The Alternative Vote (AV)

[thefab444]

I just watched yet another new AV video on the Conservatives website.

As a lifelong Tory, who has and always will vote Conservative, I was pretty ashamed.

If you want to see this utter shambles, click here.

http://www.conservatives.com/

Now that is awful and extremely misleading. In what way is a running race relevant to a general election?

Apart from this: It would work with the Conservatives because we won't finish any lower than second in any normal election. And to have someone loser from Labour or the LDs win when the Conservatives get the most votes in a level playing field would not be fair!

Am I the only one who is wondering exactly how they chose the colours for the "uniforms"?

There are a lot of seats where the Conservatives come third, fourth or worse.

If you go by the "uniforms", UKIP won the race but the Lib Dems got the trophy. I suspect the latter was intentional but the former was not.

 

[SS4]

Now that is awful and extremely misleading. In what way is a running race relevant to a general election?

None at all. They're exacerbating the myth that AV is somehow hard and confusing for voters to understand. Children have long been used to sway people's opinions in the absence of logic

 

[table38]

Now that is awful and extremely misleading. In what way is a running race relevant to a general election?

There's a clue in the phrase "First Past the Post"

 

[HST Power]

I'm not best pleased with some of the 'no' campaigns efforts, nevertheless, I'll still be going against AV and as somebody who works in Westminster, the general feeling in the House is that First Pass The Post will be here to stay when this referendum is over with. Though whether or not AV comes into place won't make any difference to me. I'll always vote Conservative.

 

[Zoe]

I'll always vote Conservative.

Even if you didn't agree with most of their policies?

 

[HST Power]

Even if you didn't agree with most of their policies?

I started working for the Conservatives aged fourteen as a volunteer. I worked my way up the ladder and now advise their Ministers of Parliament to earn a living.
I've always agreed with a majority of their policies. It's been a slippery slope lately, and I'll admit I'm uncertain about the NHS Reforms and am very concerned about how we're going to get re-elected come the next election!
But never have I found myself disagreeing with a large number of their policies, and have always believed that the Conservatives are the best party to effectively tackle the problems of the UK and deal with them properly.

 

[Zoe]

You may well agree with most of the party policies at this time but it's possible there could be quite a change in the future. New Labour are very different to Attlee's party.

 

[HST Power]

I'm running short of time, but I will say that I seriously doubt that Labour could properly tackle the problems that this country faces. I don't see anything new in Ed Miliband. I had a Labour leaflet posted to me yesterday and I couldn't believe some of the blatant garbage written within the pages.

I'll try to get back onto this tomorrow, but I'm off to London in the next half hour so don't have any time at present.

 

[table38]

I don't see anything new in Ed Miliband.

And of course we didn't get to choose between Cameron, Clegg or Milliband.

Part of the reason Gordon Brown has "disappeared" is so that people will forget it was actually a choice between Cameron, Clegg or five more years of Gordon Brown.

 

[Seacook]

I started working for the Conservatives aged fourteen as a volunteer. I worked my way up the ladder and now advise their Ministers of Parliament to earn a living.

And have any of them taken your advice and gone off to earn a living?

 

[thefab444]

There's a clue in the phrase "First Past the Post"

If we ran general elections as a 500m sprint contest then, yes, First Past the Post would be perfect. In some ways it's a shame we don't as it would almost certainly have kept John Prescott out of government! Anyway, it would be impossible to hold a race under the Alternative Vote so the analogy is irrelevant.

However, the losers in a simple race are much like the losers under a First Past the Post election, all their effort and energy (or votes) are wasted. In fact, not just the losers, but even the winner wastes effort beyond that which they needed to beat the person in second place (e.g. Candidate A gets 10 votes, Candidate B gets 5 votes. 4 of Candidate A's votes are wasted as are all of Candidate B's votes). The best way of solving wasted votes is an STV style system, with multi-member constituencies. I don't really support AV as a system, I would have much rather have had AMS, but as it is a slight improvement and a stepping stone to STV then it has my vote.

