Alternative Vote

[TeePee]

Yes or No?

I'm a fan of any change toward more proportional representation.

[Nerval]

Anything that will stop the stranglehold of the big parties is to be welcomed. When you have a "safe" seat and can treat the ballot box as a formality however much damage you do to the country, then the system needs changing..

that said, I'm not sure half the people entitled to vote are rational enough to do so. but then I am a bit of a fascist I suppose.

[cptwhite_uk]

I think the benefits out weigh any negatives, so I will be voting in favour of AV.

This was a very interesting article:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bageh...1/04/av_debate

It suggests that the form of AV we're proposing to implement should be somewhat diluted by the fact we're not being forced to vote for every party in order of preference.

[Barrichello]

Nope, FPTP please. Will be voting no.

[peterb]

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.

[pauldarkside]

What next? Adopt the F1GP points system to keep things interesting? Egg and spoon races?

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?

I'm inclined to keep things as they are.

[Blitzen]

To use the AV in this country is just ridiculous!
To be fair, FPTP is a good concept, but was completely disregarded and ABUSED TO ITS FULLEST in the last election here, just so two parties that did not win the election could grab their first (and last) taste of power!
I despise the tories, but they were indeed FPTP and should've been installed as a sole leadership.
Nick Clegg couldn't win an arse kicking competition against a bloke with one leg, but he still managed to slime his way into a position of power.

[blueball]

I can't decide!

[Terbinator]

To use the AV in this country is just ridiculous!
To be fair, FPTP is a good concept, but was completely disregarded and ABUSED TO ITS FULLEST in the last election here, just so two parties that did not win the election could grab their first (and last) taste of power!
I despise the tories, but they were indeed FPTP and should've been installed as a sole leadership.
Nick Clegg couldn't win an arse kicking competition against a bloke with one leg, but he still managed to slime his way into a position of power.

They wasn't, and that is why we have a 'coalition'.

[Blitzen]

They wasn't, and that is why we have a 'coalition'.

Technically, the didn't reach the post but they did have the most votes.
It's very undemocratic for a supposed democracy, the way things turned out.

[Andy3536]

Defenatly no!

Lib Dems only want it as they'll almost certainly get more number 2 votes than anyone else. The only thing that worrys me is i think voter turnout will be low. I don't know anyone that thinks this is a good idea, but the majority arn't voting.

[santa claus]

My first vote in this poll is 'No'. If in AV style I had the chance of a second vote, in this poll it would have been a Hobson's choice 'Yes'. Won't that mean that I could be helping the 'Yes' voters to win even though my preference is 'No'. Sod that .

[Saracen]

Yes or No?

I'm a fan of any change toward more proportional representation.

But would it? There's certainly such well-respected and pretty impartial opinion that says it'd be less PR not more so.

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. Oh, the LibDems would have gained and had a more proportional share of power, but the Tories would (according to the report) have suffered badly and been far less representative of PR.


They cite "one highly reputable estimate" that suggests the following, re: the 1997 election :-


Total voting = 31,286,284 (approx 71.46% turnout)

Share of vote :
Party      % share   % share       % share
           of vote   of seats      of seats
            FPTP     (actual)       AV (1)

Labour     43.21%     63.43%        68.59%
Tory       30.69%     25.04%        14.57%
LibDems    16.76%      6.98%        12.44%

(1) Per Jenkins report

Seats under different systems

Party      Seats   Seats per   Seats per
           FPTP     PR          AV (1)

Labour     418       285        452
Tory       165       202         96
LibDems     46       110         82

(1) Per Jenkins report

That first table shows the disparity between the % of the vote under FPTP, and the % of seats in Parliament it actually resulted in, in the first two columns, with the % of seats it would have (per the Jenkins quoted "one highly reputable estimate" source) under AV. This, clearly, is an estimate, but among the best we have.

First conclusion : Labour got 43% of the vote and 63% of the seats. I have moaned about this many times, and it's clearly a distortion from a straight PR.

The Tories and LDs paid the price, with Tories getting 30.69% of the vote and only 25.04% of seats, and the LDs did even worse with 16.76% of the vote and 6.98% of seats.

But that "one highly reputable estimate" suggests that under AV, the Tories would have dropped to 96 seats, (i.e 14.57% of seats, from 30.69% of the vote).

So, the projection is that while the LD imbalance would have been largely corrected by AV (which hints at why they at least half-heartedly support it), it would also have resulted in the already overstated (as per PR) majority Labour had being substantially increased as well, meaning 43.21% of the vote resulted in 63% of seats under FPTP going up to 68% under AV.

So, I'll ask again, is AV a step in the direction of PR?

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.

There may well be other valid reasons to vote yes, not least that voting "no" is likely to be treated as a referendum vote against electoral reform, when in fact it should not be treated as vote against anything other than that reform. Many of those against it are against it for different reasons. some because it's a reform away from FPTP, and some because it goes in the wrong direction when they want PR.

