Alternative Vote

[Lucio]

Just a general point regarding statistics, you can't compare % of votes over the entire country with % of seats under any system that retains voting for your local candidate. AV will not radically alter this statistic either, because all it is fixing is on a constiuency level, your winner is backed by 50% of voters as their first, second, third etc choice.

If you disagree with the idea of % votes vs % seats then what you actually want is PR system that removes any option of a candidate at a local level or top up AV which partially removes candidates at a local level.

[chrestomanci]

Just a general point regarding statistics, you can't compare % of votes over the entire country with % of seats under any system that retains voting for your local candidate. AV will not radically alter this statistic either, because all it is fixing is on a constiuency level, your winner is backed by 50% of voters as their first, second, third etc choice.

If you disagree with the idea of % votes vs % seats then what you actually want is PR system that removes any option of a candidate at a local level or top up AV which partially removes candidates at a local level.

It is possible to have a fully proportional system where all MPs are for local constituencies.

One idea (that I thought of around the time of 1997 election), is to distribute votes for loosing candidates to another constituency in a sequential order.

So for example suppose the first consistency on the list is a Lib/Con marginal, and is won by Labour, then all the votes for other candidates, get added to the tallies for the next constituency on the list, where it will most likely cause the Conservatives to win unless it was a very safe seat for them, all the un-spent votes (from both constituencies) then pass to the third and so on. Every five constituencies or so the Liberals will accumulate enough votes to win, every 20 or so the greens, UKIP or BNP would win the seat.

In order to be fair all the constituencies would need to be the same size. In order that people feel they got the MP they voted for, the order would need to put neighbouring seats next to each other on the list.

Anyway this is all hypothetical, this discussion is about AV which as we know is not proportional, or AV+ which is, but is not an available choice on Thursday.

[Georgy291]

AV explained for cats

[Saracen]

There's been a fair amount of opinion, exaggeration and plain inaccuracy all claimed with backing of the Jenkins Commission.

If you are going to quote me, then say that, please indicate exactly where I've exaggerated or been "plain inaccurate".

The first thing that needs to be said about Jenkins is that it was NOT a report/investigation into AV. It looked at a whole raft of different options and concluded that a "two-vote mixed system" (also called "limited AMS" or "AV Top-up") would be best for us.

Quite right. It was a much wider report than just into AV .... and it rejected AV. It was a commission responding to a Labour party manifesto commitment for an independent investigation into electoral reform. And, despite the strengths in some areas, it rejected AV. And yes, it did recommend AV top-up, a point I've previously made. I've also pointed out that, sadly, the only option we're being given is AV. And my opinion is that if we reject AV, that will be taken by some, no doubt including the Tories, to be a rejection of electoral reform when it is merely a rejection of AV (if that is indeed what happens in the result). And that's why I regard this referendum as a cynical stitch-up. We, the people, aren't being treated to a comprehensive and adult debate, or given a real choice. We're being presented with a conjuring trick of a referendum .... much like politicians usually do when then give us any actual say i matters, and certainly like the conjuring trick the last referendum we had (in England) gave us..

There's been a fair amount of opinion, exaggeration and plain inaccuracy all claimed with backing of the Jenkins Commission.

The first thing that needs to be said about Jenkins is that it was NOT a report/investigation into AV. It looked at a whole raft of different options and concluded that a "two-vote mixed system" (also called "limited AMS" or "AV Top-up") would be best for us.

Unfortunately the referendum on the 5th isn't about "AV Top-up" or any other form of PR, it's about vanilla AV.

So what did Jenkins have to say about AV

81. The simplest change would be from FPTP to the Alternative Vote (henceforth referred to as AV).
This meets several of our four criteria.
It would fully maintain the link between MPs and a single geographical constituency.
It would increase voter choice in the sense that it would enable voters to express their second and sometimes third or fourth preferences, and thus free them from a bifurcating choice between realistic and ideological commitment or, as it sometimes is called, voting tactically.
There is not the slightest reason to think that AV would reduce the stability of government; it might indeed lead to larger parliamentary majorities.
This is a formidable list of assets, particularly in the context of our terms of reference.

