Bollitics: The AV Referendum

[mjmooney]

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"?

No.

[Jon]

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"?

No.

reason enough (perhaps) for a no vote, i'd guess.

I think "Yes" to many of these, hence 1 of the reasons I'll be voting yes.

I certainly think AV will increase voter turnout (or in theory, it should). Not as much as pure PR, obviously.

But if I went to the polling booth right now for a GE, my vote, in my constituency, quite simply, would not count. It's get washed down the drain. It still might, with AV, but there's a much increased chance that it won't.

Actually, I think the Tories probably get over 50% of the vote where I live anyway, so it's a moot point.

But still, the theory is there ....

[blandy]

Vote reform would create more marginal seats, Neutral study

A switch from the current first-past-the-post system to the alternative vote (AV) would give more power to the average voter, according to an independent study published today.

The nef (new economics foundation) think-tank, which is remaining neutral in the debate on electoral reform, has calculated that a Yes vote in the 5 May referendum would boost people power by increasing the number of very marginal seats from 81 to 125. The number of very safe seats would fall from 331 to 271.

According to the study, the Liberal Democrats would have been the big winner if last year's general election had been fought on AV, winning 87 seats rather than 57. Labour would have had slightly fewer MPs (245 rather than the 258 it won) while the Conservatives would have been the biggest loser, with 286 rather than 305 seats. Although the Tories would still have been the largest party, an AV election might have allowed Labour to hold on to power by forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The two parties would have commanded an overall Commons majority between them, which they failed to do in the actual election.

Although the nef study concluded that AV would be fairer than first-past-the-post, it admitted that the proposed new system was not perfect. It would bring an increase in the average power of UK voters from 0.285 of a vote to 0.352 of a vote, where a score of one is a fair vote.

Nic Mark, the creator of nef's voter power index, said AV would bring some improvements but would not get rid of the main problems. "Voters need to ask themselves whether these improvements are worth a Yes vote," he said. "Unfortunately, whatever the outcome of the referendum, politicians will still largely ignore voters in safe seats, while they spend most of their time, money and energy on voters in marginal constituencies."

With a month to go before the referendum, the Yes and No camps have stepped up their campaigns. Although Ed Miliband is backing AV, another seven Labour MPs joined the No lobby, which enjoys the support of a majority of the party's MPs. They included Rosie Winterton, the Opposition Chief Whip, and David Hanson, a Labour Treasury spokesman.

The Yes camp highlighted new evidence that the public was still angry about the scandal over MPs' expenses. An ICM poll found that only one in 10 people saw the affair as an isolated incident, while 71 per cent believed it was a sign of wider problems.

Greg Dyke, the former BBC director general who is vice-chairman of the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign, said: "It's hardly surprising that MPs seem so remote and unresponsive when the voting system has handed most of them a 'job for life'. A Yes vote for AV will help bring politicians back down to earth by making them work harder for their jobs. A No vote just tells Westminster we're happy with business as usual, expenses scandal and all. It means nothing will change."

[Jon]

good find Pete.

It's better, not best.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

The whole one step thing is annoying but I guess true, living in the Hall Green constituency it is clear there is no real representation of other cultures and the candidate pretty much rests on his old heels only getting involved when it benefits him in some manner.

Ahh Politics!

It's all so confusing and hopefully backlash will put this through, not the best system out there but then again maybe this country needs to start making the hard choices to give us some long term stability and policy in practice and not just in theory.

I guess I would example it with this, and feel free to point out my flaws I need the guidance for later life.

If we'd had some Green representation in the last decade we may have had some sort of progression to consumable mass renewable energy but having this 2, maybe 3 party system we have seen much in the way of ignorance to this topic and a few wars for oil thrown in for good measure.

I am not saying it would have definitely made a difference but I am sure the agenda would have found itself with a little more momentum to complement the high status each incumbent Government apparently gives it.

