Bollitics: The AV Referendum

[bickster]

Nah, if this gets accepted there will be a clear and legitimate argument that you cannot change the voting system again. It'll take 20 plus years for anything similar to be on the agenda again, most political commentators (of any persuasion you like) will tell you that repeatedly changing the voting system in elections will lead to instability.

The whole little by little approach will not work, it's too long winded, we'll be dead before we get PR under that approach.

It's not a step in the right direction either, its a step to the left and treading in cowshit. Offering people the chance for change which isn't really change at all is just a con job imo. Offering a vote for change so people get seduced by a new exciting voting system that changes nothing is just that, a con job.

How can offering some people more chances to vote than others based on their initial choices be fairer than one man one vote, its not, its unequal. Its not fairer, its certainly not more representative and its almost certainly no more democratic than the shite system we have now.

MP's will still be getting in with less than 30% of the initial vote, the rest is just giving people who support minority parties more bites at the cherry. If you support Labour or the Tories in the majority of the seats you need not bother transferring your votes. If you support the Liberals in most seats you'll get at least 2 chances to vote eh? what can possibly be "fair" about that?

Voting No will not stop people wanting change, that message will still come across loud and clear. Voting Yes will delay any talk or PR for some good time to come especially as the AV system will silence the LibDems as they will be the main beneficiaries of it. (they being the only PR positive party at the last election)

[Gringo]

Nah, if this gets accepted there will be a clear and legitimate argument that you cannot change the voting system again. It'll take 20 plus years for anything similar to be on the agenda again

Nah, if this gets rejected there will be a clear and legitimate argument that you cannot change the voting system again - the people will have had their say. Whatever the result of this vote, there will not be another one for 20 years.

If it gets accepted then over a period of time a lot of smaller parties will get increased representation - not massively, but an increase in the non-blue/yellow/red MPs currently sitting. And so in 20 years time there is a chance a fairer system will be proposed. A no vote leaves representation firmly in the hands of punch & judy who will only move towards change if it favours their party (as seen by judy's current support for the yes camp despite sitting in the no camp for the past decade).

[Jon]

I'm still worried that AV will enable guilt free second choice votes for the BNP. As somebody who lives in a town where the BNP always run and there have been numerous EDL marches over the past year, I am voting no.

Can see your reasoning Rev, but for me, the BNP and their ilk should be defeated by argument, debate and information, not through the flaws of an unfair and antiquated voting system.

there is also the argument that if a movement/party has that level of support, their points and arguments, such as they are, deserve to be heard, as abhorrent as they are. Hear them, and defeat them.

[Jon]

Nah, if this gets accepted there will be a clear and legitimate argument that you cannot change the voting system again. It'll take 20 plus years for anything similar to be on the agenda again

Nah, if this gets rejected there will be a clear and legitimate argument that you cannot change the voting system again - the people will have had their say. Whatever the result of this vote, there will not be another one for 20 years.

If it gets accepted then over a period of time a lot of smaller parties will get increased representation - not massively, but an increase in the non-blue/yellow/red MPs currently sitting. And so in 20 years time there is a chance a fairer system will be proposed. A no vote leaves representation firmly in the hands of punch & judy who will only move towards change if it favours their party (as seen by judy's current support for the yes camp despite sitting in the no camp for the past decade).

fully agree Grings.

I also feel badly let down by Judy this past decade and a bit, especially after all their guff pre 97 about PR, electoral reform and reform of the H of L etc. It was all bollcks sadly.

However, hopefully now Judy has a new puppetmaster things may change...

[The_Rev]

I'm still worried that AV will enable guilt free second choice votes for the BNP. As somebody who lives in a town where the BNP always run and there have been numerous EDL marches over the past year, I am voting no.

Can see your reasoning Rev, but for me, the BNP and their ilk should be defeated by argument, debate and information, not through the flaws of an unfair and antiquated voting system.

there is also the argument that if a movement/party has that level of support, their points and arguments, such as they are, deserve to be heard, as abhorrent as they are. Hear them, and defeat them.

It's easy to say that when you dont have knuckle dragging words removed

running around your town though.

[blandy]

The BNP are against AV and For the current system, presumably because they think the current system benefits their chances more.

[bickster]

The BNP are against AV and For the current system, presumably because they think the current system benefits their chances more.

It does, as I keep saying, AV has the effect over time of further marginalising minority parties. Doesn't matter if its the BNP or the Communist Party of GB or the Monster Raving Loonies, they will be further marginalised. The only two effects AV will have in this country is to further marginalise the smaller parties and ensure we keep our three main parties exactly as they are. Blues and Red's first and second with the yellows benefiting a little from the other two and more likely to hold the balance of power than they previously did.

So more power to the party that comes third than the one that comes second? Is that fair? And Yes I know that is exactly what happened this time around, it's more likely to happen more often under AV. We could end up with 20 or 30 years with the LibDems holding the balance of power & in Government and as they are the only main party who currently support PR, if this system gets them what they want, a taste of government, they aren't suddenly going to start banging the PR drum again (given that they've shown their true colours this time around).