So what did Jenkins say about FPTP

I see you quote para 81 on AV. What about para 85, the conclusions it draws on AV.

85. 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.

As for the section on FPTP, I don't disagree. I've not said I like FPTP, and as I pointed out, I don't see replacing one unfair system with another unfair system as a good move, and I remain unconvinced that AV is an improvement. And I've been harping on about how distorting FPTP can be for years, at length and in detail, probably to the point where people are sick of me saying it.

However you cut it, Jenkins rejected AV as a replacement for first past the post (and that does not mean Jenkins supports FPTP), and there is nothing I have said, or from what I remember of other's comments on Jenkins, that has been either exaggerated or plain misleading.

[billythewiz]

If you are going to quote me, then say that, please indicate exactly where I've exaggerated or been "plain inaccurate".

Fair enough, if pressed I can dig up a few examples. I'll stick to your very first post in this thread (it will take to long to respond to every comment).

You repeatedly state that Jenkins "rejected" AV.

... the Jenkins Report on Electoral Reform is about as close as we have to a proper investigation, and that rejected AV primarily on the grounds that it was less PR than FPTP.

As we've agreed, the Jenkins commission was not about AV. It's mandate was to suggest an alternative to FPTP. Unfortunately the report didn't express it's views in an AV style (by placing a 1 against AV Top-Up, a 2 against it's second choice, a 3 against it's 3rd, etc.). So the only think we can conclude for sure is that it didn't consider AV to be the very best possible solution (I don't think there is anyone who thinks it is).
But to describe this in the pejorative terms of "Jenkins rejected AV" would be like describing a UKIP supporter, who chooses to tactically vote Tory, as having "rejected" UKIP. It simply isn't accurate. It is misleading of the true picture.

Let's address the other part of what I just quoted, namely that AV is "less" proportional than FPTP. Your tables on the affect of AV on the 1997 election (let's not argue about their accuracy, I'm sure they're a better estimate than most), seem largly to be taken from paragraph 82 of Jenkins. But Chapter 83 then refutes most of it. The 1997 election was the largest landslide in over 100 years and in Jenkins words ....

The 1997 election, it can be argued, was far from typical .... In the three previous elections, those of 1983, 1987 and 1992, AV would have had a less distorting effect on proportionality between the two main parties.

And if we are worried about the 7% disadvantage to Tories, rather than worrying about the considerably larger disadvantage to the 3rd place party, let us re-read our history books and contemplate how the the 1951 election saw Labour win the most votes but not the most seats.

However you cut it, Jenkins rejected AV as a replacement for first past the post.

This is simply not true. The Jenkins commission chose to present it's findings as a single recommendation of what it considered to the the single, best alternative to FPTP. Rather curiously it chose to present it's findings of the very many different (mostly proportional) alternatives using a "single cross", FPTP style conclusion.
It could (if it had wanted to) have presented them in an AV style preference order.

The fact that it chose not to is a real shame. It would be nice to know if Jenkins thought that AV was "better" than FPTP. As it is, it chose only to say that AV isn't the ABSOLUTE, VERY BEST alternative to FPTP.

[Saracen]

Fair enough, if pressed I can dig up a few examples. I'll stick to your very first post in this thread (it will take to long to respond to every comment).

You repeatedly state that Jenkins "rejected" AV.


As we've agreed, the Jenkins commission was not about AV. It's mandate was to suggest an alternative to FPTP. Unfortunately the report didn't express it's views in an AV style (by placing a 1 against AV Top-Up, a 2 against it's second choice, a 3 against it's 3rd, etc.). So the only think we can conclude for sure is that it didn't consider AV to be the very best possible solution (I don't think there is anyone who thinks it is).
But to describe this in the pejorative terms of "Jenkins rejected AV" would be like describing a UKIP supporter, who chooses to tactically vote Tory, as having "rejected" UKIP. It simply isn't accurate. It is misleading of the true picture.

Let's address the other part of what I just quoted, namely that AV is "less" proportional than FPTP. Your tables on the affect of AV on the 1997 election (let's not argue about their accuracy, I'm sure they're a better estimate than most), seem largly to be taken from paragraph 82 of Jenkins. But Chapter 83 then refutes most of it. The 1997 election was the largest landslide in over 100 years and in Jenkins words ....