Like people have said PR is what many would prefer and AV doesn't really give a true representation; but it does stick it up the current system, could engage people in Politics for more time than a TV debate and will give us a platform to make an educated decision for our next shot at democracy.

I voted yes and will do; purely on the fact there is something broke and I feel this is an attempt to fix it.

[blandy]

Here's some reasons to Vote for AV from comments on their internet page.

The No internet page doesn't allow comment.

One of the advantages of AV is that it is apt to raise the level of political discourse because politicians will need to explain their policies not just to their core voters, but to supporters of other parties in order to try to win their second preference.

One thing people allude to but don't express is that AV gives everyone the chance to vote not for party, or for individual candidates (which is a rarity anyway) but for an expression of their own political views - Centre, Right, or Left. FPTP simply can't do that.

If my own leanings are Right, I can vote for UKIP and Tory, in the order I would rather see them. Those on Day Release from Broadmoor can vote LibDem and Labour.

Those who actually recognise the value of an individual local candidate can vote Chip Shop Elvis Independent first, a card-carrying party member second, to show support without thinking they've wasted their vote. In fact, I would propose that it involves the public far more in politics because they might even read the small parties' leaflets, whereas under FPTP it's a waste of time. With these so-called wasted votes registering in the statistics, it's more likely to show the genuine level of support for all parties than FPTP ever could.

In a nutshell, FPTP says you only vote for one of the heavyweight parties or else you've thrown your vote away. With AV, a leading Tory/LibDem/Labour candidate would still win the seat, but they can no longer ignore the fact that Tom's Solidarity Fishgut & Free Travel Party got 25% support instead of the usual 0.1%.

I'll give you another good reason to support AV - and it's a damned good one!

Let's suppose you want OUT of the EU (which most people do) AV allows you to vote exclusively for candidates who are Eurosceptic, giving you more chance of returning a Eurosceptic MP. You can leave off candidates from parties you simply can't stomach, of course - but you've got far more influence than under FPTP.

AV's got a lot going for it. Vote YES.

if you vote 'no' [because you] want a more proportional system - that won't be distinguishable from a 'no' meaning "I want to keep FPTP" - [that's the argument the status quo Labour and Tory people will use.]

if we don' tget a yes vote on AV we'll never be offered any other system. It will be treated as a vote of complete faith in the current system forever. The referendum on Europe is the only other national referendum this country has ever held, and no opportunity has ever been given to alter that outcome, even prior to, or in the wake of, events such as the single European currency

Here's one reason to replace FPTP (and there are many): If you're in a safe Labour seat and you're a Tory voter, you might as well stay at home than go out and vote - in safe seats, your vote won't make a damn of difference. Under AV, as I tried t demonstrate with my previous, not only can you vote for a Tory candidate but by tactically voting for everyone else except the Labour candidate, you can actually neutralise a Labour supporter's vote.

I'm as certain as I can be that the AV vote will win, judging by straw polls conducted on TV and radio, and the major parties will soon come to realise that they'd best get their supporters into the polling stations. Result: more public involvement - which can't be a bad thing.

The MP that you and your fellow constituents send to Parliament will remain the one with the most votes. Let me give you another example, though - perhaps you have an Independent candidate who's a really excellent person, born and bred in your area, someone you might well know personally, who represents a local issue - maybe campaigning against the closure of a nearby school or hospital.

Under FPTP given that person is a waste of time (unless local feelings are unusually high over that issue). Your Independent candidate is destined to lose his/her deposit. With AV, you can vote him/her as your first choice, and one of the mainstream party candidates as your second. Result: recognition for the good, independent candidate who is unlikely to become your representative, but you know your second preference vote will be transferred to the mainstream candidate who's much more likely to win.

The local good-guy gets recognition, which helps promote the campaign, doesn't lose his/her deposit, you won't have let in the opposition candidate (depending on your persuasion) by default, and there's even a chance your real choice might actually win and save your school or hospital.

That's what I call a better chance of democracy. And don't let the NO campaigners blind you with their lies about "votes being counted multiple times" - you have one ballot paper just the same as they do.

