AV: The most worthless votes...

I'm happy that David Cameron has stated that during the Referendum on the Alternative Vote next May, he will campaign on behalf of the existing First Past The Post electoral system. I am, though, disappointed that such a referendum on this issue was necessary to cement the coalition.

I firmly believe that an electoral process must be as understandable as possible to the electorate delivering a clear, decisive result that is immediately understood by all. FPTP is a fairer system for what I would term 'conviction constituents', i.e. those who have a clear political view. As a Conservative, I don't want an alternative vote. I want to vote for my Party. I have one vote. Why should someone else who has already voted for their preferred candidate be allowed to vote again because their candidate came last and was eliminated?

As Lord Alexander commented in the 1998 Jenkins Report (in his Note of Reservation opposing this aspect of the Report):

AV comes into play only when a candidate fails to secure a majority of first preference votes. It does not, however, then take account of the second preferences of all voters, but only of those who have supported the least successful candidates. So it ignores the second preferences of the voters who supported the two candidates with the highest first preference votes, but allows the voters for the third or even weaker candidates to have their second votes counted so as to determine the result.

I find this approach wholly illogical. Why should the second preferences of those voters who favoured the two stronger candidates on the first vote be totally ignored and only those who support the lower placed and less popular candidates get a second bite of the cherry?

Winston Churchill himself dismissed the AV system as "the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidates" and further stated that the blind chance represented in the system would lower respect for Parliament. Given the lack of respect with which the last Parliament was treated, can we afford to further damage our Parliamentary system by adopting the Alternative Vote?