The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The myth of AV and the BNP

The No to AV campaign’s nonsense continues.

By Duncan Robinson Published 03 April 2011 19:13

The BNP bogeyman is the favoured weapon of the No to AV campaign. Its latest campaign video focuses on the potential power of "unpopular fringe parties" to have undue influence over results in certain constituencies.

"The people who vote for the unpopular fringe parties could end up having the deciding vote," warns the video's voiceover, above an ominous soundtrack. "In over 30 constituencies at the last election, BNP voters could have decided which candidate won the seat. It isn't right."

The main thing that isn't right, however, is No to AV's claim that BNP voters could have decided the results in more than 30 constituencies.

The video warns that in some areas the BNP votes outnumber the majorities of the winning candidate. The accompanying press release lists the 35 seats where "BNP votes" have "the greatest change [sic] of swinging an election".

This is a statement which, as well as being misspelled, is more than a little disingenuous.

One of the constituencies listed is Hampstead and Kilburn, which was carried by Glenda Jackson with a tiny majority of 42. With a turnout of 52,822, under AV the winner would have required a total of 26,411 votes or more (provided every voter had listed a preference for every candidate). The Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem candidates got 17,332, 17,290 and 16,491 votes, respectively.

The BNP, however, got a whopping 328 votes. Even if they voted en masse for another candidate, the mainstream candidates would still be a good 8,000 votes short of the required amount. In other words, "BNP votes" will have barely any influence at all, never mind swing the election. Despite No to AV claims that AV will see parties pandering to BNP voters, Jackson will not be shoving anti-immigrant propaganda through the letter boxes of Hampstead's leafy suburbs just yet.

It's a similar story in Sheffield Central. Labour won with 165 more votes than the Lib Dems. The BNP's 903 votes are significant in such a tight election. But not nearly as significant as the 6,414 votes cast for Conservative, Green, Ukip and independent candidates. The preferences of BNP voters in Sheffield Central cannot swing the election – Tory and Green votes can.

Only in Dagenham could "BNP votes" alone push a candidate above the 50 per cent threshold – as the graphic in the video suggests would happen under AV – giving the Labour MP Jon Cruddas a larger majority. So, let's give the video a more accurate headline: "Under AV, the people who vote for the unpopular fringe parties could end up having the deciding vote – in Dagenham."

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: AV Electoral Reform BNP

More from Duncan Robinson

27 comments

Sun, 2011-04-03 22:04 — Extranea (not verified)

Baroness Warsi's comments in the week were a disgrace and goes to show just how desperate the no campaign is http://bit.ly/f7nKD7

Tue, 2011-04-05 07:18 — Luddite (not verified)

Many should be careful for that they wish for. Once the lid is opened there's no going back.

Wed, 2011-04-20 14:21 — Catriona

@The_old_bill:
The best way to 'punch the coalition in the kidneys' is to vote against the LibDems in the council elections, but vote YES to AV in the referendum.

Mr. Clegg has already destroyed the LibDems' support, and voting against them in the council elections will mobilise his party against him and against his coalition.

Voting Yes to AV will annoy the Tory right, and make them annoyed with Cameron. It will, therefore, destabilise the coalition.

Voting No to AV will *delight* the Tory right, and enable Cameron to keep their support.

Wed, 2011-04-20 14:45 — Willp

Without the cushion of gaining AV, LibDem MPs would have to do more to save their seats, e.g. back the NHS against destruction.
Vote No to AV, to sAVe the NHS.

Wed, 2011-04-20 15:00 — swatantra nandanwar

There will always be a few oddballs getting into Parliament. Heaven knows we've got some already in the main stream Parties.
I'm not too bothered about a few oddballs from the facist Parties; in a way it's a pressure valve for those who feel that they are not been listened to, if they have a facist elected to represent them, as in the London Assembly or Strasbourg and Brussels. The public will then see how ineffective and bigotted they are.

Mon, 2011-04-04 10:04 — Brad (not verified)

I'm so sick and tired of the scaremongering towards the BNP what exactly does it achieve? increase racial tensions which is the last thing we need.

You realise there are pro-Islam parties in the UK and growing? you should be more worried about them.

