Bollitics: The AV Referendum

[bickster]

Which No campaign? The silly one or the doesn't go far enough and is pointless one?

I can read Gringo's post and actually disagree with a lot of it. In the Mr Grey and Mrs Purple one, saying that everyone gets another vote in the second round is totally missing a point. It's not another vote, its only another vote for those that backed the loser of the previous round, you can't change your mind so the vote is the same vote. In Britain anyone that votes for the two main contenders in any constituency may as well only vote once, the rest of your preferences simply will not count

The point about AV not favouring smaller parties like the BNP is correct, I keep saying this but if anything it is scaremongering its is using the BNP as an example. It highlights the point I've been saying all along. AV will make it harder for smaller parties to get a foot in the door. Replace the BNP with RESPECT and does it sound quite the same. Saying that AV will marginalise the BNP sounds great, saying that marginalising all smaller parties, does that really sound as good? I think not, we need more varied opinions in Parliament not less and even though AV represents a change, it represents a worse one, one with less chance of marginal voices being heard.

Some people on one side of the debate are mounting a negative campaign? so it must be bad? Sorry I don't really follow the logic there. Another point here is that where AV has been used it tends to lead to a lot of negative campaigning in elections too. Though that of course may not be applicable to the UK it does kind of offer a different experience to the idea that AV will make politicians "pander" to a wider electorate, there is little evidence to support this idea at all. It's just a bit of a glib idea with no real basis behind it. It's a thought and one that may not be correct at all.

Those arguments Gringo brings forward contain a whole heap of scaremongering too.

[Awol]

[A no vote and I believe reform of a better kind could be more likely in the future.

Agreed.

Plus it would give the libs a bloody nose and hopefully do a lot of damage to the coallition.

Why? Neither Libs or Tories had AV in their election manifesto. The LD position was for PR and the Tories are clearly wedded to FPTP. AV is a buggers muddle somewhere in between.

EDIT: ^ Well said Bickster.

[Jon]

Which No campaign? The silly one or the doesn't go far enough and is pointless one?

Apologies matey. I had kinda gone "fission", and thought you may bite at that.

But we know your position on this.

Not one I agree with, but at least it's consistent.

In the absense of BIAD, I'm with Grings.

[Jon]

Why? Neither Libs or Tories had AV in their election manifesto.

Labour used to have (forms of) PR, and reform of the H of L in their manifestos when I was voting for them.

Stangely , neither got introduced once they'd got in .... :evil:

[LondonLax]

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.

Who do you think is going to propose a more progressive form of electorial reform if this vote fails?

The big two parties don't want any form of proportional representation so they will not be proposing it.

The Lib dems will ask for it again but will be a minority force, they will be told they had their chance with this AV referendum and the people didn't want change.

[Super-Villan]

I'm not sure if a form of PR will be proposed after this, perhaps it won't be. But I think there is more chance of it if AV doesn't go through, for the reasons I've outlined. And I'm unsure right now that AV is enough of an improvement to risk that chance in voting for it.

The libs may not have had AV in their manifesto, but they have proposed this system now and Clegg is putting everything behind it. Make no mistake that it would be a bloody nose for them if AV is rejected. And a bloody nose right now will put more pressure on them, especially any lib dem MPs in marginal seats. It could cause a lot of damage to the coalition as a whole. And for me that's a good thing.

[bickster]

The Lib dems will ask for it again but will be a minority force, they will be told they had their chance with this AV referendum and the people didn't want change.

And if AV wins... The LibDems will probably have more seats than they've had since WWII and probably little difference to what they'd get under PR.

You think they'll push for PR as much when they are in the midst of a system which gives them a much greater chance of being in Govt as the third party, every single election?

Whatever happens here, the Liberal Democrats are not going to be the main force for changing the voting system because of what we've both highlighted. The main force for change must come from the people. But I do suspect that they'll at least be a voice if this fails, I suspect they won't give a crap for at least thirty years if this succeeds

[NulliSecundus]

Bicks are you the mysterious donor to the No campaign? You are very passionate that FPTP is the answer over AV.

[bickster]

Bicks are you the mysterious donor to the No campaign? You are very passionate that FPTP is the answer over AV.

Do me a favour and read what I've written. Neither are the answer but theres no point in changing one stupid system for another equally stupid system. They are both stupid and AV presents so little a change its hardly worth it, I'd say its disadvantages outweigh its advantages.

I'm not in favour of FPTP, I just don't see the point in replacing it with something equally as dumb

[Super-Villan]

Bicks are you the mysterious donor to the No campaign? You are very passionate that FPTP is the answer over AV.

Do me a favour and read what I've written. Neither are the answer but theres no point in changing one stupid system for another equally stupid system. They are both stupid and AV presents so little a change its hardly worth it, I'd say its disadvantages outweigh its advantages.

