Bollitics: The AV Referendum

[LondonLax]

That is the Australian model.

AV for the lower house and PR for the upper house.

and it works OK there?

Well we also have compulsary voting so any direct comparisons are a little bit flawed (such as the increase in spoilt ballots)

What generally happens is that people vote one party in to the lower house and the opposite into the upper house meaning there is a forced compromise to get bills through both houses.

[blandy]

...AV is likely to result in coalitions becomng the norm and what I dislike about that is the horse trading that goes on after the vote between the parties. That process pretty much guarantees that whatever platform of policies a given party has campaigned on (and people have voted for) is very unlikely to reflect the eventual programme of government.

I suspect that coalitions will become the norm, or more frequent, even with the FPTP system. The support for the established parties is falling and falling, for all sorts of reasons. This even with the blatantly unfair FPTP system will lead to an evening out of numbers of MPs between the main parties, IMO.

Also you say[the AV] process pretty much guarantees that whatever platform of policies a given party has campaigned on (and people have voted for) is very unlikely to reflect the eventual programme of government - But that is how things ought to be. Why should a mianifesto that has been opposed by 2/3rds of the voters be implemented in its pure form? - in 2005 65% of the people voted against Laboutr, but got a pure labour Gov't and manifesto, and in 2010 64% voted "not tory". There's no natural justification for either labour or Tory manifestos to be implemented wholesale.

[mjmooney]

Why should a mianifesto that has been opposed by 2/3rds of the voters be implemented in its pure form? - in 2005 65% of the people voted against Laboutr, but got a pure labour Gov't and manifesto, and in 2010 64% voted "not tory".

Being slightly pedantic, "not voting FOR" is not quite the same as "voting AGAINST".

Perhaps we should be allowed to post a "negative vote", but as things stand that is not the case.

[Awol]

Also you say[the AV] process pretty much guarantees that whatever platform of policies a given party has campaigned on (and people have voted for) is very unlikely to reflect the eventual programme of government - But that is how things ought to be. Why should a mianifesto that has been opposed by 2/3rds of the voters be implemented in its pure form? - in 2005 65% of the people voted against Laboutr, but got a pure labour Gov't and manifesto, and in 2010 64% voted "not tory". There's no natural justification for either labour or Tory manifestos to be implemented wholesale.

I take your point, but don't like the idea that effectively giving politicians carte-blanche to cobble together whatever compromises the two sides can stomach prevents any real change from occuring. We then end up electing managers rather than leaders and big issues that may need radical action (long term policies like energy, infrastructure, climate, defence etc) tend to get pushed to the right because they are too difficult to reach agreement on.

It smacks of things being fudged imo, and although I wasn't the greatest fan of the Blair/Brown dynasty at least they had the opportunity to implement their vision for the country.

[blandy]

I ...don't like the idea that effectively giving politicians carte-blanche to cobble together whatever compromises the two sides can stomach prevents any real change from occuring. We then end up electing managers rather than leaders and big issues that may need radical action (long term policies like energy, infrastructure, climate, defence etc) tend to get pushed to the right because they are too difficult to reach agreement on.

It smacks of things being fudged imo..

Fair comment. I think, myself, that politicians fudge and shift things to the right as it is, now. There are gazillions of areas where decisions which should have been taken just have not been. Most complicated stuff is delayed and delayed.

Another aspect is that you're right about the need for leadership and leaders, yet we also need managers, we need do-ers and we need people who challenge, people who persuade and all the rest. When a parliament is elected, ideally all of the MPs should contribute to the governing of the nation. They don't do that, though. Some will just go with the party line, unthinkingly. Some will do no more than sort out local matters for their constituents, barely troubling themselves with attending debates and votes. Some do the opposite of that.

Maybe in a system where there are more coalitions, more MPs involvement in decision making will take place.

A consensual system rather than the current system of direct opposition - where people end up voting for things they oppose in order to prop up their own party.

Where the current coalition is working is that the Tory plan to ruin the NHS which under a "normal" gov't would be implemented by now, is being reigned back by their coalition chums. Damage is being prevented. The same has happened with other issues as well. Sometimes "strong Leadership" is a very bad thing. From the witch, to Bliar's war, not much good comes from it.

[Jon]

As usual, I'm with the Blandestine one. All good stuff he's written there, and all reasons why I like AV (or better forms of PR).

I'd prefer more consensual politics.

Consenus politics and coalitions would have seen the poll tax and the like killed before birth.

[bickster]

... and all reasons why I like AV (or better forms of PR).

AV. IS. NOT. PR.

[bickster]

AV is the away goals rule of voting.

[bickster]

That is the Australian model.

AV for the lower house and PR for the upper house.

and it works OK there?

No recent survey suggested 60% of population wanted to change it

EDIT: and iirc in their PR vote if you only put one preference your votes transfer how the party of your initial vote wants them to. Which is hugely wrong

EDIT 2: FWIW I think the Aus dual house method has some validity but lower house should be AV AND devoid of political parties, The Upper House should be PR and include parties

[Jon]

... and all reasons why I like AV (or better forms of PR).

AV. IS. NOT. PR.

I know mate. I did study it at degree level (albeit some 15-20 years ago now).

When looking at voting reform and PR though, it's lobbed in there. It's obviously not PR.

It's an enhanced form of FPTP.

Not great, but better than what we have.

[LondonLax]

That is the Australian model.

AV for the lower house and PR for the upper house.

and it works OK there?