I haven't yet finally made up my mind. I'm still thinking about it, and trying to get the implications straight in my head. I voted "no" in this poll, because that's the way I'm leaning.


But, I think my real objection to the proposed change to AV is that it is NOT the result of any proper democratic consultation, not the result of widespread informed debate. And from what I can gather, not actually much motivating the people, many of whom (from TV interviews) don't seem to understand how AV works, much less the implications of the change.

If we are going to reform the system, and I am emphatically in favour of that, we deserve a proper, coherent long-term debate about it. We, and I mean we the people, deserve to have out politicians actually make the case for (and against) the other possible systems, like AV plus, STV, etc, and not just shove a referendum at us as a result of a tawdry little back room deal between the Tory and LD leadership as part of being able to cobble together a deal that put them both into a coalition government that isn't actually what anyone voted for.

We've had precious little explanation of what's going to happen if we vote yes. Oh, we've had a puerile little leaflet that explains the mechanics of how it works, but nobody has really bothered to explain how it affects democracy, and the party leaders have, up to now, two weeks before the election, been almost totally silent on the matter.

If it's so flaming important to our democracy as to justify the first referendum in 40-ish years (despite those we were promised and didn't get), how come Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, et al, and bending our ears about it every chance they get instead of apparently pretending it isn't happening?


So right now, my vote will be "no", if on no basis beyond that for all it's faults, I understand how the current system works, both in mechanics and the implications, and I don't feel like indulging in a huge experiment with our constitution when it amounts to something akin to a leap in the dark, justified by nothing but faith and a little leaflet.

Better the devil you know. I don't like the current system much, but I don't dislike it enough to vote for what Clegg described as a "miserable little compromise", simply on the basis that it isn't what we have right now.

So, on the remote chance that any of our politicians might actually be reading this and listening, how about doing us the courtesy of a properly informed and argued debate, and a proper choice of options, instead of throwing us this tiny titbit of a bone and pretending it's serious electoral reform? Don't do it on the quick, on the cheap and pretty much on the quiet. Do it properly, over a decent period and with real consultation with us rather than just presenting us with this political conjuring trick with the usual illusion of caring what we think.

[Terbinator]

Ahhh, welcome back to AS politics, thanks for that Saracen - it was a nice nostalgia trip

IIRC I believe Jenkins recommended AV+ in the report.

[Lucio]

I'm happy with the current system, because I vote for the candidate, not their political party.

[chrestomanci]

Anything that will stop the stranglehold of the big parties is to be welcomed. When you have a "safe" seat and can treat the ballot box as a formality however much damage you do to the country, then the system needs changing..

Agreed. Nothing is worse than a sitting MP in a safe seat who has been there for 20 years, always gets re-elected, and spends most of his time not rocking the boat with the party leadership.

IMHO, the recent wave of violent protests we have seen recently (Tuiton fees, Cuts etc) can be partly attributed to our broken electoral system. Middle England and the Daily Mail have been quick to condemn the protesters, and to say that they should be peaceful, or should write to their MPs, but I dare say most of middle England have not written to their MP recently about a matter of government policy and found what a fruitless exercise it is.

I dare say that if you write to your MP complaining about noisy neighbours, or suchlike then they will try to help you, but If you write to your MP disagreeing with party policy then you are wasting your time. The MP cares much more about what the party leadership thinks of them than what the constituents do. Even if thousands of people write in, it will only provoke a U-Turn if it was something that the government was not to strongly attached to in the first place.

Until we have an electoral system where every vote counts, and every MP could loose their seat if they upset their constituents, then we won't get MPs who listen. If MPs are not listening, then it is natural that people try to make their views heard in other ways. Mass turn out demonstrations are one way, but seeing as 3 million demonstrated against the Iraq war and it still happened many people think that it makes no difference. A small number of people can have a far greater effect by getting violent and smashing things. They get plenty of news coverage for several days, and they get people thinking about the issues.

So how should we fix the electoral system?

Short of something completely different. (Like the hybrid list system they use in Finland), I would take AV, and tweak it so that it combines in a primary. Each party would be required to put at least three candidates on the ballot. If you vote for one of them without expressing other preferences, then the system would automatically fill in second and third choices for the other candidates from the same party, but if you do put in preferences, even to different parties, then they would be honoured.

That way, even in a very safe seat the sitting MP would find himself fighting each election against two young turks who want his seat. He will only be safe if he has not pissed of to many voters who might wonder if one of the young upstarts would do a better job. The man in the street who has "Voted Labour all my life" Can vote against the arrogant MP who has been ignoring the public for the whole of the last parliament while still voting for their preferred party.

I doubt it would ever happen though.