-
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
radioheadrule83
Banned
I honestly just feel that AV would be more positive.
First past the post is people caballing together and placing their singular vote behind one 'team'. If their team doesn't come out ahead, hard lines, they made their choice.
That makes voting a gamble, and as such - FPTP reinforces the corrosive dominance of two party politics. People are too afraid of letting 'the enemy' in to bother trying to give other candidates a chance. They vote based on their partisan alliegance or they vote on their fears. That's not the way politics should work.
AV - while not perfect - is certainly better. It is effectively each voter grading each party, numbering them by preference. You can pick any candidate without fear as long as you have your preferences in order. All of the "No to AV" literature seems to say "this person wouldn't win under FPTP, why should they win under AV?" -- well its simple really. Under AV, the winner is the first person to become the highest preference amongst the highest number of people, and beat everyone else to exceed 50% of the vote in a given round of vote counting.
I'll repeat the salient point there again: the victor would have scored as a higher preference amongst a higher proportion of people than all of the other candidates.
Now ask yourself -- why should that NOT be the way it should work? It will better reflect what people actually want.
First past the post is people caballing together and placing their singular vote behind one 'team'. If their team doesn't come out ahead, hard lines, they made their choice.
That makes voting a gamble, and as such - FPTP reinforces the corrosive dominance of two party politics. People are too afraid of letting 'the enemy' in to bother trying to give other candidates a chance. They vote based on their partisan alliegance or they vote on their fears. That's not the way politics should work.
AV - while not perfect - is certainly better. It is effectively each voter grading each party, numbering them by preference. You can pick any candidate without fear as long as you have your preferences in order. All of the "No to AV" literature seems to say "this person wouldn't win under FPTP, why should they win under AV?" -- well its simple really. Under AV, the winner is the first person to become the highest preference amongst the highest number of people, and beat everyone else to exceed 50% of the vote in a given round of vote counting.
I'll repeat the salient point there again: the victor would have scored as a higher preference amongst a higher proportion of people than all of the other candidates.
Now ask yourself -- why should that NOT be the way it should work? It will better reflect what people actually want.
You know what I'd like, a good centre-left party. Plaid Cymru and the SNP actually have good Centre-left policies, but obviously the parties are mainly dedicated to independence and aren't available in England.
Labour are pretty much centre-right these days, and the LDs are centre/centre-right. I'm not asking for a return to Old Labour necessarily, but I think we need a 4th mainstream option (the greens are too left wing for me).
I heard something about some new political party that was coming up, I think it had "uni" in the name or something. Does anyone have a link to them?
EDIT:
I remember that the Community Action Party were doing pretty well in a few local council elections in Greater Manchester/Warrington a few years back but haven't heard anything since. Some of their policies were alright, but they're obviously a minor party: (http://www.community-action.com/)
The Liberal party aren't too bad either, but don't seem too far apart from the Liberal Democrats in many ways. Still, some of their policies are cracking, although a little too radical, keeping them in the minor party category (http://www.liberal.org.uk/)
The Social Democratic Party seem quite bland for a minor party, seemingly not really caring too much. They also said they support the UK having a responsible "roll" in the world. Yeah. (http://www.socialdemocraticparty.co.uk/index.php)
Labour are pretty much centre-right these days, and the LDs are centre/centre-right. I'm not asking for a return to Old Labour necessarily, but I think we need a 4th mainstream option (the greens are too left wing for me).
I heard something about some new political party that was coming up, I think it had "uni" in the name or something. Does anyone have a link to them?
EDIT:
I remember that the Community Action Party were doing pretty well in a few local council elections in Greater Manchester/Warrington a few years back but haven't heard anything since. Some of their policies were alright, but they're obviously a minor party: (http://www.community-action.com/)
The Liberal party aren't too bad either, but don't seem too far apart from the Liberal Democrats in many ways. Still, some of their policies are cracking, although a little too radical, keeping them in the minor party category (http://www.liberal.org.uk/)
The Social Democratic Party seem quite bland for a minor party, seemingly not really caring too much. They also said they support the UK having a responsible "roll" in the world. Yeah. (http://www.socialdemocraticparty.co.uk/index.php)
phisheep said:
wouldn't you prefer your third preference to one you really didn't want in? for example if you were to vote in Barking in 2010 and really not want the BNP, you could vote (in any order) anyone but the BNP, making it extremely unlikely they'd pick up the seat.