[bickster]

Hall Green Last Time

Labour	                16,039

Respect-Unity Coalition	12,240

Liberal Democrat	        11,988	

Conservative	                  7,320

UKIP	                                     950	

Independent	                     190[/code]


I know predicting from the last set of results is not exactly an exact thing but in Hall Green I'd see that going thus:-


First round

Indie knocked out, not really that relevant, too small to really matter


Second round

UKIP knocked out majority votes transfer to Tory putting Tory on about 8,000


Third Round

Torys Vote majority goes to Liberal, which may or may not push the Libs into second place (or even first but unlikely)


Fourth Round

The sort of interesting end play. It doesn't really matter who is in first or second (Labour has to be 1st or second)  as whichever party is in third will then in all likelihood then transfer to Labour who will then win. (Libs not voting for extremist Left Party, extremist Left Party not voting for wishy washy Lib types)


What changed? Well in principal nothing, the same party wins, the only difference is that in the final round of voting the Lib Dems have a chance of coming second. Note thats a small party getting squeezed out in the results moving from a very creditable second place to a third and over time the net result of that is a smaller vote next time around. Of course its also possible for respect o finish second and in that instance absolutely nothing changed


Its not an exact prediction of course but that constituency would AT BEST remain with the parties in the exact same place

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

Its not an exact prediction of course but that constituency would AT BEST remain with the parties in the exact same place

Can I just ask because you missed it, or I didn't/don't understand fully but where were you assuming respects votes would go?

[bickster]

Respects votes would almost definitely favour Labour more than any other Party and would win it for Labour over the Libs with Respect coming third imo (if that pattern of voting was similar and transfers were logical - they often aren't though). I'd expect Respect to be in third place on the final round of voting as I would imagine more Tory votes would go to the Liberals than any other Party at that stage

[blandy]

Too many assumptions.

Not everyone would have put 1,2,3,4,5, some would have maybe just 1,2, or 1,2,3

Many Tories would have maybe put UKIP 2nd, and no third choice, perhaps?

Lib Dems might have overtaken Respect, might not. If they didn't maybe some of their second choices would have been anti Iraq war Respect - a shared view between Libs and Respect. Then Respect might have won, giving a minority party a seat. Certainly there's a chance that a wider range of parties would have got seats at Westminster, which would have been a good thing. Maybe Respect would have had 1 or 2 seats, better representing the number of people who shared their outlook in the Country as a whole.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

Respects votes would almost definitely favour Labour

In Hall Green they would have largely placed Lib Dems over Labour due to the work of the candidate with the Respect voters, frustratingly the Tories still had no campaigning 6 months prior to the election.

I feel this way because I had first hand experience of the local politics in the area and saw perhaps how votes were 'gathered'.

I think had there been a second option Lib Dems would have gained a huge number of votes from Respect which, and I assuming now, would have left Lib Dems in front?...or am I still not quite nailing this?!

Respect gained many postal votes, some felt this helped a balance be maintained in a first past the post system.

[snowychap]

One of the advantages of AV is that it is apt to raise the level of political discourse because politicians will need to explain their policies not just to their core voters, but to supporters of other parties in order to try to win their second preference.

I have to say that people hanging their hats on this 'argument for' is possibly what concerns me most.

I'm not sure that this assumption is correct but, even if it is, it may well produce more bad than good.

Firstly, I don't believe that sufficient people vote on policy details for anyone to actually need to explain them (properly, that is) as opposed to come up with an appealing soundbite which they feel would best represent their chances of that policy being acceptable or appealing to a voter.

Secondly, surely spending is the main way in which political candidates manage to get their message accross to those who are not their core voters? In which case, if candidates need to get their message across to those who would normally support others (over and above floating voters), it would appear to me to be likely to favour larger parties who are able to raise more funds (as it would appear that election funding constraints are enforced very loosely at best).

