Alternative Vote

[Saracen]

.....

IIRC I believe Jenkins recommended AV+ in the report.

Erm .... no, not quite. It recommended a mixed system, AMS or AV Top-Up. It's similar in many ways to AV Plus, but not quite the same. It's going to get to be quite an arcane discussion if we go into that, though.

The principle, in broad-brush terms for anyone interested, is that we'd have two votes - one for a constituency candidate, basically under AV, and one for extra members from a party 'top-up' list. So we'd end up with 80-85% of MPs elected, for a constituency, under AV, thereby maintaining the direct link between MP and constituents that so many, including me, regard as valuable. But the 15-20% additional party list members can be used to correct the lack of proportionality I mentioned earlier, and also to correct regional imbalances.

One obvious disadvantage of that would be complexity. I've seen some very funny TV footage of members of the public trying to explain how AV works, and AV is dead simple. Good luck trying to come up with a simple explanation of even the mechanics of a mixed system like that, let alone trying to interpret the political effects it may or may not have and explaining that to people prior to a referendum.

[TeePee]

I would vote YES, because I agree with Saracen.

Every vote I ever cast was for electoral reform. I lived in one of the safest Tory seats in the country, my vote was worthless for anything except increasing the disparity between the popular vote and seats in the house.

I worry that the referendum is for or against reform. I don't like the AV, but I fear that a No result will doom any chance for reform. I'm disappointed but unsurprised that this is the choice we get.

[Saracen]

.... but I fear that a No result will doom any chance for reform. ....

A Yes vote might doom any further chances, at least for quite a while, too.

If we get a change, one political argument will be that, hey, they voted and chose AV, so we stick with it. Another will be that we need to give it a good chance to see how it works out, and that's the end of reform for a generation or two while we see what happens.

One of the strong recommendations of Jenkins was, as I suggested earlier, for a proper, informed and extensive pre-referendum campaign, and one run by an informed and impartial body, probably the electoral commission.

Maybe we'd still have ended up with a vote on AV, but I just can't help have a rather bad taste in the mouth about us having been bounced into a vote on the wrong question, and for all the wrong reasons.

One thing ..... maybe it's just me, but I detect no real interest in let alone for this by the public. I detect no real sign that many people actually care, one way or the other. It's hardly the topic on everyone's lips. Hell even the media seem to be struggling to raise much interest. Yawn.

I'd bet that, whatever the result is, the turnout would be very low but for the other elections meaning that people will probably vote because they're there anyway, and may be anyway. But if this was just a referendum on AV .... how many would bother to show up to vote?

[G4Z]

Miserable little compromise

I don't think AV addresses the real issues with our voting system and neither does Clegg, or at least he didn't...

[Betty_Swallocks]

In a general ekection, the vote is for a representative of the people in a constituency in parliament. With AV, you may end up getting someone who you definatley don't want to reperesent you, and who was only the first choice of a minority of people who voted.

But that's what you have now with FPTP. I live in Peterborough which is a safe Conservative seat. My vote carries no weight at all.

As Crispin Blunt once said about the voters of Reigate (and was proved correct) They'd elect a donkey as long as it wore a blue rosette.

The same can be said of many of the seats in the House of Commons. Once an MP gets selected by the local committee he or she is virtually guaranteed a seat.

This means that our representatives in parliament, the people who are speaking for us the voters, are actually chosen not by us but by the very small number of people entitled to vote on those selection committees.

I just can't believe that Clegg agreed to the AV system being put forward. It's no more proportional than FPTP. In my opinion a truly proportional system would result in each party gaining seats in parliament in proportion to the number of votes cast for each party.

In Saracen's example this would give Labour 280 seats, Conservatives 199 and the Lib Dems 108 with around 60 seats going to independents.

In my opinion this would be a good thing. OK, I wouldn't want a government formed by the Greens but wouldn't it be nice if they had a voice in parliament in proportion to the support the actually receive from the public?

The trouble is I'm afraid we're screwed whichever way the vote goes. We either end up with a new system that is equally unproportional (is that a word?) or we stick with the status quo. Either way we're not going to get another opportunity for change for generations. Probably not in my lifetime (and I'm not that old).

Cameron has played us (and especially Clegg) like an old fiddle. By giving us this referendum he's totally tied us up and ensured that whatever we vote we won't get what he really fears, real proportionality.

[pp05]

In a general ekection, the vote is for a representative of the people in a constituency in parliament. With AV, you may end up getting someone who you definatley don't want to reperesent you, and who was only the first choice of a minority of people who voted.

You can get round that by only indicating a first preference, but in that case you are losing votes. In say an election of which there are 5 candidates, someone who selects 5 choices has potentially 5 votes. I say potentially because depending on the other voters preferences some of those votes may be lost.