Also, if you don't want to, you can just put down a first and second, or even just a first preference if you feel like it.
edit:
for example you could vote:
Liberal Democrats (1)
Labour (3)
Green (2)
Independent (4)
Conservative (5)
Restoration Party -
Monster Raving Loony Party -
Christian Party -
UK Independence Party -
British National Party -
making sure that even if the tories get in (if you're centre left like me) that there isn't a BNP MP.
louis89
Member
I don't see that as the voting system's fault. That's people's fault, nobody's making them vote in that way. Don't change the voting system because people aren't using it in the right way.radioheadrule83 said:
Yes. Your party lost. That's not unfair, it's not the fault of the voting system, it's not you not being entitled to an opinion, it's not your vote counting for less. It's your party losing.mclem said:
Isn't that exactly the kind of tactical voting you want to get rid of?Meadows said:
louis89 said:
But government *isn't* all about parties. It's about ideas, and policies, and manifestos.
Party A campaigns on giving young children free milk
Party B campaigns on giving young children free orange juice
Party C campaigns on giving young children free arsenic
If you are not in favour of young children killing themselves or other people, how should you vote in the current system?
What if 30% of the populace like milk, 30% of the populace are huge fans of orange juice, and the remaining 40%... don't like children?
To put it another way: FPTP votes implicitly state "I like this party - I think *all* other parties are *equally* inferior". That's Just Not True.
louis89 said:
no, it's the kind of tactical voting I want to keep.
My first preference is to get the Liberal Democrats into power. In the Barking area this is unlikely, so under FPTP I'd have to resort to voting Labour (who I dislike) to keep the BNP from power.
Under AV I'd be able to still vote for the Liberal Democrats, my party of choice, while keeping a security vote so that I at least am able to show my preference to keep the BNP out.
You may well say: "oh, you're one of the people undermining the system by voting tactically in the first place". Yeah, well that's a flaw of the system. People didn't vote tactically in Aberconwy because there was no previous polling information on who the frontrunners were due to it being a new constituency and as a result of this the Tories got in, when a large majority voted for non-conservative parties.
Next time there is an election (unless AV comes into effect) everyone will vote Labour because campaign literature will be released by them that shows Labour have the best chance of beating the Conservatives. People will be voting tactically. This is the wrong kind of tactical vote. AV would be great for my, and other similar, constituencies.
... yes it is?phisheep said:
Politics is not black and white. I don't support a party because the party is intrinsically good, but because the party represents my opinions and interests closer than its rivals.
Under FPTP I am often forced to maximise my utility by voting *against* the party I dislike the most as much as for the party I like the most. People who don't do this will have their vote wasted.
Under AV I am better represented. My vote is less frequently wasted. It should be a crime that so small a portion of the voting public actually decide the majority of seats.
louis89
Member
See, I just fundamentally disagree with this idea that both mclem and you have brought up here - that you can group together Party B, C, D and so on under the banner of "not Party A" and that because more people voted for them in total that therefore one of them should win.Meadows said:
The Conservative Party won in your constituency because it was the most popular party. You can't just blame tactical voting and the voting system when your party loses. Your arguments seem to have at their core the idea that the Conservative Party is evil we all hate them and we must do something to stop them from fluking their way to winning seats.
Just changed my mind about the local/regional assembly elections here in Aberconwy. Had a read of each of the four parties campaign literature and the Liberal Democrat's one is terrible, misleading and makes use of very selective negative statistics to put down Labour/Plaid. I've always thought that these local elections should never be about national politics and my vote will represent that. Out of all the literature Plaid's is the least negative. I will now vote Plaid in both local/regional.
louis89 said:
We must stop anyone from fluking their way to winning seats, surely you agree with that? In my eyes that's what AV will do. It isn't perfect but miles better than FPTP.