[NulliSecundus]

I'm still worried that AV will enable guilt free second choice votes for the BNP. As somebody who lives in a town where the BNP always run and there have been numerous EDL marches over the past year, I am voting no.

The BNP will never get 50% approval in any constituency so therefore they'd lose big time in this IMO. You don't have to vote for more than one person either, the great thing about it for those who like their FPTP vote.

[tonyh29]

The BNP will never get 50% approval

the winning candidate always obtains 50% of the votes cast the two or three candidates that are still in the race after the losing candidates have been eliminated –

not 50% of all the votes cast ..

no idea if that means one and the same thing though :confused:

AV is not really the solution with respect to addressing peoples wider concerns so it needs to be confined to the dustbin imo , we need to reform the voting system properly and not just implement some half arsed idea

[Jon]

we need to reform the voting system properly and not just implement some half arsed idea

Really? You're in favour of a more pure PR voting system Tone?

[tonyh29]

we need to reform the voting system properly and not just implement some half arsed idea

Really? You're in favour of a more pure PR voting system Tone?

AV+ looked the better system from what I saw of it but doesn't achieve full proportionality

My preference for AV+ is that (on paper) it removes the evil that is tactical voting.

[Gringo]

we need to reform the voting system properly and not just implement some half arsed idea

Really? You're in favour of a more pure PR voting system Tone?

Nah, he's obviously referring to The MasterPlan or future state as it is known.

[NulliSecundus]

The BNP will never get 50% approval

the winning candidate always obtains 50% of the votes cast the two or three candidates that are still in the race after the losing candidates have been eliminated –

not 50% of all the votes cast ..

no idea if that means one and the same thing though :confused:

AV is not really the solution with respect to addressing peoples wider concerns so it needs to be confined to the dustbin imo , we need to reform the voting system properly and not just implement some half arsed idea

No hence why I went for 'approval' rather than the word 'vote'.

I think it's better than FPTP personally, hence why I'm voting yes. PR is a better system, but I think this is pretty good and it doesn't require multiple candidates from each constituency being elected like some PR systems would require. Can only be a good thing, a little more say?

[bickster]

a little more say?

Still not sure how anyone comes to this conclusion tbh

[Condimentalist]

we need to reform the voting system properly and not just implement some half arsed idea

Really? You're in favour of a more pure PR voting system Tone?

AV+ looked the better system from what I saw of it but doesn't achieve full proportionality

My preference for AV+ is that (on paper) it removes the evil that is tactical voting.

That's my preference as well.

[bickster]

AV+ at least has a degree of proportionality to it, its still shite though. Having said that if it was AV+ on offer I'd at least be voting yes because that is genuinely a step in the right direction. Though its all a bit of a nonsense until we have two directly elected and very different chambers in Parliament. Electoral reform needs to be about much much more than the actual voting system used.

[Gringo]

The case for

Yet the people of England, and the peoples of the other nations of the UK, have never been offered any opportunity to set the basic rules of our democracy. This is the first time that the people have been given a say about how we elect members of parliament. If there is a more important subject for a referendum than that, I can't think of it.

Having virtually nothing positive to say about obsolete and broken first past the post, the anti-reformers are conducting one of the most negative campaigns ever witnessed. They started by alleging that moving to AV would make elections hugely more expensive. The Yes campaign were generous to their opponents when they described that claim as "flawed". A better word would be "fraudulent". Then the abominable No men argued that British voters will find AV too "complex" and "confusing". We are apparently too stupid to be able to rank candidates in order of preference; we are too thick to write 1,2,3. They deserve to lose just for that insult to the intelligence of the British people.

Most of the No campaign's attacks on AV are self-evident rubbish. But they have recently advanced an argument that deserves more attention, because it has enough superficial plausibility that it could frighten the public into clinging to the status quo. This is the argument that AV privileges the supporters of minority parties over those who vote for the major parties. To try to make this argument more scary, they claim the BNP will love AV. We can tell the No campaign think they might have a trump card with this one, because it is a claim which has started to feature very heavily in their propaganda.

Yet if AV really would be such a boost to fascists you'd expect the BNP to be enthusiasts for it. They are actually campaigning on the No side. It is our current electoral system which increases the risk that extremist parties will prosper because first past the post allows fascists to be elected on a minority of the vote. Under AV, by contrast, successful candidates must seek the backing of a majority of voters, which makes it harder, not easier, for extremist parties to thrive because few supporters of other parties will make the BNP their second choice. AV is, in fact, the most extremist-resistant electoral system.

It is a method of holding an exhaustive ballot without having to ask voters to make repeat visits to the polling station to come up with a winner. Consider a straightforward example. Mr Grey, Mrs Purple and Miss White stand for election. In the first round, if one of them attracts the support of more than half of the voters, that person is elected. Each voter has voted once. If none of the contenders can command majority backing first time around, the candidate with the least support drops out and there is a second round. Let us say that Mr Grey – not a popular chap – is the candidate eliminated. The second preferences of his supporters are now redistributed between Mrs Purple and Miss White.

