Alternative Vote

[Saracen]

I do understand fully what the vote is for.

To my mind it's as close to proportional representation as this country will ever get, which is why I said 'PR'

Have you read the Jenkins Commission report? It's as close to a detailed study of Electoral Systems as we have available to us, and despite the strengths of the AV system it mentions, it also says

It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional that FPTP

and concludes (in relation to AV)

The Commission's conclusions from these and other pieces of evidence about the operation of AV are threefold. First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives. Fairness in representation is a complex concept, as we have seen in paragraph 6, and one to which the upholders of FPTP do not appear to attach great importance. But it is one which, apart from anything else, inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government and presided over by a Liberal Democrat from recommending a solution which at the last election might have left the Conservatives with less than half of their proportional entitlement. We therefore reject the AV as on its own a solution despite what many see as its very considerable advantage of ensuring that every constituency member gains majority acquiescence.

The emphasis is mine.

[Saracen]

....

The thing I don't undertsand is why there are so many labour MPs opposed to AV...
....

Because pure partisan political advantage isn't the only criteria by which you can judge the effect of an electoral system.

For instance, one of John Prescott's principled objections is that it could have the effect of actually removing power from the people and and diluting democratic accountability. It goes like this ....

- given our current electoral demographics, AV is likely to result in a large boost for the third party, the LibDems.

- given the dominance of the two main parties, if you then introduce a much stronger 3rd party, the likelihood of an overall win for anyone decreases, simply because other two parties together could block most government moves.

- therefore, you have a stronger chance of a hung parliament, and

- therefore, much more backroom deals, and much less observance of manifesto promises.

Look at how the current coalition government came into being. Nobody got an overall mandate, so Tory and LibDem negotiators when into a back office, huddled for several days and came out with a "coalition agreement" that, actually, nobody had voted for.

Suppose I'm a LibDem and a student, and voted LD because of their stance on tuition fees. Right now, I'm likely to be angry, because they effectively ditched that promise, because they had to compromise with the Tories". i.e. the coalition agreement takes precedence over the manifesto on which they actually got a mandate from those voting for them. And I'm pretty confident that there's a LOT of LD voters vivid at the notion that by voting LD, they helped put a Tory-led coalition in power.

Or, if I'm a Euro-sceptic Tory, I'm probably angry at the back-pedalling on the Euro-sceptic commitments, referenda etc, of the Tories, that now seem to have been sacrificed on the altar of the coalition agreement, because they had to compromise with the LibDems.

That's one of Prescott's objections to AV, and it's not directly about party advantage, but about what he's sees as a serious threat to decisive government.

If he's right, and I stress "IF", then AV could lead to a more-or-less permanent coalition, and it could put the LDs in the role of a relatively small third party having the job of permanent king-maker, because no other party can win outright. It's even possible that we could find that king-maker role devolving further down the political food chain, with perhaps UKIP holding the few casting votes.

Remember that coalition negotiation? A LOT of electoral maths was done to see if any coalition other than the Tory-LD one would work, with groups being proposed relying on a few seats from this party and a couple from that, and the balance of power of what group can effectively govern being held by a very minor party. Which begs the question of what price they'd demand?

This is not just about which party wins how many seats, but about a far larger picture of what any change may mean to the entire way the system works. Whether any such change will be better or worse is open for argument, but it isn't a debate I've seen given much attention so far.

What worries me most is that the public seem to be largely disengaged from the whole business, and judging by TV interviews with the public, a lot of the public aren't really sure quite how AV actually works, much less the impact any change may have, and yet, there's no minimum turnout requirement for this referendum to have binding effect. It could be that a tiny turnout from an uninterested and uninvolved electorate lets us sleepwalk into a major change.

[Saracen]

....

The reality is that the reduction in MPs and boundary changes will stengthen the Tory position, so that under the current system labour are likely to need a larger vote just to stand still...
....

The reality is that boundary changes will somewhat address the current in-built bias towards Labour, largely due to the concentration of inner city constituencies where Labour tend to do well.

Right now, and for some time past, the Tories need to get about 7% more of the vote just to break even with Labour in seats.

