-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
I've received my AV referendum card a couple of days ago and I'm not sure what my vote will be. Part of me wants to say "yes" to get MPs working harder over safe seats (and it'll make things so much harder for the BNP) but I really want to give the Lib Dems a good kicking. After all, with AV voting being in order of preference things will heavily be in their favour. A Labour voter would put them second and so would a Conservative voter over the labs. So unless someone convinces me otherwise I'm very tempted to vote "no" just out of spite. 
Lib Dems will get a nice hard kicking when they see the Scottish and Local Government results on the same day anyway. Plus i'd still rather upset the Tories and the horribly misleading No to AV campaign. It's true that the system benefits the lib dems and it's annoying for me to give Clegg a boost, but it doesn't really matter if they are put second when Lib Dem voters are giving Labour their first vote in the amounts that opinion polls say they are planning to do, and hopefully the LD's won't be so terrible in, let's say, ten years where you'll reap the benefits of AV whereas you won't get those advantages then if you vote no to punish Clegg.
I have a few more days to give it a think. Just can't shake the disappointment in the coalition and myself for getting swept along by Clegg. Forgetting that and making it harder for the BNP to gain seats will probably lead me to say yes, even if I do hugely prefer "one vote." Being known as moderate and agreeable to get the 2nd place vote seems like a slimy backdoor into power to me.
Ed: Also, why the heck did Chinner delete every one of his posts?
Ed: Also, why the heck did Chinner delete every one of his posts?
Meadows said:
Absolutely, 100% agreed. Voting no isn't a vote to undermine the Liberal Democrats - they'll get their arses handed to them during the next election regardless of the voting system. Voting no is a vote to undermine a move towards further democratic legitimacy and giving smaller parties (and I'm talking the Green Party and UKIP, not the Lib Dems) the chance to earn the seats in Parliament.
Edit: And AV isn't designed to be a "backdoor" way into Parliament - it's designed on the basis that people are complex enough to have more than one simple preference in terms of parties, which is often the case. Reducing people to voting for, say, Labour just because they don't want the Conservatives in power when they'd much rather give their vote to, I dunno, the Green Party is ridiculous. AV would eliminate the need to do that.
Personally, I see AV as a "least worst" option. I won't be happy until we have a fully proportional voting system and I don't have to look at the election results and go, "Ehh, close enough." However, voting no is likely to bury electoral reform for a long time and I can't be having that.
blazinglord
Member
First, the BNP has never won a parliamentary seat in the House of Commons. Nor are they ever likely to under FPTP. So theoretically reducing the already-slim chance of BNP getting a seat is moot. Secondly, those who voted for BNP as their first preference, will have another chance at their vote going towards a candidate that most closely reflects their view. Why would you, or any other anti-BNP, want mainstream candidates to have to resort to dog-whistle politics to be helped across the 50% threshold by BNP supporters? Personally, I'd rather BNP voters wasted their one vote on voting for BNP, rather than have candidates vying for BNP voters' second and third preference votes, which is what already happens in European elections.Thnikkaman said:I have a few more days to give it a think. Just can't shake the disappointment in the coalition and myself for getting swept along by Clegg. Forgetting that and making it harder for the BNP to gain seats will probably lead me to say yes, even if I do hugely prefer "one vote." Being known as moderate and agreeable to get the 2nd place vote seems like a slimy backdoor into power to me.
Ed: Also, why the heck did Chinner delete every one of his posts?
I assume that BNP voters will be more likely than not to put their second and third preference votes for candidates that talks tough on immigration, but I think it will make local politics more corrosive. At the last Mayoral elections, a BNP spokesman in my area urged people to put their second pref vote for Boris Johhnson (who I happened to support and thankfully Boris openly said that he did not want BNP suppport), but parliamentary candidates around the country in seats with insignificant number of ethnic minority voters are unlikely to have the same qualms as Boris with dog-whistle politics.
Vote for AV if you think the system is fairer, but don't vote for AV if you think it will marginalise BNP bread and butter issues - because it won't. If anything, it will intensify them in areas where BNP has sizeable influence. As for the coalition, the coalition will stay together irrespective the result of the referendum, and the parliamentary boundaries are still going to be redrawn regardless of result. So the sole issue here at stake is which voting system you would prefer to use, nothing else.
Okay, my constituency is a great example of why we should bring in the changes.
I live in York Outer. This is a new constituency that voted Conservative in the last election. Here is the breakdown in votes:
Conservatives: 43.0%
Liberal Democrats: 36.1%
Labour: 17.1%
UKIP: 2.1%
BNP: 1.8%
Clearly if, as would be expected, Labour supporters picked LDs as one of their 2nd/3rd choices, then the LDs would have won. 36% would have been happy, and 17% would have been moderately satisfied, leading to 53% having the party, or close to the party they want in power.
If the BNP/UKIP voters gave their 2nd/3rd choices to the Tories, then they'd have gotten 47%. Democracy would have won out.