And if we are worried about the 7% disadvantage to Tories, rather than worrying about the considerably larger disadvantage to the 3rd place party, let us re-read our history books and contemplate how the the 1951 election saw Labour win the most votes but not the most seats.

However you cut it, Jenkins rejected AV as a replacement for first past the post.

This is simply not true. The Jenkins commission chose to present it's findings as a single recommendation of what it considered to the the single, best alternative to FPTP. Rather curiously it chose to present it's findings of the very many different (mostly proportional) alternatives using a "single cross", FPTP style conclusion.
It could (if it had wanted to) have presented them in an AV style preference order.

The fact that it chose not to is a real shame. It would be nice to know if Jenkins thought that AV was "better" than FPTP. As it is, it chose only to say that AV isn't the ABSOLUTE, VERY BEST alternative to FPTP.

What I said was absolutely true, Jenkins rejected AV. It rejected it in the section on AV, and it rejected it in the overall Commission conclusions. From the latter, para 2 ....

On its own AV would be unacceptable because of the danger that in anything like present circumstances it might increase rather than reduce disproportionality and might do so in a way which is unfair to the Conservative party.

Jenkins made it explicitly clear that AV, at least in circumstances "anything like" the ones prevailing at the time, was "unacceptable", and they stated why.

This is not to say that an adaptation of AV could not be acceptable or even optimal, and, as you and I have both said, that is not an option the powers that be have chosen to put to us.

All we have the option to vote for is, unfortunately, whether or not to replace FPTP with AV, and Jenkins concluded, as per my quote, that it was "unacceptable". .... with the proviso of the dissenting note from Lord Alexander who wanted to retain FPTP.

....

However you cut it, Jenkins rejected AV as a replacement for first past the post.

This is simply not true. The Jenkins commission chose to present it's findings as a single recommendation of what it considered to the the single, best alternative to FPTP. Rather curiously it chose to present it's findings of the very many different (mostly proportional) alternatives using a "single cross", FPTP style conclusion.
It could (if it had wanted to) have presented them in an AV style preference order.

The fact that it chose not to is a real shame. It would be nice to know if Jenkins thought that AV was "better" than FPTP. As it is, it chose only to say that AV isn't the ABSOLUTE, VERY BEST alternative to FPTP.

No, it rejected AV. I chose my words before most carefully. Jenkins did not, as you assert, just chose to say AV wasn't the be "ABSOLUTE, VERY BEST alternative". It rejected AV as an alternative. And it did using in that exact term.

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.

....

You repeatedly state that Jenkins "rejected" AV.

Indeed I have stated that. Because it did.

We can argue that it maybe should not have, and we can certainly argue the relative merits and demerits if AV and whether Jenkins was right, or indeed whether circumstances have changed. But Jenkins rejected AV, in those words.

As for the point about the tables in that post, I don't entirely disagree with what you say, but take the points I made about those tables in the context in which they were made. I challenged an assertion that AV is more proportional, made as a blanket assertion. It's an easy mistake for people to make that AV must be more proportional, if for no other reason than that the LDs want it, and that therefore it's a move in the right direction. Those tables, therefore, were an illustration,with caveats, that it is not necessarily a safe assumption to make that it is more proportional.

Read what I said carefully. I didn't say it isn't more proportional. I said you can't be sure it will be.

And I know Jenkins put caveats on those figures. So did I. For example, in that same post ....

Don't get me wrong, AV has several strong advantages. And as the Jenkins report makes clear, that particular election is one where any such effect is likely to be exaggerated as the situation was not normal. It is not suggested that it would always have that distorting effect. But as far as it is possible to tell, and despite many other advantages, a move in the direction of PR it is not.

So again, I did not exaggerate, or be "plain inaccurate". Jenkins did "reject" AV, and did it using that term, and I put the same caveats on those tables that Jenkins did, and referred to the fact that Jenkins had done so.

