EXCLUSIVE: What the Yes to AV campaign doesn’t want you to know

Ian Walker

Thanks for that convincing list of reasons why I should vote "No"

Oh, hang on, there weren't any.

The ERS is an old, very well respected organisation, and has been campaigning for electoral reform for its entire existence. ERSL is a very well respected supplier of election services worldwide. Wrong target, methinks.

The No campaign, of course, consists entirely of politicians who want the safe seat gravy train to keep chuffing round the same old tracks.

Vulture

Congratulations for exposing this major scandal Ed.

Usually of firm opinions, I had unusually been in two minds about the AV referendum.
I had thought that any cause backed by John Prescott and Margaret Beckett could not be right. And I had hopes that UKIP would get
seats under AV.

But this has made up my mind: its first past the post for me.

Hexhamgeezer

If there is any chance to move choice on from the meagre fare offered by the current Lib/Lab/Con consensus then I'm going for a Yes. I've not looked at AV properly but if does offer the prospect of dislocating the Westminster Clique's operations it'll be Yes for sure.

LondonStatto

Ian Walker says "The ERS is an old, very well respected organisation, and has been campaigning for electoral reform for its entire existence."

Hmm. It used to say AV was unsuitable for electing a representative body such as a parliament. Then when Cameron gave Clegg the AV referendum, they promptly expunged all comments against AV from their website in an operation Winston Smith and the Ministry of Truth would have envied.

Respected?

Jonathan

I guess this is why we shouldn't entrust the private sector with our democracy then.

Rebel Saint

In a shock revelation, it has also been revealed that lawyers have been contributing to the campaign for the retention of trial by jury campaign - just proving how suspect the whole idea is. Summary justice is quicker, cheaper and has been used for centuries in many parts of the world with success.

EastLondon

Also, UKIP won't have a better chance of getting seats under AV. The system doesn't favour smaller parties (unlike PR), as Australia's highly entrenched two-party system shows. It would, however, give the euro-loving Lib Dems unprecedented power

Rebel Saint

And thank God that there are no vested interests for anyone involved with the campaign to keep the FPTP system. Oh, er ... hang on ...

Moshe

It is outrageous that a company receiving public funds for administering the running of the Referendum ballot should then be so heavily involved in funding one of the campaigns.

merlindragon

I will still be voting Yes2AV.

Even if there is questionable support behind it, the idea of AV is still sound.

I wonder if you would apply the same logic to Union funding of the Labour party, and how people were told to vote. That seems a much more dreadful issue to me.

Andrew Kitching

it hasn't taken long for an unholy alliance of right wing Tories, and old Labour has beens to start throwing the dirt.

It's about time the people had a say on how we vote. Personally, we should have done what New Zealand did. A referendum on the principle of PR, and a second on the type of system.

Simon Stephenson

So, what have we got here? A campaign to promote self-interest masquerading as a movement concerned with the public interest generally. With a giant paper trail of camouflage, deception and obfuscation designed to prevent anyone other than the most thorough from discovering this piece of legerdemain.

What's the surprise? Welcome to the 21st Century - this is how things are now done. It's not a bit of good complaining about it unless we are prepared to accept that it is deep-rooted and widespread, and that this example is not in any way uncharacteristic of routine behaviour in the lust for commercial success and political power.

Fergus Pickering

And for me, Vulture. But it always was. Tell me a number of things, you AV wonks.

1. Do I have to rank my voting? Or can I just say I want candidate A and no other. Have you decided this? Why can I not choose as my second preference my first preference AGAIN. Otherwise I lose a vote, don't I?

1. Why does a second preference count as much as a first preference. Actually I know WHY it does, but should it?

3. Doesn't this system favour the blandest candidate, the one nobody actively dislikes. Is this what you want, a parliament of people who don't believe anything much, a parliament of second-bests.

Scary Biscuits

Is the ERS a charity or a limited company? I can't find a reference to either on its website (which is also a breach of the law).

Fuddled

Anybody know the answer to this?

6 candidates on the ballot. For example: Conservative, LibDem, Labour, UKIP, BNP, Monster Raving.

Voter A is happy to support 3 of the parties but will not under any circumstances, for reasons of principle, tick any box for any of the other 3.

Voter B is not so bothered and happily ticks numbers 1 to 6 in order of preference.

So Voter B gets twice the votes of Voter A.

Can this be right?

