UK Alternative Vote referendum

[Mark]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12485084

There will be a referendum in the UK on the 5th May 2011 to decide if we should switch to the 'Alternative Vote' for the next General Election which is scheduled for 2015.

How will you vote?

Personally I'm not sure and I'd like to hear more about it, but I fear like most issues we won't get the facts so much as obfuscated rhetoric! And, it's hard to separate the voting system from the politics of the moment, anything the Lib Dems propose is clearly an attempt to make sure they stay in power, which given their present run probably isn't a good idea.

[ArrowsFA1]

AV represents a logical progression from first past the post. Preserving the traditional one member, one constituency, it ensures all MPs have a real mandate while delivering greater choice and eliminating the need for tactical voting.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55


...anything the Lib Dems propose is clearly an attempt to make sure they stay in power...
I disagree Mark. If there is one thing the Liberal Party->SDP->Liberal Democrats have been advocating over the years it is for a reform of our electoral system. This perhaps comes from their years being out of power, rather than their current situation, and it is likely that the current proposals do not go as far as they would like, but are a result of the deal made with the Conservatives.

[Dave B]

AV isn't the solution, but it's been proposed so that when it's defeated (as it surely will be: almost every news group will be actively campaigning for the "no" vote) the Coalition can say "well, we did ask".

[Mark]

I disagree Mark. If there is one thing the Liberal Party->SDP->Liberal Democrats have been advocating over the years it is for a reform of our electoral system. This perhaps comes from their years being out of power, rather than their current situation, and it is likely that the current proposals do not go as far as they would like, but are a result of the deal made with the Conservatives.

Yes, they've been campaigning for years, but as a means to try to get into power, it just so happens they got into power using the existing system and of course now they want to stay there.

I don't think a situation where we we have a change in government but the Liberal Democrats are still part of it is a particularly good one!

[ArrowsFA1]

Here are details of the many different voting systems in use at home and abroad - http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

[Rollo]

We have an election in NSW in March which yet again uses the Alternative Vote. It will be again counted by hand, and we'll know who the next Premier is typically by 10pm after the polls close at 6pm.

Antony Green, the ABC's Election Statistician has this to say:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/does-the-alternative-vote-bring-tyranny-to-australia.html
Excerpt:
Where most UK constituencies would deal with 30-40,000 votes, the average Australian House of Representatives' count involves 90-100,000 votes. While equipment similar to note counters is used in post-election check-counting, the distribution of preferences is done entirely by hand and without difficulty. The tales of expensive counting equipment are not true.

The telling thing is the tag at the end:
From my experience of over two decades covering more than a half-century of Australian elections conducted using the Alternative Vote, I happen to think the UK has nothing to fear from the Alternative Vote.

As a voter from practical experience, even if you have 15 candidates, is isn't hard to write 1 to 15 on the ballot paper. At the end of it, at some point you will have chosen your preference for every candidate.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In last years election the Lib Dems share of the vote went up but they ended up with fewer MPs. Clearly something has to do change with the voting system.

I wonder what percentage of the population has an MP that they didn't vote for?

[Mark]

I wonder what percentage of the population has an MP that they didn't vote for?

Given that MP's are usually victorious with 30-40% of the vote at a guess I'd say 60-70%, but that's similar to any democracy.

The only real way to get around that is to have multiple rounds like they have in some countries, with the top two in the first round fighting it out head to head in the second.

[wedge]

Back in 6th Form I was a supporter of coalitions but now I'm not so sure.

Instead of AV I'd prefer the AV+ system as proposed by the Jenkins commission http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1205000/1205536.stm

Lib-Dems are now f****d as it is. I can't see how people will say yes to AV. They'll be Kingmaker making shoddy backroom deals and therefore it will only exacerbate the problem of politicians of being liars.

[BDunnell]

Electoral reform is not an issue that has ever — even when I used to work in politics and be a Lib Dem voter; not any more — exercised me at all. So I shall not bother to vote in this.

[Sonic]

Every system has it's downside and I don't know enough about AV (yet) to make an informed choice. However, one major drawback with this system as I understand it, is that most general elections would end with a coalition - not that I've a particular problem with this one so far - but if every election doesn't give a definitive result, whats the point?

[Lousada]

Given that MP's are usually victorious with 30-40% of the vote at a guess I'd say 60-70%, but that's similar to any democracy.

The only real way to get around that is to have multiple rounds like they have in some countries, with the top two in the first round fighting it out head to head in the second.
This is not true. In a party system like most of main-land Europe everyone has their own mp, except of course those mps/parties that didn't make the cut. That's because every vote gets counted for the grand total. In the party-system system, if the LibDems get 25% of the votes, they also get 25% of the seats.

[Lousada]

Every system has it's downside and I don't know enough about AV (yet) to make an informed choice. However, one major drawback with this system as I understand it, is that most general elections would end with a coalition - not that I've a particular problem with this one so far - but if every election doesn't give a definitive result, whats the point?

Read the link ArrowsF1 posted earlier. It makes simple explanations about every voting system.

[Rollo]

The only real way to get around that is to have multiple rounds like they have in some countries, with the top two in the first round fighting it out head to head in the second.

The Alternative Vote is effectively the same as multiple rounds but one one piece of paper.

Count up all the number ones, still don't have a majority? Go to the pile of ones from the least voted for candidate and add their number twos. Repeat process with twos, threes etc until necessary. In very tight situations, it can come down to minor preferences.

It's better than sending people back to the polls again isn't it?


Every system has it's downside and I don't know enough about AV (yet) to make an informed choice. However, one major drawback with this system as I understand it, is that most general elections would end with a coalition - not that I've a particular problem with this one so far - but if every election doesn't give a definitive result, whats the point?