That whole first post, in fact, could be summed up as "nothing in this is black and white". As Jenkins also makes clear, AV has a lot going for it and so does FPTP. FPTP has flaws, and so does AV. AV will, even under those extreme 1997 conditions be more proportional to the LDs, and less proportional to both Labour and Tory, though in opposite directions.

It is not a case of either system is in all respects worse than the other, but of trying to balance the relative merits or what we have versus an alternative, and sadly, the alternative we are being offered is one that Jenkins did, specifically and categorically, "reject".


If you were going to attack my comments on the basis of using Jenkins as an authority, I can tell you where you should have done it, and that's on the basis of the terms of reference given to Jenkins. The commission had to come to it's conclusions based on the criteria it was given in the terms of reference, not least, preserving the constituency element. Had that not been a mandated term, who knows what Jenkins would have concluded. But, of course, it was a mandated term.

As for ranking the alternatives, again, that doesn't really fit the remit in the terms of reference. It wasn't supposed to be an academic study producing a top ten hit list, it was supposed to be a practical Commission producing recommendations for appropriate alternatives to FPTP, to be put to us in a referendum. If, for whatever reason, they find an alternative system unacceptable, and with AV they did find it unacceptable (in those words), it needed to be rejected, not ranked.

Their remit was, specifically

consider and recommend any appropriate system or combination of systems in recommending an alternative to the present system for Parliamentary elections to be put before the people in the Government's referendum.

Take that apart. Consider "any appropriate system or combination" in order to recommend "an alternative". That's a singular alternative.

Hence why they did indeed reject AV, for the reasons they gave, not least that it was politically unacceptable as an alternative for a Labour government to be proposing a change that so blatantly, at the time at least, appeared to favour them and the LDs and clobber the Tories. There would, quite rightly, have been huge calls of gerrymandering.

Now maybe that political objection doesn't apply now, and you could challenge the use of Jenkins as a source on that basis. But that's why I said, right at the start of that first post

We have to recognise one thing clearly, though, which is that nobody actually knows how an election would have, or will, turn out under a different system to the one under which it was, or will be, run. We can't. If the voting system is different, people might choose to vote in a different way, perhaps more or less tactically.

So any estimate of comparisons has to include at large element of "best guess".

But the Jenkins Report on Electoral Reform is about as close as we have to a proper investigation, and that rejected AV primarily on the grounds that it was less PR than FPTP.

I even stressed that bit about "nobody actually knows " in my original post by putting it in bold.

We don't have a recent full investigation on the options. Indeed, that has been one of my themes, that the AV referendum has been a political stitch-up in a back-room political deal to get the coalition deal off the ground. Far, far more responsible would have been a coalition agreement promise mirroring the Labour 1997 manifesto promise to set up an independent investigation, and give us a referendum based on it's conclusions. Labour did well by setting up the Jenkins commission to meet that promise, then bottled it by kicking it into the long grass. The result is that we're being offered the miserable little compromise that not even Clegg and the LDs actually want.

I have never said Jenkins was an utterly faultless denunciation of AV, and indeed, mentioned that it has it's weaknesses. Nonetheless, it's as close as we have to an independent assessment and it did indeed "reject" AV. You can argue the grounds on which it did so but it did do so.

[billythewiz]

Jenkins rejected EVERY SINGLE OPTION, except one. It did so by making a single, First Past The Post style recommendation.

The ONLY thing of any importance tomorrow is whether AV is better than FPTP and Jenkins didn't give an answer to that.

Tomorrow, the NO vote will prevail and this WILL be seen as a NO to electoral reform ... of ANY kind.

After tomorrow we will be stuck with FPTP for at least another two generations and in the future, when you vote, you will have a choice of Red or Blue or a variety of ways of NOT voting (stay at home, spoil your ballot, say by putting a X next to Green, Lib/Dem, any independants, UKIP, etc.).

Don't you think it's interesting that when electing their leaders, NONE of the major parties use FPTP. The all use AV in one form or another. The reason is obvious. There are always more than two candidates and FPTP completely unsuitable in that situation.

A vote for AV would be a stepping stone to PR. Once we've used it for a few elections (i.e 10-20 years), the next generation would call for further electoral reform (after all, AV is pretty rubbish), but it's an awful lot better than what we have now.

