UAF analysis on London elections

Posted by robrankin on July 21, 2008 | Comments (3)

In the London Assembly elections the BNP controversially gained one seat. They shared 5.33% of vote thus crossing the 5% threshold required to get elected.

Unite Against Facism's analysis of the LA elections states that "The BNP only got elected because such a small percentage (5%) is required in the top up list section". If this is the case then what is an appropriate threshold? If the BNP achieved 7.6% of the vote just narrowly surpassing a threshold of 7.5% would we have to raise the threshold again? If this wasnt the BNP but a less offensive, less extreme minority party would we be asking these questions? Probably not.

It is not the threshold we need to address but the reasons why 130,174 people voted for BNP?

Lib Dems and coalition politics

Posted by malcolmclark on May 09, 2008 | Comments (1)

Once again, when the LibDems have had an opportunity to form alliances (informal or otherwise) or power-sharing agreements / coalitions with other parties, they have declined. And in both senses of that word: "declined" in terms of refused to take part; and "declined" in terms of seeing a fall or stagnation in vote share and influence. This was the case in Scotland and Wales after the 2007 elections, and now again in London.

Ken Livingstone graphically makes this point in an article in today's Guardian:

"One important development at this election was a formal agreement with the Green party calling for second preference mayoral votes for each other. This benefited the Greens - who added 40,000 votes and maintained their share of the vote and existing number of London assembly seats - but also aided the high turnout and Labour. Had I been re-elected I would have given Green nominees a central role in my administration."

"In contrast, Lib Dem failure in London was massive. They chose to stay outside the progressive alliance of Labour and the Greens. As a result they failed even to reach double-figure support in the mayoral election, and their London assembly seats fell from five to three. Hopefully this suicidal orientation will be reversed in the next four years."

Why some mayoral votes counted but not others

Posted by malcolmclark on May 05, 2008 | Comments (3)

I feel it worth publicising this point about the downside of the Supplementary Vote system. It was made in an email to me by Colin Buchanan, who writes in a personal capacity but is Hon President of the Electoral Reform Society, so knows a thing or two about elections:

"While it was clearly a two-horse race (which makes it sound simple), and while the second preferences moving on to the two look as though they simply confirmed the gap between them, yet an unseen factor leaves it all highly problematica. By my count, while 260,000 second preferences were registered for the two still in at the run-off, 218,000 second preferences perished as they did not have one of these two named. These, if they had been allowed, say, a third preference with a properly transferable vote, amounted to far more than the final gap between the leading two of 140,000 - and thus might well have had Livingstone ahead of Johnson."

"So what was happening? Those 478,000 Voters had to guess which two would be in the run-off if they wanted their second preference actually to effect the result. But there were two snags - (a) did folk realize their second preferences would otherwise be wasted (Brian Paddick seems to have deliberately wasted his), and (b) suppose a Green supporter, say, thought it just possible the Lib Dem would be one of those fighting it out (and much preferred him to the other two), that very possibility made it imperative to record the second preference for him - and thus lose it. (a) depends upon understanding the mayoral election very differently from the assembly one, and (b) is simply an in-built grave defect in the SV system. A system which disenfranchises those many who cannot or do not guess how others will vote is self-evidently flawed. This election went some way to making some votes count (but not others)."

Chewing over Mayoral second preferences

Posted by malcolmclark on May 05, 2008 | Comments (2)

So we now have the technical data for the 2nd preferences in the mayoral ballot. The most interesting things to note are:

(i) Only 0.17% of 2nd choice votes were spoilt / rejected for reasons other than being left blank.

(ii) Over 4 in 5 people who voted (81.57%) chose to cast a 2nd preference vote.

However, there are still questions to be worked out about exactly how many people's second choice votes were valid and successfully transferred. According to the London Elects site:

Boris gained 257,792 2nd choice votes, but only 124,977 of them transferred to him in the second round - just under half.

Ken gained 303,198 2nd choice votes, but only 135,089 of them transferred to him in the second round - only 44.5%.

As the London Elects site states: "on papers where the 1st and 2nd choice votes are for the top two candidates, the 2nd choice votes are not counted." There are two plausible and complementary explanations for why these 260066 people (10.5% of all who voted) didn't have their 2nd choice vote count:

(i) the "we like them bothers" - people who either voted Boris 1 Ken 2, or Ken 1 Boris 2.