 

[SS4]

I'm not best pleased with some of the 'no' campaigns efforts, nevertheless, I'll still be going against AV and as somebody who works in Westminster, the general feeling in the House is that First Pass The Post will be here to stay when this referendum is over with. Though whether or not AV comes into place won't make any difference to me. I'll always vote Conservative.

True, but why limit yourself to one vote? Under AV you could give UKIP your second vote while the Conservatives keep your first choice.

The bit I've put in bold is what scares me the most. It is the reason why even if you think AV is total pants and you want STV (or some other form of PR) then you ought to vote yes.

Frankly I'm also concerned about the Tories blocking it, saying a big "*^&£ you" to the electorate and keeping FPTP regardless of the result and then get the Met to kettle anyone who dares to protest (I'm suspicious about whether or not kettling was only something that rose to prominence once the Tories, traditionally hard on law and order, had gained power. Of course should it be legally binding then I would not put it past them to filibuster it delaying it well past the next general election!

As for the "no" campaign they're using the same mix of lies/half-truths and appealing to emotional responses that the tabloids and the tv news use. A perfect example is the advert of the premature baby, heavily implying that it would die if AV was voted in, or the soldier in battle dress with much the same hidden message which is a mockery given the cuts already made to the NHS and Armed forces respectively!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If we ran general elections as a 500m sprint contest then, yes, First Past the Post would be perfect. In some ways it's a shame we don't as it would almost certainly have kept John Prescott out of government! Anyway, it would be impossible to hold a race under the Alternative Vote so the analogy is irrelevant.

David Cameron's face would have melted too. I swear nobody's face should shine like cheap cheese.

However, the losers in a simple race are much like the losers under a First Past the Post election, all their effort and energy (or votes) are wasted. In fact, not just the losers, but even the winner wastes effort beyond that which they needed to beat the person in second place (e.g. Candidate A gets 10 votes, Candidate B gets 5 votes. 4 of Candidate A's votes are wasted as are all of Candidate B's votes). The best way of solving wasted votes is an STV style system, with multi-member constituencies. I don't really support AV as a system, I would have much rather have had AMS, but as it is a slight improvement and a stepping stone to STV then it has my vote.

AV is more like going to the shop for a packet of crisps - your first choice is cheese and onion (1), your second is salt and vinegar (2) and third ready salted (3).

If they have no cheese and onion (1) then with salt and vinegar (2) becomes your choice. Should there not be any salt and vinegar then ready salted (3) wins. You only end up with one packet of crisps (vote) - not three!

(bolded for emphasis as this appears to be a central misinformation propagated by the NO campaign)

Under FPTP if there are no cheese and onion you're boned and crisp-less

 

[table38]

A perfect example is the advert of the premature baby, heavily implying that it would die if AV was voted in, or the soldier in battle dress with much the same hidden message which is a mockery given the cuts already made to the NHS and Armed forces respectively!

I suspect the point that they are trying to make is that with with the national debt at £900 billion (actually more like £1,340 billion if you include liabilities such as PFI and public sector pensions), and when we are paying over £100 million a day in interest payments just to stand still, perhaps now isn't the best time to spend money changing the voting system.

Perhaps the time to look at electoral reform was during the last 13 years when the economy was in better shape. Funny that Labour weren't at all keen on AV until they went into opposition.

 

[ainsworth74]

(I'm suspicious about whether or not kettling was only something that rose to prominence once the Tories, traditionally hard on law and order, had gained power.

Did you miss the G20 protests back in 2009? Plenty of kettling going on there. But to be honest it seems to me that the Met have been pretty much able to get away with murder (sometimes almost literally) for quite sometime now. I seem to recall some anecdotal reports from back in the miners strikes that often the worst violence arose where the Met was drafted in to 'help' (No source for that just something I've heard).

 

[me123]

Perhaps the time to look at electoral reform was during the last 13 years when the economy was in better shape. Funny that Labour weren't at all keen on AV until they went into opposition.

