Good enough for us but not for the voters?

In the Labour Party and affiliated unions we don’t accept FPTP to elect the leaders of the labour party, our candidates for Parliament, or any other Labour candidate for public office because we know that FPTP doesn’t work. In the Labour party, we know that FPTP is an old, undemocratic and unrepresentative way of determining the winning candidate that doesn’t ensure that the majority voice is heard. And we know that there is a fairer, more democratic way of electing our representatives.

We use AV

The reason we use AV is simple. Imagine, for example, if support for all 5 candidates in the leadership contest was almost evenly split. In these circumstances the winner might have little more than 20% of the vote, and be strongly opposed by nearly four out of every five voters, yet because they edge slightly higher than the other candidate in the one single count, they get elected- without the support of the majority. We all know this situation is not only possible, but it happens.

We use AV because we know that under AV, the candidate elected will have the support of 50% of the voters, and we in the Labour party rightly want to ensure that the candidate we elect to represent us is the one who has the support of the majority. No doubt that’s why thousands of people like teachers, journalists, public sector workers, and university lecturers also use AV in their internal union elections.

So if FPTP elections don’t make sense for electing candidates to positions inside the Labour party, why do we still tolerate using them to elect our Members of Parliament? Under FPTP, an MP can be opposed by the majority of voters, yet still be elected. In the Labour party we are committed to speaking for the many, not the few. Yet it seems that we are forgetting this when it comes to the method of how we currently elect our MPs. In the Labour party we believe in representative democracy. That’s why we use AV. And that’s why we need to support Yes to AV to elect our MPs.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

One Response to “Good enough for us but not for the voters?”

  1. Robert Howard:

    Hear hear. Exactly the arguments I have been using for years. What amazes is how many in the Party who I admire and respect cannot make the link. Let’s hope that over the coming weeks they will change their minds. Keep up the good work.

Leave a Reply

  • Labour Yes on Twitter

    • AV Yes vote 'will brand David Cameron a loser' - http://bit.ly/fLpvZr 6 hrs ago
    • N02AV but yes to more cuts, say the Taxpayers Alliance http://bit.ly/fZw7n8 as NO camp still refuses to declare their donors #yesinmay 7 hrs ago
    • YouGov poll shows yes vote pulling ahead with 4 point lead - http://bit.ly/fCKb1r 7 hrs ago
    • More updates...
  • RSS YES! campaign news

    • Fight the No2AV Lies April 5, 2011
    • An Action A Day - Give A Day in May April 5, 2011
    • Yes to AV: People’s Campaign for Fairer Votes Launches April 4, 2011
    • Vote Out Loud - A Night with Mylo, David Schneider, Helen Arney, and Conveyor April 4, 2011
    • Lessons of expenses scandal still unlearned April 4, 2011