Australia has been using the AV Federally since 1918. It's only resulted in a hung parliament twice.
In 2010 it took about three weeks before government was formed because the balance of power was held by 6 independents.

Under a first past the post election the UK ended up with a coalition. That's more of a function of the single member constituency system of parliament and not the voting system.

[Sonic]

Read the link ArrowsF1 posted earlier. It makes simple explanations about every voting system.

Just have cheers! :)

[Rollo]

Former Australian PM John Howard was on The Daily Politics on BBC2 giving his opinion on the Alternative Vote... sort of.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12974935
The impression that I got was that because he's been a politician for so long, he's become extremely skilled in the art of saying nothing but sounding convincing in doing it.
I also note that John Prescott will debating the "No Case" also on The Daily Politics tomorrow.

I must admit that from the other side of the world, I view this sort of as a weird source of entertainment.

[Mark]

Neither of the big parties are going to be in favour as the sole purpose is to boost the vote of the smaller parties, i.e. the LibDems! It does have the added advantage of saying "Preferably them", "Or maybes them", "But definitely not them!".

A society I'm a member of uses the AV system to elect it's committee members but they have an interesting addition in the form of "RON" - Re-Open Nominations - or "None of the above!". So at least under that system you can say "I want party A", "If not then party B", if neither of them then hold another election!

[Rollo]

Neither of the big parties are going to be in favour as the sole purpose is to boost the vote of the smaller parties, i.e. the LibDems! It does have the added advantage of saying "Preferably them", "Or maybes them", "But definitely not them!".

Sole purpose? The purpose is to actually provide a mechanism that a majority of voices be heard.

Suppose you had three candidates running and the one which won did so with only 34% of the vote as can happen under the First Past The Post system. That means that 66% of the electorate DID NOT vote for that candidate. If you have almost two-thirds of the electorate who voted against them, then that doesn't seem terribly democratic.

[Mark]

That may be a consequence, but the sole purpose of them bringing this vote is by the LibDems and for the LibDems so they can gain more power.

[Dave B]

We had our leaflet through yesterday. It manages to make FPTP look dead simple and AV the most convoluted system possible, not entirely sure how impartial the wording is. Sadly I suspect many people either won't care, or will vote according to how their newspaper of choice instructs them.

[Mark]

We had our leaflet through yesterday. It manages to make FPTP look dead simple and AV the most convoluted system possible, not entirely sure how impartial the wording is. Sadly I suspect many people either won't care, or will vote according to how their newspaper of choice instructs them.

I suspect the consequence will be "I don't understand what this is all about so I won't vote" then come the general election "I don't understand this system so I won't vote"

[Dave B]

I want to vote "yes" to AV, but use a second vote to vote against it :p

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That may be a consequence, but the sole purpose of them bringing this vote is by the LibDems and for the LibDems so they can gain more power.

I thought many Labour MP's were in favour of AV?

I think Labour will benefit from AV as much as the Lib Dems, because I suspect more Lib Dem voters will prefer Labour as a 2nd choice rather than the Conservatives.

The Tories will be very disadvantaged by AV. In the 1997 election they would have ended up with a measly 70 seats and would have been only the 3rd biggest party.

[Mark]

The Tories will be very disadvantaged by AV. In the 1997 election they would have ended up with a measly 70 seats and would have been only the 3rd biggest party.

I guess that's why they are against it. Tories will be very few peoples second choice, they are a love them or loathe them party, either you want them in government or you want them nowhere near, not ever!

[Daniel]

TBH the big problem is the unelected people in the house of Lords. How this has survived I do not know.

In Australia we have AV, but the upper house (the senate) members are selected based on how many upper house votes the parties got. So if there are 10 seats in one state then if you get 10% of the votes you get a seat. That means whilst it's not impossible for a party to have a majority in both houses, it's unlikely.

[Mark]

That system makes a lot of sense, rather than the current situation where the House of Lords has a majority based on which members have died and the ability of the government of the day to appoint people as Lords etc, it's all stupidly corrupt really.

If we go on a similar system of taking the share of the vote as a whole for the entire country and then appointing members according to that, this would be a decent system, especially since it's unlikely there would be an overall majority from any party. Currently it's possible (for example) for the LibDems to get 30% of the vote but get no MPs whatsoever, but they would at least then get a 30% presence in the House of Lords. :up:

[Daniel]

If we go on a similar system of taking the share of the vote as a whole for the entire country and then appointing members according to that, this would be a decent system, especially since it's unlikely there would be an overall majority from any party. Currently it's possible (for example) for the LibDems to get 30% of the vote but get no MPs whatsoever, but they would at least then get a 30% presence in the House of Lords. :up:

That's the beauty of the system! Labour could in theory have a majority in the house of commons but they'd have to get support from people in the upper house from other parties so you could see the Lib Dems holding the balance of power or independents holding the balance of power. Of course that means that you can have small parties having a large impact..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_First_Party

[Rollo]

That's the beauty of the system! Labour could in theory have a majority in the house of commons but they'd have to get support from people in the upper house from other parties so you could see the Lib Dems holding the balance of power or independents holding the balance of power. Of course that means that you can have small parties having a large impact..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_First_Party

The upper house is only the House of Review. The Executive of a Westminster parliament lies in the lower house and the Cabinet. Family First in Australia can't for instance make or introduce any bills to do with supply, and nor can it really affect what sorts of bills get sent to the Upper House in the first place.
And to merely suggest that only a small number of votes actually hold this mythical thing called "the balance of power" ignores the elephant in the room that the vast bulk of power is held by major parties who almost always invariably vote as blocks.

[markabilly]

just go back to having the royals rule with absolute power....give them something to do, besides sitting on thier butts living off the tax revenue produced from the labor of others

Family had to watch movie, Victoria, on TV the other night.