I'm not in favour of FPTP, I just don't see the point in replacing it with something equally as dumb

Quite.

The referendum needed two questions to be of any use really. The first obviously being 'Do you think the current FPTP' voting system needs to be changed?' Otherwise it's pretty pointless.

But they wouldn't have had the balls for that.

[Jon]

Bicks are you the mysterious donor to the No campaign? You are very passionate that FPTP is the answer over AV.

Do me a favour and read what I've written. Neither are the answer but theres no point in changing one stupid system for another equally stupid system. They are both stupid and AV presents so little a change its hardly worth it, I'd say its disadvantages outweigh its advantages.

I'm not in favour of FPTP, I just don't see the point in replacing it with something equally as dumb

Quite.

The referendum needed two questions to be of any use really. The first obviously being 'Do you think the current FPTP' voting system needs to be changed?' Otherwise it's pretty pointless.

But they wouldn't have had the balls for that.

What would the 2nd question be? and would you ask it at the same time?

I think a referendum has to be quite straightforward TBH. You don't want to ask people if we should change the voting system, and then what to (giving them a number of options, so more complex than others).

You have to give them a simple choice IMO. Which they have. It's just not the right choice in most eyes.

But still, it's one system or the other, and for me AV > FPTP every day of the week.

It's reform. It's just not radical reform. And it's reform for the better, for me.

[bickster]

Simple question. Why is AV "better"?

[Jon]

I've mentioned quite a few reasons already in this thread Gareth. Also for the reasons Pete has detailed.

The fact that you don't accept these doesn't mean they're not valid reasons.

I don't want to have to repeat them all again for you to have a go at debunking them again.

I think at some point mate you'll have to accept that some of us on here would prefer AV to FPTP, whilst still recognising its limitations.

[Jon]

It'll marginalise extremist parties - not small parties.

How? Its a simple question, give me one realistic scenario where any small party can benefit from this, just one.

Show me a realistic election result that will get a small party a seat under this system

That question (as I'm sure you know) is not one that can be answered - it's not a "simple question".

Without access to people's second preferences in any area 10 months ago, it's impossible to "prove" anything. It's as untenable as your assertion that the Greens would have lost out in Brighton. You might be "probably" right or wrong. No one can know.

Why is Caroline Lucas of the Greens in favour of this then Gareth? :?

... if her result was repeated under AV she probably wouldn't be in parliament

Brighton Pavillion: VOTE SHARE %

Green

31.3

Labour

28.9

Conservative

23.7

She really is a rare three way marginal, can't see many Tories voting Green can you?

I'd say she was misguided but ill informed because she really does look like a turkey thats actually voting for xmas.

You say the Tory voters wouldn't have put Green as second choice - would they have put Labour then, to back up your point? and your quote completely ignores the 4th placed Lib Dems with 7000+ votes.

So under AV, in Brighton the first rounds would have seen the very small number of votes of the Independent bod, the socialist, the zombie rights (yeah, really) and the UKIP get shifted about, but then it would have got to the lib dem votes in 4th and a great deal may well have gone to the Greens, or some to Green, some Labour and some Tories in such a way that Labour would then be third in the running, and their votes shifted, many more of which may have gone to the Greens than to the Tories, perhaps? We just can't know. Which is why examples are worthless speculation and prove nothing either way [it would have been different / it would have been the same]

It's feasible that Greens would have won in Brighton under AV as well as under the current system. But I'm with Jon, I'm sure AV will help the chances of more than the main 2 parties that are cemented in place under the current system.

Another way of looking at it is "how would MPs and candidates have to behave in future?" knowing they would need voters of other parties to be sympathetic to their views.

The main arguments in it's favour are that it's a (small but significant) step in the right direction, that it will give more voters votes genuine meaning and significance, that the people campaigning against it are almost always on the wrong side of wider political issues (IMO), that the nature of the opposition to it betrays the desperation of the entitled brigade to hold on with lies and deceit.

I also kind of look at like "don't support the lying cynical self entitled political establishment in maintaining their cosy stitch up". If people like Thatcher's spawn are against AV then it must be good.

AV was good enough for Cameron and the Tories in their own elections - Cameron owes his being PM to their AV. David Davies would have been FPTP leader.

Pete's post that I was referring to Bicks.

Also where I'm at.

[Danwichmann]

I'm not in favour of FPTP, I just don't see the point in replacing it with something equally as dumb

Bickster, If I understood correctly, you still intend to vote "No"? Given that a no vote is effectively a vote in favour of FPTP, would you not be better off spoiling your ballot paper / not voting in order to register dissatisfaction at both choices? Apologies if you already covered this.

[Jon]

I'm not in favour of FPTP, I just don't see the point in replacing it with something equally as dumb

Bickster, If I understood correctly, you still intend to vote "No"? Given that a no vote is effectively a vote in favour of FPTP, would you not be better off spoiling your ballot paper / not voting in order to register dissatisfaction at both choices? Apologies if you already covered this.