In2minds

I too am "usually of firm opinions". I'm also usually "in two minds" about many things. But here it's not too complicated. At the root of the desire for AV are the Lib Ems. In any part of the UK there will be cases of the LD's fighting dirty to get what they want. So the scam spelt out by Ed Hawker comes as no surprise. I too will be voting NO to AV.

Stepney

Voting Yes is a vote for perpetual coalition and a thousand years of Lib Dem Europhilia.

Democracy used to be termed as "one vote every 5 years that you immediately regretted a fortnight later". Anyone who votes Yes will be regretting it for eternity.

It's a total disaster straining at the leash, egged on by benign compliance and horrifying ignorance of the consequences.

Rebel Saint

Am I understanding this correctly - an organisation called the Electoral Reform Society has a vested interest in the outcome of a campaign for electoral reform? Shocking. I heard a rumour that many of the MP's - paid for by the public and elected by FPTP - are actively campaigning against reforming the system? Maybe you could investigate for me.

Lee Griffin

I look forward to you doing a similar expose on the No campaign's funding!

Yosemite Sam

Is Mr Howker claiming that ERS Ltd has a contract to administer the national referendum on May 5th, or supply ballot papers, or undertake counting, or assist in some other way and will thus benefit financially? If he is making that claim could we have some evidence please. If not, then his article contains an untruth and is another example of the untruths being peddled by the No campaign. On the more general points about the assitance provided by the ERS to the Yes campaign, I would have been surprised if the ERS were not involved since it was established to campaign for electoral reform. Incidentally, could we have an article about the funding of the No campaign please.

pallisade

Shock horror, the electoral reform society are campaigning for...wait for it... Electoral Reform.

Pot Head

Send for Larry the No 10 cat. I smell a big fat rat in AV NO. Why won’t they tell us who is bankrolling them?

http://bit.ly/h6dVJW

Great post by Jerry Hayes over on Think Politics

Right On

My concern about both campaigns is that have been stripped to such simplicity that the general public have no idea what they are voting for. From what I've seen those on the left think they are voting for PR, and those on the right think they are voting to avoid permanent centre-left majorities.

What has apparently been missed (and should push everyone towards No) is that this is not a review of our democracy and doesn't consider every option. It's a simplistic take it or leave question on a system most don't understand and does nothing to truly address the issues in our system.

It shouldn't be No because it doesn't favour the Conservatives, it should be No because this doesn't come close to addressing the democratic issues this country faces.

Chris

From what I recall, the Tory part received funding from some proper scumbags over the last 5 years.

Does this mean we should avoid voting Tory at the next election?

Simon Stephenson

Fergus Pickering : 10.48am

"3. Doesn't this system favour the blandest candidate, the one nobody actively dislikes. Is this what you want, a parliament of people who don't believe anything much, a parliament of second-bests."

But this is what most people want. The focus of their minds is on the parochial, and all they're really after from government is that not very much changes except that whichever grouping of society they happen to be in gets more of the cake than it's likely to get under the other lot.

This is how things are, and increasingly so. If we want democracy and political involvement to be what it is trumped up to be we have to create a society which sees legitimate advancement at the micro level as being only achievable as an offshoot of the advancement of the whole.

Pramston

AV is simply about the Lib dems trying to obtain the whip hand in perpetuity.

Rebel Saint

@Fuddled "So Voter B gets twice the votes of Voter A."

er ... not at all. In fact depending in which order Voter A and voter B ranked the candidates then voter B might get their first choice and voter A might get down to their 3rd choice - so by your strange 'logic' Voter A may get "3 times as many votes" (though in reality they both only get one vote counted)!!!

In FPTP of course, it's likely that neither Voter A or Voter B will have had a vote worth counting at all. The vast majority of votes cast don't count for anything and are utterly worthless.

Leo McKinstry

Shock horror: Vatican supports Catholic faith; England and Wales Cricket Board backs Andrew Strauss's Ashes campaign. What is the story here? The very existence of the Electoral Reform Society is predicated on support for, er, electoral reform. The No to AV campaign have been coming up with a barrage of unconvincing smears in recent weeks, but have not produced one principled argument for maintaining our corrupt, tribalist, unrepresentative system. And the election of 2010 shot to pieces the claim that FPTP produces clear results and prevents coalition haggling. I'm backing AV.

stereodog

Fergus,
As an AV supporter hopefully I can answer a few of your questions.