(ii) the "party faithful" - those that 'double-voted' and marked their second choice the same as their first choice (so Boris Boris, or Ken Ken) in the misguided hope that that would somehow benefit their candidate more.

One hundred and sixty thousand voters needed to defeat the BNP

Posted by malcolmclark on May 05, 2008 | Comments (3)

Here's the story of the BNP's Assembly seat gain and how close (or not) people came to stopping them. All figures below are for the Londonwide Assembly ballot.

Total turnout = 2,454,096

Threshold needed for eligibility of gaining seats = 122,705 (5%)

BNP vote = 130,714 (5.33%)

--> Hence BNP gained 8009 more votes than the threshold.

Now, what would it have taken for the BNP not to have won a seat? How how many additional anti-BNP voters would be needed to cast their ballots (for any other party other than the BNP) for the threshold to have been raised to above the BNP vote?

For 5% exactly: 130714 needs a total turnout of 2614280 - ie. 160,184 extra voters.

So - at minimum - an additional 160,185 non-BNP voters would have been needed to be mobilised and got to the polls to stop the BNP gaining their seat.

To be absolutely certain of that outcome (as I don't know the way London Elects rounds their figures for the threshold), 160,204 anti-BNP voters would have been needed. That number would raise the threshold to 130715 - 1 whole voter more than the BNP's vote.

So there is a two-fold strategy for 2012: (i) try to persuade current BNP voters to support (any) other parties and (ii) get more (anti-BNP) people out to vote. In 2012 everyone needs to really push the persuasive message that every vote can count twice - once for the party a person supports and once against the BNP.

MVC's response to the election of a BNP Assembly Member

Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008 | Comments (1)

The make-up of the Assembly reflects how all of London voted. And the hard truth in this election is that 5.3% of voters citywide voted for the BNP, much to the dismay and anxiety of many other Londoners.

If people vote in sufficient numbers for a party, under proportional representation their voice will be heard. This applies to small parties with democratic values and something to contribute, such as the Greens, but also to extreme parties. And the BNP has gained above the 5% threshold needed at these elections to earn an Assembly seat.

No system gives parties seats; it is the action of voters that does. Voting for extremist parties is often a sign not so much of massive popular support for their values as an indicator that voters want to make a protest against the political system. One of the reasons that the BNP may have done well in the outer fringes of London is that for too long voters in those areas have felt that mainstream political parties weren't listening to them or putting policies in place that would benefit them. This has created the political space for the BNP to come in and exploit the disaffection.

However, the way the London Assembly elections work has also given anti-racist campaigners the opportunity to organise, campaign and get out the vote in their own areas, in an effort to push up turnout and raise the threshold needed for the BNP to gain seats. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the message that votes in the London Assembly London-wide Members ballot in effect counted twice – once for the party they support, and once against the BNP – motivated numbers of people who otherwise may not have voted to make the trip to their polling station.

Under First-Past-the-Post can a party can win seats by exploiting local grievances in a small area rather than trying for the broader appeal that the BNP has had to seek in London. also let extreme parties in. At these set of local elections, the BNP won three seats in Stoke-on-Trent and two each in Amber Valley, Rotherham and Nuneaton & Bedworth. It also took one seat in Thurrock, Three Rivers, Pendle and Calderdale. It also successfully defended seats in Epping and Burnley. This takes the number of BNP councillors to 55, up from 45 before these elections. [source: www.hopenothate.org.uk]

There is a vital difference between representation and control. While obnoxious parties can get represented under PR, it is virtually impossible for them to gain control. It is only in FPTP that there is the possibility of having one's representation monopolised by an extreme party. The BNP has all the borough council seats in a ward in Burnley (Hapton-with-Park) without ever enjoying 40% support and in a ward in Stoke-on-Trent (Abbey Green) on just over 30%of the vote. Residents there have no where to turn if they do not like that party. In many of the cases where the BNP has gained a seat, they have done so very narrowly, with the mainstream party vote split and therefore ineffective in defeating extremists.

It should also be noted that getting represented is often a step to the political defeat of extreme parties. As the inadequacy of BNP politicians and policies is exposed - and once the threat has been seen off - the electorate are more wary of parties that offer easy answers in future.