Her two big crisises was a battle with parliament over picking her servants and maids; and the other was who was she going to marry.....wow tough life for sure

[Daniel]

And to merely suggest that only a small number of votes actually hold this mythical thing called "the balance of power" ignores the elephant in the room that the vast bulk of power is held by major parties who almost always invariably vote as blocks.

If that's true then how have family first been able to get things like internet filtering through? You seem to misunderstand the term "balance of power" which refers not to who holds the bulk of power, but who is able to cast the deciding vote if the major parties don't hold an absolute majority.

[Rollo]

Getting "things like internet filtering through"? Really? I think you're mistaken on several counts.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/02/26/1235237810486.html
The Government's plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has effectively been scuttled...
...
Senator Conroy originally pitched the filters as a way

http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/regulation/37640-internet-filter-draft-legislation-delayed
The Rudd Government's controversial internet filter legislation
...
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy had planned for the internet filter to be debated this week,

Every internet censorship bill has originated in the lower house from the "Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy" Stephen Conroy who is a Labor member.

Actually I tend to think that the Family First member, Steve Fielding, has never even launched a single bill in the Senate let alone getting "things like internet filtering through".

[Daniel]

Getting "things like internet filtering through"? Really? I think you're mistaken on several counts.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/02/26/1235237810486.html
The Government's plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has effectively been scuttled...
...
Senator Conroy originally pitched the filters as a way

http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/regulation/37640-internet-filter-draft-legislation-delayed
The Rudd Government's controversial internet filter legislation
...
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy had planned for the internet filter to be debated this week,

Every internet censorship bill has originated in the lower house from the "Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy" Stephen Conroy who is a Labor member.

Actually I tend to think that the Family First member, Steve Fielding, has never even launched a single bill in the Senate let alone getting "things like internet filtering through".

I never said he himself pitched them as of course he can't, but in exchange for his co-operation they will have made concessions to these conservative religious nuts.

[Mark]

Daniel, you are wrong on all topics :mark:

[markabilly]

not on computers and cameras

[ArrowsFA1]

Family had to watch movie, Victoria, on TV the other night.

Her two big crisises was a battle with parliament over picking her servants and maids; and the other was who was she going to marry.....wow tough life for sure
Mmmmmm...as a true reflection of Queen Victoria's 63yr reign I would say that film was somewhat lacking :p

[Rollo]

I never said he himself pitched them as of course he can't, but in exchange for his co-operation they will have made concessions to these conservative religious nuts.

So in order to pass legislation, some negotiation and review of the bills in question has had to be done. That sounds suspciously like the whole point of the Senate, which is a house of review. Someone at some point actually voted for "these conservative religious nuts", which means that they are in fact fulfulling their role at representing the people who put them there.

[BDunnell]

I suspect the consequence will be "I don't understand what this is all about so I won't vote" then come the general election "I don't understand this system so I won't vote"

In terms of the referendum, were there to be a referendum on whether this referendum is necessary, you can bet your life that the turnout would be tiny. This is the problem. It is a minority-interest issue.

[Bezza]

Would I be right in thinking that Labour back in the 1990's altered the boundaries of voting, i.e. which constituency you vote for, and this in some way advantaged them ?

I am undecided on AV to be honest. I would like to see alternatives the three big parties (Tory, Labour, LibDem) coming to the fore a bit more, but then again I wouldn't want the new system to suit any party more than the other.

[Daniel]

So in order to pass legislation, some negotiation and review of the bills in question has had to be done. That sounds suspciously like the whole point of the Senate, which is a house of review. Someone at some point actually voted for "these conservative religious nuts", which means that they are in fact fulfulling their role at representing the people who put them there.

By passing legislation which a majority of people probably disagree very strongly with? Pull the other one!

[Rollo]

By passing legislation which a majority of people probably disagree very strongly with? Pull the other one!

Legislation requires to be passed by a majority in both houses. If legislation passes through the lower house which is representative of a majority of electorates, and throught the upper house which is representative of a majority of states, then it fulfils the requirements of the parliamentary democracy.
If only one person voted for a piece of legislation then it follows that the majority of members voted against it.

If people don't like legislation then perhaps a majority or people should consider changing who they vote for at the next election.

[Mark]

The vote is in 2 days time but I'm still undecided.

[Big Ben]

To me it looks like any of the choices you have are good enough compared to other systems. I am completely against lists. We used to have lists in Romania. Now we have a mixed system. Half the votes are individual votes while the rest are proportional. However individual votes are bound to the proportional votes. What happens is that you vote for one guy and after that they give the vote to some other guy belonging to the right party. We actually had individuals coming in 4th (or maybe even worse though I'm not sure) who went to parliament while the other 3 in front of him went home. We also had a guy who came last and still won with 34 votes :laugh: .

The lists were also great. We used to have a few guys who were supposed to go to the parliament and actually had a chance to get elected and then the ohers... a Hungarian, an Evangelical, a Gipsy and so on... everybody needs somebody :laugh: . Sometimes it happened that some of the guys on those lists didn't even know they were there :laugh: ... of course this is fraud and not a flaw of the system... but then again it's a system that facilitates situations like that.

To draw a conclusion, I'd be glad to be able to choose between the 2 options... I don't bother voting with the system we have over here.

[Mark]

There is a conflict between the idea of parties and the concept of a local population being represented in parliament by an MP.

If you just had political parties and no concept of local MPs then you could have an entirely proportional system, no constituencies, the country votes as a whole and each party is allocated a number of seats in parliament entirely dependent on what share of the vote they got.