A.) Yes you can only vote for one candidate. It just means that should your candidate be knocked out your vote doesn't transfer. In practice everyone will do this to a greater or lesser extent. If I have got the Lib Dems as my first preference I'm not going to bother ranking every other candidate down to the BNP. I would probably pick one other preference between the Conservatives and Labour.

B.) Your first vote does in fact count for more than your second. If UKIP get enough first preference votes then they get through to the next round of voting. If they get very few first preferences then they don't get through and it doesn't matter how many people rank them second. First preferences are the most important because they are the most numerous.

C.) AV doesn't automatically favour the 'blandest candidate' as you so pejoratively put it. For example if I'm a Conservative in a very rural constituency with a strong UKIP showing I would want to give UKIP voters a reason to rank me second. Therefore I would adopt a very strong line on Europe. You might say the same for a Labour or Lib Dem candidate in a seat with a strong Green showing. In a seat where the vote is evenly split between the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour then yes the most middle of the road candidate would win. However the very existence of a three way marginal would indicate that this is where the majority of the voters actually are. That is democracy.

Ian Walker

Fergus Pickering: In the UK system, you will be able to vote for one candidate, a few candidates or all candidates; it's up to you.

Note that this is markedly different to the Australian system, which requires voting for all candidates (and has a shortcut option to just vote for the party, which many people use, which is why they have such two-party politics there)

The notion of someone who ranks more than one candidate having more than one vote is an incorrect analysis. You have a ballot paper, and that ballot paper participates in a system to elect a candidate. The elected candidate will either be one that you wanted, or not. The difference under AV is that you can specify a second (and third etc.) preference if your first choice turns out to be unpopular.

Moshe

@Yosemite Sam I don't know what evidence the Spectator has seen, but ERSL mention the referendum in the news section of their website in relation to the On Demand Postal Voting services they provide. I believe this includes dispatching postal ballots to those who have registered for them on behalf of the returning officers who have contracted their services...

TrevorsDen

I think the clue is in the name - 'electoral reform' -- what secret is there in that.
And it has made a very public donation to electoral reform. what secret is there in that?

There is a pattern here and I don't like it.
The Spectator again shows its partiality and its propensity to smear - but then it is part of the Telegraph group.

How does the ERS have a commercial interest in the way we elect MPs? AV will not change the way vote counting is organised and someone over on PB.com has already explained that the vast majority of counting will only be marginally longer. There is no need for counting machines - but its good of the NO lot to drum up business for the ERS.

This is a good old smear at its best. More shame on the Spectator. Am I really going to vote for a campaign headed by Lord Prescott? I think not.

And people should get their stories straight. Up above we have someone saying it entrenches the 2 party system and others say it will favour perpetual coalition.

denis cooper

I'm looking forward to the follow-up article on the funding of the "no" side.

But as I understand they won't give you any easy leads, as the last I heard they're only going to reveal the sources of their money AFTER we've voted.

Nicholas

Of course the "Yes" camp will win. It is all about gobby celebrities, street parties, raffia handbags and the shallow, happy, clappy "Democracy in the Middle East", "Revolution 2011" (©BBC puke, puke), celebratory nonsense that Britain now excels in (and not much else).

TrevorsDen

Fergus why would you need a second vote if your man wins?
Its only if your man loses (comes 3rd) that he gets a second vote.
The man who ultimately wins and the one who comes second are the ones who do not transfer their vote.
Its quite possible that the winner will get 50%+1 on the second round - so no great time consuming complication.
Both 1st and 2nd - presumably huge great chunks of the electorate - do not get their other preferences counted - the 'recounting' applies to a very small part of the count.
And this is especially so if you chose not to give a second preference.

John Laws

This is a ridiculous post. Do you really think that a story which is nothing more to it than "Foxes support hunting ban" is worth noting? Who is the no campaign supported by? Those who will bloody well benefit!

denis cooper

EastLondon -

Given its present levels of fully committed support it would be surprising if UKIP won any seats at the next general election whether that was held under FPTP or AV.

However AV would give it a slightly better chance of making progress and growing to the point where it could possibly take seats at a future election.

Provided it did grow and become a more powerful political force then it would put the larger parties under increasing pressure to change their policies on the EU, even if it never actually got a single candidate elected to Parliament.

As far as I'm concerned the bottom line here is that if we don't get out of the bloody EU then it will gradually matter less and less what electoral system we use to elect MPs in the future, until it would no longer matter at all, so as a longer term strategy I think it would be better to support changing to a system which could help smaller parties like UKIP to make progress.