I voted in Aberconwy, which is an even bigger example of why we should bring in AV. In this election the Tories won with 35.8%, which is ridiculous:
Conservatives: 35.8%
Labour: 24.5%
Liberal Democrat: 19.3%
Plaid Cymru: 17.8%
UKIP: 2.1%
Christian Party: 0.5%
Plaid Cymru are a centre left party, taking (apart from on the subject of Welsh independence) similar stances on issues to Labour/LDs. If Labour/Plaid Cymru/LD shared votes, then there would be 61% of votes going to the party that came out on top (probably Labour).
My vote would have gone:
Liberal Democrat
Plaid Cymru
Labour
It's an absolute shambles that a party can get into power with 35.8%. You have the power to change it. Vote Yes on May 5th.
I live in York Outer. This is a new constituency that voted Conservative in the last election. Here is the breakdown in votes:
Conservatives: 43.0%
Liberal Democrats: 36.1%
Labour: 17.1%
UKIP: 2.1%
BNP: 1.8%
Clearly if, as would be expected, Labour supporters picked LDs as one of their 2nd/3rd choices, then the LDs would have won. 36% would have been happy, and 17% would have been moderately satisfied, leading to 53% having the party, or close to the party they want in power.
If the BNP/UKIP voters gave their 2nd/3rd choices to the Tories, then they'd have gotten 47%. Democracy would have won out.
I voted in Aberconwy, which is an even bigger example of why we should bring in AV. In this election the Tories won with 35.8%, which is ridiculous:
Conservatives: 35.8%
Labour: 24.5%
Liberal Democrat: 19.3%
Plaid Cymru: 17.8%
UKIP: 2.1%
Christian Party: 0.5%
Plaid Cymru are a centre left party, taking (apart from on the subject of Welsh independence) similar stances on issues to Labour/LDs. If Labour/Plaid Cymru/LD shared votes, then there would be 61% of votes going to the party that came out on top (probably Labour).
My vote would have gone:
Liberal Democrat
Plaid Cymru
Labour
It's an absolute shambles that a party can get into power with 35.8%. You have the power to change it. Vote Yes on May 5th.
I'm still not sure how I'm going to vote. I would like to see how a solely Lib Dem govt. would do things, but even under AV, the chance of that outcome is still quite small. Despite that, I'm more inclined to vote yes, simply because the 'No to AV' campaign's arguments haven't won me over.
Dr Zhivago
Member
You should vote for AV because FPTP barely qualifies as democracy. With FPTP, elections are decided by a handful of marginal seats. If you live in a safe seat but support the opposing party, your vote is worthless.
AV isn't perfect by any means, but it is a massive improvement.
AV isn't perfect by any means, but it is a massive improvement.
Zoibie said:
Outside of, like, Michael Howard, the No to AV campaign hasn't presented anything close to a viable argument. "If you vote for AV, babies and soldiers will die, because that's how the economy works!" is hardly a compelling point.
I'm sure FPTP will 'win' though. And then whenever anybody complains, I can point to this referendum and say, "This is why we can't have nice things."
All of those who aren't sure or aren't 100% on yes, or are in favour of no, please could you provide me with an adequate, or in any way at all remotely reasonable reason why you aren't 100% yes?
If you think it's because it will cost a lot, that myth has been debunked
If you think it's because it will help the LD party that you currently dislike, then vote against them in the local elections
edit:
even the no2av website gives these reasons:
AV is costly - proven wrong LINK
AV is complex and unfair - it takes 2 minutes to explain it, and it is, in every way, more fair
AV is a politician's fix - it gets rid of safe seats, making politicians work harder
That's literally all they can say against AV. Ridiculous.
If you think it's because it will cost a lot, that myth has been debunked
If you think it's because it will help the LD party that you currently dislike, then vote against them in the local elections
edit:
even the no2av website gives these reasons:
AV is costly - proven wrong LINK
AV is complex and unfair - it takes 2 minutes to explain it, and it is, in every way, more fair
AV is a politician's fix - it gets rid of safe seats, making politicians work harder
That's literally all they can say against AV. Ridiculous.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Meadows said:
Well, I'll try.
For starters, though, I should point out that I'm not at all happy with the way the NO campaign is being run, with the spurious claims about cost and so on. I'm with you all the way on that.
It is mostly about a different take on the idea of 'fairness'. Let's take your York Outer example:
You seem to think it is obviously fairer/more democratic for the LibDems to have won this - on the assumption, which by the way I don't really agree with, that Labour voters would have put LibDem as their second preference - but that's by-the-by.
But, if it is so obviously unfair for a candidate with 43% of first-choice votes to win - how can it be fairer for a candidate with 36% of first-choice votes to win? 57% didn't want the Tory to win, but 64% didn't want the LibDem to win.
I can't see that that is fairer, whether obviously or not.
All of the arguments based on 'fairness' seem to rely upon assumptions about party alignments and who would have chosen what as second preference - on the underlying assumption that everybody hates the tories and that's the way it should be. Sorry mate, I don't buy that line.