So if you look at the last election (only counting the three main parties) the 621 seats would have been divided as so (with some rounding)

Conservative: 223
Labour: 180
Lib Dem: 142

Whereas the actual result was

Conservative: 306
Labour: 258
Lib Dem: 57

But at the moment we have the other extreme with the one MP one constituency concept absolute.
You can see why the Lib Dems like PR, as based on the popular vote they would have had way more seats.

[Big Ben]

That's something I don't get. People complain about parties not being represented. I vote some guy to go do a job. I want to know who I'm throwing rotten tomatoes or eggs at when job's not done. Why should I care about parties? If one thinks it's better to be member of a party that's his problem. I care who he his, what he stands for and if he does his jobs.

[Daniel]

I fail to see how anyone could vote no, unless like Bezza you're willing to do anything to make your vote for the conservatives count more OR you don't understand what's going on which is very likely considering the tactics of the Tories......

[Sonic]

The vote is in 2 days time but I'm still undecided.

Me too.

As a Lib Dem voter I *should* be putting my x in the AV box, but I'm still getting splinters in my backside from sitting on the fence.

AV just seems like the solution that no one wanted; merely a stepping stone towards a more modern system. I can see, a decade or so from now, yet another referendum asking if we want to switch again.

[Dave B]

AV just seems like the solution that no one wanted; merely a stepping stone towards a more modern system. I can see, a decade or so from now, yet another referendum asking if we want to switch again.

I agree with this, but shall be voting "yes".

As I see it, a "no" vote will probably be the nail in the coffin for any electoral reform in my lifetime. If AV is defeated I fear that we'll never get another chance.

AV is far from perfect, but it's an improvement on FPTP and hopefully it can be a stepping stone to AV+ or true PR some time in the future.

[Daniel]

I agree with this, but shall be voting "yes".

As I see it, a "no" vote will probably be the nail in the coffin for any electoral reform in my lifetime. If AV is defeated I fear that we'll never get another chance.

AV is far from perfect, but it's an improvement on FPTP and hopefully it can be a stepping stone to AV+ or true PR some time in the future.

You obviously don't want our brave boys to have body armour and our premature babies to have maternity wards to get better in!!!! Yes for me too even if it's not perfect. Sadly the c*ntservitives have launched a nice little scare campaign which seems to have worked on the ignorant and the stupid or just confused people.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You obviously don't want our brave boys to have body armour and our premature babies to have maternity wards to get better in!!!! Yes for me too even if it's not perfect. Sadly the c*ntservitives have launched a nice little scare campaign which seems to have worked on the ignorant and the stupid or just confused people.

:up:

I'll be voting 'yes'.

Sadly my dad (who used to be trade unionist as thinks Thatcher is a witch) wants to vote 'no'. :(

[Daniel]

There is a conflict between the idea of parties and the concept of a local population being represented in parliament by an MP.

If you just had political parties and no concept of local MPs then you could have an entirely proportional system, no constituencies, the country votes as a whole and each party is allocated a number of seats in parliament entirely dependent on what share of the vote they got.

So if you look at the last election (only counting the three main parties) the 621 seats would have been divided as so (with some rounding)

Conservative: 223
Labour: 180
Lib Dem: 142

Whereas the actual result was

Conservative: 306
Labour: 258
Lib Dem: 57

But at the moment we have the other extreme with the one MP one constituency concept absolute.
You can see why the Lib Dems like PR, as based on the popular vote they would have had way more seats.

An entirely proporitonal system is stupid. It leaves the door wide open to parties like UKIP and the Bezza Nazi Party getting seats in the lower house and being seen to represent some sort of area.

As you quite rightly point out an MP should represent a local constituency so that if there is an issue in that area then those people have someone to go to who they themselves voted in. What makes sense is entirely proportional representation in the upper house as you get in Australia where each state has x amount of senate seats and if you get x percent of the vote you get x percent of the senate seats.

With this sort of voting for lower house seats you don't always need a coallition govt, yet because it's unlikely you'll get an upper house majority you can't just pass any legislation you want.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

An entirely proporitonal system is stupid. It leaves the door wide open to parties like UKIP and the Bezza Nazi Party getting seats in the lower house and being seen to represent some sort of area.



But if people vote for them then why shouldn't they be represented?

[Daniel]

But if people vote for them then why shouldn't they be represented?

If there is an MP, he or she should at least represent a significant percentage of people in an area rather than just small amounts of people dotted around the country who just happen to equal the number of voters needed for one seat.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

We just used AV to decide what we wanted for our evening family meal.

1st round:
Dad - Fish and Chips
Mum - Egg and Chips
Me - Burger and Chips

No winner.

2nd round:
Dad - Egg and Chips
Mum - Fish and Chips
Me - Egg and Chips

So we have Egg and Chips!

Under FPTP we would have had nothing to eat or a coalition of eggy fish :(

[Daniel]

We just used AV to decide what we wanted for our evening family meal.

1st round:
Dad - Fish and Chips
Mum - Egg and Chips
Me - Burger and Chips

No winner.

2nd round:
Dad - Egg and Chips
Mum - Fish and Chips
Me - Egg and Chips

So we have Egg and Chips!

Under FPTP we would have had nothing to eat or a coalition of eggy fish :(

Or you could have just kept on arguing till you died of hunger :)

[Dave B]

Now you've spent so much on the voting that you can't afford food. You monster.

[Daniel]

Now you've spent so much on the voting that you can't afford food. You monster.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/think_of_the_children_186.jpg

[christophulus]

I'm still conflicted on it. AV is easy enough to understand, but I can see it playing right into the hands of Labour. There is no one in this country who would vote 1.Lab, 2.Con - it's going to be Labour + Lib Dem in either order.

While I'm sure many people won't be particularly upset at the Tories losing out, surely some sort of opposition is needed? To me, Labour and the Lib Dems (pre-2010 at least) are essentially the same.