Andy Carpark

Leo McKinstry
February 24th, 2011 12:13pm

'And the election of 2010 shot to pieces the claim that FPTP produces clear results and prevents coalition haggling.'

Wrong. Under FPTP there is at least the possibility of a clear result. Under the alternatives there is no such possibility.

Under FPTP at least some people get something approximating to what they voted for. Under PR nobody does. It is a recipe for 100% disenfranchisement.

Under AV the voters return the MP that collectively they dislike least. It is a recipe for government by Teletubbies.

FPTP provides a mechanism for kicking out a bad government (I thought everyone knew this?). Once AV delivers no overall control, it is unfeasible that any party will ever again recover control. Each of the three interlocking cog wheels that make up the coalition may grow and shrink with each election but the basic model, namely deadlock, will never be replaced. Result: the corruption, tribalism and comprehensive un-representation that you profess to deplore.

While I have every confidence that the above arguments are copper-bottomed, I should add that if Eddie Izzard, John Cleese and Stephen F Fry and all the other air-kissing AV darlings came out in favour of free beer for the workers, I would immediately convert to strychnine as mty tipple of choice.

Frank Sutton

Fergus Pickering February 24th, 2011 10:48am
Nail on head - as far as I an see this AV system forces you to give at least a bit of a vote to candidates you don't want.
Here's my suggestion: If there are three candidates, you can give a total of six points: 3 for for first choice, 2 for second, 1 for third. But you can award those six points as you like - all six to one candidate if you want.
How about it, AV supporters?

AV2011

Ed - perhaps you will also focus on how the ERS has changed its website in quite an "Orwellian" way, in our view. We've covered the story here:

AV and the Electoral Reform Society By Winston Smith, Ministry of Truth
http://www.av2011.co.uk/NewsERS.html

denis cooper

Fuddled -

To illustrate the process here are the fully tabulated counting results for a 2009 Irish parliamentary by-election held under AV, moreover exactly the same variant of AV we would have here, with votes cast and counted in exactly the same way (and the count is MANUAL, not by machine):

http://electionsireland.org/counts.cfm?election=2007B&cons=85&ref

Each elector has one ballot paper, which in the first counting round will be placed on the pile belonging to the candidate he has marked as his first choice.

In the next counting round his ballot paper will:

a) stay on the pile belonging to his most preferred candidate - and in fact it will always stay there, if that candidate is one of the final two survivors; or

b) if his first choice is eliminated, his vote for that candidate is nullified and instead his ballot paper will be moved to another candidate's pile according to the directions he gave through his ranking of the candidates; or

c) if he has expressed no further preference then his ballot paper will be put on a discards pile.

Every ballot paper is counted in every round, apart from those where the elector has chosen to abstain from further rounds by ranking no more candidates.

AV simply enables each elector to say "I would prefer A, but failing him I would prefer B ...", if he so chooses; an alternative would be to hold a series of run-off elections with the bottom candidate in each eliminated from the next.

Which is how the Tory MPs choose the two leadership candidates who will be offered to the whole Tory membership for their final decision in a postal vote, but which obviously wouldn't be a practical method for parliamentary elections.

Yosemite Sam

@ moshe
Thank you for drawing my attention to the ERSL website; however, the information there does not state they have a contract to provide postal voting services for the AV referendum. It states the possibility of such a circumstance - which in practice does not seem to have arisen. Mr Howker makes the following claim: '... the company in charge of administering the referendum on AV is itself funding one side of the campaign'. This claim is false.

merlindragon

Andy Carpark
February 24th, 2011 1:37pm
"Wrong. Under FPTP there is at least the possibility of a clear result. Under the alternatives there is no such possibility."

I disagree. People's first choice might get 50%+ of the vote. That's pretty clear to me.

HJ

What does it matter?

I'm quite capable of making up my mind based on the merits of the arguments. I really don't care how much each campaign spends or where they get the money from.

HJ

AndyCarpark -

Where is your evidence that AV is any less likely to produce a clear result? It is not a PR system.

Publius

@merlindragon

What is your opinion of why AV is so little used, and presumably so unpopular, elsewhere in the world?

Do you see AV as a trojan horse for full PR?

Fuddled

@ denis cooper

Thanks. You have confirmed what I suspected. If I refuse to indicate a preference between 3 parties I detest equally I have fewer votes than someone who is happy to rank everyone on the ballot paper.