They were not the most popular party. They got the most votes, but that doesn't make them the most popular. This is the problem with FPTP. AV would be a better indicator of who people like more imo.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
People should have a read:
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/04/19/why-is-yes-talking-to-itself/
It is a non-partisan website, the owner is a Lib Dem and the writer is a Conservative, but since betting is the blog's remit most people are there to make money which means seeing beyond party politics. The article is very good and shows exactly why YES will lose, they failed to get beyond their core lefty vote and since Labour voters are 50/50 Yes/No it will never pass. If they had pitched the idea that AV would unite the right of centre vote behind the Cons and give UKIP voters a chance to not waste their votes I think they would be doing better among right wing Tories who want to vote UKIP but don't want to let Labour in. By only having left of centre parties in their tent they have alienated a good proportion of would be supporters.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/04/19/why-is-yes-talking-to-itself/
It is a non-partisan website, the owner is a Lib Dem and the writer is a Conservative, but since betting is the blog's remit most people are there to make money which means seeing beyond party politics. The article is very good and shows exactly why YES will lose, they failed to get beyond their core lefty vote and since Labour voters are 50/50 Yes/No it will never pass. If they had pitched the idea that AV would unite the right of centre vote behind the Cons and give UKIP voters a chance to not waste their votes I think they would be doing better among right wing Tories who want to vote UKIP but don't want to let Labour in. By only having left of centre parties in their tent they have alienated a good proportion of would be supporters.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
Surely by getting the most votes they were the most popular party?
If you can get past your hate for right of centre thinking and see FPTP and AV for what they really are then you will see that neither is satisfactory, and AV is probably worse since it is less proportional.
zomgbbqftw said:
No, if they got over 50% of the vote they would be. Most of the people that vote Labour/Plaid Cymru and I suspect a lot of the people that vote Lib Dem do not like the Conservatives, especially here in North Wales where mining communities were ruined in the Thatcher days (although this is for another day).
They are not the most popular, in fact, I'd wager they're the least popular of the main 4.
It's like person A (conservative) has 35 people that like him a lot, 15 people that think he's a bit of a twat when he's drunk but isn't that bad and 50 people that hate him.
Person B (for example's sake Plaid Cymru) has 18 people that like him a lot, but is generally liked by 50 people, 12 people think he's alright but a bit too into Welsh independence and 20 people hate him.
Who is more popular?
zomgbbqftw said:
I don't hate centre right thinking.
I hate right wing thinking (BNP/US Republicans) and I hate far/centre far left wing thinking (some Green policies/communist/most student politics etc). Centrist thinking denotes pragmatism and pragmatism is the best thing for politics.
radioheadrule83
Banned
louis89 said:
I don't see where they're saying that?
louis89 said:
I'm going to ignore the mention of the conservatives in your main example. I am frankly not surprised that you and certain other posters here oppose AV... I honestly don't understand why. The natural order of things is that shitty parties cannot stay in power. Even if AV did initially benefit liberal parties, a time would come when the country would need conservative policies... as zomgwtfbbq has been saying, I think this government stands a good chance of rehabilitating the image of the Conservative party, as long as good things come out of this parliament... I would count recovery and electoral reform as big plusses certainly.
Whatever party wins in your constituency under First Past The Post is absolutely NOT necessarily the most popular party. 35% or even less is not popular support. Thats a little over a third of people narrowly edging out divided opposition. If you think of the Post in first past the post as the finishing line in a horse race, its about a third of the way around the track... a great great number of people are disenfranchised. AV represents a way to hear every man, on every party - not just one. How is that a bad thing?
You absolutely cannot deny that people vote tactically. There is the perception of a two party system in this country, and if a race isn't going the way of a persons' true preferred candidate, they will vote negatively in order to stop their least preferred outcome. That's just the way it is now. Minor parties like the Greens will never grow support under this system, because everyone is too afraid to 'waste' their vote voting for them. Stagnant politics, dominated by two parties only provides people the possibility of getting the best of two bad options. I don't blame people in safe seats for wondering why they should bother voting at all. Some people are that disillusioned that they don't, or they spoil their ballots. You get the impression the parties only care about people in swing seats and marginals.
There is no such thing as a wasted vote under AV. You grade the parties. Every man is heard on every party. The party with the highest grade - the highest preference amongst the greatest amount of people - wins. Now THAT party would be the most popular party. Whether it was a second or third preference to some or not: at least their vote, their scoring - was truly counted. A vote under FPTP is a singular chance to affect the outcome, one that takes no account of how people view a complex ballot - its a complete gamble.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
Your example makes way too many assumptions to be serious. Most people don't identify themselves as left or right and to assume that second preferences wouldn't follow first preferences is not founded, in most examples of AV the candidate that gets the most first preference votes will usually get a lot of second preferences as well because they are popular. Usually the parties that are already eliminated make up the bulk of second preferences as most people will vote for their favoured major party then add their second party (UKIP, Green). There will be a few people that will vote for their favoured minor party first but it won't be a very large proportion of voters, not enough for Green or UKIP to win a seat. It will probably help the Lib Dems win 10-20 more seats though.