[Rollo]

We just used AV to decide what we wanted for our evening family meal.

1st round:
Dad - Fish and Chips
Mum - Egg and Chips
Me - Burger and Chips

No winner.

2nd round:
Dad - Egg and Chips
Mum - Fish and Chips
Me - Egg and Chips

So we have Egg and Chips!

Under FPTP we would have had nothing to eat or a coalition of eggy fish :(

Actually under FPTP after the 1st round of voting you still would have had to have held another election. The second round of voting under FPTP still produces the result of Egg and Chips being two votes to one.

The difference between FPTP and AV in yout little scenario is that AV is an implementation of Instant-Runoff voting, and is basically a method of holding several rounds on the same piece of paper.

And you wouldn't have had a coalition of eggy fish because your household is a single-member constituency and only one candidate is chosen per constituency in a single-member constituency (Hooray for tautology!).

[Rollo]

An entirely proporitonal system is stupid. It leaves the door wide open to parties like UKIP and the Bezza Nazi Party getting seats in the lower house and being seen to represent some sort of area.

As you quite rightly point out an MP should represent a local constituency so that if there is an issue in that area then those people have someone to go to who they themselves voted in. What makes sense is entirely proportional representation in the upper house as you get in Australia where each state has x amount of senate seats and if you get x percent of the vote you get x percent of the senate seats.


It would be difficult to implement a system in the UK to make the House of Lords similar in principle to the Australian Senate or the Senate of Canada, because that would require the Lords to actually vote to remove their own power and the method by which they are appointed.

If it was to be implemented, then surely the best thing would be to have equal representation of the ceremonial counties or something... or perhaps equal representation of the consitituent nations of the UK?

[Daniel]

Of course the Lords would never remove their own power but its the best system imho

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Actually under FPTP after the 1st round of voting you still would have had to have held another election. The second round of voting under FPTP still produces the result of Egg and Chips being two votes to one.
.

What is to stop a 2nd round of voting under FPTP producing an identical result to round 1?

[Mark]

Because the candidate with the fewest votes drops out in the first round so there is a runoff between the top two in the second. Most elections have more than three voters. :p

[Rollo]

What is to stop a 2nd round of voting under FPTP producing an identical result to round 1?

Well nothing really. If you wanted to keep on running run-off votes you could... forever!

The point is in the little scenario here, all three options got one vote, so under FPTP you don't get a result.

[RS]

There is a very good and reasonably unbiased article here on the pros and cons of AV for anyone who wants to see past the shouty headlines in the comedy right-wing papers: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/av/a-guide-to-the-pros-and-cons-of-av-2278570.html

[Sonic]

Vote cast: add one to the yes pile.

[Daniel]

Vote cast: add one to the yes pile.

Sadly I think there are more ignorant or just plain biased people out there who will vote no.

[BDunnell]

Sadly I think there are more ignorant or just plain biased people out there who will vote no.

In what sense is the bias of those who vote no any greater than that of those who will vote yes?

[Daniel]

In what sense is the bias of those who vote no any greater than that of those who will vote yes?

A lot of the people who are going to vote no are like Bezza who will simply vote no because a yes vote is a disadvantage for their chosen morons, the tories.

A yes vote is the only sane vote for fairness in the voting system.

[BDunnell]

A lot of the people who are going to vote no are like Bezza who will simply vote no because a yes vote is a disadvantage for their chosen morons, the tories.

A yes vote is the only sane vote for fairness in the voting system.

I must say, this whole issue has never concerned me one iota. Never have I felt that my vote was of any less influence in determining the make-up of the Commons than it ought to be. Although it would have been amusing to see the Tories fall to third place in 1997 had AV been in place then.

Were I voting in this, I would have been tempted to be one of those opting for 'no' purely as a protest against the lies of Nick Clegg, but my decision would have been swayed the other way by the disgraceful campaign tactics of the 'no' camp in suggesting that AV is a charter for getting the BNP elected, which is an example of scaremongering, lowest-common-denominator politics at its very worst, even beyond some of the idiotic efforts of the 'yes' side.

[christophulus]

I've just been and decided not to vote either way, just dropped the blank slip in the ballot box. I haven't heard a totally convincing argument either way so I guess I'll just wait and see who wins it.

[Daniel]

I must say, this whole issue has never concerned me one iota. Never have I felt that my vote was of any less influence in determining the make-up of the Commons than it ought to be. Although it would have been amusing to see the Tories fall to third place in 1997 had AV been in place then.

Were I voting in this, I would have been tempted to be one of those opting for 'no' purely as a protest against the lies of Nick Clegg, but my decision would have been swayed the other way by the disgraceful campaign tactics of the 'no' camp in suggesting that AV is a charter for getting the BNP elected, which is an example of scaremongering, lowest-common-denominator politics at its very worst, even beyond some of the idiotic efforts of the 'yes' side.

But is this meant to be a protest vote? I can understand a protest vote in an election as it sends a message to a party or a candidate that people aren't happy. But electoral reform is IMHO a bit too important to play about with. If it doesn't get a push in the right direction now then it'll be YEARS before it happens.

I voted yes of course but I'm resigned to the fact that it probably won't go through but I'm hoping that the no voters don't turn out in as large numbers as yes voters....

[BDunnell]

But is this meant to be a protest vote? I can understand a protest vote in an election as it sends a message to a party or a candidate that people aren't happy. But electoral reform is IMHO a bit too important to play about with. If it doesn't get a push in the right direction now then it'll be YEARS before it happens.

Some might argue that all AV does is to play about with the electoral system, as opposed to the serious reform of introducing PR. The Lib Dems made exactly that point during the last election campaign, rather to the embarrassment of some senior figures now, one would hope.

