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”
Nigel
I just don’t see why it is such a big deal even if the reallocated BNP votes did in fact give a winner in the next round. They’ve not ‘decided’ the election any more than any other arbitrarily chosen small group of people, it’s just theirs were the last votes to be counted before someone got 50% so no further votes needed to be counted.
If there are five people voting for outcome A or B, and the first three votes are A, B, A, then just because the 4th person votes A, so A wins, it doesn’t mean they ‘decided’ the result or had any extra influence, or that the 5th person whose vote wasn’t even looked at had less influence than the others.
Mr. Sensible
Cim I’m afraid you’re doing it again; trying to predict the outcome of a previous election under a new system.
Like I say, if, as the yes campaign claim, so many MPs have less than 50% support, such predictions are simply unreliable.
cim
Mr Sensible: Not at all. I’m trying to analyse the results of the 2010 election under FPTP and predict how it might have been different with different candidates under the same electoral system. Obviously there were some voters in those seats who would have voted BNP given the chance. They didn’t have that chance and it’s unlikely they all stayed at home. “What if X had (not) stood” is a question that gets asked all the time of FPTP elections.
Anon E Mouse
Mr Sensible – AV does not guarantee a person gets 50%. That’s a myth.
I’m voting YES just to be bloody minded!
Tim Ireland
RT @leftfootfwd: Conclusive proof that AV hinders the BNP: http://bit.ly/eBJfeP by @wdjstraw #Yes2AV @YesInMay