Have the Old and Sad judges just mucked up AV?

To: Andrew George, George Eustice, Sarah Newton, Dan Rogerson, Sheryll Murray and Stephen Gilbert

Dear all,

I'm trying to fathom the implications of the Oldham & Saddleworth election court ruling for any new voting system, such as the Alternative Vote, which might replace First-Past-The-Post next year.

I understand how AV works if there are no post-count challenges - but what if the candidate who comes third is challenged by a candidate who comes fourth (and the first-round candidate is still short of 50%)? Won't that make the re-distribution of losing votes almost impossible until after the courts have ruled? And, therefore, the temptation to field "spoiling" candidates whose intention is merely to disrupt the election by publishing false leaflets about each other may prove irresistible.

I appreciate the slogan "make every vote count" has a certain appeal - but perhaps Oldham & Saddleworth has provided a reason why not every vote should count!

I know you recently sat through days of debate on the Bill so I'm hoping you'll have the answer.

Many thanks

bw

Graham