So, yes, you can say that Mr Grey's supporters have voted again. But, crucially, so too have the original supporters of Mrs Purple and Miss White. Their first round vote counts again in the second round to contribute to the voting totals which decide the winner. And this is true however many rounds take place until someone has a majority of the votes. Under AV, all votes are equal.

Now, there is a different electoral system in which some votes do count for a great deal more than others. There is an electoral system under which the complexion of the government is usually decided by a minority of voters in the minority of seats that are swing marginals. There is an electoral system which induces politicians to pander only to this minority of voters rather than encouraging them to reach out more widely. There is a system under which extremists, whom the majority would never want to see elected, can nevertheless win seats with minority support.

That system is called first past the post.

The referendum is flawed in that we only have two options - a little change or 'as we were', but in terms of increased democratic represntation there is only one answer available. The people must vote yes.

[El Zen]

I certainly agree with those who say AV isn't close to good enough, but I think you should vote yes. A 'no' would block any reform for years and years.

[Super-Villan]

I certainly agree with those who say AV isn't close to good enough, but I think you should vote yes. A 'no' would block any reform for years and years.

I think almost exactly the opposite. (Or at least that it could work both ways.)

A yes vote and the politicians would think they've satisfied the urge for electoral reform and nothing else will be done for a long time.

A no vote and I believe reform of a better kind could be more likely in the future. Plus it would give the libs a bloody nose and hopefully do a lot of damage to the coallition.

[Jon]

The case for

Yet the people of England, and the peoples of the other nations of the UK, have never been offered any opportunity to set the basic rules of our democracy. This is the first time that the people have been given a say about how we elect members of parliament. If there is a more important subject for a referendum than that, I can't think of it.

Having virtually nothing positive to say about obsolete and broken first past the post, the anti-reformers are conducting one of the most negative campaigns ever witnessed. They started by alleging that moving to AV would make elections hugely more expensive. The Yes campaign were generous to their opponents when they described that claim as "flawed". A better word would be "fraudulent". Then the abominable No men argued that British voters will find AV too "complex" and "confusing". We are apparently too stupid to be able to rank candidates in order of preference; we are too thick to write 1,2,3. They deserve to lose just for that insult to the intelligence of the British people.

Most of the No campaign's attacks on AV are self-evident rubbish. But they have recently advanced an argument that deserves more attention, because it has enough superficial plausibility that it could frighten the public into clinging to the status quo. This is the argument that AV privileges the supporters of minority parties over those who vote for the major parties. To try to make this argument more scary, they claim the BNP will love AV. We can tell the No campaign think they might have a trump card with this one, because it is a claim which has started to feature very heavily in their propaganda.

Yet if AV really would be such a boost to fascists you'd expect the BNP to be enthusiasts for it. They are actually campaigning on the No side. It is our current electoral system which increases the risk that extremist parties will prosper because first past the post allows fascists to be elected on a minority of the vote. Under AV, by contrast, successful candidates must seek the backing of a majority of voters, which makes it harder, not easier, for extremist parties to thrive because few supporters of other parties will make the BNP their second choice. AV is, in fact, the most extremist-resistant electoral system.

It is a method of holding an exhaustive ballot without having to ask voters to make repeat visits to the polling station to come up with a winner. Consider a straightforward example. Mr Grey, Mrs Purple and Miss White stand for election. In the first round, if one of them attracts the support of more than half of the voters, that person is elected. Each voter has voted once. If none of the contenders can command majority backing first time around, the candidate with the least support drops out and there is a second round. Let us say that Mr Grey – not a popular chap – is the candidate eliminated. The second preferences of his supporters are now redistributed between Mrs Purple and Miss White.

So, yes, you can say that Mr Grey's supporters have voted again. But, crucially, so too have the original supporters of Mrs Purple and Miss White. Their first round vote counts again in the second round to contribute to the voting totals which decide the winner. And this is true however many rounds take place until someone has a majority of the votes. Under AV, all votes are equal.

Now, there is a different electoral system in which some votes do count for a great deal more than others. There is an electoral system under which the complexion of the government is usually decided by a minority of voters in the minority of seats that are swing marginals. There is an electoral system which induces politicians to pander only to this minority of voters rather than encouraging them to reach out more widely. There is a system under which extremists, whom the majority would never want to see elected, can nevertheless win seats with minority support.

That system is called first past the post.

The referendum is flawed in that we only have two options - a little change or 'as we were', but in terms of increased democratic represntation there is only one answer available. The people must vote yes.

I don't know how anybody can read all of that and still vote No, to be honest.

The No campaign simply seems to be centred on various forms of scaremongering.

Has there been any opinion poll research done on this? I wonder where we stand a few weeks before the big vote...