The Alternative Vote (AV)

[thefab444]

Very disappointing but not unexpected (despite the RUK "exit poll").

I can't help but feeling if Clegg had managed to secure a referendum on any of the other voting systems we might have had more success. I can't see how the Tories could be massively opposed to the Additional Member System, and Labour certainly should have supported it seeing as they put it into place for the Welsh and Scottish assemblies!

 

[SS4]

We've remained under no overall control although Labour made huge gains (Birmingham). Tories and Lib Dems have retained enough seats to keep a slim majority together so I suspect their coalition, which has been far better locally than nationally (albeit that's not hard) will hold together. In addition only a third were up for grabs

Does anyone know how the AV votes are counted? Is it pure numbers or based on constituencies (ie: crappy old fptp)

When it came to the referendum media coverage was about as "fair and balanced" as Fox News so I can't be surprised. This country needs a representative government, not a simple one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As I said in the other thread "A sad day for democracy"

 

[me123]

Pure numbers, but each individual constituency will also report its results separately (for logistical reasons more than anything else), so you'll get to see which parts of the country are on which side of the debate. For example, my constituency rejected it, whereas Glasgow Kelvin (with a big student population) is the only Scottish constituency to say "yes" to AV. However, the constituency results mean nothing (aside from interest); it's the total votes that count.

I think it's safe to say that we're stuck with the most ineffectual voting system in the world for the foreseeable future. That "no" campaign should have been stopped. It was a national disgrace. Not one of the things that they claimed was true. The "yes" one wasn't much better either.

 

[Mojo]

No council elections here in London and my ward in Bristol (where I am also eligible to vote in different elections) was not up this time as the council is elected in thirds.

The referendum was a bit closer here in Westminster than elsewhere in the country, but still a clear win: http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/Authority.aspx?id=WESTMI

For the record, I voted no.

 

[SS4]

I think it's safe to say that we're stuck with the most ineffectual voting system in the world for the foreseeable future. That "no" campaign should have been stopped. It was a national disgrace. Not one of the things that they claimed was true. The "yes" one wasn't much better either.

That's what I thought, just panicked when I saw them reporting in.

If anything the no campagin will show most people exactly what the Conservatives are about. Of course we can't be sure it was funded by them since they refused to release a donor list :roll:

 

[HST Power]

If anything the no campagin will show most people exactly what the Conservatives are about. Of course we can't be sure it was funded by them since they refused to release a donor list :roll:

If you donate more than £7,500 to the Conservatives, they are obliged under the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to report such a donation to the Electoral Commission, who will publish the fact that you have made a donation over £7,500.

 

[Mojo]

If anything the no campagin will show most people exactly what the Conservatives are about. Of course we can't be sure it was funded by them since they refused to release a donor list :roll:

What? Is this another lie from the Yes campaign?

They did release their donor declaration and a simple Google search would have revealed this: http://www.no2av.org/04/donor-declaration/

For the record, here's the yes: http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/alternative-vote-campaign-publishes-donor-list/

When publishing, the Yes campaign raised more than the No campaign. The No campaign has raised more from smaller (under £7.5k) donors. The two largest donations were both to the Yes campaign; both over twice as high as the highest No donation.

 

[table38]

ie: vote no on AV or millions of babies will DIE

And who was the brains behind the "Baby" campaign?

Step forward one Dan Hodges, a leading Labour Party campaigner and son of Glenda Jackson.

 

[HST Power]

Step forward one Dan Hodges, a leading Labour Party campaigner and son of Glenda Jackson.

Game, set and match to table38.

 

[Mojo]

I can't help but feeling if Clegg had managed to secure a referendum on any of the other voting systems we might have had more success. I can't see how the Tories could be massively opposed to the Additional Member System, and Labour certainly should have supported it seeing as they put it into place for the Welsh and Scottish assemblies!

Agreed. Depending on the system I probably would have voted Yes to change, but didn't want to vote for AV because I don't agree with it.

The second biggest donor to the Yes campaign cleansed its website of all of its criticisms of AV recently. Unfortunately from them it's not so easy for them to cleanse the Parliamentary Archives, so have a read of what they think of AV: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/volume-2/grps05.PDF

 

[Zoe]

AV has now officially been rejected.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

So, Can we have 'AV' back, now, please? To mean 'Audio Visual'?

 

[HST Power]

AV has now officially been rejected.

Brilliant!

It's been a fairly good day for the Conservatives!

 

[Mojo]

AV has now officially been rejected.

When it came up on the BBC News I just heard a massive cheer out the window!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It's a great pity.

We live in a democracy, and FPTP isn't democratic. How can we allow a system where someone can be elected with more than 50% - the majority of their electorate - not wanting them?

 

[Anon Mouse]

So, Can we have 'AV' back, now, please? To mean 'Audio Visual'?

or Adult Video (AV girls are big in Japan apprentley)

 

[me123]

AV has now officially been rejected.