What would sway me towards a YES vote would be any suggestion or evidence that AV would increase electoral turnout - which seems to me a far bigger problem than low level tampering with the voting system. Remember that your 43% above is only 43% of the people who bothered to vote.
So at present I'm sticking with a NO vote.
That doesn't mean that I am a stick-in-the-mud reactionary - I'm all in favour of electoral reform, but this one doesn't feel right to me - partly because of the fairness argument that I've outlined and partly because it has a tendency to exaggerate landslides even more than before, which really isn't good for pluralistic government and might over the long term lead to even more exaggerated polarisation of the parties.
One idea I have toyed with, for example, is that in each constituency whoever comes first gets into the Commons and whoever comes second gets into the Lords. That would mean that nearly every constituency has greater than 50% support somewhere in the legislature and would also mean that the Lords ends up more democratically legitimate than the Government but less democratically legitimate than the Commons as a whole - which is the way it should be.
Incidentally, I rather like this ConLib coalition. I called it on election night as potentially one of the great reforming governments, and I still think it can be. Sure there's a lot of messy stuff on the way, but I rather prefer that to a single sepulchral voice.
phisheep said:
This has always confused me when it comes to suggestions for Lords reform. The most common suggestion seems to be to have a proportional (or at least more so than FPTP) voting system elect the members, which, in my mind, would make the Lords more democratically legitimate than the Commons.
You make an interesting argument about AV and, like I've said, I'm hardly wild about the system myself. I think in my haste to get rid of FPTP, I may have thrown my support behind a voting system that's barely preferable.
Mind you, I'm unsure which result will most likely lead to the electoral reform that I'd actually like. If the vote is no, those against reform can point at it and say there's clearly no appetite for reform (which, frankly, is probably true). If the vote is yes, those against reform can act like tired parents and complain about how we only just got a new voting system, can't we stick with this one for a couple of centuries before dumping it?
I need to go think. Or play some games on my iPod. Either/or.
radioheadrule83
Banned
My reason for supporting AV is simply that it more accurately reflects opinion. The simple gesture of numbering your preferences fleshes out the ballot with more detail, more data, and therefore the results should better reflect the kind of policies that people really want.
By the way you don't have to number them all and cast a secondary vote for people you don't like...
First past the post's threshold is too low. A candidate can win on a very slim majority, as voted for by a low turnout of the electorate. Under AV that would not be enough, low turnouts could still happen - but the victor would need to have 50%+ of popular support for at least some of their policies. This change will force the parties to think less along the lines of traditional party values, and more along the lines of 'what do the broadest section of the electorate actually want from us?'... in considering that and making better arguments for their election, that may actually help tell the public that politicians are listening! It might (and of course might not) increase voter turnout!
It will also help bring more fairness and competition to 'safe' seats. That's not just something that will benefit the Lib Dems or Labour -- I am from Liverpool, and many of the wards in Liverpool are safe Labour seats - because there are just enough people to win through for them at every election. I know people in Liverpool who have wanted to vote for other parties, but considered it that pointless - and the parties all too similar - that they simply never bothered. I now live in Bath and that has been a safe seat for Don Foster (Liberal Democrat) for many years as well. The Labour candidate fielded here was useless, so it was a 2 horse race between Don and Fabian Richter - the conservative. What motivation does Don have to acknowledge the concerns of people who aren't going to support him under the First Past The Post system? None. As long as he has enough of their vote, and even if he only wins by a nose, that's enough. AV will hopefully change that.
In circumstances like those I described - if you vote for anyone else, your vote may as well not have been counted... your voice isn't heard, your positive opinions on the policies of other parties aren't heard, you are basically disenfranchised and stuck with whatever programme the government puts out. Under AV, your local candidates would at least have to worry about the people who are going to mark certain other parties as number 2 and 3. They will have to be considerate of a broader political opinion, they will have to work harder for more votes...
The actual votes cast and breakdown in each constituency will provide a clearer picture of the country for the eventual government and its opposition, illustrating the mood of the country. It's basically more data and I don't see how that can be a bad thing.
More than anything else - I think AV is always something that can be reversed if its found to not really work. But if we don't vote for it now, we may lose the chance for meaningful electoral reform for another generation.... as in, beyond the point when all of us are old and grey.
By the way you don't have to number them all and cast a secondary vote for people you don't like...
First past the post's threshold is too low. A candidate can win on a very slim majority, as voted for by a low turnout of the electorate. Under AV that would not be enough, low turnouts could still happen - but the victor would need to have 50%+ of popular support for at least some of their policies. This change will force the parties to think less along the lines of traditional party values, and more along the lines of 'what do the broadest section of the electorate actually want from us?'... in considering that and making better arguments for their election, that may actually help tell the public that politicians are listening! It might (and of course might not) increase voter turnout!