Conclusions from the London elections

Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008 | Comments (1)

The London elections fit into a wider pattern of successful preferential and proportional elections held in the UK. The Government’s own Review of Voting Systems (published Jan 2008) found that:

• “One of the main benefits of PR is that voters have a greater degree of choice in elections and a greater chance of their vote counting in terms of who gets elected.� (para 6.169)

• “We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system.� (para 6.170)

• “Proportional systems were found, on international comparison, to be associated with higher voter turnout than First Past the Post and other majoritarian systems.� (para 7.97)

The evidence from 1 May’s London Mayoral and Assembly elections would seem to concur with these findings:

Almost half of Londoners who voted cast one of their preferences for the winning mayoral candidate, and almost 90% had one of their votes count towards the overall result in the final round.
86% of Londoners who voted, did so for a party that gained seat(s) on the London Assembly. Nearly 9 in 10 voters are now represented by at least one London Assembly Member from a party they voted for.

The number of rejected votes – and especially wrongly filled in or spoilt ballot papers –was much lower than in 2004. Voters were not confused by the different ballot papers or voting systems used. Spoilage rates for the mayoral and the assembly list ballots were exactly the same, and the FPTP constituency section marginally higher.

Turnout was 10% higher than the local elections held in other parts of the country on the same day. While the very competitive and high profile mayoral race has much to do with the increased turnout, both compared to 2004 and to the local elections, the impact of the voting systems is also a factor.

How the FPTP constituency section has operated

Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008 | Comments (0)

Number of London Assembly First-Past-the-Post constituencies considered competitive / marginal going into the election: 4 (Enfield & Haringey, Brent & Harrow, Lambeth & Southwark, South West)

Number of FPTP constituencies with actual close results in 2008: 2 (Enfield & Haringey, Brent & Harrow)

Number of FPTP constituencies which changed hands in 2008: 1 (Brent & Harrow – Labour gain)

Number of parties represented in FPTP constituencies: 2 (Conservatives and Labour)

Number of parties ever represented in FPTP constituencies: 2 (Conservatives and Labour)

Number of FPTP constituencies where winner gained over 50% of the vote: 2 (West Central, Bexley & Bromley)

Number of FPTP constituencies where more than 60% of people voted for a party who didn’t win: 6 (Brent & Harrow, City & East, Enfield & Haringey, Greenwich & Lewisham, Lambeth & Southwark, North East)

Number of FPTP constituencies where winner gained less than 1/3 of the vote: 1 (Enfield & Haringey)

In the FPTP constituencies it is interesting to note that:

Turnout – highest in: Bexley & Bromley, Croydon & Sutton, West Central

Turnout – lowest in: City & East, Lambeth & Southwark, Greenwich & Lewisham.

Turnout – highest increases in: West Central, Croydon & Sutton, Enfield & Haringey.

Turnout – lowest increases in: Brent, South West, City & East.

Rejected Votes – least in: Bexley & Bromley, Greenwich & Lewisham, South West.

Rejected Votes – most in: West Central, Brent & Harrow, Enfield & Haringey.

Rejected Votes – most decrease in: City & East, Lambeth & Southwark, North East.

Rejected Votes – least decrease in: Bexley & Bromley, South West, Croydon.

Plus, notable Far Right vote in Constituency section: 10.9% in City & East (BNP + National Front); 5.7% in Greenwich & Lewisham; 5.6% in Bexley & Bromley; 4.5% in Ealing & Hillingdon.

Comparing Constituency vs List votes

Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008 | Comments (0)

More number-crunching. This time looking at valid votes cast in both sections of the London Assembly election. Have unearthed a couple of fascinating facts / points:

1) Increased voter education efforts, coupled with the decision to put the Assembly votes on different ballot papers, have had their desired effect. The number of rejected ballot papers for the Assembly elections was down 4.2%. In fact, under 0.4% of ballot papers were either intentionally spoilt or incorrectly filled in. An impressively low figure. A further 1.5% (approx) of voters chose not to mark their ballots at all in the Assembly elections.

2) There were 6318 voters who cast a ballot in the Londonwide ballot and not in the constituency section. This equals 0.25% of total voters. Now might this be a sign of people choosing to cast a vote against the BNP but not caring about who represents their local area in the Assembly? Anecdotal evidence suggests there may have been some voters who did this, but there is no way to actually prove it from the figures. It could even be clued up BNP supporters who were solely focused on electing BNP Assembly Members on the list. Either way, the numbers weren’t quite significant enough to have made any real difference to the results. However, this might be a promising strategy for anti-racist campaigners to pursue in four years time when attempting to get rid of the sitting BNP AM.