[Rollo]

But is this meant to be a protest vote? I can understand a protest vote in an election as it sends a message to a party or a candidate that people aren't happy. But electoral reform is IMHO a bit too important to play about with. If it doesn't get a push in the right direction now then it'll be YEARS before it happens.

A protest vote in a FPTP system is a wasted vote because it is immediately discarded and never forces the major parties to change their policies.
Even after the wake of the expenses scandals where MP's were spending taxpeyer's money on things like Duck Houses, would a protest vote have made a lick of difference? Heck no. Some of the MP's were returned after receiving only 31% of the vote which means more than two thirds of voters didn't want them there.
With AV there exists a mechanic where one can make a protest vote, but still begrudingly show their consent as towho their local MP will be.

"Democratic government is about not only the will of the majority but also the consent of the minority"
— John Howard, October 1989

That might be true in Australia but it's certainly not in the UK.


I voted yes of course but I'm resigned to the fact that it probably won't go through but I'm hoping that the no voters don't turn out in as large numbers as yes voters....

Tory voters were told to vote no, and the majority of Tory voters live in England where there was no devolved parliament elections. England also holds the majority of voters and therefore "No" wil be carried.

Interestingly the current co-chairman of the Tories is Baroness Sayeeda Warsi who as a member of the House of Lords was elected by NO-ONE. How democratic is that? The supposed "will" of the people being directed by a unelected and unpresentative person.

[BDunnell]

Some of the MP's were returned after receiving only 31% of the vote which means more than two thirds of voters didn't want them there.

Granted, but it may also show that two-thirds of the electorate simply couldn't be bothered voting, and I don't necessarily blame low turnouts entirely on the behaviour of politicians.



Interestingly the current co-chairman of the Tories is Baroness Sayeeda Warsi who as a member of the House of Lords was elected by NO-ONE. How democratic is that? The supposed "will" of the people being directed by a unelected and unpresentative person.

I agree completely. Sadly, abolition of the Lords and its replacement by an entirely elected body is now deemed too radical a step by all the major parties. Where, therefore, is the choice that they all espouse?

[Daniel]

Some might argue that all AV does is to play about with the electoral system, as opposed to the serious reform of introducing PR. The Lib Dems made exactly that point during the last election campaign, rather to the embarrassment of some senior figures now, one would hope.

I think PR should be implemented in the upper house, but that people in an electorate should always vote in someone who is going to represent them in particular.

[Sonic]

Any exit poll indications?

[Rollo]

Granted, but it may also show that two-thirds of the electorate simply couldn't be bothered voting, and I don't necessarily blame low turnouts entirely on the behaviour of politicians.

Um no.

31% of the vote means 31% of the vote counted, not of the number of possible voters in the electorate. In some electorates where the turnout was as low as 64% then in some cases, the member could have been voted in with as little as just 19% of possible voters in the electorate.

Statistics for votes tabulated never include people who never bothered to vote.

[BDunnell]

Um no.

31% of the vote means 31% of the vote counted, not of the number of possible voters in the electorate. In some electorates where the turnout was as low as 64% then in some cases, the member could have been voted in with as little as just 19% of possible voters in the electorate.

Statistics for votes tabulated never include people who never bothered to vote.

With respect, you did refer to 'two thirds of voters', which I took to mean all potential voters, not just those who actually voted.

[Rollo]

Fair call.

[Mark]

I voted yes, Karen voted no. So as a household we made absolutely no difference :p

[BDunnell]

I voted yes, Karen voted no. So as a household we made absolutely no difference :p

But you will have made up a significant proportion of the referendum turnout! In London, it is reported as being as low as 10 per cent.

[ArrowsFA1]

But you will have made up a significant proportion of the referendum turnout! In London, it is reported as being as low as 10 per cent.
That's (a)pathetic!! A 90% no-show. That'll be a representative result then!!

When it comes to AV the no campaign appears to have been very successful, and I do wonder whether that, in some way, has affected turnout.

Also, having a referrendum on major political change at the same time as local elections has clearly IMHO diluted what might otherwise have been well contested debate which voters may have given more thought to.

[BDunnell]

That's (a)pathetic!! A 90% no-show. That'll be a representative result then!!

I should state, perhaps, that this was a report on the BBC quoting a no-supporting London Assembly member on Twitter, so may not be all that reliable. We shall see later.



When it comes to AV the no campaign appears to have been very successful, and I do wonder whether that, in some way, has affected turnout.

I simply don't think enough people care, to be honest. I don't, for one. This issue has never been at the top of my political agenda. And, let's face it, there has never been much of a mandate for change to the electoral system. The extent of enthusiasm for it is reflected to some extent in the size of the Lib Dem vote, surely — and even then not all Lib Dem voters will necessarily be in favour, or bothered.



Also, having a referrendum on major political change at the same time as local elections has clearly IMHO diluted what might otherwise have been well contested debate which voters may have given more thought to.

I'm not sure about this. I would guess that turnout would have been even lower for a 'stand-alone' referendum. It's not as if the local elections have exactly captured the imagination and stolen attention away from the referendum, as far as I can see.

[Mark]

Well if you want figures for a stand-alone referendum then look here - in County Durham. We didn't have local council elections yesterday.

[BDunnell]

Well if you want figures for a stand-alone referendum then look here - in County Durham. We didn't have local council elections yesterday.

And, indeed, in London.

[ArrowsFA1]

The extent of enthusiasm for it is reflected to some extent in the size of the Lib Dem vote, surely — and even then not all Lib Dem voters will necessarily be in favour, or bothered.
Possibly true. The amount of consideration given to AV rather confirms my view that it was simply part of the coalition agreement that the Tories had to be seen to carry through. Personally I think the issue deserves a more considered debate, but it was never going to get that.