But with a referendum result of "NO to electoral reform" (which is the result we will get tomorrow) we will be stuck for a very, very long time. I doubt I will see reform in my life time !

We deserve what we get, which is governments with 70% of the parliamentary seats, having polled 35% of the votes !

Hooray for "democracy".

[billythewiz]

I have never said Jenkins was an utterly faultless denunciation of AV, and indeed, mentioned that it has it's weaknesses. Nonetheless, it's as close as we have to an independent assessment and it did indeed "reject" AV. You can argue the grounds on which it did so but it did do so.

It's interesting to see what Jenkins did recommend, given that they had to reject every other possible alternative.

http://www.archive.official-document...090/chap-9.htm

The majority of MPs (80 to 85%) would continue to be elected on an individual constituency basis .... the constituency members should be elected by the Alternative Vote.

So what we are being offered tomorrow is 15% different to the single recommendation by Jenkins.

All members except one (Lord Alexander) thought that AV was better than FPTP for electing the constituency MPs.

So if AV is better than FPTP for electing 85% of the MPs (and party leaders of course), what about 88%, or 92%, or 97% or 100%. It seems perverse to me that AV could be better than FPTP for 85% but not 100%. Of course it is always better.

Interestingly Alexander, in his attempt to justify FPTP, gives an illustrative example of exactly why AV is better ...

Suppose within a constituency, Conservatives receive 40% of first preferences. Labour are second on 31% and Lib Dems third on 29%. Lib Dems second preferences happen to be split 15/14 in favour of Labour. The Conservatives are therefore elected with 54% of the total vote (i.e. 40% + 14%).

But now suppose the position of Labour and Lib Dems had been reversed on first preferences, with Lib Dems 31% and Labour 29%. If Labour second preferences were split 20/9 in favour of Lib Dems, the Lib Dems would be elected with 51% of the total vote (i.e. 31% + 20%). So the result would be different depending on which horse was second ...

That's the whole point of AV. If, when forced to choose, 54% support the Tories, then Blue it is. But if 51% dislike them so much that they would rather have someone else, then I'm sorry, but Blue it isn't.

[petercook7]

It's interesting to see what Jenkins did recommend, given that they had to reject every other possible alternative.

http://www.archive.official-document...090/chap-9.htm



So what we are being offered tomorrow is 15% different to the single recommendation by Jenkins.

All members except one (Lord Alexander) thought that AV was better than FPTP for electing the constituency MPs.

So if AV is better than FPTP for electing 85% of the MPs (and party leaders of course), what about 88%, or 92%, or 97% or 100%. It seems perverse to me that AV could be better than FPTP for 85% but not 100%. Of course it is always better.

Interestingly Alexander, in his attempt to justify FPTP, gives an illustrative example of exactly why AV is better ...



That's the whole point of AV. If, when forced to choose, 54% support the Tories, then Blue it is. But if 51% dislike them so much that they would rather have someone else, then I'm sorry, but Blue it isn't.

With fptp you can change the boundaries to benefit your party and changed the outcome , with AV you can't,that itself is one major reason to vote yes, among many others.

[SeriousSam]

Setting aside my concerns about FPTP and in fact Democracy itself which doesn't work in the best interests of society as a whole, there is one key reason why I will be voting NO. As it stands the general principle under fptp is that you have one for vote for who you want to win. Now I know you can vote tactically to try and prevent a particular party from winning your local seat, but it is still only one vote.

AV tears up this principle and gives people the opportunity to cast more than one vote and in many ways encourages you to do so, meaning that you techincally get more say than someone who only wants to place one vote for the party they want to win.

Perhaps if there were no political parties and you were voting for individuals to form a government then it might be more suitable. But under the current system it exposes us to the risk of wading further into the mire of negative politics, something that we should do our best to avoid.

[Saracen]

Jenkins rejected EVERY SINGLE OPTION, except one. It did so by making a single, First Past The Post style recommendation.

Well, realistically, it had to. Its mandate was to find one option that could be put to the people in a referendum.