Here are the stats (again numbers derived from London Elects site):

London Assembly – Constituency

Turnout = 45.28% (up 8.31%)
Good votes casts = 2,406,289
Rejected votes = 1.95% (down 4.22%) – 47,799 papers
Blank votes = 39,894
Spoilt ballots [not blank] = 7905 ballots / 0.32%

London Assembly – Londonwide Members

Turnout = 45.28% (up 8.31%)
Good votes cast = 2,412,607 [6318 votes more than in constituency section]
Rejected votes = 1.7% - 41,489 papers
Blank votes = 32,251 [7733 less blank votes than in constituency section]
Spoilt ballots [not blank] = 9238 ballots / 0.38% [1333 more spoilt ballots]

NB There seems a possible tiny discrepancy on the London Election website, with an extra 8 ballot papers in the Londonwide Members section totals than in the constituency section totals.

Assembly Londonwide seat allocation and proportionality

Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008 | Comments (0)

We've done some number-crunching as it does not yet appear on the London Elects website. Here is the way the seats for the London Assembly London-wide Assembly Members were allocated, which uses the d'Hondt method of PR.

Download file

Interestingly, once again, the London Assembly has produced results that reflect the votes cast by Londoners with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. The Conservatives have slightly more of a 'winner's bonus' than last time, but not by much.

% Votes Won (London-wide) % Seats Won
Conservative 34.05% 44%
Labour 27.12% 32%
Lib Dem 11.22% 12%
Green 8.29% 8%
BNP 5.33% 4%

NB. 9 parties / candidates (totalling 12.3% of the vote) failed to get above the 5% threshold needed to gain representation. Plus 1.7% of votes were rejected.

This meant that 86% of Londoners who voted, did so for a party that gained seat(s) on the London Assembly. Nearly 9 in 10 voters are now represented by at least one London Assembly Member from a party they voted for. That is impressive.

Download file

Assembly results now in

Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008 | Comments (0)

Conservative Party 11 (+2)
The Labour Party 8 (+1)
Liberal Democrats 3 (-2)
Green Party 2 (0)
British National Party 1 (+1)

The Tories gained 3 seats on the list, but lost 1 constituency.
Labour gained 1 constituency seat.
Lib Dems lost 2 list seats.
Greens kept their 2 list seats but made no gains.
The BNP gained 1 seat on the list - just. On 5.4% of the vote.

Constituency Assembly results show voters were bothered

Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008 | Comments (0)

2008 result for London Assembly compared to 2004:

Turnout = UP 8.31%

Valid votes cast = UP 4.22% (ie. the number of rejected ballots is fewer by that much)

Turnout was 45.28%, a mere 0.05% less than the Mayoral result. So there were under 3000 people who didn't bother to enclose the Assembly ballot papers with the Mayoral one when they posted their vote back / put it into the ballot box.

Given the minimal media coverage given to the Assembly election compared to the Mayoral race, it is impressive that almost all voters continued filling in their ballot papers and didn't just vote for Mayor.

Londoners Votes Counted

Posted by malcolmclark on May 02, 2008 | Comments (0)

For the Mayor:

47.57% of Londoners who voted did so for the winning candidate.
(42.48% 1st choice + 5.09% 2nd choice votes)

89.44% of Londoners who voted had one of their votes count in the final round, towards the overall result.
(47.57% for Boris and 41.87% for Ken [36.35% 1st choice + 5.49% 2nd choice votes])

In 2004 14.2% of valid first-preference votes were not valid for second preference. This election the number of valid 1st choice votes not transferring decreased markedly, to just 9.03%.

(figures calculated from London Elects site)

(updated figures 3 May, 9am)

Higher Turnout, Fewer Spoilt Ballots in Mayoral election

Posted by malcolmclark on May 02, 2008 | Comments (0)

2008 versus 2004 London Mayoral election:

Turnout - 45.33% (UP 8.38%)

Good 1st Choice Votes = UP 1.29% (ie. that many fewer rejected ballots).

There were 2,415,958 valid votes cast (98.3%). A further 41,032 votes (1.67%) were rejected for one reason or another, of which 13,034 votes were left intentionally blank. Thus only 1.14% of people's votes were actively spoilt or wrongly filled out in the mayoral election.