It will also help bring more fairness and competition to 'safe' seats. That's not just something that will benefit the Lib Dems or Labour -- I am from Liverpool, and many of the wards in Liverpool are safe Labour seats - because there are just enough people to win through for them at every election. I know people in Liverpool who have wanted to vote for other parties, but considered it that pointless - and the parties all too similar - that they simply never bothered. I now live in Bath and that has been a safe seat for Don Foster (Liberal Democrat) for many years as well. The Labour candidate fielded here was useless, so it was a 2 horse race between Don and Fabian Richter - the conservative. What motivation does Don have to acknowledge the concerns of people who aren't going to support him under the First Past The Post system? None. As long as he has enough of their vote, and even if he only wins by a nose, that's enough. AV will hopefully change that.
In circumstances like those I described - if you vote for anyone else, your vote may as well not have been counted... your voice isn't heard, your positive opinions on the policies of other parties aren't heard, you are basically disenfranchised and stuck with whatever programme the government puts out. Under AV, your local candidates would at least have to worry about the people who are going to mark certain other parties as number 2 and 3. They will have to be considerate of a broader political opinion, they will have to work harder for more votes...
The actual votes cast and breakdown in each constituency will provide a clearer picture of the country for the eventual government and its opposition, illustrating the mood of the country. It's basically more data and I don't see how that can be a bad thing.
More than anything else - I think AV is always something that can be reversed if its found to not really work. But if we don't vote for it now, we may lose the chance for meaningful electoral reform for another generation.... as in, beyond the point when all of us are old and grey.
Subliminal
Member
phisheep said:
wouldn't this make it hell for any party that gets a landslide? They'd be able to pass bills in the commons and then it would go to the lords which is held almost completely by the opposition?
I would be more infavour of 'midterms' set in the middle of 4 year parliaments. HoLs elections using PR and party lists.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Subliminal said:
Of course it would make it hell. That's the point. We have too many laws already - making law should be difficult and should require consensus. And that's regardless of which party gets the upper hand in the Commons.
One of the deficits of our current system is that the party in power gets to do whatever it thinks - and there are two ways of tackling that, either through tinkering with the ballot-box or by changing the procedures. Largely I'm in favour of tinkering with procedures rather than changing the voting method - in particular I am opposed to anything (like party lists) that will strengthen the hold of the political elite.
The House of Lords, whatever its constitution, has done a very good job of reining in partisan governments of all shades over the years. Wouldn't want to diminish that. But on the other hand, what the hell is the point of making Andrew Lloyd-Webber a a Lord (or Robert Winston for that matter) for their specialities when it is perfectly feasible to have the Lords co-opt whatever experts they might need for a particular debate. THere's no rule says that legislators have to be for life or for a term - just bring 'em in when needed.
louis89
Member
Some enormous assumptions here. You assume that 100% of those Labour supporters would have chosen the Lib Dems as one of their other choices, and that the Conservatives would only gain from UKIP and BNP supporters. Firstly, there's no obligation for them to pick anything beyond their first choice at all. Secondly, many of them will have chosen completely different parties, including at least some for the Conservatives. And thirdly, the Conservatives, at the last election, were the most popular party with the most support. They'd have gained from other parties too.Meadows said:
To me, the idea of 43% of people's first choice winning is fairer than the idea of 53% of people's first and second choices winning. I agree with the points phisheep made and I'll also be voting no.
phisheep said:
I cannot accept the position that none of the labour voters, under AV, would have voted for the Lib Dems. Even if 10% of the 17% voted LD as a second choice it would be more representative.
And what of my example of Aberconwy? 35.8% to win a seat? I've got heaps of respect for you mate, and your one of my favourite posters on GAF but I think you've got it dead wrong here.
louis89 said:
The parties I listed for York Outer were the only ones that ran. I'm actually now thinking that BNP voters might not even have given the Tories their vote, due to their hatred of mainstream politics.
Secondly, I find it a much larger stretch to imagine LDs/Labour voters giving the Tories their 2nd or 3rd vote. It wouldn't make any sense. Let's face it, this probably wasn't as cut and dry as I perhaps made it out to be, but I still believe that a LD/LAB win would have been more representative of the will of the people.
Thirdly, I can't see how anyone can defend the result of Aberconwy. Only 37.9% of voters picked Right of centre parties (UKIP/Christian/CON) whereas the rest picked centre or Left of centre parties (Plaid/LAB/LD). This is unacceptable in my eyes.
louis89 said:
Really? I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Meadows said:
Well, really, the referendum should have had two questions on it:
(a) are you in favour of reforming the electoral system to make it more proportional, and (b) are you in favour of changing to AV. I would answer YES to the first and NO to the second.
That way we'd avoid the inevitable spin machine that will follow whatever the result is.
In the same tenor, the referendum that we never had on the EU constitution should have had two questions: (a) should we stay in the EU, and (b) should we ratify the EU constitution. Again I'd have said YES to the first and NO to the second.