If there's one thing that REALLY gets me wound up, it's Labour politicians bleating about making all constituencies roughly equal-sized, and calling it gerrymandering. Of course it disadvantages Labour. It helps remove the built-in advantage they've had for years.

And as for reducing the numbers of MPs, what the hell do we need 650 of them for? If I had my way, we wouldn't be cutting 10%, we'd be cutting about 50%. And that'd be small beer compared to what I'd do to reduce the 800-ish (792, IIRC) Lords.

[directhex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk

[oolon]

I love the assumption that people "want" one of the main parties, rather than a magical mix of two parties views. Personally I want a slightly right of centre party and there is none available. So to be honest a Con-Lib coalition is the best I am ever going to get. I have to admit I am impressed that the Liberals did go into Coalition with the Conservatives, if they had refused it would had made there "3 party" politics a joke as a vote for them would have frankly been a vote for Labour.

[chrestomanci]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk

Funny vid that explains AV using cats as an analogy.

Thanks.

[capt_cornflake]

The reality is that boundary changes will somewhat address the current in-built bias towards Labour, largely due to the concentration of inner city constituencies where Labour tend to do well.

Right now, and for some time past, the Tories need to get about 7% more of the vote just to break even with Labour in seats.

You may be right, I haven't had chance to investigate the underlying figures thoroughly. I've not seen it presented that way before, but that may be down to self selection of sources, and I'm willing to accept the possiblity that I may be wrong on that point.
Having said that, whatever the situation is now however, it doesn't change the fact that the changes will have the effect of a shift in bias towards the Tories from it's current position.

What worries me most is that the public seem to be largely disengaged from the whole business, and judging by TV interviews with the public, a lot of the public aren't really sure quite how AV actually works, much less the impact any change may have, and yet, there's no minimum turnout requirement for this referendum to have binding effect. It could be that a tiny turnout from an uninterested and uninvolved electorate lets us sleepwalk into a major change.

Here I agree with you. The minimum turnout is a valid issue, but given the low turnouts in recent elections, any minimum threshold would have to be set so low as to be meaningless anyway.

I don't entirely blame the public for not engaging in this particular referendum.
The campaigns themselves seem to be scared of a reasonable debate, and just seem intent on pushing either misleading information and borderline untruths (on both sides).
The media meanwhile seem to be content with a mixture of parroting the campaign literature, and a series of vox-pops from complete ignoramouses in the street.
There are pockets of reasoned argument, but they tend to be fairly one-sided, and I think this thread is probably one of the first places where I've actually seen sensible arguments for both positions.

I don't agree with a lot of what you've said, but I do appreciate your comments and the tone of this thread in general.

[chrestomanci]

What worries me most is that the public seem to be largely disengaged from the whole business, and judging by TV interviews with the public, a lot of the public aren't really sure quite how AV actually works, much less the impact any change may have, and yet, there's no minimum turnout requirement for this referendum to have binding effect. It could be that a tiny turnout from an uninterested and uninvolved electorate lets us sleepwalk into a major change.

I don't think the turn out will be that small. There are a number of other elections taking place on the same day, including the Scottish Parliamentary elections, and a lot of local elections, so plenty of people will go the the Polling station for those elections and vote in the AV referendum while they are there.

In reverse the AV referendum will affect the turnout for those other elections. My Boss at work is a local councillor for the Tories, and he is defending his seat on the 5th May. He was complaining that normally his seat would be safe, but because of the AV referendum, a lot of Lib-Dems who would normal stay at home will come out to vote.

[directhex]

if they had refused it would had made there "3 party" politics a joke as a vote for them would have frankly been a vote for Labour.

Which is what I find so dumb about people who "voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out".

That's not the party you voted for, guys!

[kalniel]

[Lucio]

I'm sorry Kalniel, but that's a *crap* piece of statistics, 70% of people disliking coffee is not the same as 70% of people agreeing to go the pub!

What that picture *should* show is 20% of people like beer, 20% of people like vimto, 10% of people like 7-up, 20% of people like cola and 30% of people like coffee. In a situation like that it makes sense to keep the largest number of people happy.

[directhex]

I'm sorry Kalniel, but that's a *crap* piece of statistics, 70% of people disliking coffee is not the same as 70% of people agreeing to go the pub!