So AV gives more voting power to some people, and fails to recognise the rationale beind first past the post system - a representrative that the majority of constituent voted for.

It is the worst of all worlds, far short of proportional representation, and denying voters their primary choice of parliamentary representative.

Peter it wouldn't change things too much in those areas that are majority Tory / Labour / LibDem seats since they get more than 50% of the vote.

[aidanjt]

Scrap the representative system entirely. Electing temporary dictators has shown itself to be a complete and utter failure, and a central point of failure when it comes to coercion/manipulation/corruption.

[billythewiz]

With AV, you may end up getting someone who you definatley don't want to reperesent you

That's what FPTP delivered for me ... someone I definately didn't want, in fact someone who who only 35% of the voters said they did want.

... and who was only the first choice of a minority of people who voted.

That's exactly what FPTP gives now.[/QUOTE]

One great thing about AV (there are many reasons why it's much better that FPTP) is that in marginal seats it forces politicians to "recruit" 2nd votes. This will encourage people to think a bit more and break the tribal nature of politics in this country.

Let's face it, most people "choose" their politics in the same way the "choose" the religion and football team, i.e. then don't choose, they inherit their beliefs during their childhood indoctrination.

You know how it goes, you have the "flat cap, working class, northern party", the "stiff upper lip, home counties, inheritance party" and the "middle of the road, doesn't really stand for anything, will promise anything to get elected party". Now that I've offended everyone by insulting your #1 choice, I've a question for you ..... How will you choose your #2 and #3 choices ?

For many people they wont choose because it would require them to think about policies rather than rosette colour.

AV isn't the best system but it's a step in the right direction. FPTP only works when there are only two parties (like in the USA).

[billythewiz]

I don't understand why people would want to settle for their 2nd/3rd/4th/nth choice when it's the 1st that should matter to them. Or is this proposed system supposed to cater for those who opt for protest votes?

Protest votes are a minor issue - you could vote Monster Raving #1 (for fun) and then your real support #2. Votes like that will have no effect on the end result.

AV will also have no effect in safe (i.e. most) seats.

In minority seats, what it does allow is for you to vote "against" a party. Assuming you support one of the main two and hate the other, then you can vote #1 for your first choice and #2 for the other (3rd) party. Better to get your 2nd choice than your last choice.

Where I live the "winner" got ~100 votes more than the 2nd place, but the 2000 voters who didn't vote for the top 2 don't get there desires considered at all.

[directhex]

Vote No if you feel the bar on the right best represents the wishes of the population

[billythewiz]

Lib Dems only want it as they'll almost certainly get more number 2 votes than anyone else.

All the parties are advocating what's best for them. Your reason above is true but it's also true for Labour.

I see this as vote as just a disguised vote for/against the Tories. Interestingly the BNP are big "No" supporters. UKIP OTOH are "Yes" supporters. It's easy to see why. AV will result in less "support" for BNP but more for UKIP. Euro haters will be able to vote UKIP #1 and yet still vote their preferred "real" choice #2. Obviously that only applies in marginal constituencies.

[billythewiz]

One thing that should be said is that AV is still a "First Past The Post" system. The difference to the FPTP system we have now is that the "post" is the 2nd placed party. Under AV, the "post" is 50% support.

So with the existing system directhex's Tofu party gets 100% power and yet 75% of the voters haven't expressed their support for them. BTW, in some constituencies "Tofu" could be BNP !!

Under AV I'm afraid that "The Pork Alliance are out of the running and their supporters have to make a 2nd choice. So out of the 4 remaining it's still anyone's game.

BTW, there aren't any constituencies in the UK with that kind of 5 way even split, so it's not a very "real" example of how AV would work.

[billythewiz]

I just can't believe that Clegg agreed to the AV system being put forward. It's no more proportional than FPTP. In my opinion a truly proportional system would result in each party gaining seats in parliament in proportion to the number of votes cast for each party.

....

The trouble is I'm afraid we're screwed whichever way the vote goes. We either end up with a new system that is equally unproportional (is that a word?) or we stick with the status quo. Either way we're not going to get another opportunity for change for generations. Probably not in my lifetime (and I'm not that old).

Cameron has played us (and especially Clegg) like an old fiddle. By giving us this referendum he's totally tied us up and ensured that whatever we vote we won't get what he really fears, real proportionality.

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I too don't understand Clegg. Labour would have given him AV without a referendum ! I guess he's shown us that he's a Tory in orange clothing.

Don't get too despondent though. Personally I think the writing is on the wall for the current system. It's a 19th century anachronism and even if it survives the 5th (which personally I think it will) the cracks in the damn are starting to show.

[directhex]

One thing that should be said is that AV is still a "First Past The Post" system. The difference to the FPTP system we have now is that the "post" is the 2nd placed party. Under AV, the "post" is 50% support.