Although I've lived in safe Tory, safe Labour and Lib/Tory marginals I don't think I've ever been tempted to vote 'tactically' - if by that you mean voting to keep a party out rather than to vote a party in - though I have on occasion voted against my usual party line because of an outstanding local candidate versus a party apparatchik.
Dr Zhivago
Member
phisheep said:
Under AV, more people have a meaningful vote so there might be an increase in turnout.
I agree that AV isn't the greatest system in overall terms, but it's the only one currently on offer.
Going to vote Yes regardless of what i think about the Lib Dems nowadays. Winning with 50% of the vote is better than winning with 35% of the vote any day. Its not that much better, but progress is progress guys (don't lose sight of that in your spite).
Not voting for lib dems in the local though, back to Labour for me i guess... (not that either will ever get in where i live).
Not voting for lib dems in the local though, back to Labour for me i guess... (not that either will ever get in where i live).
zomgbbqftw
Banned
phisheep said:
This is the reason why a simple In/Out referendum would be stupid. It's such a complex situation and I think the In camp would win because there are many, many economic benefits of being in the EU, but a Labour/Lib government/coalition would use such a result to increase the speed of integration with Europe. If a system like yours was offered then I believe most people would vote yes to the first and no to the second bar a few die hard UKIP and BNP/EDL supporters.
On the AV referendum I'm still not sure. I see the pro's and cons of it. I think AV will probably result in more Tory majority government as votes currently leaked to UKIP would automatically come back and LD second preferences would break 40/60 to Con/Lab. I think it would also result in Labour only being able to get into power with the help of the Libs as the BNP are transfer toxic and there is no other bloc of voters whose votes would transfer to them as readily as UKIP votes would go to the Tories. It is the rule of unintended consequences which a lot of lefties aren't looking at, AV would still result in a split vote for the centre left parties somewhat, but give the right and centre right an easy unified platform to run on.
Despite that, I have many misgivings on the whole vote itself and the idea of AV, having the first loser win isn't a satisfactory way of doing things. I would much prefer full PR with 5/6 parties each representing their ideals and voters being able to pick the one that suits theirs' best. Voting no to AV would close the door to electoral reform for 20-30 years and voting yes to AV will probably close it for longer because the system would need to be tested and there would be many vested interests against change, probably more than now with FPTP.
I'm in favour of AV, but I thought Michael Howard put out an interesting, solid argument against on Question Time and since we're the fors and againsts I'll throw it out here(roughly paraphrasing and adding thoughts of my own):
AV and the increase in multi-party politics it helps bring about (due to the decrease in powershare for Lab/Con) leads to a lessening of the accountability of government to the electorate. With coalition governments you can for all intents and purposes throw out your manifesto and hide behind the excuse "We're in a coalition, compromises need to be made".
It doesn't matter whether 30% of 1st votes and 20% of 2nd votes wanted the Lib Dems in a seat so they get elected under AV if those people all chose their preferences on the basis of "abolition of tuition fees". A pledge that is then not only torn up, but the complete opposite occurs. The excuse? Coalition politics.
Not a single manifesto pledge need be kept, and you can just blame it on the other party. Then, at the end of term, if everything went wrong who do we blame? For the things that went right, whose responsibility was that? If they say something in their manifesto this time, do they really mean it? Or will it be quickly thrown off the table in a backroom deal to get into government? Politics can become an even more disillusioning mess than it already is.
For that reason, while I'm voting AV on the weight of its advantages, I recognise the argument against is pretty strong and would not be too disappointed if FPTP won. We may have dodged a potential bullet by keeping to something that 'works'.
I'm not sure you understand how AV works. Practically all centre-left votes would eventually cycle up to Labour, and the vast vast majority of smaller parties in this country are centre-left (Lib DemsP), SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, Respect, etc). The BNP and UKIP pale in comparison. The major losers from AV are the Tories, no doubt about it. It doesn't matter how split the vote is since it transfers on as the parties become eliminated. FPTP is the system where a united vote is an advantage, which is why the Tories are so set on keeping it as the entire right wing of this country votes for them.
AV and the increase in multi-party politics it helps bring about (due to the decrease in powershare for Lab/Con) leads to a lessening of the accountability of government to the electorate. With coalition governments you can for all intents and purposes throw out your manifesto and hide behind the excuse "We're in a coalition, compromises need to be made".
It doesn't matter whether 30% of 1st votes and 20% of 2nd votes wanted the Lib Dems in a seat so they get elected under AV if those people all chose their preferences on the basis of "abolition of tuition fees". A pledge that is then not only torn up, but the complete opposite occurs. The excuse? Coalition politics.
Not a single manifesto pledge need be kept, and you can just blame it on the other party. Then, at the end of term, if everything went wrong who do we blame? For the things that went right, whose responsibility was that? If they say something in their manifesto this time, do they really mean it? Or will it be quickly thrown off the table in a backroom deal to get into government? Politics can become an even more disillusioning mess than it already is.