In fact, the only way the Greens have a seat is by FPTP, under AV I suspect many of the Lib Dem and Con second preferences would have gone to Labour, more at least than would have gone to the Greens. So lets put it this way, under FPTP the Green party won their first Parliamentary seat, it is unlikely that AV would have produced a similar result, how is that helpful to minor parties other than the Lib Dems.
zomgbbqftw said:
Bolded are the assumptions that you make
*** is especially ridiculous - Labour and Conservatives are arch-rivals, often centring their campaign on why not to vote for the other, I doubt they'd share votes for this reason.
The greens winning their seat was down to selective, very hard campaigning.
louis89
Member
My personal thoughts are that it will pass because the people that care the most about this (i.e., the people that will turn up and vote) are more likely to be passionate about changing the system and introducing something they think is better rather than passionate about keeping what we have.zomgbbqftw said:
louis89 said:
you've got to remember that a lot of people are going for the council/assembly elections anyway so that might not be the case.
I still think the vote is up in the air, a lot of NOs could be turned off by their campaign but a lot of YESs could be turned off by Clegg. There's also a lot of undecided voters, including a lot of my friends. I don't think it's over yet.
radioheadrule83
Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
You tell him off for making assumptions and then make your own. You have no basis on which to say that the Greens would stand less of a chance under AV.
Under AV people might be more inclined to vote for them and place them high on the preference list. I take it you're thinking of the seat that Caroline Lucas won in Brighton Pavillion? I would assume that people who voted for in 2010 under FPTP would likely have made her first choice under AV, and she also would have picked up an unknown quantity of votes in the run off rounds to get a winner of above 50% support... its possible she might have lost, but its quite possible she could have won by a greater margin too.
Brighton Pavillion was an anomaly under FPTP. Labour and the Conservatives cannibalise votes all over the country in a way that make it impossible to happen in most wards.
I'll say it again because I think its a clear way of putting it:
- Under AV - every man and woman is heard on every party. Under FPTP - they are heard on only one.
- Under AV - your vote is an assessment of all your options. FPTP it is a gamble and leaves people fearing a 'wasted' vote.
- Under AV - a candidate needs to be the most popular amongst the highest preferences of over 50% of those voting to win. Under FPTP - edging out opposition and securing a small majority is enough to secure power.
I'd just like to make a general peace offer to all parties involved and stop this thread becoming too anti-AV v pro-AV.
I have considered the points of both positions, and now, unlike before, can see why people dislike AV. I am strongly in favour of a Yes vote however and will continue this way until the election.
We must all see that alternative viewpoints are relevant (something that I, to my detriment, forgot at the beginning of the AV argument) and must be considered in our own decision making, independent of what political parties are telling us.
If you're reading this and are undecided (as I suspect many lurkers are), I'd like to direct you to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS84zuf5_LQ&feature=player_embedded
It's a completely unbiased video from the independent Electoral Commission, it's basically their job to make sure you have all of the information you need to make an informed decision.
Whatever decision you make in the referendum, as long as it is informed, I have nothing but respect for you. But I urge, do not follow party lines in assembly/council elections as I was about to do, read the politician's policies for your local area, and vote the one that you think will do best for you, no matter if Plaid/Labour/UKIP or Monster Raving Looney.
I'd like to apologise for not seeing the alternative viewpoint and being ignorant/sensationalist at the start of this discussion. I hope we can continue the thread in a way that is good for healthy debate and sharing viewpoints, unfortunately this would be oppositional to the way that both the YES and NO parties have ran their campaigns.
I have considered the points of both positions, and now, unlike before, can see why people dislike AV. I am strongly in favour of a Yes vote however and will continue this way until the election.
We must all see that alternative viewpoints are relevant (something that I, to my detriment, forgot at the beginning of the AV argument) and must be considered in our own decision making, independent of what political parties are telling us.
If you're reading this and are undecided (as I suspect many lurkers are), I'd like to direct you to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS84zuf5_LQ&feature=player_embedded
It's a completely unbiased video from the independent Electoral Commission, it's basically their job to make sure you have all of the information you need to make an informed decision.
Whatever decision you make in the referendum, as long as it is informed, I have nothing but respect for you. But I urge, do not follow party lines in assembly/council elections as I was about to do, read the politician's policies for your local area, and vote the one that you think will do best for you, no matter if Plaid/Labour/UKIP or Monster Raving Looney.