Well if you want figures for a stand-alone referendum then look here - in County Durham. We didn't have local council elections yesterday.
Ahhhh, ok :) So what was the turnout?

[RS]

When it comes to AV the no campaign appears to have been very successful.

I think the no campaign was very well funded (Tories), together with their questionable tactics I guess that did make a difference.

[Daniel]

Questionable is an understatement....

[Mark]

Watching the news today it would seem that Liberal Democrats are pretty furious as to the way the campaign was conducted by their government partners.

Hardly surprising when you make a pact with the party of evil.

[Daniel]

I said originally that it was a stupid coalition. They complete polar opposites!

[Mark]

They agreed on the point they wanted power!

[BDunnell]

By far the best option would have been for no agreement to have been reached and then, at some point — possibly after a period of minority Tory government — for there to have been another election. (Clearly, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would have been completely devoid of legitimacy.) Yes, the Lib Dems would have been blamed for the failure to reach a deal and bring about a stable government, but the damage to them would have been far less than is the case as a result of the coalition. They would have emerged with principles intact.

[Daniel]

I don't see the big problem with a labour lib Dem coalition? I think Gordon would have had to go, but we all knew that

[Mark]

True. Before the election all the talk about coalitions was between Labour and LibDems, the idea of a ConDem pact was almost laughable (it still is :s )

[Daniel]

Yup. Nick was too scared to hop into bed with devil lite, so jumped into bed with the full fat devil. His political career is done

[Mark]

I don't think Clegg will be too bothered about that. He'll have his 5 years as deputy PM then skulk away.

[Sonic]

By far the best option would have been for no agreement to have been reached and then, at some point — possibly after a period of minority Tory government — for there to have been another election. (Clearly, a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would have been completely devoid of legitimacy.) Yes, the Lib Dems would have been blamed for the failure to reach a deal and bring about a stable government, but the damage to them would have been far less than is the case as a result of the coalition. They would have emerged with principles intact.

Perhaps, but then the old tag of 'afraid to govern' would once again have been attached to the Lib Dems. They took a punt. Right now it looks like a dumb move, but politics has a short memory and who knows what we'll be discussing in twelve months time.

[BDunnell]

I don't see the big problem with a labour lib Dem coalition? I think Gordon would have had to go, but we all knew that

It would have been quite right to label it a coalition of losers. In my eyes, it would have had no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.

[BDunnell]

Perhaps, but then the old tag of 'afraid to govern' would once again have been attached to the Lib Dems. They took a punt. Right now it looks like a dumb move, but politics has a short memory and who knows what we'll be discussing in twelve months time.

We — most people, in fact — seem to be discussing the coalition in exactly the same terms as we were a year ago.

[christophulus]

I respect the Lib Dems more for taking a chance in government with the Conservatives, rather than forming a "coalition of losers" with Labour. Or even forcing another election by refusing to deal - the end result would most likely have been the same (no majorities) and would've cost more money with yet more bickering.

I'm going to review this government after five years, or however long it lasts. The cutbacks would've been painful either way, I can't see what Labour/LD would've done that much differently to Con/LD if they were in power.

Back on topic - looks like an overwhelming "no" vote. Early polls suggest about 70% no, 30% yes.

[Sonic]

Back on topic - looks like an overwhelming "no" vote. Early polls suggest about 70% no, 30% yes.

Landslide by the looks of it.

Just listening to five live and the Tories are already trying to butter up the Libs again.

[Daniel]

It would have been quite right to label it a coalition of losers. In my eyes, it would have had no democratic legitimacy whatsoever.

But by what the Tories believe in with their NO campaign against AV, it's every bit as legitimate as any other coalition.

[Daniel]

It's a sad day today but one that was certainly not unexpected. The conservatives fought dirty and they won.

[Rollo]

It's a sad day today but one that was certainly not unexpected. The conservatives fought dirty and they won.

“It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have. And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong"
- David Cameron, British PM, 05/05/11

There is a good reason why David Cameron feels in his gut that AV is wrong, because as a Tory... it is.

If we look at British Elections going all the way back until roughly the formation of the current party political system within the parliament (about the time of Lord Melbourne), there have only been two Prime Ministers who weren't Tories who not only went the full term but were returned to power as the sitting Prime Minister. One was Tony Blair who won in 1997, 2001 and 2006 and the other was the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, who won the 1859 and 1865 elections.

Cameron quite rightly assumes that if the British Public were actually allowed to be given a more democratic system to elect their parliament with, then that would effectively spell the end of the normalcy of Conservative/Tory dominated politics in the UK, which is a tradition which extends back to 1762.

Or to put it another way...
The Great British Public really are stupid thickos, and we can't let oiks run the country. :D

[RS]

I'm going to review this government after five years, or however long it lasts. The cutbacks would've been painful either way, I can't see what Labour/LD would've done that much differently to Con/LD if they were in power..

There would have been cuts either way for sure but it's the speed that the current lot are persuing them at which is a concern and the effect that will have on the economy - there was already zero growth over the last 6 months and if that continues in a similar way in the months and years to come the goverment might not meet their aim of eliminating the deficit within 4 years -we might just end up with a stagnant economy, ruined public services and the deficit still not tackled.

[BDunnell]

It's a sad day today but one that was certainly not unexpected. The conservatives fought dirty and they won.

And the public at large simply doesn't care about the issue. I have always felt that electoral reform was a minority enthusiasm, and I believe this has been proved right. There was hardly a chorus of delight at the prospect of a referendum as part of the coalition agreement, was there?