Update 1: These are corrected figures from the original post, as I didn't first realise that the blank ballot paper figure is also included within the total spoilt ballot papers.

Update 2: Still await details of valid 2nd preference votes.

(numbers in this post derived from London Elects website)

Women Assembly Members

Posted by malcolmclark on May 02, 2008 | Comments (0)

I promised a colleague to keep an eye on this. The 2004 elections saw 10 women elected out of the 25 Assembly Members. This time we are already starting out at a disadvantage, gender balance-wise, as the two female Conservative Assembly Members are not standing again.

2008 women elected - now updated with the full list:

Victoria Borwick (Conservative - Londonwide AM)
Joanne McCartney (Labour - Constituency AM)
Val Shawcross (Labour - Constituency AM)
Jennette Arnold (Labour - Constituency AM)
Nicky Gavron (Labour - Londonwide AM)
Dee Doocey (Liberal Democrat - Londonwide AM)
Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat - Londonwide AM)
Jenny Jones (Green Party - Londonwide AM)

Thus the magic number for 2008 is 8. 8 out of 25. So only 1/3 of the incoming London Assembly are women - a fall from 2004. Not great; especially when coming in the year which celebrates significant anniversaries for women winning the right to vote.

Democracy takes time but is worth it

Posted by malcolmclark on May 02, 2008 | Comments (0)

"The counting has gone on longer than expected, because far more people than expected have voted."

(Nick Robinson - BBC 10 O'Clock News)

So good news that restive journalists are celebrating democracy rather than choosing to blame computer scanners or the voting systems.

London Turnout figures

Posted by malcolmclark on May 02, 2008 | Comments (0)

Approx 2.4 million Londoners voted yesterday, a rise of 0.5 million from 2004. Figures taken from London Elects site:

Early turnout figures Constituency Electorate Turnout (%)
Barnet & Camden 376,818 47.98
Bexley & Bromley 407,003 49.92
Brent & Harrow 367,337 43.20
City & East 470,863 39.86
Croydon & Sutton 360,221 49.06
Ealing & Hillingdon 401,671 44.08
Enfield & Haringey 351,536 46.03
Greenwich & Lewisham 347,252 42.95
Havering & Redbridge 369,407 45.50
Lambeth & Southwark 395,202 42.17
Merton & Wandsworth 362,542 47.16
North East 451,787 43.95
South West 415,092 46.21
West Central 343,182 48.65
TOTAL 5,419,913 45.48

Turnout high as Londoners realise their votes matter

Posted by malcolmclark on May 02, 2008 | Comments (0)

There are reports that turnout in parts of London is higher than at the last general election. A very close mayoral election, coupled with voting systems for both mayoral and assembly elections that Londoners (and political parties) have finally worked out make their votes count where-ever in the capital they live, seem to have driven voters out to the polls in record numbers.

Nick Robinson on his BBC blog reports:

"Staggering turnout in outer London where resentment of Mayor Ken in the commuting classes runs at staggering levels. I'm told that the turnout in Bexley and Bromley may be higher than at the general election - in the 60s. Turnout in Ken-loving inner London is high too - it's around 47%, I'm told, in Hackney."

ConservativeHome is even more bouyant, and uses anedoctal evidence and internal party numbers to call the mayoral race for Boris - based on seeming amazing turnout figures. In the comments section there are reports of decent Tory turnout even in safe Labour areas and vice-versa.

Voting day is here - use your vote and shout about how it counts

Posted by malcolmclark on May 01, 2008 | Comments (1)

As the Independent puts it in their leader column today:

"Here, in the capital, voters can revel in the breadth of the choice before them. The transferable vote system makes the result a fairer reflection of Londoners' will than a narrow victory under first-past-the-post. It also gives everyone the rare chance to make their votes count."

And, as I chime in, via my letter published in today's Telegraph:

"The voting systems for the London elections are actually quite straightforward and empowering ... . For the London Assembly there are 11 London-wide assembly members elected proportionally to votes cast across the city. The make-up of the assembly will reflect how all of London voted. People can affect the overall result no matter where in London they live. Now that is something to shout about."

Maybe if more in the media and the different channels we get politically socialised were putting these points across, then we wouldn't end up with headlines about "the hostility, apathy and cluelessness about the mayoral election among twentysomethings is startling" (Guardian).