The commission wasn't charged with producing a list for Parliament to pick from. It was charged with producing ONE recommendation. To do that, it had to reject everything else, and presumably, give reasons why it did so. That's what it did with AV.

...

The ONLY thing of any importance tomorrow is whether AV is better than FPTP and Jenkins didn't give an answer to that.

Oh, absolutely agreed. We have that binary choice, and Jenkins didn't rank those systems it rejected which, with the exception of the dissenter, included FPTP.

Billy, my use of Jenkins as a reference is not to say Jenkins thought FPTP was better than AV. It didn't make that determination. My point in using Jenkins is when someone says something like "it's fairer than .... " or "more proportional than ....". That, for the detailed reasons given earlier is something Jenkins did not say, and pretty much rejected, albeit in some circumstances. The tables I showed detailed how that could be the case.

My reason for rejecting AV is that I don't see it as fairer, or more proportional. I also don't see it as an option that almost anybody, including most of the Yes campaign, actually want. Even they merely claim it's a step in the right direction, though they rarely demonstrate why that it, at least with anything beyond vague assertions.

I'm not going to vote for a small step in what might or might not be the right direction. As I said earlier, before I decide to jump out of the frying pan, I want to be reasonably sure I'm not jumping into an incinerator. That is an opinion on my part. Others may feel that even if it is a small step at least it's in the right direction. In which case, I guess they'll vote yes. I don't, though.

But when people (as some have) claim that it "is" fairer, not might be or can be, but "is", then I think it's entirely reasonable to use what little actual studies we have to show that expert opinion is that that at the very least not necessarily true. To claim it's a step in the right direction, well, we can argue that, but to claim it's definitely fairer or more proportional flies in the face of the opinion of Jenkins.

....

Tomorrow, the NO vote will prevail and this WILL be seen as a NO to electoral reform ... of ANY kind.

Agreed, at least as to how it'll be used, and a best guess is that the result will be "no" but I hesitate to presume to predict. It depends, among other things, on the turnout. As always, a low turnout favours those that are dedicated or even extremist. It's how left wingers dominated so many unions for several decades .... but that's another argument.

And that it'll be seen as "no to reform" it's a point I've made more than once, and in fact, it's nothing of the sort. It's "no" to that reform, if indeed it's a no.

.... After tomorrow we will be stuck with FPTP for at least another two generations and in the future, when you vote, you will have a choice of Red or Blue or a variety of ways of NOT voting (stay at home, spoil your ballot, say by putting a X next to Green, Lib/Dem, any independants, UKIP, etc.).

Perhaps. But I don't see that as a reason for switching to an untested (in a country like ours) that has the potential not just for greater distortions in proportionality than FPTP, but that not even the leading proponents actually want. I'm not opting to jump into the incinerator just because I can't see the incinerator.

....

Don't you think it's interesting that when electing their leaders, NONE of the major parties use FPTP. The all use AV in one form or another. The reason is obvious. There are always more than two candidates and FPTP completely unsuitable in that situation.

No, I don't see it as relevant, let alone interesting. They're a completely different type of election. I don't see it as telling us much one way or the other. For a start, that type of election produces one winner, and that's that. For a general election, you're electing a huge number of candidates, and that gives rise to the distortions we've seem under FPTP and that might be worse under AV.

....

A vote for AV would be a stepping stone to PR. Once we've used it for a few elections (i.e 10-20 years), the next generation would call for further electoral reform (after all, AV is pretty rubbish), but it's an awful lot better than what we have now.

But with a referendum result of "NO to electoral reform" (which is the result we will get tomorrow) we will be stuck for a very, very long time. I doubt I will see reform in my life time !

We deserve what we get, which is governments with 70% of the parliamentary seats, having polled 35% of the votes !

Hooray for "democracy".

Sadly, that's the predicament we're in, and we're in it because this tawdry little referendum is the result of a back-room stitch-up that was the price, or part of the price, of the LibDems going into coalition and enabling something other than either a Tory minority government, or Brown's Labour limping along despite having clearly lost the election. The Tories may not have quite won, but Labour sure lost, yet we were faced with the prospect of Brown lumbering on, having lost the election and him and his policies having never been given a mandate by us in the first place.

