once the BNP have been eliminated and had their second preferences reallocated. In every seat, more second preferences would need to be reallocated before there was a winner.
Summing up the absurdity of of the No campaign’s claims that the AV would “[give] BNP supporters more power at the ballot box“, Billy Bragg told the Independent:
“It’s much easier for them to get elected under first-past-the-post – they need a small number of angry, highly motivated people to win under first-past-the-post…
“If AV is going to help the BNP, why are they against AV? They are opposed to AV because they know that to win power they have to gain more than 50 per cent of the vote.”
The Yes campaign are now turning this point to their advantage with new adverts outlining Nick Griffin’s opposition to AV.
33 Responses to “Conclusive proof that AV hinders the BNP”
Russ Hickman
RT @leftfootfwd: Conclusive proof that AV hinders the BNP: http://bit.ly/eBJfeP by @wdjstraw #Yes2AV @YesInMay
Chris
The fact that anyone thinks this is the big game changing system, as it is being touted by many commentators is ridiculous. I would describe myself as being centre-left, and I can see no good reason to vote yes for this proposed change to our electoral system. Small and marginal gains by the BNP considered, for them (BNP) to actually gain a seat it would take a large body of support. This larger body of support would get them in regardless of the system they were being elected under. The fact that the BNP is being used by both the No and Yes campaigns is proving to be a more than a little trite. I will be voting No, mainly because I find this to be a miserable and over complicated comprimise. I also think that this system has been reached after much deliberation and no party really wants this, but now we are here they, the lib-dems mainly, feel they need to post their banner to an argument. I think we should send a No vote to make them think again.
cim
Consider Hendon and Bolton West constituencies at the 2010 election. Neither had a BNP candidate. Both are Con-Lab marginals. Labour won Bolton West and the Conservatives won Hendon, by around 0.2% each.
One of those constituency results was almost certainly decided by BNP voters’ second preferences (depending if they favoured Labour or the Conservatives overall) – under FPTP! In Oxford West and Abingdon, Dr Evan Harris probably only lost his seat due to BNP second preferences – again, under FPTP.
We should clearly get rid of FPTP immediately.
(More details of my reasoning, and a few more examples)
Ash
cim –
Sure; of course natural BNP (or UKIP, or Green, or Lib Dem…) supporters can swing elections under FPTP by ‘transferring’ their vote to Labour or the Tories as a ‘second preference’. Hence tactical voting. But all votes that get ‘transferred’ in that way get transferred simultaneously. The difference with AV is that it matters what order candidates are eliminated in. Labour could be preferred to the Tories by most voters, yet the Tories win because right-wing parties happen to be eliminated early on, pushing them over the 50% threshold before centre/left-wing voters’ second preferences get looked at.
(NB this doesn’t mean AV is a worse system than FPTP on balance, but it does have it’s weaknesses)
cim
Ash: Labour could be preferred to the Tories by most voters, yet the Tories win because right-wing parties happen to be eliminated early on, pushing them over the 50% threshold before centre/left-wing voters’ second preferences get looked at.
If the Tories got over 50% without transfers from any centre/left parties being considered, then they would clearly win even if those transfers had been considered, though perhaps not by so big a margin.
The only case in which Labour is preferred to the Tories by a majority of voters, but the Tories win an AV election, is when Labour is actually knocked out (due to a severe lack of first prefs) before the final round (and if that happens, at least some centre/left voters 2nd prefs will be looked at)