« Brown, Ming and AV | Main | Brown: calling for "more power in the hands of the people" »
June 25, 2007
Harriet Harman won under Alternative Vote System
Six candidates stood up for competition under the alternative vote system (AV) on the Labour Party conference in Manchester yesterday: International Development Secretary Hilary Benn, Labour chairwoman Hazel Blears, backbencher Jon Cruddas, Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, Justice minister Harriet Harman and Education Secretary Alan Johnson.
Harriet Harman beat Alan Johnson by 50.4 percent to 49.6 percent in the fifth round of voting. The Labour Party Leadership rules state that until a candidate receives an absolute majority of the votes (over 50 percent), at every round the last contender is being removed from the list and the second preferences of the electorate are being reallocated.
The electorate is divided into three parts: members of affiliated trade unions and other organisations, individual members, and MPs and MEPs. The individual members backed Ms Harman the most while her closest competitor, Mr Johnson, received his largest support from the parliamentarians.
Some newspapers commented the following:
When voting closed on Friday, Mr Johnson had been the odds-on favourite to win both among activists and bookmakers. But the complex alternative vote electoral system in which voters rate the candidates in order of preference delivered Ms Harman a last-gasp triumph. As the dramatic count unfolded, Mr Johnson held a narrow lead over her as rival candidates Hazel Blears, Peter Hain and Hilary Benn were eliminated and their second-preference votes redistributed.
Their exit left three candidates still standing - Ms Harman, Mr Johnson and Jon Cruddas, the left-wing MP for Dagenham and the only backbencher to stand for the deputy leadership.
When he was excluded, the majority of his supporters switched backing to Ms Harman, the Justice Minister, to take her past the Education Secretary.
In her acceptance speech she said the contest had been good for the party because members had spelt out how they wanted politics to change. (Nigel Morris for The Independent, 25 June 2007)
The backbench candidate, Jon Cruddas, did suprisingly well, winning the first round and coming third overall. Current party chair Hazel Blears was eliminated first in a complicated ballot in which second and third preferences were reallocated as candidates were eliminated. …
Peter Hain went out in the second round, followed by Hilary Benn.
…
Hazel Blears said she was "disappointed" about being the first candidate eliminated, but "pleased" there was a man and a woman at the top of the party.
She said: "We have picked a strong team ready to take on Cameron at the next election. I'm pleased that there is a man and woman at the top of our party.
Mr Johnson said Ms Harman and Mr Brown would make an "excellent team." (Matthew Tempest for The Guardian, 24 June 2007)
Interestingly, although Ms Harman is not in favour of a more proportional electoral system for the House of Commons (but for the House of Lords if reformed), her success is also due to the allocation of preference votes under the chosen AV system in the Labour deputy leadership elections. If the elections would have taken place under simple majority rule, i.e. first-past-the-post, then Mr Cruddas would have won in the first round already having left Ms Harman and Mr Johnson on the second and third place.
Posted by katjanagattermann on June 25, 2007
Comments
Can we do something (anything?) about this bloody "complex" meme that's doing the rounds about preferential systems in the media? It's a damn site less complex than trying to figure out how to not split the vote under FPTP FFS.
If the elections would have taken place under simple majority rule, i.e. first-past-the-post, then Mr Cruddas would have won in the first round
Disagree actually; if it had been FPTP, there would have been less candidates overall as the cabinet would have united around two or three candidates and MPs would have nominated fewer; Duverger applies very much in this sort of circumstance.
Posted by: MatGB at June 25, 2007 08:21 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