I'd like to apologise for not seeing the alternative viewpoint and being ignorant/sensationalist at the start of this discussion. I hope we can continue the thread in a way that is good for healthy debate and sharing viewpoints, unfortunately this would be oppositional to the way that both the YES and NO parties have ran their campaigns.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I know you edited this out but I'd like to answer it:
Under FPTP, people decide on their first preference only - and the results turn out as:
A - 35%
B - 30%
C - 30%
D - 5%
A wins. 65% of those who voted have to like it or lump it, whether they agree with the policies of candidate A or not.
The answer to your question - which party was more popular than Party A - is we don't know.
FPTP is not a bad system per se, but it doesn't tell us everything about the concerns, opinions and will of the electorate. I believe that as a system, AV would tell us more, and reflect preferences. Under FPTP you are forced to make a singular choice, under AV you can respond with a more sophisticated and detailed choice. A winner under AV would be preferred to other candidates by over 50% of the voting population. And as that rarely if ever happens under FPTP, I think that makes AV a fundamentally superior system.
Coming back to your scenario: under the current system, candidate A wins, but he does not command the support of a majority of the whole voting populace. He has (as far as we know) only 35% of it. We have no idea of how the voters who backed the other candidates view candidate A, or indeed any candidates other than the one that they voted for. If only we had that knowledge. That knowledge could either give candidate A an even stronger mandate for his platform, or it could of course diminish it.. but isn't it better that we know what most people prefer? And in what order?
I believe that this debate hinges on whether you believe elections should be a simple competition, or whether they should broadly reflect common opinion.
Candidate A winning in that scenario is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not necessarily a good one either. If a large proportion of people can generally agree with some of the policies of candidate A, complaints would be minimal, and they often are minimal. But if a large proportion don't agree, or perhaps agree with one of the other candidates more - then they are left feeling disenfranchised, and feeling as though they backed the wrong horse. Fear of picking the wrong horse and unwittingly aiding another competitor should *not* have to be a factor in decision making... PROGRESS for this country should be the motivation. AV can reduce the fear and the claims of wasted votes.
Elections should be about choosing manifestos, about programmes, about policy... people aren't going to be in 100% agreement with all manifestos, so why should they have a gun held to their head and be forced to put 100% of their vote behind one as though placing a chip on a roulette table?
Under AV, people rank as many or as few parties as they want. They can go with their gut (as the PM says) and respond to policy. A fuller breadth of their opinion is known. The initial vote count under AV might turn out much the same as under FPTP, but it could be quite different without that strategic voting / fear element in play... it is the consideration of broader opinion when a victor does not command a strong majority that is the benefit of AV. And it's not just one that would benefit left leaning liberal parties. It benefits every voter.
louis89 said:
Under FPTP, people decide on their first preference only - and the results turn out as:
A - 35%
B - 30%
C - 30%
D - 5%
A wins. 65% of those who voted have to like it or lump it, whether they agree with the policies of candidate A or not.
The answer to your question - which party was more popular than Party A - is we don't know.
FPTP is not a bad system per se, but it doesn't tell us everything about the concerns, opinions and will of the electorate. I believe that as a system, AV would tell us more, and reflect preferences. Under FPTP you are forced to make a singular choice, under AV you can respond with a more sophisticated and detailed choice. A winner under AV would be preferred to other candidates by over 50% of the voting population. And as that rarely if ever happens under FPTP, I think that makes AV a fundamentally superior system.
Coming back to your scenario: under the current system, candidate A wins, but he does not command the support of a majority of the whole voting populace. He has (as far as we know) only 35% of it. We have no idea of how the voters who backed the other candidates view candidate A, or indeed any candidates other than the one that they voted for. If only we had that knowledge. That knowledge could either give candidate A an even stronger mandate for his platform, or it could of course diminish it.. but isn't it better that we know what most people prefer? And in what order?
I believe that this debate hinges on whether you believe elections should be a simple competition, or whether they should broadly reflect common opinion.
Candidate A winning in that scenario is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is not necessarily a good one either. If a large proportion of people can generally agree with some of the policies of candidate A, complaints would be minimal, and they often are minimal. But if a large proportion don't agree, or perhaps agree with one of the other candidates more - then they are left feeling disenfranchised, and feeling as though they backed the wrong horse. Fear of picking the wrong horse and unwittingly aiding another competitor should *not* have to be a factor in decision making... PROGRESS for this country should be the motivation. AV can reduce the fear and the claims of wasted votes.