Had the "coalition" agreed to, perhaps, a new Commission to review and update Jenkins, and to have a referendum based on it's recommendations, we might have been given a reasonable choice in the referendum, and it might have some credibility that this miserable little compromise of a back-room deal does not. That, the independent review and a real choice, is the way to run a democracy, not this tawdry stitch-up.

But it's what I've come to expect from our "democracy" which, in very real ways, is nothing of the sort. It is, in many ways, an establishment conjuring trick designed to portray the appearance of participation when in fact, it really doesn't involve real participation.

A classic example is the last national referendum, on membership of the Common Market.

First, the Tories (and this is why I'll despise Ted Heath top my dying day) took us into the Common Market without bothering to ask us. Then, having largely severed traditional ties with much of our traditional market and trading partners, and put ourselves behind the Common Market trading barriers, we then are given an option to leave, but are warned that we'll be cutting our own economic throats if we do. Some democracy, and some choice.

Labour, having been the ones to give us the referendum and advocate so fiercely voting "stay in", then within a few years, switch and are advocating cutting ties,. Then they change direction again. Then the Tories, who took us in in the first place, have Thatcher waving her handbag at Europe with, "non, non, non", and refusing to sign up to the Social Chapter and renegotiating the rebate. Then Labour, who wanted to pull out give up the social chapter opt-out and weasel out of giving us a say on Lisbon. And while all this has been going on, we've had huge amounts of integration, and we've had many, many things happen in the "EU" that we were specifically and explicitly promised would not happen when we were asked in that referendum if we wanted to leave the Common Market. The Common Market morphed into the EEC, then into the EC, and while the name change may not seem significant, the political implications of it are vast.

Our membership of the organisation the EU morphed into has never been put to the people. In fact, we were promised it would not become what it now has.

As you say, hurray for democracy.

We don't have a democracy. We have a conjuring trick where all we do is, one every few years, change the composition of the bunch of arrogant, self-serving fools that make our decisions for us, and we do it by picking from a carefully loaded deck.

What chance does anyone have of getting elected without the endorsement of the major parties? With very rare (and usually in exceptional situations) exceptions, none. And to get yourself onto the candidate list for the major parties, you need to very much tow the party line.

And even once elected, to get real power you need to be in government, not just a back-bencher even in the governing party. And thanks to the whip system, if you want to ever be more than a back-bencher, you will be a good little cog and vote how you're told.

We don't have a real democracy, we have a relatively benign pseudo-elected dictatorship, where we can change the name of the person attached to the bums of seats, but we can;t change the direction of government of the male-up of the power blocks.

So yeah, hurrah for "democracy".

Oh, I'll drag my sorry ass down to the polling station and vote, but I don't expect that it, or the actions of the rest of us, will actually change anything, whether it's FPTP or AV. If we want true democracy, we'd need MUCH more radical reform, and this miserable little compromise isn't even a pimple of the backside of what we need.

Cynical? Me? I'm sure I don't know what you mean.

[danroyle]

No for me.

They have AV in three major countries and they dont like it,

[G4Z]

http://youtu.be/tT9rEZqvSu8

[oolon]

They have AV in three major countries and they dont like it,

And now many have FPTP? What voting system is used for the Mayor of London elected? How are all the party leaders elected? It isn't FPTP.

[Saracen]

....

So what we are being offered tomorrow is 15% different to the single recommendation by Jenkins.
....

Take almost any recent general election, deduct 15% of seats or votes from the winner and give them to the loser and see what happens. Do it on any individual seat and you'd see a huge number of seats change hands. The question, therefore, is whether this would be "fair", and that depends how you assess fair.

....

So if AV is better than FPTP for electing 85% of the MPs (and party leaders of course), what about 88%, or 92%, or 97% or 100%. It seems perverse to me that AV could be better than FPTP for 85% but not 100%. Of course it is always better.

The whole point, without getting into whether I agree or not, of the Jenkins recommendation for the top-up system was that it precisely allows the weaknesses with AV that they identified to be addressed. i.e. it addresses the lack or broad proportionality that will, or even just can result from pure AV.