Funny that... the two parties who benefit most from plurality are the most vociferous campaigners against a fairer system... well, what do you expect?

The biggest problem with FPTP is that it needs political will to change it. And, under Duverger's Law, FPTP creates a two-party system. This is because supporters of minority parties end up voting tactically; voting for the "least bad" of the two predominant parties. And we see this today; how many people vote Labour just to keep the Tories out? (And vice versa) Oddly enough, those two parties who are always in power have little or no motivation to alter the system; and why should they? It benefits them the way it is.

PS: I found these very biased, but very interesting and well made videos comparing FPTP and AV. I will warn you in advance that it's very anti-FPTP. But it does a good job of explaining how each system works, and the pros and cons of each system.

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
[youtube]s7tWHJfhiyo[/youtube]

The Alternative Vote System Explained
[youtube]3Y3jE3B8HsE[/youtube]

 

[Malderon]

Only just spotted this thread and thought I'd throw in my 2c. I havent had time to read all 17 pages so I'll probably be repeating alot of what has been said.

I'll be voting Yes - I don't think AV is perfect by any means, but I think it will mean alot more votes actually matter. I cant recall the exact stat (and it probably came from the yes campaign so can't be trusted) but voters in marginal seats have a huge say in the overall election, and while that will still be true I think the effect will be lessened and it will open up more seats to possibly changing hands.

Overall I think the campagin on both sides has been pretty much a disaster. The No campagin has been very negative and without much fact or much on the benefits of the system we currently have. There has been alot of "AV is too complicated" which I think is pretty condesending. The Yes campagin has obviously suffered from the fact that the LibDems benefit most from this, and Clegg and the LDs arent too popular right now.

Looking at the polls (I know polls arent everything but....) it seems pretty safe that the result will be NO which I do think is a real shame as this was potentially a massive opportunity for reform which may not come again for a long while.

I'm not a labour voter (well not necessarily anyway) but they have the most credibility on the issue, purely because they are split, and noone really knows if they will gain or lose from a change. The Tories are all against it not because its a bad system but because they gain the most from FPTP, and tbhe LibDems are all for it not because its necessarily a good system but because they benefit the most from it. You can't expect anything else I suppose from politicians (or indeed from humans) but I'd have alot of respect for a Tory who came out in favour of AV and the same to some extent for a LibDem who came out for FPTP because at least then you'd know it was really because they believed it was best for the country, rather than just because it was best for them

The scaremongering from the No campaign has been pretty bad as well. Obviously everyone talks about the BNP and noone would hate it more than me to see them win a seat, but AV actually means you need broad support, and as I'm sure has been said higher up the thread, the BNP don't think they can carry 50% after preferences in any seat but think they might be able to sneak 25% under FPTP where the remaining vote is split between the other parties. Also as much as I despise the BNP I don't think keeping one party from winning one seat (maybe) should be any justification for changing/not changing the entire system.

The "strong government" or lack of hung parliament argument is an interesting one. I'm not sure that having basically an elected dictator (or group of dictators aka the cabinet) should be seen as a positive. Yes perhaps it means you can "get things done" but it also means that once you are in you can relentlessly pursue an agenda without any real handicap (the majority doesnt lose many votes). People talk about a government of compramises, of half measures, resulting from coalition, but isnt that what most people want? By definition centrism is appealing to the most people, thats why the parties have moved to the centre because thats how you appeal to the most people. A balance of views in government should be encouraged (in my opinion).

I want AV to win very much, but I have placed a large bet on "No", so I win either way (even if the UK loses). Apologies to the lack of structure in the post but I wrote thoughts as they came to me.

 

[table38]

Funny that... the two parties who benefit most from plurality are the most vociferous campaigners against a fairer system... well, what do you expect?

I'd have expected a little less hypocrisy.

Labour, having had 13 years to do something about it, suddenly changed their minds on AV in the last days of their tenure when it seemed clear they would probably lose the election.