Elections should be about choosing manifestos, about programmes, about policy... people aren't going to be in 100% agreement with all manifestos, so why should they have a gun held to their head and be forced to put 100% of their vote behind one as though placing a chip on a roulette table?
Under AV, people rank as many or as few parties as they want. They can go with their gut (as the PM says) and respond to policy. A fuller breadth of their opinion is known. The initial vote count under AV might turn out much the same as under FPTP, but it could be quite different without that strategic voting / fear element in play... it is the consideration of broader opinion when a victor does not command a strong majority that is the benefit of AV. And it's not just one that would benefit left leaning liberal parties. It benefits every voter.
louis89
Member
I got rid of my post because like Meadows, I don't want this thread to become just anti-AV v pro-AV. But I'll just address this point and say that this is very very wrong and that a large amount of MPs win their seats with 50% or more of the votes. Here are the averages across Surrey from the last election (11 seats). Here's Glasgow (7 seats).radioheadrule83 said:
Just did a political compatibility test for Wales to help me make up my mind for sure who I'm voting for and it solidified that I'm gonna vote PC twice. Results:
Plaid Cymru: 38
Liberal Democrat: 12
Green: 6
Conservative: -6
Labour: -12
UKIP: -17
edit:
don't use it as the be all and end all of your decision, but simply a starter on a path to finding out who might be best for you:
http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/wales.php
Plaid Cymru: 38
Liberal Democrat: 12
Green: 6
Conservative: -6
Labour: -12
UKIP: -17
edit:
don't use it as the be all and end all of your decision, but simply a starter on a path to finding out who might be best for you:
http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/wales.php
zomgbbqftw
Banned
There is a link above that I posted about why YES has done so badly. Take a read, but the gist is that they have utterly failed to campaign beyond their core lefty 'progressive' voters. There aren't enough of them to get AV through a referendum.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Meadows said:
Most of what I said is borne out in polling. I don't have time to link the evidence now, but on the weekend I will send a PM with it.
Con would back Labour over Green.
Empty said:
Thanks.
I dread to think what would happen if the vote was incredibly close and then there be a stupidly low turnout. It wouldn't seem like a mandate either way. I will be voting and voting no but i'm not particularly fussed either way as i don't believe AV is much of a change. PR would be my prefered option if we were to change but there's no way the Tories or Labour would ever allow that referendum to happen.
killer_clank
Member
It's possibly worth pointing out with regards to the referendum that in Scotland at least (where there is a general election on polling day) that support for AV is greater here than in the rest of the UK (Don't have a link to hand, but I was reading about it at the weekend). Assuming a higher turnout in places of the UK where more substantial elections are taking place, if the polls tighten, it might be enough to pull them in AV's favour.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
7aged said:
No it isn't. It's never 'now or never' - well, hardly ever.
For example, quite independently of the current referendum there's the proposal to reform the Lords to a house fully elected by PR - that in itself would call into question the relative democratic legitimacy of the Commons under the current system and give some pretty strong pressure for reform.
Arguably (but only arguably), that pressure for PR in the Commons would be intensified rather than diminished by a NO vote in the AV referndum - because it could reasonably be claimed that (a) reform is necessary and (b) AV isn't it.
So I don't buy the line that this is a one-off opportunity.
JonathanEx
Member
However, if it's a No vote that goes through, that could be taken as "in favour of FPTP, don't change from that" rather than "I don't want AV [but may want another option]"
If only the referendum allowed me to put preferences on which voting system! Can I vote on that?
If only the referendum allowed me to put preferences on which voting system! Can I vote on that?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
There's plenty of ways of spinning whatever the result is, but only naive politicians who underestimate the intelligence of the electorate would claim it as a ringing endorsement of FPTP.
For example, I will be looking particularly at the results and the level of turnout in seats where it would have made (or could have made) a difference last time round - roughly anywhere where the winning vote was less than 50% and the margin of victory was numerically below the votes cast for the third-placed candidate. That will probably give a better, and relatively even-handed, assessment of the level of demand for AV/change from FPTP. And there's plenty of smart commentators out there who probably be doing the same.
With this sort of constitutional reform, sustained pressure and sound evidence can be just as effective in the long term as a referendum result.
