Voting Reform 4: Why extremists don't want AV #referendum

So small parties would benefit from AV. What does that mean for extremist parties like the racist BNP?

It's often reported that the BNP are against AV. This is telling, but not a proper argument for AV in itself. A lot of BNP members like ice cream; that doesn't mean we shouldn't like it.

Now, it might just be that they're showing their conservative side and supporting the Great British Institution of First Past The Post. But it could be that they're acting in their own interests - because FPTP is more likely to see them getting an MP.

Under FPTP, a party can win with only, say, 30% of the vote. On a national level, this often happens. In constituencies, the MP elected often has a bigger majority, and many in safe seats win with large majorities.

For extremists, this means they can focus on the one element of the population who might agree with them. For the BNP, that means they could get elected in a seat like Barking, which the BNP focused on in 2010, despite the large ethnic minorities in that constituency, almost none of whom would list the BNP candidate as an option to represent them.

With FPTP, the response of ethnic minorities to a BNP presence is to gang up under the leading candidate - in this case a Labour candidate.

Under AV, the BNP would need to seek not only first preference votes from disenchanted right-wingers, but also secure some second preferences. As an extremist party, voters either love or hate the BNP. Voters are pretty much going to list extremist parties as their first preference, or not at all.

As far as I can see, extremist parties are much less of a threat under AV.
------------------