There are good arguments to be made for changing our political culture as a way of improving the situation, and for electoral reform for all elections (including the Commons) to be part of the mechanisms that help us achieve that. Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala makes a similar point, in a statement quoted today in epolitix's morning email bulletin. Sunder urges Gordon Brown to:

"get the Downing Street machine in place, but cancel Number 10's subscription to PR Week. Then make a fairer Britain the defining mission, take risks for the cause of child poverty; make clear what climate change demands of us all; and go for electoral reform and a written constitution."

Turn out to count and to keep them out

Posted by malcolmclark on April 30, 2008 | Comments (0)

That is the simple message, put out by us, Lord Janner and many others about these London elections.

As Lord Janner says in his Comment is Free article:

"On May 1, we all have the chance to ensure that the threat from the far right is minimised, at the ballot box. ... On Thursday, every Londoner's vote counts. Please use yours, for decency, democracy, coexistence and goodwill. Please join with those candidates, who differ greatly on many policies, but spoke out with one voice against today's dangers from the far right."

That nicely echoes our point that (for the London Assembly elections, Londonwide / peach-coloured ballot paper) your vote will in effect count twice: once for the party you support; and once against extremists. This is because your vote makes it harder for extremist parties like the BNP to be elected; as it takes them one vote further away from reaching that 5% threshold.

A simple formula for journalists

Posted by malcolmclark on April 30, 2008 | Comments (1)

SV does not equal AV does not equal proportional representation

Or to put it another way:

The mayoral elections are conducted under the Supplementary Vote. This is a truncated version of the Alternative Vote system and operates in a different way. Voters can only express 2 preferences. And, where no-one wins over 50% of first preferences, you eliminate all but the top 2 candidates and then only look at and add on 2nd preferences for those 2 candidates. This limits voters' choice and forces them into making tactical decisions on their 2nd preference, compared to the fuller version of Alternative Vote. Under AV voters rank numerically as many candidates as they choose and the elimination / transfer of preferences starts with the bottom candidate and works up.

Neither SV nor AV are proportional. They are used when electing one candidate only. There is no way of achieving proportionality when you only have one candidate elected.

The Alternative Vote has been mooted by Dept of Justice Ministers as part of a package of measures designed to enhance voter engagement and participation in elections for the Commons. For more on this see the 'Commons Reform Debate' section of the Londoners' Votes Count website. www.londonersvotescount.org.uk

PS. This post was inspired by an inaccurate reference in an article in yesterday's Telegraph.

London-wide elections: good for the parties, good for democracy

Posted by malcolmclark on April 30, 2008 | Comments (1)

Blogger and Labour activist Luke Akehurst has written a brilliant piece on the Progress website summarising why, even before any votes have been cast, the election process has been a win-win situation: for voters, for parties, and for democracy.

"Turnout and voter engagement: turnout is going to be significantly higher than in the previous mayoral election in 2004. Once people start voting again they tend to carry on voting in other elections. This contest has proved that low turnout happens when voters think a race is a foregone conclusion. Presented with a genuine close contest they will engage in the electoral process enthusiastically."

"Reaching the parts of London other elections don't reach: this election has had to be fought London-wide. It has been a genuine 32-borough contest with Labour campaigning in every constituency and ever borough, engaging with voters not just in parliamentary marginals but in our own safe seats and opposition heartlands. If you are a Labour voter in Hackney or Newham, or in Chingford or Ruislip, in this contest your vote has really counted, whereas in general elections only the key marginals really matter."

"Regenerating the London Labour party: the London-wide campaign has led to the organisational regeneration of branches and CLPs that have not been a priority in general elections, recreating structures where they had atrophied or died."

Why shouldn't Londoners, and voters across the country, benefit from such positives in all elections?

Progressing the debate against extremism

Posted by michaelcalderbank on April 28, 2008 | Comments (0)

In response to The Economist magainze's claim that the National Front was "kept at bay by the electoral system" in the 1970's, here is a piece I wrote for the Progress blog.

Londoners' Votes Count - make the most of yours

Posted by malcolmclark on April 24, 2008 | Comments (2)

To help with last-minute voter education efforts and to encourage people to use their vote, a dedicated website www.londonersvotescount.org.uk has been launched.