What that picture *should* show is 20% of people like beer, 20% of people like vimto, 10% of people like 7-up, 20% of people like cola and 30% of people like coffee. In a situation like that it makes sense to keep the largest number of people happy.

Are you keeping "the largest number of people happy" though? You seem pretty sure that the 70% who didn't opt for a coffee shop are all deeply opposed to each other, but are fairly coffee-friendly.

Rather than making the assumption that they're happy, why not ask them?

I really don't think anyone in the "no" camp can honestly say they've never used the phrase "if they don't have any, I'll have X instead" - which is all AV is, at the end of the day.

[Spud1]

I'll keep this short. I'll be voting yes next week, purely because regardless of whether or not AV is a more proportional system, it is definitely a fairer system that FPTP. It offers slightly more opportunity for coalitions to form, which in my view is the best thing that can happen to this country, and is a small step towards the right direction.

Obviously it's not PR, and it is a poor choice of system, but it's still better than what we have at the moment. Crucially the boundary changes are wrapped up in this proposal (iirc) which is actually an even more important step in the road to a fair electoral system. Oh and it reduces the changes of a fringe radical party like the BNP gaining a seat anywhere. Winner.

I expect that the voter turnout for this will be low, and that it will be a very close race in the end..I just have to hope that enough sensible people turn out to vote YES for change.

[Georgy291]

i just want to get rid of the Constituencies, because they are the biggest bollox of all. As some people have alot more power than others.

have a look how much power you have

as for me

home [swansea] 0.037
study [york] 0.090

wheres the fairness?

[Biscuit]

According to that, my power increases 31% to 0.293 (Maidenhead)

[Saracen]

I love the assumption that people "want" one of the main parties, rather than a magical mix of two parties views. Personally I want a slightly right of centre party and there is none available. So to be honest a Con-Lib coalition is the best I am ever going to get. I have to admit I am impressed that the Liberals did go into Coalition with the Conservatives, if they had refused it would had made there "3 party" politics a joke as a vote for them would have frankly been a vote for Labour.

That's a good point. To be honest, I have trouble articulating exactly what I do want.

I guess what I really want is direct democracy, with direct voting on the issues by the people. That way, we actually get |"democracy" rather than simply electing a King or Dictator every few years, who promises whatever he /she needs to to get elected, then does whatever they want for three years, before handing out tax give-aways leading up to the next electoral bunfight.

However, for direct decision-making to actually be a good thing requires a population that is :-

- well-informed
- rational in their decision-making
- diligent in the exercise of both their rights and duties vis-a-vis voting

I'd also like next week's winning lottery numbers, a cure for cancer and the moon on a stick, and I stand a better chance of getting them than getting an informed, rational and diligent population.


My main reason for voting no isn't that I want one of the main parties. In fact, over some major issues, I've said many times over the years that those with limited enthusiasm over the EU project have had nobody to vote for precisely because none of the three main parties can be trusted on the issue.

So no, I don't want to just stick to the three main parties. But before I jump out of a plane, I want to make sure :-

a) I have a parachute
b) the plane really is on fire.

I don't think there has either been adequate discussion of the implications of AV, especially given the Jenkins Commission conclusions, and there certainly hasn't been adequate discussion of other options.

This referendum is not the result of some rational, considered approach to the very tricky subject of electoral reform by a body with any degree of independence or impartiality. It's the price the Tories had to pay to stitch together a coalition agreement, hammered out in exactly one of those post-election back-room deals by a handful of very partial politicians, with no reference to the will of the people, and since neither party actually wants it (the Tories wanting FPTP and the LDs wanting full PR) it really is a "miserable little compromise", with nobody, including those pushing for it, actually wanting it.


This really is an absolute political stitch-up, and a monumental gamble by Cameron. If (as seems likely judging by recent polls) the result is a no, then the odds are it'll squash any real chance of electoral reform, and least in the Commons, for a generation, because every time it's called for, response mantra will be "we had a referendum and the answer was no".

There's plenty wrong with the current system, in my view. The trouble is, I'm not convinced that AV is better, and I think it has real potential for being a lot worse.

Before I jump out of the frying pan, I want to be sure I'm not going to miss the fire altogether and instead, land feet first in an incinerator.