For that reason, while I'm voting AV on the weight of its advantages, I recognise the argument against is pretty strong and would not be too disappointed if FPTP won. We may have dodged a potential bullet by keeping to something that 'works'.
zomgbbqftw said:
I'm not sure you understand how AV works. Practically all centre-left votes would eventually cycle up to Labour, and the vast vast majority of smaller parties in this country are centre-left (Lib Dems
P), SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, Respect, etc). The BNP and UKIP pale in comparison. The major losers from AV are the Tories, no doubt about it. It doesn't matter how split the vote is since it transfers on as the parties become eliminated. FPTP is the system where a united vote is an advantage, which is why the Tories are so set on keeping it as the entire right wing of this country votes for them.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Sage00 said:
That's an interesting argument, but rather flawed by the fact that governments aren't in any real way accountable to the electorate except every five years or so, by which time it is usually too late.
What's more important is that the government is accountable to Parliament and that Parliament is strong enough to hold the government to at least relative sanity.
That's why my preferred reform, after reforming the Lords, would be for the seat of government to move from the Commons to the Lords but leave the Commons as the primary legislative body. But that's a change that'll take somewhere around a century to complete as no political party would support it other than step by gradual step - which is partly what is wrong with political parties.
I'm not sure you understand how AV works. Practically all centre-left votes would eventually cycle up to Labour, and the vast vast majority of smaller parties in this country are centre-left (Lib Dems
I don't think these are necessarily fair assumptions as to how it would work under an AV, or even a proportional, system. Currently people's votes, when they aren't for the big parties, are largely a tip-of-the-iceberg protest of some sort. I would be astonished if the supposed centre-left alignment (particularly if it is led by an authoritarian statist Labour) didn't splinter horribly under an AV system. That's not necessarily good or bad depending on your point of view, but it is asking a lot to just make the bald assumption that Labour would hoover up all the spare votes.
I'm trying to come at this fairly even-handedly - I have Tory councillors on my mother's side and Labour councillors on my father's side going back at least 70 years. It was an interesting political upbringing!
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Sage00 said:I'm not sure you understand how AV works. Practically all centre-left votes would eventually cycle up to Labour, and the vast vast majority of smaller parties in this country are centre-left (Lib Dems
LD's wouldn't all break to Labour, of the 15-18% of the electorate they have remaining I would guess more would break to the Tories, but from the 23% they got in the election I would guess 40/60 Con/Lab. There are very many 'Orange Book' LD's who value localism and fiscal sanity above the welfare state. Again, I would also question the conventional wisdom that all SNP votes would transfer to Labour. The SNP are seen as the real opposition in Scotland and many people who vote SNP really, really don't like Labour. Just because the Tories are useless in Scotland it doesn't make SNP supporters left wing. PC aren't as lefty as you think, I lived in Wales for three years and their policies are pretty socially conservative from what I remember, I never saw anything about their spending plans, but it is probably like the SNP - blank chequebook with English taxpayers footing the bill, so they would be seen as left of centre in that respect. The Greens are a special case, most people are usually quite surprised when they find out that the Green Party is a communism-lite, they usually think it is just about the environment and don't know the full policy brief so vote Green because they want to register their protest at how the government should look at environmental issues.
Also, the BNP are far more likely to break to Labour. White working class is Labour's domain. They are pretty transfer toxic though and few BNP supporters are likely to register a second or third preference.
Respect aren't a real party. They are as real as the EDL, they are more like a leftwing pressure group.
Believe me, I fully understand how AV works. You have just misread the electorate.
All in all, the polling evidence is that the UK is split about 50-50 Left/Right and the party which captures the centre ground will get the most votes, veer too much either way ideologically and you lose more votes from the middle than you gain from the fringes. Labour found that out in 1983 and 1992. The Tories in 2001 and 2005.
Anyway, the AV vote, while important, isn't the most important part of the bill, the equalisation of boundaries and electorate per MP is. Labour gamed the system over 13 years and built up an electoral bias of about 30 seats, removing that is now seen as gerrymandering, but it is the correct thing to do. Making sure that every person has the same amount of say is crucial, why should my suburbian vote be worth much less than some inner city Liverpudlian vote etc... Removing the electoral bias by legislating for equal boundaries will make it much harder for any future government to game the system like Labour did while they were in power.
I don't agree with this at all.
If that were the case, the Liberal Democrats wouldn't be looking at their worst poll ratings in decades. I don't buy the idea that people will be fooled by the "we're in a coalition" line.
I believe we'll see the emergence of consensual politics, where the House of Commons begins to mean something again and power is shifted away from the Premier. And ultimately that's the core disease in British politics; the strength of the Prime Minister. We don't need one!
Hello everyone, I have a question about AV.