Mon, 2011-04-04 10:12 — BigC (not verified)

Problem is Duncan, under AV you DON'T need 50% of the vote to win!
So No2AV "could" be right!

It may be an extreme occurrence, but it COULD happen. Don't hear that from Yes2AV do we?

Mon, 2011-04-04 12:00 — Ross Stalker (not verified)

@simon hb

Actually, both positions CAN be true. The reason is that extremist parties, whether small or large, don't attract transfers to them, and their voters generally don't give transfers to others either.

Transfers will help smaller parties that mainstream voters would want to switch their first preferences to, and that the voters of other small parties would want to give second preferences to. This is not the BNP, as all the other small parties hate them, so they aren't going to be pushed up by transfers when the parties below them get eliminated.

The one way it will benefit small parties across the board, regardless of their ideological position, is that their voters will be less inclined to vote tactically. This isn't likely to significantly increase the BNP vote as their hatred for mainstream parties (the 'LibLabCon' as they say) is such that they don't really vote tactically anyway.

Mon, 2011-04-04 12:18 — Ross Stalker (not verified)

@BigC

You're right, it is possible to win with less than 50% in the final round, but only if a significant proportion of voters express only one preference.

Even in this case, for it to occur to such a degree that what No2AV is saying to be true, huge swathes of mainstream voters would have to not transfer votes between mainstream parties, whilst all the extremists would have to express a mainstream second preference.

It's just not going to happen, as mainstream voters are actually quite happy to put down further preferences, whilst extremists aren't - they have no mainstream preference, that's what makes them extreme!

Wed, 2011-04-06 14:31 — Monkey_magic (not verified)

Seriously - who gives a rats tail end?

Voting is out of date now - direct action is the new way forward. You can waste your time at the ballot box all you want voting for an 'anti-student fee' party who turn out to be a 'pro-student fee' party post-election.

We'll be too busy changing the world to notice.

Good luck sheepeople.

Tue, 2011-04-12 21:58 — Wibla

@Brad
04 April 2011 at 09:04

"You realise there are pro-Islam parties in the UK and growing? you should be more worried about them."

Now why would the NS want to do that?

Afterall the New Statesman's Senior Political Editor is an Islamist and thinks all non believers,or Kafir's as he calls us are dirty dogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhPeyxJ7vGU

I bet they either don't print this or delete it.

So much for free expression.

Leftists are a tolerant societie's greatest enemy,non The BNP.

Wed, 2011-04-06 14:35 — The_old_bill (not verified)

Bill Bradbury

I agree - whilst I am for an alternative vote system - I would rather 'punch the coalition in the kidneys' in an effort to destablise them.

It's sad that it's come to this - but I want to see what the Liberals do once the ONLY policy they actually negotiated from the coalition deal gets rejected by the public.

No mandate, no success, no party.

Bye by Nick Clegg - you will have deserved it.

Tue, 2011-04-05 16:09 — Bill Bradbury

I am still voting NO. AV is a Lie/Dem wish list and a route to permanent coalition or at least a few more seats. I believe that the electorate votes for a good dose of Toryism then a good dose of Labour. I can live with that. I am not giving any vote accept to my party-Labour. Therefore for me BNP is irrelevant- I put the Tories worse than them!! Milebean is an idiot voting AV. Straw poll in my Labour local HQ today as I was printing Leaflets, nobody supporting AV and that includes my Labour MP. A distraction at an important local election time. I am focusing on the cuts not AV which will be a No from me.

Mon, 2011-04-04 14:49 — Mark Scott (not verified)

This is a sound article. It's good to see some realism and honesty on this topic. There's far too much appealing to emotion going on in both Yes and No campaigns. Unfortunately, it's also realistic to assume that a majority of voters cast their votes on primarily emotional grounds.

Tue, 2011-04-05 22:34 — dwainwright

If the No2AV claim is based on seats where the BNP vote was bigger than the majority, then actually it is under FPTP that BNP voters can decide seats, if the second-placed candidate can persuade them to switch. It seems that every argument put forward against AV is in fact a stronger argument against FPTP!