Thirdly, I think there is actually a danger of parties and candidates trying to focus on what makes them the same as another party rather than what may make them different (or rather what they claim - these are elections after all).

[Danwichmann]

Not to sure who made this, or how agenda driven it is, but interesting none the less:

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

[LondonLax]

My voting power will increase by 23% under AV

[Jon]

My voting power will increase by 23% under AV

Mine goes up by 31%!!

However, as I kind of new, the following bit really means by vote will probably still be wasted anyway, as i'm in a Tory safehold:

Constituency marginality

Very safe

(no change from FPtP to AV)

Still, at least it offers more hope than under fptp ....

[mjmooney]

Here's some reasons to Vote for AV from comments on their internet page.

The No internet page doesn't allow comment.

One of the advantages of AV is that it is apt to raise the level of political discourse because politicians will need to explain their policies not just to their core voters, but to supporters of other parties in order to try to win their second preference.

I disagree. They will carry on exactly as they always did.

One thing people allude to but don't express is that AV gives everyone the chance to vote not for party, or for individual candidates (which is a rarity anyway) but for an expression of their own political views - Centre, Right, or Left. FPTP simply can't do that.

If my own leanings are Right, I can vote for UKIP and Tory, in the order I would rather see them. Those on Day Release from Broadmoor can vote LibDem and Labour.

This is likely to make me vote No just on the priciple of not agreeing with this clearing in the woods.

Those who actually recognise the value of an individual local candidate can vote Chip Shop Elvis Independent first, a card-carrying party member second, to show support without thinking they've wasted their vote. In fact, I would propose that it involves the public far more in politics because they might even read the small parties' leaflets, whereas under FPTP it's a waste of time. With these so-called wasted votes registering in the statistics, it's more likely to show the genuine level of support for all parties than FPTP ever could.

Again, I disagree. This is a rose-coloured-specs view of the average UK voter, who (IMO) is either doggedly partisan to one party, or utterly apathetic.

In a nutshell, FPTP says you only vote for one of the heavyweight parties or else you've thrown your vote away. With AV, a leading Tory/LibDem/Labour candidate would still win the seat, but they can no longer ignore the fact that Tom's Solidarity Fishgut & Free Travel Party got 25% support instead of the usual 0.1%.

"Can't ignore it"? Of course they can.

I'll give you another good reason to support AV - and it's a damned good one!

Let's suppose you want OUT of the EU (which most people do) AV allows you to vote exclusively for candidates who are Eurosceptic, giving you more chance of returning a Eurosceptic MP. You can leave off candidates from parties you simply can't stomach, of course - but you've got far more influence than under FPTP.

AV's got a lot going for it. Vote YES.

As a Europhile, I again don't want to line up with this view.

if you vote 'no' [because you] want a more proportional system - that won't be distinguishable from a 'no' meaning "I want to keep FPTP" - [that's the argument the status quo Labour and Tory people will use.]

True. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. So why bother?

if we don' tget a yes vote on AV we'll never be offered any other system. It will be treated as a vote of complete faith in the current system forever. The referendum on Europe is the only other national referendum this country has ever held, and no opportunity has ever been given to alter that outcome, even prior to, or in the wake of, events such as the single European currency

Probably true. See above.

Here's one reason to replace FPTP (and there are many): If you're in a safe Labour seat and you're a Tory voter, you might as well stay at home than go out and vote - in safe seats, your vote won't make a damn of difference. Under AV, as I tried t demonstrate with my previous, not only can you vote for a Tory candidate but by tactically voting for everyone else except the Labour candidate, you can actually neutralise a Labour supporter's vote.

Strange way of voting, really.

I'm as certain as I can be that the AV vote will win, judging by straw polls conducted on TV and radio, and the major parties will soon come to realise that they'd best get their supporters into the polling stations. Result: more public involvement - which can't be a bad thing.

If it will win, then no need to campaign for it. I think it will fail (with a minuscule turnout at that).