This is grossly unfair.

'Every ballot paper is counted in every round, apart from those where the elector has chosen to abstain from further rounds by ranking no more candidates.'

Ed Howker

@Yosemite Sam

Thanks for your post. The information I base my reference to the role of ERSL in the administration of the forthcoming referendum is not drawn from their website but from internal documents. It is not false. Glad you take an interest though.

Lee Griffin

"Wrong. Under FPTP there is at least the possibility of a clear result. Under the alternatives there is no such possibility."

AV isn't PR, and so has just as much possibility of a clear result. I think you've been misled over what AV is :)

denis cooper

Fuddled -

No, your ballot paper would undergo fewer transfers but it would still be counted in every round like every other ballot paper in the process, and therefore you do not have fewer votes than anyone else.

John Bracewell

If the third largest party gets between 80 and 90 seats then for one of the other 2 main parties to get a majority, the seats have to fall
Winner 326+, third party 85, second party 211 or less, Others 28.
To have a majority in future with AV the election result will need to be almost at landslide figures such as 1979 or 1997.
With AV the third largest party is likely to get 80-90 seats in elections where signing pledges for no tuition fees does not play a part. This means in elections after 2015 the LibDems are likely to be in perpetual coalition which is why they made it a 2010 coalition deal breaker even though their leader called it a shabby little system. If you like coalitions, vote Yes to AV, otherwise vote NO2AV.

Yosemite Sam

Mr Howker - thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my post. But I am still concerned. Let me put my cards on the table. I am still on the fence on the merits of AV versus FPTP, but over the past couple of weeks I have seen tactics by the No campaign that verge on the dishonourable. The highly dubious £250M costs, the recent shameful advertisements highlighted by todays Independent newspaper, the claim that some voters get more votes than others, now your article which makes a highly damaging claim but does not provide any evidence to support it.You could at least have provided some indication of what the administrative involvement entailed. I read what you say but I remain sceptical. I am into my seventies now, but was brought up to believe there was a right and proper way to conduct oneself. In my opinion, the No campaign is not conducting itself in a right and proper way.

merlindragon

@Publius

I suspect AV is so little used elsewhere because election reform is very rare. I would say that just because something isn't massively used doesn't make it wrong.

AV might lead to PR. I'm not against that, although admittedly I've not looked into PR as much as I have AV, since we're not getting that choice!

Maybe after AV has been around a bit and people have seen it influence a couple of elections, another electoral reform vote will come along and the majority will favour going back to FPTP, or moving on to try something else. By then, I'm sure there will have been hundreds of articles and data sets for us to ponder over :)

denis cooper

Ed Howker -

So what do you believe will be the role of ERSL in the running of the referendum, and why did you have to rely on their internal documents when surely that information about the conduct of a public referendum should have already been published by the electoral authorities?

Henry Potts

Meanwhile, the No campaign still refuse to reveal who's funding them. If they've got nothing to hide, why the secrecy? The Yes campaign have been up-front about who is funding them.

Mark Wilson

I'm sorry am I missing something or perhaps being incredibly dense. But the sole purpose of establishing the Electoral Reform Society amongst other things is to "CHANGE THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM" this is their big moment so you would expect them to "splash out". They have waited long enough for their big moment. Arguments about funding in this debate are a smokescreen. The No Campaign is "desperate" for the Yes Campaign not to succeed at any price.

Publius

@merlindragon

"I suspect AV is so little used elsewhere because election reform is very rare. I would say that just because something isn't massively used doesn't make it wrong."

-- Perhaps. What would make it wrong, or right, in your view - or is the fact that it is merely different a sufficient attraction?

I mean, if it led to more coalitions, would that be virtue, in your view?

Daniel Hassett

The AV referendum is nothing more than a ruse to deflect attention from the real failings of out system. It does nothing to shift power from politicians to the people - in fact it does the opposite. What we really need is the right to recall our elected representatives who fail their electorates.

Mark Wadsworth

I second the comments made by Ian Walker and Denis Cooper.

Martin Flatters

Hmmm. The Electoral Reform Society exists to change the voting system. The clue is in the name. It finances itself by holding elections for various bodies. It is unsurprising that it it financing the Yes to AV campaign. Your "investigation" reveals nothing but the blindingly obvious. It is rather like the New Statesman publishing an investigation revealing that a number of cabinet ministers in the coalition government are Tories!