In any case, I expect the next Parliament to be hung as well, and the price of a coalition deal to have gone up - market forces y'know.
For example, I will be looking particularly at the results and the level of turnout in seats where it would have made (or could have made) a difference last time round - roughly anywhere where the winning vote was less than 50% and the margin of victory was numerically below the votes cast for the third-placed candidate. That will probably give a better, and relatively even-handed, assessment of the level of demand for AV/change from FPTP. And there's plenty of smart commentators out there who probably be doing the same.
With this sort of constitutional reform, sustained pressure and sound evidence can be just as effective in the long term as a referendum result.
In any case, I expect the next Parliament to be hung as well, and the price of a coalition deal to have gone up - market forces y'know.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Zenith said:
Well, they would say that wouldn't they.
The NO camp says it because they don't ever want to change, but they'll get pushed towards it much faster than they think because of the legitimacy argument or a future coalition - probably in the next six years. Not decades.
The YES camp says it because they want a definitive result now, even though it isn't the result they'd have wanted had they been able to press for something more PR-ish - and even though they are going to keep pushing - they'll hardly sit back on their hands for the next 20 years.
I don't believe either of them.
As for me, I don't actually mind if constitutional changes move slowly so long as it moves right. It'll get there eventually.
Mr. Sam said:
The more I think about it the more I think that support will come back over the next few years. Cameron has said that he's in the government with Clegg for the next five (now four) years so there's no elections around the corner (unless we see a dramatic rise in the support for the Tories, fall for support in Labour/Lib Dems and the economic situation is stable. In this situation the tories may seek to govern independently, although at the moment the Lib Dems aren't obstructing them too much). If the economic recovery continues over the next four years then I suspect that the Lib Dems may get back some support.
I do, however, think it will be interesting to see the 2015 election because LD/CON can't really have a go at each other for too much as they ran everything together, but similarly cannot go, "well they're great and were really helpful but we're better for some reason".
Interesting times ahead though for sure, perhaps some issue will come up closer to the time that CON/LD will disagree on and will become the central election issue, perhaps something related to EU policy or the House of Lords.
killer_clank
Member
I don't like Adam Boulton usually, but he does a pretty great smackdown on Baroness Warsi in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVRtL20Ue54&feature=player_embedded
BTW, does anyone have any idea where this "6 out if 10 Australian people don't like AV and want to go back to FPTP" statistic comes from? I've never seen it in any official manner, yet the No to AV lot peddle it out all the time. It might be Australians want to move to a more proportional system, but I somehow HIGHLY doubt people want to "go back to" a system that was put out of use in 1918 and literally no one around nowadays in that country will have used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVRtL20Ue54&feature=player_embedded
BTW, does anyone have any idea where this "6 out if 10 Australian people don't like AV and want to go back to FPTP" statistic comes from? I've never seen it in any official manner, yet the No to AV lot peddle it out all the time. It might be Australians want to move to a more proportional system, but I somehow HIGHLY doubt people want to "go back to" a system that was put out of use in 1918 and literally no one around nowadays in that country will have used.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Public sector borrowing for the year just came in, it was recorded at £141bn down from Labour's prediction of £149bn from October 2009 which was based on their spending plan, which is down from a peak of £156bn in 2009/10. These figures don't include the fiscal intervention which makes the deficit higher. The figure was expected to be £145bn by the OBR which overshot.
Also consumer spending went up according to initial estimates which is great news for retailers and an economy dependent on consumption, matched with a fall in export demand one could say that domestic consumption is on the rise which is good for local employment and this can be seen in the latest private sector employment figures which were up by around 40k last month.
All in all it has been a very good month for the government and if the chancellor's deficit reduction plan works it is great news for the UK as we will be one of the first heavily indebted western nations to get onto a path of sustainability. All we need now is a law to stop Labour ever running a deficit in boom years, but I fear that is too much to ask...
Also consumer spending went up according to initial estimates which is great news for retailers and an economy dependent on consumption, matched with a fall in export demand one could say that domestic consumption is on the rise which is good for local employment and this can be seen in the latest private sector employment figures which were up by around 40k last month.
All in all it has been a very good month for the government and if the chancellor's deficit reduction plan works it is great news for the UK as we will be one of the first heavily indebted western nations to get onto a path of sustainability. All we need now is a law to stop Labour ever running a deficit in boom years, but I fear that is too much to ask...