The MP that you and your fellow constituents send to Parliament will remain the one with the most votes.

Exactly.

[Jon]

This is a rose-coloured-specs view of the average UK voter, who (IMO) is either doggedly partisan to one party, or utterly apathetic.

and why is that, Mike?

Could one of the reasons for that be the god awful FPTP, meaning for a great many voters (like myself for example) going to the polling booth to vote in a GE is indeed a complete waste of time, as it's a wasted vote?

IMO we need to change the system. We need to re-engage people. We need them to know that their vote will/may count. AV is a small step on the way to this .... a no vote for me will just close the issue, and we'll be stuck with the god-awful FPTP for another generation or two. Or longer ...

[blandy]

One thing people allude to but don't express is that AV gives everyone the chance to vote not for party, or for individual candidates (which is a rarity anyway) but for an expression of their own political views - Centre, Right, or Left. FPTP simply can't do that.

If my own leanings are Right, I can vote for UKIP and Tory, in the order I would rather see them. Those on Day Release from Broadmoor can vote LibDem and Labour.

This is likely to make me vote No just on the priciple of not agreeing with this clearing in the woods.

Let's suppose you want OUT of the EU (which most people do) AV allows you to vote exclusively for candidates who are Eurosceptic, giving you more chance of returning a Eurosceptic MP. You can leave off candidates from parties you simply can't stomach, of course - but you've got far more influence than under FPTP.

AV's got a lot going for it. Vote YES.

As a Europhile, I again don't want to line up with this view.

That's utterly bemusing, Mike. The first example says "IF my leanings are right...." if he'd said "if they are left.." the principle would be exactly the same.

And on the second point, if it has said "let's suppose you want to stay in the EU....blah.... pro-Euro MP" then again the principle of the system is the same.

It's just about the lamest explanation I can think of - to reject something because a hypothetical example happens to use views which are not aligned with your own, (but which if they were similar to your own would be fine). It makes your point hard to understand. Like the Self righteous brothers off Harry Enfield - "If that Dalai Lama came in here, with a machine gun and started shooting everyone....scum" - I could never respect him

[mjmooney]

One thing people allude to but don't express is that AV gives everyone the chance to vote not for party, or for individual candidates (which is a rarity anyway) but for an expression of their own political views - Centre, Right, or Left. FPTP simply can't do that.

If my own leanings are Right, I can vote for UKIP and Tory, in the order I would rather see them. Those on Day Release from Broadmoor can vote LibDem and Labour.

This is likely to make me vote No just on the priciple of not agreeing with this clearing in the woods.

Let's suppose you want OUT of the EU (which most people do) AV allows you to vote exclusively for candidates who are Eurosceptic, giving you more chance of returning a Eurosceptic MP. You can leave off candidates from parties you simply can't stomach, of course - but you've got far more influence than under FPTP.

AV's got a lot going for it. Vote YES.

As a Europhile, I again don't want to line up with this view.

That's utterly bemusing, Mike. The first example says "IF my leanings are right...." if he'd said "if they are left.." the principle would be exactly the same.

And on the second point, if it has said "let's suppose you want to stay in the EU....blah.... pro-Euro MP" then again the principle of the system is the same.

It's just about the lamest explanation I can think of - to reject something because a hypothetical example happens to use views which are not aligned with your own, (but which if they were similar to your own would be fine). It makes your point hard to understand. Like the Self righteous brothers off Harry Enfield - "If that Dalai Lama came in here, with a machine gun and started shooting everyone....scum" - I could never respect him

Yeah, I know. My post was intended as slightly tongue-in-cheek to say the least.

But it's true that part of my thinking is: "Anything the Tories DON'T want must be OK", which leads me back to the "Yes" vote.

[ender4]

can someone give me an hypothetical example (like the Hall Green example earlier) how the AV system DOESN'T favour extremist parties like the BNP?

as that is currently my biggest reason to be wary of AV, and i can't work out why people say it doesn't favour the BNP.