Lib Dems called AV a grubby little compromise but now suddenly seem happy with it, presumably because they see it as a stepping stone to some better form of PR, although if true are being deceitful as they aren't campagining on that basis. If AV is just a stop-gap why not say so?

The Tories are the only major party who haven't changed their position in AV. I don't recall them asking for voting reform when they were in opposition.

(Other political parties are available )

 

[thefab444]

I believe by "plurality", me123 was referring to the First Past the Post system.

You've really just proved his point about the main two parties, both were too self-interested to introduce a fairer voting system when in government, and neither supports such a thing when it would diminish their monopoly on politics. A lot of Labour supporters also dislike AV, and it was really only leaf used by Gordon Brown to try and tempt the reformers.

If the referendum does fail as the polls currently suggest, it may trigger alternatives in order to keep the Lib Dems happy, such as Lords reform - something which, in my opinion, is of equal importance to changing our voting system to achieve a better democracy. An elected Lords using STV could wield just as much influence for the Lib Dems as the few extra seats they'd gain through AV.

 

[HST Power]

And have any of them taken your advice and gone off to earn a living?

That's your opinion.

I don't tell them how to run their lives. I help them with campaigns, business, working the constituencies, that sort of thing.

 

[Oswyntail]

I believe the best outcome would be a close vote for "No" with a larger than expected turnout. That way the requirement and support for constitutional reform would still be evident, while rejecting the rather weak version on offer. I suspect that, if AV is voted in, that will put an end to the question of reform for several decades, which would be awful

 

[SS4]

I believe the best outcome would be a close vote for "No" with a larger than expected turnout. That way the requirement and support for constitutional reform would still be evident, while rejecting the rather weak version on offer. I suspect that, if AV is voted in, that will put an end to the question of reform for several decades, which would be awful

I'd have thought the opposite was true - a no vote "will put and end to the question of reform for several decades, which would be awful"

At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?

It is evident that this is a vote between changing to AV or retaining FPTP - with all the consequences that entails

 

[thefab444]

I'd have thought the opposite was true - a no vote "will put and end to the question of reform for several decades, which would be awful"

It could work either way. A yes vote would show that there is appetite for proper electoral reform, but a referendum on PR would probably not happen for some years. A no vote would almost certainly put an end to any hopes of electoral reform for many years.

At least with a yes vote we've got something, even if it is not the end goal.

 

[SS4]

It could work either way. A yes vote would show that there is appetite for proper electoral reform, but a referendum on PR would probably not happen for some years. A no vote would almost certainly put an end to any hopes of electoral reform for many years.

At least with a yes vote we've got something, even if it is not the end goal.

That largely the reason I'm voting yes. That the Conservatives don't want it is a bonus

 

[Oswyntail]

I'd have thought the opposite was true - a no vote "will put and end to the question of reform for several decades, which would be awful"...

That is why I stipulated a close vote with a large turnout. With a "Yes" vote, those who do not want change will be able to argue that something has been done (it hasn't!) and that we should give it time to see how it works. With a "No" vote, there will still be the impetus for change, and perhaps it would then be looked at properly

... That the Conservatives don't want it is a bonus

Well, some Conservatives do, and many non-Conservatives don't. And isn't it a bit sad that "Party Lines" should have anything to do with it?

 

[dalmahoyhill]

i would prefer proportional representation over alternative vote but personally i think its better than 1st past the post. There are plenty of safe seats where the incumbent has got 30% of the vote. 50 years ago the two main parties got 95% of the vote. their core support has partially collapsed yet they can still claim the majority of the seats. whatever you think of nick clegg the lib dems and other smaller parties dont get a fair representation under fptp.

it would be nice not to have to vote tactically which hamstrings FPTP, i can understand why a lot of tory and labour mps dont want it as they like the status quo. The No lobby alienated me by saying alternative vote is complicated. Err no, people vote for the X factor they can work out how to rank people. its incredibly patronising attitude.