The site explains in simple terms how to vote, how the different voting systems for the London elections work, and how Londoners can make the most of their vote. This initiative has been set up by Make Votes Count – the electoral experts when it comes to preferential and proportional voting systems. The site will also be providing commentary and analysis on polling day and on the results and the reaction afterwards.

Once every four years, all Londoners’ votes matter. Contrary to a general or local election, "every vote counts". For the London Assembly, the system is straightforward and empowering. The make-up of the Assembly will reflect how all of London voted. People can affect the overall result no matter where in London they live. That is because of the proportional voting system used. And for electing the Mayor, Londoners get the chance to express both their 1st and 2nd choices, rather than condense all their thinking down into a single candidate. So people can vote with their heart and with their head. Again, the advantage of the preferential system used for the mayoral election.

We want people to know that and to understand how to make the most of their vote, how ever they are intending to vote. Additionally, we are trying to get the message out that individuals and community groups throughout London who want to make a stand against extremism can easily do so; by organising, campaigning and getting out the vote in their own areas, and making that difference.

What you can do:

1) Visit the website www.londonersvotescount.org.uk
2) Download and circulate copies of our Londoners' Votes Count leaflet, which conatins all the main info from the site
3) Forward the contents of this blog post on to other Londoners.
4) Add the 'Londoners Votes Count' logo / image to your emails, website or blog - go here for the code or here for the image.
6) Use the information to rebutt any incorrect reports made by journalists in newspapers or on tv / radio.
7) Go out and vote on 1st May!

Londoners' Votes Count @ Love Music Hate Racism Carnival

Posted by malcolmclark on April 24, 2008 | Comments (0)

We'll be at the 'Love Music Hate Racism' carnival this Sunday afternoon in Victoria Park, on a stall handing out info leaflets. The event is free. If you are coming, visit our stall. And if you want to volunteer to help out on the stall for 30mins or an hour, that would be appreciated. Email me, or just turn up on the day.

Thinking Citywide

Posted by michaelcalderbank on April 24, 2008 | Comments (0)

As supporters of proportional representation - we need to demonstrate that in the list section of the London Assembly ballot, EVERY vote counts right across the city. The way in which parties and voters think about elections has been shaped by the experience of First-Past-the-Post. So it is understandable when a local councillor for Harlesden in Brent - an area with a big Afro-Carribean community - told me that because people didn't consider the British National Party a threat in that locality, many didn't realise that their votes in these elections could count against the chances of far right candidates.

Since no BNP candidate is standing in the Brent and Harrow GLA seat, it is easy to see why this is so. And yet any candidate elected from the list section would get a platform for the views and claim to legitimately represent the views of a significant minorty of Londoners - even if their support is concentrated miles away from the residents of Harlesden at the other side of the city.

With only a week to go before the election, we need to promote the message that PR elections are different. The system used for these elections means that Londoners' Votes really do Count. Make Votes Count is working with political parties, community groups, faith organisations, trade unions, anti-racist campaigns and other groups and individuals to get across the importance of the 5% London-wide threshold. This is why Make Votes Count will have a stall at the Love Music Hate Racism carnival, and why a special campaigns page has been launched

Londoners Votes Count

Posted by malcolmclark on April 15, 2008 | Comments (1)

Stay tuned in the next few days for the launch of our new mini-site dedicated to the London elections on 1 May. We'll be providing a one stop website explaining how the system works, how you can make the most of your vote, commentary and analysis on the elections, the results and the reaction afterwards. And all that coming from ourselves and ERS - the PR election experts.

Mayoral race on a knife edge

Posted by carolineleneghan on April 03, 2008 | Comments (0)

Today's ICM/Guardian poll reveals how tight the race is between Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone. The poll puts Johnson first preferences on 42 per cent, Livingstone on 41 per cent.

The Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick stands no chance at 10 per cent.

The winner is likely to be determined by second choice votes of the supporters of minor parties, whose candidates have the backing of 7 per cent of voters in total. It's not looking good for Ken since 43 per cent of Lib Dems say they will use their second preference to vote for Johnson, only 30 per cent say they will back Boris.

In past elections, many Lib Dems gave Ken their second vote, but this time Boris is securing the edge in the race.

Turnout will prove to be crucial also. Johnson voters are more certain to vote, and if turnout is low because Labour voters stay at home, he will gain. In 2004 just 35.9 per cent of voters turned out. This may rise, however, due to the closeness of the race.