TGF UKIP

If you want Huhne, Cable and Clegg and their heirs and successors always to have major Cabinet positions and an absolute lock on policy, you vote for AV.

If you don't want that you vote NO, simples!

Dave Roberts

"...their stationary and postal voting packs..."

Oh dear, I'm sure they meant to say stationery, not stationary!

Little Boy Blue

No, No, a thousand times no. It would give the DimbLes power for ever.

Simon Stephenson

TGF UKIP : 10.08pm

You seem to be at odds with the UKIP stand on this.

http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2011/02/24/eurosceptics-are-split-on-av/

Ed Howker

@ Yosemite Sam

Thanks for your response. My strictly personal view is that there is a strong case for reform, to make voting more representative and proportional but nothing of that case applies to AV. I've read Vernon Bogdanor recently on the subject and also the Jenkins report. I don't think AV is a terribly good system - it's complicated and produces strange results - while STV, for example, clearly addresses some of the shortcomings of FPTP. So the referendum itself seems rather daft since we're not permitted to vote for obviously superior systems. But look, that's my view - people are welcome to disagree. I certainly don't want to get drawn into defending the No campaign - that's really not my job. I don't have an axe to grind in support of FPTP and I don't have a very strong view on electoral reform.
I do have a very strong view about transparency in politics however. And I have a very strong objection to the behaviour of people who claim to be acting for the people - as the Yes Campaign must do - and have undeclared financial interests in the process they're engaged with. That view applies across parties and for all time. I'm also pretty suspicious when people change their minds on matters of principle quickly - as the Electoral Reform Society has done about AV. I urge you to read the piece in the magazine this week, there's much more detail for you to chew over before you make a decision. But that decision remains yours - I'm just providing more information and I'll continue to do that in the coming weeks.

paulg

This is a straw argument, the lib-dems promised the earth to get elected, it has now been seen that once they are elected they have broken every election promise they made.

How can you have a legitimate government: with people who tell you one thing and then do another?

They talk about democracy and empowerment, but blithely ignore the fact that they have been sent to Parliament under a fraudulent agenda.

This isn’t a democracy that we consider legitimate.

If people buy a Bentley on the basis of a brochure and then find a Lada delivered to their door, they would sue. Surely the way your governed must follow the same principle.

They are asking people to vote for them and trust them, its like giving a travelling tarmacer, a thousand pounds and expecting him to turn up and flag your patio with crazy paving: Next week.

You will be standing at the door with a mug of tea and a digestive biscuit, at half eight in the morning, by nine you will worry,at half past ten you will begin to doubt, and at teatime, you will realise that you have been made a fool.

Garry Kitchin

AV can more disproportionate that FPTP. In 1997 Labour would have had a 245 seat majority, not 179, and in 2005 a majority of 108, not 66.

So AV is no more proportionate than FPTP, some times less so.

It does nothing for small parties as they are eliminated in the first rounds.

It loses the simplicity of FPTP.

It leaves one final question - AV what's the point?

Oh yes, the ERS earn more.

Nice.

PeeWee

Electoral Reform SOCIETY. Consumers ASSOCIATION. How many other VERY COMMERCIAL organisations are there which pretend to "altrusitic"???

Yosemite Sam

Mr Howker - thank you again for taking the trouble to respond to my views. I agree with you about transparency, how one interprets the information obtained is, of course, likely to differ. In the interests of transparency, do you intend to do a similar article about the financing of the No campaign and which organisations might be supporting it?

merlindragon

@ Publius
> I mean, if it led to more coalitions,
> would that be virtue, in your view?

Yes, I think so. My experience of coalitions is quite limited (!) but I believe it can be a good thing.

Biased Voter

I think many people on here are actually missing the point of the article. Mr Howker is not really highlighting that a company set to benefit from a yes vote are funding the yes campaign. i.e people using "Foxes support hunting ban" analogy.

This issue is that a company very heavily in favour of a yes outcome in the referendum are having such a major part in electoral administration and how the referendum is run. i.e Supplying ballot papers, providing IT systems and consultancy to elections offices and the electoral commission.

David Bouvier

"Yosemite Sam" - the point you seem to miss is not the commercial self-interest of ERS in supporting the Yes Campaign. What really seems inappropriate is to have the ballot conducted at least in part by a highly partisan organisation.

If the goal of the ERS is changing the voting system, the one count they cannot be involved in is one to decide whether to change the voting system.