So with the existing system directhex's Tofu party gets 100% power and yet 75% of the voters haven't expressed their support for them. BTW, in some constituencies "Tofu" could be BNP !!

Under AV I'm afraid that "The Pork Alliance are out of the running and their supporters have to make a 2nd choice. So out of the 4 remaining it's still anyone's game.

BTW, there aren't any constituencies in the UK with that kind of 5 way even split, so it's not a very "real" example of how AV would work.

It's reasonable to assume Pork Alliance voters are going to be largely against the Tofu Party. Same for Bacon Democrats.

In real-world terms, this is significant due to a phenomenon known as splitting the left - people pick their favourite of an array of broadly progressive parties (say 60% or 75% of people in this example), but everyone else votes in a dependable block for the right. Under FPTP, this gives the right more power than it would otherwise get in a purely 2-party system.

Because AV allows people to rank their preferences, parties on the left end up with their 2nd, 3rd, etc choices spread around sufficiently to overtake the right. For example, Green voters are more likely to rank Labour someplace than the Tories. In theory it works on the right too, with people voting BNP->UKIP->Tory.

Realistically, in party terms, the big winners from a "Yes" vote aren't the Lib Dems, it's Labour. But AV makes it more feasible to vote for your preferred parties on the "fringe", before the vote eventually bubbles up to a major party - and that phenomenon of more widely dispersed first-party votes may well bolster smaller parties such that within a few elections, they poll much higher overall as people realise a non-redblue vote isn't wasted. Of course, as votes are skimmed from major to minor parties, coalitions become more likely.

[chrestomanci]

In real-world terms, this is significant due to a phenomenon known as splitting the left - people pick their favourite of an array of broadly progressive parties (say 60% or 75% of people in this example), but everyone else votes in a dependable block for the right. Under FPTP, this gives the right more power than it would otherwise get in a purely 2-party system.

The classic example of splitting the left is the 2002 French presidential election. In presidential elections France uses a two round run of system, where there is a first round with lots of candidates, and the top two candidates go into a second round 3 weeks later to decide the final winner. It is a common saying in France to vote with your heart in the first round, and your head in the second. Most people assume that all the minor candidates will get eliminated on the first round, to leave just the leaders of the two main parties for the second round of voting.

The problem was that in 2002, there where loads of minor candidates on the left, but on the right there was just the National front (and the leader of the main centre right party). After the first round the left votes got split between all the minor parties, and the National front leader was 0.5% ahead of the main centre left socialist party leader. This meant that all the left leaning voters where in the unfortunate situation where they had to vote centre right, as the alternative would be a fascist in the presidency.

If France had had AV in that election then the outcome would have been different, as most those left voters would have voted first for their favourite fringe candidate, and second for the main centre left one.

Because AV allows people to rank their preferences, parties on the left end up with their 2nd, 3rd, etc choices spread around sufficiently to overtake the right. For example, Green voters are more likely to rank Labour some place than the Tories. In theory it works on the right too, with people voting BNP->UKIP->Tory.

In some places where AV and similar systems are used, the minor parties tell their voters who to put as second preference. For example in Australia the Greens often ask their voters to vote Labour as second choice. Of course there is pre-election negotiation between parties on this, which means that the Greens get some small influence on government policy even if they don't get enough votes to win seats.

Realistically, in party terms, the big winners from a "Yes" vote aren't the Lib Dems, it's Labour. But AV makes it more feasible to vote for your preferred parties on the "fringe", before the vote eventually bubbles up to a major party - and that phenomenon of more widely dispersed first-party votes may well bolster smaller parties such that within a few elections, they poll much higher overall as people realise a non-redblue vote isn't wasted. Of course, as votes are skimmed from major to minor parties, coalitions become more likely.

I actually thing coalitions are a good thing, as it forces parties to justify their arguments more rather than just making policy at the centre and forcing things through with a big majority. The No to AV campaign are arguing that coalitions are a bad thing because it means that stuff gets dropped from a manifesto during coalition negotiations in a smoke filled room, that the public has no input on, but with a single party in government policy gets decided in back rooms anyway, but there is even less public input as everyone in that back room is from the same party, so there will be less adversarial discussion, and arguments for something won't get tested properly.

[directhex]

I actually thing coalitions are a good thing, as it forces parties to justify their arguments more rather than just making policy at the centre and forcing things through with a big majority. The No to AV campaign are arguing that coalitions are a bad thing because it means that stuff gets dropped from a manifesto during coalition negotiations in a smoke filled room, that the public has no input on, but with a single party in government policy gets decided in back rooms anyway, but there is even less public input as everyone in that back room is from the same party, so there will be less adversarial discussion, and arguments for something won't get tested properly.

I don't disagree