A shake up at westminster would be good, there are too many career mps who have started straight out of uni into political parties it would be nice if there wasn't a distinct political class and we had people who had experience of the real world first

 

[LE Greys]

Under PR, who do you write to if you want to try to get a problem solved? Plenty of times I've heard MPs from both sides of the House quoting from letters their constituents have sent them. If you have no local MP, that's a bit difficult.

 

[me123]

We use PR in Scotland for council elections, and there is no problem with this. In fact, you don't only have the one MP to write to, but you have three or four you can contact with any problems. This is particularly useful if you have an MP who doesn't bother to respond to his/her constituents. I've always found it a bit of a non-argument that "you don't have someone to contact" under PR; you actually have more people to contact!

I'm not naive; it's more of a challenge over a larger area. Some constituencies are huge, and are definitely much bigger than local council areas in Scotland. But it's definitely possible to roll this out on a larger scale, and there are some definite advantages to having multiple representatives rather than just the one.

LE, I'm not sure if you know how the Scottish Parliament is elected? They use the Additional Members System, which is a form of PR. We elect one MP per constituency using FPTP as we do for Westminster (albeit using slightly different constituencies). However, we also elect regional MSPs using list PR. Each region is a combination of a number of constituencies, and the region elects a number of regional MSPs. This has the advantage of being a proportional system as well as maintaining the link with your own constituency MSP. However, it wouldn't work for Westminster. It would increase the number of MPs quite dramatically, and there are already a whopping 650 of them!

 

[LE Greys]

LE, I'm not sure if you know how the Scottish Parliament is elected? They use the Additional Members System, which is a form of PR. We elect one MP per constituency using FPTP as we do for Westminster (albeit using slightly different constituencies). However, we also elect regional MSPs using list PR. Each region is a combination of a number of constituencies, and the region elects a number of regional MSPs. This has the advantage of being a proportional system as well as maintaining the link with your own constituency MSP. However, it wouldn't work for Westminster. It would increase the number of MPs quite dramatically, and there are already a whopping 650 of them!

Oddly, my first vote in any election was for the Scottish Parliament - when I was up at Aberdeen. Not that it made any difference, "President" Salmond still got in. It seems to work fairly well, although the mess after that election leading to a minority government (or a grand coalition of the losers, so I'm told). Still having the link is certainly useful, I made use of it once or twice.

Applying it to England, perhaps using the regions for the European Parliament, might be a possibility, but only if you want bigger constituencies (or more members). I've occasionally thought of using some sort of PR system for the House of Lords, presumably taking the General Election vote and splitting it up somehow. Still, that is really another issue.

 

[me123]

PR for the Lords would work well, and would be much more readily accepted than PR in the Commons. I think by the very nature of the Lords that a list-style PR system (such as the system used for the European elections) would be better than electing specific candidates - Lords by their very nature tend to be either experts in a certain area (eg Lord Sugar, Lord Professor Robert Winston) or experienced politicians (eg Baroness Thatcher, Lord Prescott) rather than the candidates we see in General and Local elections, and although I support an elected House of Lords, I think the experience of the Upper House brings a lot to the table.

The problems in 2007 arose when you had the local council elections (using STV, where you rank candidates) and the Scottish Parliamentary Elections (using AMS, place one cross on each of two ballot papers). I think a lot of people inadvertently spoiled their papers by mixing up the voting systems, therefore the council elections are being postponed a year. Similarly, to avoid further confusion, the next session of the Scottish Parliament

PR by definition is rarely going to produce a definitive majority. As such, we've never had a single party with a majority up here. We've had one minority administration, and two years of Lib-Lab coalition. We have never had a parliament dissolved, we have never had a vote of no-confidence in a government, and the Scottish Political landscape over the past 12 years has been stable despite there being no definitive majority. I don't believe that a government needs to have a majority, and there are plenty of cases where minority governments and coalitions work successfully. Indeed, I would argue it is more stable than switching from Labour to Tory every so often (which, even by today's standards, is a huge leap!).

 

[Zoe]

which, even by today's standards, is a huge leap!).

Didn't seem much of a leap from Major to Blair.