No recent survey suggested 60% of population wanted to change it

EDIT: and iirc in their PR vote if you only put one preference your votes transfer how the party of your initial vote wants them to. Which is hugely wrong

EDIT 2: FWIW I think the Aus dual house method has some validity but lower house should be AV AND devoid of political parties, The Upper House should be PR and include parties

No your first EDIT is incorrect. In the Australian system of AV that would count as a spoilt ballot. For the vote to count you have to rank every party on the paper.

Perhaps you are thinking of the "how to vote cards"? Each party has an ideal order of preferences depending on which other parties policies fit their own best and so they all compete to give you an example of a filled in ballot paper when you walk in (with their party first obviously). If you are a fan of that party then you may well decide to follow their suggested order of preferences.

[mjmooney]

AV is the away goals rule of voting.

So what's a penalty shootout?

[bickster]

No your first EDIT is incorrect. In the Australian system of AV that would count as a spoilt ballot. For the vote to count you have to rank every party on the paper.

My knowledge was only cleaned from visiting last year and reading the odd paper in the run up top last years election and having the missus' uncle try and explain it to me (quite badly), so I'll bow to your more intimate knowledge. But from what you've just said, there is something fundamentally wrong with that system. Forcing people to vote for every party cannot be correct in my mind, its like forcing me for example to chose between voting National Front and BNP over here, I'd rather not waste ink or brain power deciding who was "better" out of the two. Recorded abstention should definitely be a part of the democratic process, as should "none of the above".

[mjmooney]

Forcing people to vote for every party cannot be correct in my mind, its like forcing me for example to chose between voting National Front and BNP over here, I'd rather not waste ink or brain power deciding who was "better" out of the two. Recorded abstention should definitely be a part of the democratic process, as should "none of the above".

Totally agree. There should be an "x" option, for "Not under any circumstances".

[bickster]

AV is the away goals rule of voting.

So what's a penalty shootout?

I've changed my mind, it's the Ski Jumping of voting. You can jump the furthest only lose because you weren't stylish enough

[LondonLax]

No your first EDIT is incorrect. In the Australian system of AV that would count as a spoilt ballot. For the vote to count you have to rank every party on the paper.

My knowledge was only cleaned from visiting last year and reading the odd paper in the run up top last years election and having the missus' uncle try and explain it to me (quite badly), so I'll bow to your more intimate knowledge. But from what you've just said, there is something fundamentally wrong with that system. Forcing people to vote for every party cannot be correct in my mind, its like forcing me for example to chose between voting National Front and BNP over here, I'd rather not waste ink or brain power deciding who was "better" out of the two. Recorded abstention should definitely be a part of the democratic process, as should "none of the above".

Yes I’d think a lot of Australians may well agree.

That is why the survey being discussed about 60% of Australians wanting a change to FPTP over compulsory preferential voting has to be taken with a pinch of salt (like all statistics). There was no option in that particular survey for non compulsory alternative voting, as offered here in May, which a lot of people may well also prefer.

EDIT: The argument for why it is done that way in Australia is so there are no "exhausted" ballots i.e. everyone’s vote eventually gets counted. It ties in with Australia’s compulsory voting.

[bickster]

Ah fair enough, good point.

Just like this referendum itself is flawed by not offering a No option because the reform simply does not go anywhere near far enough (or Yes I'm in favour of electoral reform but this isn't it option)

[LondonLax]

Ah fair enough, good point.

Just like this referendum itself is flawed by not offering a No option because the reform simply does not go anywhere near far enough (or Yes I'm in favour of electoral reform but this isn't it option)

Yes but there is no way the Tories would have agreed to risking that question on the paper!

[bickster]

Ah fair enough, good point.

Just like this referendum itself is flawed by not offering a No option because the reform simply does not go anywhere near far enough (or Yes I'm in favour of electoral reform but this isn't it option)

Yes but there is no way the Tories would have agreed to risking that question on the paper!

Quite, turkeys will never vote for christmas. They know that more and more people are questioning the way we do things in this country politically. The disaffected with the system now probably do outweigh those that are happy (on my empirical evidence which admittedly is very flawed) and this is referendum is seen by the Tories of at least keeping something close to the status quo. If they allowed that question it would send shock waves through Parliament and they know it. This way, they are keeping interest in democratic change to a minimum (as there isn't really much on offer) but can use it even if it does change the way we vote say that a) they changed the system and save their own privileges and perks.

[Awol]

Where the current coalition is working is that the Tory plan to ruin the NHS which under a "normal" gov't would be implemented by now, is being reigned back by their coalition chums. Damage is being prevented.

OT but an interesting comment. It seems to me that Cameron is fully signed up to the leftist view that the state should have the monopoly on delivering healthcare, not because of the lib dems or because it's the most successful means of delivery, but because that's probably where his pollsters perceive the majority of public opinion to be.

Personally I fully support the concept of healthcare funded from general taxation and free at the point of use, but question whether the state is best placed to deliver that most effectively.

Hospitals in the US are generally far superior to our own, so the idea that introducing a profit element necessarily leads to poor service/treatment is a classic scare tactic of those who don't want reform. The evidence suggests that competition and introducing a business ethnic generally drives better efficiency, performance and outcomes in healthcare. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that the state monopolised model is inefficient, has poorer outcomes than expected for the resources put in and is grossly bloated in the ranks of its administrators and middle managers.

What's interesting is that politicians cannot have an honest debate about the merits of both views without hysterical shrieks (not directed at you btw) that they want to kill universal healthcare.