Suppose we have 5 candidates A to E, and in the first round of voting no one party gets a majority. So the party with the least votes, let us say D, drops out and everyone (who voted for D?) has their 2nd preference counted towards the other party's. Now, let us assume, again no party has a majority and E has the least number of votes this time; in this 2nd round E has a mixture of people whom voted E first and E second (which came from D). Now, here is my question, how are E's votes split? Do we take E's third preference. Wouldn't that mean people who voted E first miss out on their second preference vote? Perhaps I have misunderstood how AV works but I haven't found an answer for this yet.
Sorry if this is a bit complicated, I hope it makes sense.
Suppose we have 5 candidates A to E, and in the first round of voting no one party gets a majority. So the party with the least votes, let us say D, drops out and everyone (who voted for D?) has their 2nd preference counted towards the other party's. Now, let us assume, again no party has a majority and E has the least number of votes this time; in this 2nd round E has a mixture of people whom voted E first and E second (which came from D). Now, here is my question, how are E's votes split? Do we take E's third preference. Wouldn't that mean people who voted E first miss out on their second preference vote? Perhaps I have misunderstood how AV works but I haven't found an answer for this yet.
Sorry if this is a bit complicated, I hope it makes sense.
MLH said:
We take the second choice from those who voted for E first and the third choice from those who voted for it second, I believe. If any who voted for E first voted for D second, we'd take those peoples' third choice, too.
Basically, it's easier to think of it as "When a party is eliminated, we take the next non-eliminated choice from the ballots"; that avoids any confusion about ordering.
Off topic to our AV discussions:
I think that the Liberal Democrats are now well and truly in bed with the Tories. On their own they can no longer stand due to the loss of their student base. My question is, should they perhaps continue as a strand of the Conservatives, offering liberal social policy ideas to what must be considered a broadly liberalising Conservative party?
Obviously this wouldn't be an official merger, but more a relucatnce to work with Labour and a willingness to work with the Tories. I suppose if the Conservatives gained enough traction in the polls they'd probably ditch the LDs and go it alone, but I do sometimes wonder if Cameron might like using the LDs as an excuse to bring in some liberal policies, he clearly isn't a Thatcherite or anything.
I think that the Liberal Democrats are now well and truly in bed with the Tories. On their own they can no longer stand due to the loss of their student base. My question is, should they perhaps continue as a strand of the Conservatives, offering liberal social policy ideas to what must be considered a broadly liberalising Conservative party?
Obviously this wouldn't be an official merger, but more a relucatnce to work with Labour and a willingness to work with the Tories. I suppose if the Conservatives gained enough traction in the polls they'd probably ditch the LDs and go it alone, but I do sometimes wonder if Cameron might like using the LDs as an excuse to bring in some liberal policies, he clearly isn't a Thatcherite or anything.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
MLH said:
It's done round by round. Last place in each round is eliminated and their votes are redistributed according to their preferences. In your scenario when party E is eliminated all their votes are redistributed whether they are picked by first or second preference. The second preference pick will go to third preference, but since many people won't bother to pick beyond 1 and 2 it is unlikely that it will matter.
The most common mix for right of centre will be Con/UKIP/Lib in some order of preference and for left of centre it will be Lab/Green/Lib in some order of preference. The number of votes that have those as the top three in some order will be almost equal. BNP voters are less likely to pick second and third preferences, but the ones that do are more likely to pick Labour.
radioheadrule83
Banned
MLH said:
The best way to imagine how votes are distributed under this system is to imagine them being counted the old fashioned way -- in piles of ballot paper.
Imagine the ballot papers being emptied out on to a table, with people at the ready to count them. The ballot papers are first placed into piles based on peoples' first preferences. In the initial round, if a winner doesn't emerge with over 50% of the vote - the weakest candidate (D in your example) is eliminated. The papers from the eliminated candidates pile are re-examined, and placed in new piles as per their next preference. At this stage, that would be their second preference.
If at this point, no candidate has more than 50% of the vote - another candidate is eliminated (E in your example). This time you do the same thing, go through the pile one by one. Where the eliminated candidate was a second preference, you take their third preference and place it in the appropriate pile. If it was their first preference, you take their second.
This continues until someone wins with support of over 50%. Given that there are three major parties dominating British politics, some consitutency election results could still be decided on the first round vote counting. If not, it would be highly likely that most UK election results would be resolved by a second round of counting. The net benefit of this system is that it takes on more data from the voter.
First past the post is, perhaps appropriately, a bit like placing a bet on a horse. If your horse loses, your opinions and feelings on the other runners (and the policies they offer) are irrelevant. You lost.
Under AV, every voter gets to grade each political party on what they are offering. You don't just win or lose, you make your opinion known. A more detailed picture of the British electorate and the opinions in it would hopefully emerge under AV. I really think that kind of added data could yield some real benefit and aid our political evolution. The party that emerges as a victor under AV will have had to have considered broader support for its policies, and no longer just aspire to fulfil their ideological ambitions, pushing things through every few years when the political pendulum swings in their favour. They will need and they will have a stronger mandate from the people. Vote YES!
Some good PDFs on AV:
What is AV?
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/What is AVweb.pdf
Why AV?