[Daniel]

And the public at large simply doesn't care about the issue. I have always felt that electoral reform was a minority enthusiasm, and I believe this has been proved right. There was hardly a chorus of delight at the prospect of a referendum as part of the coalition agreement, was there?

True. one thing that was pointed out today on R4 was that part of the blame lays with Nick Clegg for lumping the referendum in with an election. If it had been a standalone referendum then it would only have been people who cared about electoral reform that voted.

I'll be honest and say that if I didn't come from a country that had a better voting system then perhaps I wouldn't have been so enthusiastic about AV either. But knowing that things can and should be done better makes it more annoying that we have so many crappy things going on in terms of government and electoral process.

[BDunnell]

True. one thing that was pointed out today on R4 was that part of the blame lays with Nick Clegg for lumping the referendum in with an election. If it had been a standalone referendum then it would only have been people who cared about electoral reform that voted.

But, as I said before, I can't see how the turnout would have been anything other than even lower had the referendum been separate.



I'll be honest and say that if I didn't come from a country that had a better voting system then perhaps I wouldn't have been so enthusiastic about AV either. But knowing that things can and should be done better makes it more annoying that we have so many crappy things going on in terms of government and electoral process.

A good point, but I still think there are more important issues at stake, such as the lack of democracy inherent in having an unelected upper house.

[Daniel]

But, as I said before, I can't see how the turnout would have been anything other than even lower had the referendum been separate.



A good point, but I still think there are more important issues at stake, such as the lack of democracy inherent in having an unelected upper house.

I'm not just talking about the upper house. Local authorities in the UK have far too much decisionmaking power and you end up with this ridiculous postcode lottery when it comes to certain things.

[BDunnell]

I'm not just talking about the upper house. Local authorities in the UK have far too much decisionmaking power and you end up with this ridiculous postcode lottery when it comes to certain things.

I wasn't suggesting you were.

[Rollo]

A good point, but I still think there are more important issues at stake, such as the lack of democracy inherent in having an unelected upper house.

You can pretty well much forget voting on that issue for two very big reasons:

1. The fact that AV didn't pass now gives grounds to suggest that there is no mandate for electoral reform.
2. In order to reform the House of Lords would require a Bill to be passed through the House of Lords. How many of them would vote to slit their own throats?

[BDunnell]

You can pretty well much forget voting on that issue for two very big reasons:

1. The fact that AV didn't pass now gives grounds to suggest that there is no mandate for electoral reform.
2. In order to reform the House of Lords would require a Bill to be passed through the House of Lords. How many of them would vote to slit their own throats?

Naturally. You can add a third: that no senior figure in any of the major parties is sufficiently radical to have the will to even embark upon such a move, let alone see it through.

[ArrowsFA1]

There was hardly a chorus of delight at the prospect of a referendum as part of the coalition agreement, was there?
No, there wasn't but then the way it was presented at the time made clear that the issue had no support among Tories and they would campaign to defeat it. It was simply means to an end; the end being a Tory government. Job done.

[Mark]

You can pretty well much forget voting on that issue for two very big reasons:

1. The fact that AV didn't pass now gives grounds to suggest that there is no mandate for electoral reform.
2. In order to reform the House of Lords would require a Bill to be passed through the House of Lords. How many of them would vote to slit their own throats?

A government could invoke the Parliament Act if they were so minded.

[BDunnell]

No, there wasn't but then the way it was presented at the time made clear that the issue had no support among Tories and they would campaign to defeat it. It was simply means to an end; the end being a Tory government. Job done.

Do you think there is a majority in the UK in favour of electoral reform? I must say, I don't.

[christophulus]

A government could invoke the Parliament Act if they were so minded.

Absolutely, the Commons could force a bill through without the Lords' consent if they really wanted to - so there's no "good" reason why the House of Lords is still hereditary.

Regarding AV - the Tories only promised the Lib Dems a referendum (and followed through with it) - they never promised not to argue against it. The Lib Dems should've known all along that they'd have to argue their case for reform strongly, and should definitely have expected the "old guard" to fight it tooth and nail. So I'm not surprised that the country voted no - even some staunch Labour supporters that I know weren't convinced that AV was a particularly good idea, despite Milliband campaigning for it.

[BDunnell]

Absolutely, the Commons could force a bill through without the Lords' consent if they really wanted to - so there's no "good" reason why the House of Lords is still hereditary.

Regarding AV - the Tories only promised the Lib Dems a referendum (and followed through with it) - they never promised not to argue against it. The Lib Dems should've known all along that they'd have to argue their case for reform strongly, and should definitely have expected the "old guard" to fight it tooth and nail. So I'm not surprised that the country voted no - even some staunch Labour supporters that I know weren't convinced that AV was a particularly good idea, despite Milliband campaigning for it.

Some Lib Dem supporters won't have been either. I used to be a Lib Dem supporter, and the arguments in favour of AV never convinced me.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Electoral reform is not an issue that has ever — even when I used to work in politics and be a Lib Dem voter; not any more — exercised me at all. So I shall not bother to vote in this.

I am shocked by this Ben. I figured you would be for electoral changes. I am old school, I like First past the post mainly because it is a simple choice in that you vote for the local MP candidate who you want...simple as that. No ranking, no strategic thought. Some people look for reasons not to vote. I also think Westminister style democracies with this system have done alright. It is only in the last 20 years people have started whining about it...

[Mark in Oshawa]

And yes, for all those interested or not, after our latest Federal Election, the Conservatives are in a Majority government with 39.4% of the electorate, and the NDP is the official opposition with 30.1 or something and more than 33% of the seats....so yes, it does lead to inequities..but I find it funny the only time the subject ever comes up is when the Conservatives win here in Canada. We had three straight Liberal Majorities with no more than 40% of the votes, and once only with 36.7%.