In doesn't pass the smell test.

EdinburghVoter

It is most unlikely there will be any "financial conflict of interest", much less any "of the very gravest kind".

Why not? Because the adoption of AV is unlikely to bring any new business for Electoral Reform Services Ltd.

Why not? Because AV ballot papers can very easily and quickly be counted by hand. There is no need for machine or computer counting and no need for specialist services like those provided by ERSL.

It was and is a non-story. But it does show how desperate the "No to AV" campaign must be.

Peter

ERS has always been a supporter of political reform since its inception - the idea that they are only interested in reform so that they can increase there sales figures is stupid - if this were to be the case and AV is to win then no doubt ERS will start campaigning to return back to FPTP.

Barry Blatt

We don't need voting machines to make AV work - they are not used in Australia - and I see no reason why they can't they do the London mayoral election by hand, bar the usual metropolitan urge to be flash. ERSL will probably still flog the ballot papers, which will be exactly the same as the existing ones, and the same price. Enough of the mudslinging already, the No campaign is dirty enough as it is.

denis cooper

I have to say that as a matter of principle I would prefer not to have any private companies involved in the running of elections and referendums, beyond the unavoidable minimum such as having to use a printing company to print ballot papers, but Labour started down that route and I haven't heard the Tories say that it's a bad thing.

Yosemite Sam

@David Bouvier
Mr Bouvier what is the evidence that ERS ltd or ERS is in any way involved in conducting the ballot - even in part? Not a shred. Taking ERS Ltd documemts, as quoted above, they are looking forward to increased opportunities to bid for contracts - what is wrong with that? My objection is to the malodorous innuendo that ERS Ltd are improperly involved in the Referendum itself. For which, no evidence has yet been produced.

Michelle Bonwick_Jones

Skullduggery and Av are linked how astonishing!
Two good reasons for the No to Av vote,
'Iron' Ed Milliband is there because of it,
and Nick Clegg is the only one to benefit from it.

Duncan McFarlane

This article says the Yes to AV campaign don't want people to know they're funded by the Electoral Reform Society. That's untrue - they've already said they get 95% of their funding from the ERS and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.
The article then tries to pretend it's shocking that the Electoral Reform Society is funding a campaign for electoral reform - and that it getting funding partly by bidding for contracts to run elections is some kind of corruption.
The Spectator, on the right of the Conservative party, is surely in favour of charities bidding for public contracts? You know, "Big Society"? Oh, i forgot, that's just a fig leaf for big public service cuts, privatisation and stuffing it to the unemployed and people on low wages.
The NO2AV campaign on the other hand refuse to say who funds them (claiming they'll tell people some time before referendum day - why not now?) and are headed by Matthew Elliot, the founder of 'The Taxpayers' Alliance', which also refused to say who funded it - though the Guardian found out it's funded by the same very wealthy donors that fund the Conservative Party.
What a surpise - the NO2AV campaign seems to be a Conservative Party front group too.

Abel Magwitch

'Right On' has hit the nail on the head. The only alternative to FPTP is a system that even the Lib Dems don't support.

The sytem I favour is that you get a ballot paper and put a cross against every or any name you think would make a halfway decent MP - no ranking order. Then ALL the votes are counted in a single count, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

But that's not an option, nor is STV, or numerous other alternatives. The referendum is offering a stark, and entirely fake, choice, so 'no' can be the only rational response.

Gez Sagar

McKinstry - bad news, Izzard, Cleese & Fry ARE in favour of free beer for the workers, on national holidays and Royal We
ddings. Do you buy your own strychnine or do you want us to organise a whipround?

Jammi

I don't understand why this means we should vote no to av. I firstly doubt the explosiveness of you're claims, and secondly, why should the funding of the campaign really matter as to whether we should vote yes or no? i'm voting yes because i think that it's a fairer voting system, while i hope their campaign is run fairly it doesn't really matter to me because i think their arguments are sound. this is dirty fighting and isn't really abou the debate for or against any system, its just muddying the waters. Play fair guys...

Gerkuman

What makes people think that saying no to AV just because it's not STV will get them what they want? The Lib-Dems are using the AV vote as a stepping stone to STV, they've said so plainly themselves. Since the vote itself came at the expense of propping up the Tory government, it'd be a shame to waste the opportunity.

padav

@Yosemite Sam: "In my opinion, the No campaign is not conducting itself in a right and proper way."