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/Why AV web.pdf
AV FAQ
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/AV FAQ web.pdf
radioheadrule83 said:A more detailed picture of the British electorate and the opinions in it would hopefully emerge under AV. I really think that kind of added data could yield some real benefit and aid our political evolution. The party that emerges as a victor under AV will have had to have considered broader support for its policies, and no longer just aspire to fulfil their ideological ambitions, pushing things through every few years when the political pendulum swings in their favour. They will need and they will have a stronger mandate from the people. Vote YES!
Thank you for your info. I believe this as well but couldn't have expressed it as eloquently as you and I will be voting 'yes'.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Meadows said:
I can see that we are destined to disagree on political matters!
It is way too premature to write off the LibDems as an independent party. Undoubtedly they've lost a significant amount of short-term support through their brave, principled and honourable decision to go into coalition with the only party capable of forming a majority government with them - but I expect that at the end of the five-year term they will gain respect for that decision, for the positive and liberal impact they have had and will continue to have on policy and will have gained additional electoral potential through having real experience of government.
It's in the interests of both the two main parties to attempt to write them off in one way or another - whether as traitors or as poodles - but I don't believe that is in the interests of pluralistic grown-up politics or in the long term interests of the country.
I expect that they will attract more good-quality candidates and do better at the next election than they did at the last one. They might even get my vote - which counts for a lot in this Tory/Libdem marginal.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
Well losing the student base isn't much of a loss, they are the least likely group to vote and the ones that do vote tend to vote Labour or Conservative. Students that support LDs are the group of people least likely to vote, so their support is not worth a lot except a few loud voices.
Generally I agree with you that the Lib Dems are a good influence on the Cons. They will be dumped at the next election, the Tories will win a majority AV or no if the economy has recovered. According to the new ITEM club forecast it probably will have by 2014, so we can expect a nice budget in 2014 where everyone's pay packet will feel heavier because of extra tax cuts, the 50% rate will probably be gone so the right wing that are wavering with UKIP will be back.
I do think if AV goes through the coalition will run an official ticket with the LDs, but some of them will not like it and split off and run on a ticket with Labour, like Vince Cable and Simon Hughes. David Laws is the next natural leader of the LDs, but given his expenses problems he may never achieve it now so that leaves Farron leading into the 2015 election which would hamper an official coalition ticket.
Anyway, I think the LDs will improve their standing with the electorate once the economy improves so they may not need to run on a ticket with any party. They will get an equal share of the praise so 15% will turn into 20%, 35% for the Tories will turn into 40% and Labour will be further discredited on the economy which is the most important subject. If the economy doesn't improve I expect the coalition will dissolve in 2014, early election to limit the damage and Labour will win with a slim majority on the new boundaries.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Most people I speak to who don't like AV generally support one party in paricular. Me on the other hand, I've voted for SNP, Lib Dems, and I think Labour (European election, lol) on different occasions, and I think AV is a great idea.
On a different note, Tavish Scott (Leader of the Scottish Lib Dems) has come out and more or less said he's independent of the party's London/Westminster leadership, and doesn't like what they're doing. I wonder if there's going to be a split in the party at some point in the future...
On a different note, Tavish Scott (Leader of the Scottish Lib Dems) has come out and more or less said he's independent of the party's London/Westminster leadership, and doesn't like what they're doing. I wonder if there's going to be a split in the party at some point in the future...
zomgbbqftw
Banned
This is the latest ITEM club forecast for the UK economy:
http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Issues/Busi...omy/ITEM---Forecast-headlines-and-projections
They say GDP growth will be 1.8%, then 2.3%, 2.7% and 2.8% which is slightly more bullish than the official OBR estimates. They also say on our current trajectory the government deficit will be 7.4%, 5.3%, 3.4% and 2.3% by the end of 2014, but that doesn't include the cost of the banking intervention, it would be around 1.2% higher per year if you include it.
Either way if these forecasts are even close to accurate then 2014 will be much better as unemployment will be coming down and taxes for the working poor can be cut further as well.
Our internal estimate for unemployment in 2014 is 6.4% and the absolute number of people in work will be 30.2m which is a net addition of 950k from today, but that estimate hasn't been properly audited so I expect there will be changes to it.
http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Issues/Busi...omy/ITEM---Forecast-headlines-and-projections
They say GDP growth will be 1.8%, then 2.3%, 2.7% and 2.8% which is slightly more bullish than the official OBR estimates. They also say on our current trajectory the government deficit will be 7.4%, 5.3%, 3.4% and 2.3% by the end of 2014, but that doesn't include the cost of the banking intervention, it would be around 1.2% higher per year if you include it.
Either way if these forecasts are even close to accurate then 2014 will be much better as unemployment will be coming down and taxes for the working poor can be cut further as well.
Our internal estimate for unemployment in 2014 is 6.4% and the absolute number of people in work will be 30.2m which is a net addition of 950k from today, but that estimate hasn't been properly audited so I expect there will be changes to it.