A fair point Sir.

However, in reality, what's the point? OK, there would be a point if say 30% of the electorate all turned up and spoilt there ballot papers, but they're not going to.

The amount of spoilt papers will total under 1% of the turnout, probably far less, I'd guess.

It'd be of so little significance as to be ignored.

Although I guess it would be a point of principle, so on that basis

[Jon]

I'm not in favour of FPTP, I just don't see the point in replacing it with something equally as dumb

Bickster, If I understood correctly, you still intend to vote "No"? Given that a no vote is effectively a vote in favour of FPTP, would you not be better off spoiling your ballot paper / not voting in order to register dissatisfaction at both choices? Apologies if you already covered this.

But yes, as to the point of him voting actively "no", i'd be quite suprised, as it is as you say a vote to preserve FPTP.

[bickster]

I'm not in favour of FPTP, I just don't see the point in replacing it with something equally as dumb

Bickster, If I understood correctly, you still intend to vote "No"? Given that a no vote is effectively a vote in favour of FPTP, would you not be better off spoiling your ballot paper / not voting in order to register dissatisfaction at both choices? Apologies if you already covered this.

No, I actually think FPTP is a better system than AV on the grounds that it doesn't marginalise small parties as much. Plurality of opinion is important and anything that marginalises (as AV surely does) smaller parties is not good, its not "better" and its not "fairer". I don't accept the idea that AV will make people "pander" to supporters of other parties in this country that simply won't happen, you need more than two large parties and a third "balance of power" party for that to happen. What will happen is that the Third (by quite some distance) party will always hold more power than the second placed party unless those two parties combine to have a coalition over the first placed party in which case the most favoured party doesn't get to form a Govt. AV will place too much power in the hands of the third placed party in this country. It simply isn't sensible to be used in a country such as ours. Which is why its a bad system for Australia and a good system for Papua New Guinea (lots of small parties split on a tribal basis) It's usefulness is in a country where there are lots more parties with more equal standing to each other. We should use its first cousin the single transferable vote in the EU elections for that reason. It is of no use in domestic elections.

If there was a third No option of "I want electoral reform but AV is not the answer" I'd vote that, but as someone else pointed out, they are too shit scared to put that as an option.

[Danwichmann]

I'm not in favour of FPTP, I just don't see the point in replacing it with something equally as dumb

Bickster, If I understood correctly, you still intend to vote "No"? Given that a no vote is effectively a vote in favour of FPTP, would you not be better off spoiling your ballot paper / not voting in order to register dissatisfaction at both choices? Apologies if you already covered this.

No, I actually think FPTP is a better system than AV on the grounds that it doesn't marginalise small parties as much. Plurality of opinion is important and anything that marginalises (as AV surely does) smaller parties is not good, its not "better" and its not "fairer". I don't accept the idea that AV will make people "pander" to supporters of other parties in this country that simply won't happen, you need more than two large parties and a third "balance of power" party for that to happen. What will happen is that the Third (by quite some distance) party will always hold more power than the second placed party unless those two parties combine to have a coalition over the first placed party in which case the most favoured party doesn't get to form a Govt. AV will place too much power in the hands of the third placed party in this country. It simply isn't sensible to be used in a country such as ours. Which is why its a bad system for Australia and a good system for Papua New Guinea (lots of small parties split on a tribal basis) It's usefulness is in a country where there are lots more parties with more equal standing to each other. We should use its first cousin the single transferable vote in the EU elections for that reason. It is of no use in domestic elections.

If there was a third No option of "I want electoral reform but AV is not the answer" I'd vote that, but as someone else pointed out, they are too shit scared to put that as an option.

Fair enough I don't necessarily agree but I can see where you're coming from and it's a fair enough position.

[Jon]

AV will place too much power in the hands of the third placed party in this country. It simply isn't sensible to be used in a country such as ours. Which is why its a bad system for Australia and a good system for Papua New Guinea (lots of small parties split on a tribal basis) It's usefulness is in a country where there are lots more parties with more equal standing to each other.

You don't think it's at all possible that over time it can change our political landscape for the better? That people may vote slightly differently? That the Green vote may rise? That the UKIP vote may rise? That Indy's may stand more chance of getting in? That more people may be encouraged to go to the polling both as their vote will "count"?

I think it presents all those possibilities.

FPTP actively discourages voting unless you're in a marginal, IMO. AV gives the possibility that you're vote will actually count for something. For too long FPTP has festered, giving rise to widespread voter apathy. AV could see a renewed political interest in this country. The further marginalisation of "extreme/less popular" parties is perhaps one of the unfortunate side-effects of AV (although i'm not 100% convinced that that is always or necesarily the case). Although whether we'd want extreme parties getting into parliament due to a flawed voting system is another matter ....