Just because 85% of something is good for you doesn't mean 100% is.

Air comprises, roughly, 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. I think you'll agree that that 21% turns a pretty lousy system into an acceptable one, for human purposes.

Take almost any recent general election, deduct 15% of seats or votes from the winner and give them to the loser and see what happens. Do it on any individual seat and you'd see a huge number of seats change hands. The question, therefore, is whether this would be "fair", and that depends how you assess fair.

That's the whole point of AV. If, when forced to choose, 54% support the Tories, then Blue it is. But if 51% dislike them so much that they would rather have someone else, then I'm sorry, but Blue it isn't.

You have an interesting issue there.

Our system, as we've always had it and as most other major countries have it, is to vote for someone, not against them. The exception, clearly, is tactical voting, but even then, I'd suggest with most people it comes down to only voting tactically if you think the candidate you really want doesn't stand a chance on their own.

So, for instance, how does a LibDem supported vote?

If that individual feels their candidate is in with a shot, they'll probably vote LD. If they feel their candidate is a no-hoper, they'll maybe vote Labour. I'm assuming the broad principle that LD voters are more likely to go for Labour as a second position than Tory, though from personal experience I can guarantee this is not always the case. I also personally know of some life-long Labour voters that voted Tory because they say they'd never vote LD. Go figure.

So a tactical vote might be a pure "against" vote, but it may only be an against because they figure, perhaps wrongly, that their candidate is a no-hoper.


Now consider this (and I'll keep it a limited list for simplicity).


Round 1:

Tory 48.1%
Labour 39.9%
LibDem 9%
UKIP 3%

UKIP get eliminated, and unhappy with a lack of referendum on the EU, don't express a second preference which otherwise would have been Tory. And the UKIPs voted Tory, that'd have been 51.1% and an outright victory.

Next, the LDs get eliminated and switch to Labour. They didn't really want Labour and certain don't want Brown, but .... the combined gives 48.9%.

We now have a Labour government, elected on 48.9% of the vote (not 50% plus) with a smaller (39.9%) of people that actually want it than with the 48.1

And here's the rub. The single biggest group, those that voted Tory, never got a chance to have their second preference taken into account IF they'd have voted UKIP. It may be that, rather than a LD or Labour government, they'd have voted to the last one for UKIP as second preference. But as I understand the mechanics, that combination, which would give 51.1% to UKIP would not get considered.

Clearly, this example is highly loaded and very unlikely. But it's not hard to imagine circumstances where 2nd, 3rd and even fourth preferences are taken into account that would result in a party going over the top, in a close race, because maybe 2nd preferences of a party that didn't get knocked out weren't taken into account.

Suppose ....

Tory 38%
Labour 36%
LibDem 26%

The LibDems get knocked out and enough, maybe all, of them voted Labour as 2nd Pref. Labour win.

But .... what about the 2nd Prefs of the Tory voters? They're not take into account. Just suppose that those voters, if they knew their party would lose would have, and indeed did, vote LibDem as 2nd Pref because they're desperate to keep Brown out?

Had the Tory vote been slightly less than the LibDem one, the Tories would have been knocked out, and their 2nd Pref, for LibDem, would have given the LD candidate 64%, including 2nd prefs. But, because the LD'ds got knocked out in round one, Labour won with a combined 62%.

We end up with a Labour MP in that set rather than a LD because the second prefs of some voters were counted and the second prefs of others were not. And this is somehow described as "fair".

As soon as you start taking second preferences into account, you open yourself up to this situation. If it is "fair" to take second prefs into account, so that people can vote for one candidate and then against another, it is unfair if the second preferences of the un-eliminated party' voters aren't taken into account too.

And that, by the way, is one reason why we are expected to vote for someone, not against them.

[Saracen]

And now many have FPTP? What voting system is used for the Mayor of London elected? How are all the party leaders elected? It isn't FPTP.

Last time I looked, about 50 countries, or a bit more, use FPTP. That included, as I understand it, the US for all federal elections, including the Senate and House of Representatives. It also included Canada and India. And, the Democratic Republic of Congo.