Sun, 2011-04-03 19:25 — Si (not verified)

Also in the video at 0:14 the graph is horrible inaccurate. I though graphs were meant to add up to 100% not 150%!

Thu, 2011-04-07 01:29 — MB (not verified)

@Adam your understanding of the Australian voting system leaves a lot to be desired. With AV (or preferencial voting) in the lower house, there would usually about 5 candidates per lower house seat (and only very rarely be above 8). Numbering 1 to 5, easy really.

Sun, 2011-04-03 19:46 — swatantra nandanwar

The BNP are a busrted flush and really don't have much chance of winning Parliamentary seats under AV or even FPTP. They are indeed the 'bogeymen' or pariahs of British politics. Often the spectre is raised by the main Parties to frighten their own voters.
The only way they get in is by the odd freak result or under a list system like in London.
The fact is they make very little contribution to British politics. So we should not fear them. The odd seat here and there is not going to make the slightest difference as we've see in their 2 MEPs at present.
So, we should not give them the oxygen of publicity because that only creates interest in them. Its counterproductive.

Sun, 2011-04-03 19:57 — simon hb (not verified)

Trouble is, the Yes campaign are trying to have it both ways.

On one hand, there's the promise that under AV there will suddenly be a blossoming of lovely new minority parties whose voice will suddenly mean something, and may even stand a chance of winning seats.

And yet, here's the other hand, where by some magic, the power of AV to make nice-sounding minor parties like the Greens have a stronger voice won't give the same power to nasty ones like the BNP.

Can both positions really be true?

Sun, 2011-04-03 20:08 — Adam (not verified)

@Simon, the truth is that nobody knows whether it will help or hurt minority parties.

Personally, I think it will do nothing to help the BNP, but it may well encourage mass-migration of Tories to UKIP, and something similar from Lab/Lib to Green.

It will almost certainly encourage negative campaigning and more triangulating amongst the main parties, since the parties will compete for second preferences not new or marginalised voters.

@The author, I don't believe anyone is considering requiring us to vote for every candidate (Australia-style) which would be deeply unpopular and has caused huge issues there (where voters are often required to rank 30-40 unknown candidates).

Either way, the Lib Dems would probably have won that seat since they were everybody's second pref. Next time it will be Greens and UKIP.

Sun, 2011-04-03 20:23 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Personally I don't want the voting system to be altered for the time being. And at the risk of sounding rude one may quite get to like those in power being so well hung this term - hung well enough to effectively turn the hearts and minds of even most hardened political types - like putty in the hands.

One wonders what would happen to hung parliaments if we altered the voting system? Power wise, this one might not have come into it's own yet in my view, though all these youturns might be a good indication of a more comprehensive, broader, even more inclusive dialogue than we would otherwise be treated to ie given the normal executive effects of governments with big majorities.

Sun, 2011-04-03 21:07 — Donna (not verified)

The BNP are still very much a threat to the corrupt status quo however i would like to see PR, after all this is what we are fighting for to install in Afghanistan.

"If voting changed anything it would be banned" for those that think the globalist parties will give up the places at the trough so easily are deluded to say the least.

Sun, 2011-04-03 21:26 — Homo Sapiens

Arguments about which party the different systems benefit are simply special pleading by individual politicians and should be ignored in the interest of democracy.

Under First Past The Post, if the majority of electors lean to the right, for instance, and there’s a Labour and a Tory candidate, the Tory will get in, of course. In what sense might it be democratic for the Labour candidate to take the seat merely because a UKIP candidate decides also to stand? This travesty does not arise under Alternative Vote.

Similarly, if the majority lean to the left, a SWP candidate might cause the Tory to defeat Labour under FPTP but not under AV.

Why do the campaigns seem obsessed with party advantage, rather than the principles of democracy?

Tue, 2011-04-05 02:12 — Kimpatsu (not verified)

"The people who vote for the unpopular fringe parties could end up having the deciding vote"
It doesn't matter. That's the nature of a democracy: it's messy. Even if a BNP government were a sure and certain thing under AV, that would not be an argument against AV, but in favour of better education in what voting BNP under any electoral system would entail. Democracy means the will of the people, even if you personally don't like the outcome. So No2AV is really about denying democratic rights to the people.