The reason for your conclusion is very obvious - the NO2AV campaign has no positive message to convey, so their principal strategy is founded on dissemination of a toxic blend of half-truths, exaggerations and downright lies, designed to sew confusion, doubt and fear amongst a relatively ill-informed public.

In stark contrast, the YES campaign strategy is based on exposing the arguments to greater public scrutiny and challenge - the more people understand about the difference between AV and FPTP, the more they come down on the side of AV.

ERSL is a limited company, not a charity by the way and it operates in the field of electoral services. If AV is approved, ERSL might have more potential business opportunities, that much is true, but they must be gained on the basis of commercial competitive practice - I can't see what the fuss is about really but out of sheer desperation we shouldn't be surprised to find that the NO campaign will stoop to any low tactic?

mallory wober

I have been a subscriber for several years. I have read an article and want to read it on my computer. This is NOT appearing - sidelined with IRRITATING and IRRELEVANT pages abot "blogs" and other rubbish.If this facility (which I have used more or less smoothly for several years) is not restored straight away, I will cancel my subscription.

John Smith

This aritcle is interesting. It does seem to show some conflict of interest in the funding of the Yes campaign. But at the very least they have published who their major backers are. The NO campaign has refused to do this.

Where we might want to be suspicious of a cause with 'suspect funding' that should not bear on whether we believe that a different voting system is worth while. Maybe we will examine claims made by the Yes campaign more closely, but surely not dismiss it off the bat.

alexlondon

The No campaign is funded and backed by vested interests - the rich backers of the Tory party, as well as the unelected Lords.

But somehow, we're supposed to think that the scandal is that the Electoral "Reform" Society is campaigning for Electoral Reform.

Is this the best "No" arguments you can do? Lies about the effect of AV on minor parties. Lies about the "cost". Faked "scandal" about the Electoral Reform Society's openly declared role. Lies from Cameron about some people getting more than one vote. Meanwhile, keeping quiet about the scandalous distortion of democracy that is regulalry unleashed by fptp. And still no publication of No campaign backers. The No campaign is pathetic.

And fptp is the worst form of "democracy", keeping power in the hands of parties and the powerful and away from the voters. AV is far from perfect, but its better than that.

Andy J

No to AV, Yes to PR
av2011.co.uk

Vida Henning

What a surprise. An organisation whose purpose is electoral reform is backing - guess what - electoral reform. Well! who would believe it? I am also backing AV. I am 76 today and not once since I got the vote at 21 have I had any influence on who my representative in Parliament was. Something needs to be done. Incidentally I have also contributed towards the expenses of the campaign.

Jenny

Thank you for this explanation about who is driving this. It also explains how postal voting papers addressed by mae to my son, and attached by perforation to the YES campaign leaflet, make it look an official part of his voting procedure. Now we know how they have got hold of his name. It is all wrong and the whole change of procedure process should be stopped as it is a fraudulant use of public money. There needs to be transparency about who is driving and who is funding this. In any case how can anyone select "in order of preference" when we never even see any of the candidates, or receive any leaflets. It is a ridiculous idea, and now we see who stands to gain financially out of this ludicrous system.

Matt

Even if this article, it has no bearing on whether or not the AV system is a superior system or not. It simply states that an organisation who stand to make money from it, backed it.

And? So what?

The amount of money which was donated cannot, and does not, have any effect on the logical validity of the arguments for voting "YES".

Ben

I find it amazing some of the weak arguments people have given on this page for wanting to vote No, I just hope that this is a result of them not looking into the system throughly enough, and not as a result of rational decision with full knowledge backing them. Yes2AV

mike glasgow

as a voter who by inclination welcomes electoral reform but in my gut feels AV is a very bad idea leading to LCD ... lowest common denominator ... I would have enjoyed a lid lifting no vote inclined article...unfortunately this sure as hell ain't it!

Mr Butler

I have not been able to determine the answer to this question, I do not think it is entirely impossible to happen.

Given that:-
1) a candidate has to obtain 50% of the passed votes(first or subsequent preferences)
2) Voters do not have to rank candidates i.e they can vote for their 1st preferance only.
3) Potentially a large swathe of voters are highly likely to register only one preferance.
What happens in the following scenario (3 candidates standing. Votes are cast 48%, 28%, 24%, there are no 2nd or subsequent preferances registered. There is a clear winner with the existing scheme, but under AV would we have to re-run the vote?