And, once again, Westminster continues with an out-of-date voting system that has been widely discredited around the world. And, of course, there's little or no prospect of electoral reform for the next few decades at least.

 

[Zoe]

And, once again, Westminster continues with an out-of-date voting system that has been widely discredited around the world. And, of course, there's little or no prospect of electoral reform for the next few decades at least.

I expect the LibDems will be decimated at the next election so we may well end up with a Tory majority. Unfortunately for Cameron though he can't take advantage of any poll lead to call an early election to get a majority due to fixed five year term legislation. By 2015 Labour may have recovered to prevent a Tory majority. You say it has been widely discredited around the world but it continues to be used in the United States and Canada.

 

[table38]

And, once again, Westminster continues with an out-of-date voting system that has been widely discredited around the world. And, of course, there's little or no prospect of electoral reform for the next few decades at least.

But if the "yes" vote had won, we'd be stuck with AV - the "grubbly little compromise" that the Electroral Reform Society originally said wasn't suited to electing governments.

Perhaps it's actually a good result for democracy. After a reasonable pause, someone can start campaigning for a truly representative system.

Some like me who voted "no" to AV are just anti-AV, and are not necessarily against voting reform.

 

[thefab444]

The trouble is, that "reasonable pause" could be half a century! Perhaps it would've been better to have held the referendum on "Do you want some form of change to the way MPs are elected", and then allow the politicians to debate and sort out the actual system.

Agreed. Depending on the system I probably would have voted Yes to change, but didn't want to vote for AV because I don't agree with it.

The Additional Member System is the ideal compromise, it keeps all the supposed advantages of FPTP (voter-constituency link etc.) and attempts to redress the balance between number of votes and number of seats. It's not perfect proportionality, nor what many Lib Dems are after, but I suspect finding at least some cross-party support would have been far easier.

 

[me123]

I expect the LibDems will be decimated at the next election so we may well end up with a Tory majority. Unfortunately for Cameron though he can't take advantage of any poll lead to call an early election to get a majority due to fixed five year term legislation. By 2015 Labour may have recovered to prevent a Tory majority. You say it has been widely discredited around the world but it continues to be used in the United States and Canada.

The current trend is Labour majority, despite Milliband's leadership. However, a lot can happen before then. Will Milliband still lead Labour? If so, will his leadership boost or harm the vote? Will the Tories actually fare better once the worst of the cuts are past, or will their legacy

The USA would refuse to change anyway; the Americans don't like change. The electoral college is even worse, because it's indirect an the electors in many states are not even legally required to represent the result of the election! There's strong appetite in Canada for electoral reform, with an STV referendum actually gaining >50% of the vote (but not the 60% required for STV to win). Actually more and more countries are shying away from FPTP, and various proportional systems are becoming the norm around the world.

 

[Zoe]

The trouble is, that "reasonable pause" could be half a century! Perhaps it would've been better to have held the referendum on "Do you want some form of change to the way MPs are elected", and then allow the politicians to debate and sort out the actual system.

And let the Tories to decide for us that no change is needed.

 

[Oswyntail]

But if the "yes" vote had won, we'd be stuck with AV - the "grubbly little compromise" that the Electroral Reform Society originally said wasn't suited to electing governments.

Perhaps it's actually a good result for democracy. After a reasonable pause, someone can start campaigning for a truly representative system.

Some like me who voted "no" to AV are just anti-AV, and are not necessarily against voting reform.

Exactly. AV would have made little difference to the make-up of Parliament, but its acceptance would have taken the steam out of the reform movement. What we really need is a reform from top to bottom: election system; party structure; funding; and many other areas. They are all interlinked, and tinkering with one would not have addressed the overall problem - which, IMHO, is that since about 1990, the purpose of being elected is to gain and retain POWER for the party rather than running the country.

 

[table38]

The trouble is, that "reasonable pause" could be half a century!

I dunno, the Irish were persuaded to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty just 16 months after first rejecting it. Stranger things have happened

 

[me123]

Some like me who voted "no" to AV are just anti-AV, and are not necessarily against voting reform.

But by voting "no", you've sent a strong message to the politicians that we don't want to change the way we vote. On the contrary, I think plenty of people in the UK do actually want a fairer system. The "no" vote will actually please many Labour politicians, and most Tory ones as well, because it suits them just fine. It makes life nice and easy for them, and they'll continue to get elected; now with the added bonus that they can demonstrate (wrongly) that there's no desire for change.

AV may not have been perfect, but it would have been better than what we're now stuck with. Any flaws AV has, FPTP has. And AV has the added advantage of requiring any candidate to seek broader support from the electorate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I dunno, the Irish were persuaded to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty just 16 months after first rejecting it. Stranger things have happened

Depends on whether or not Parliament is dissolved before the five years are up. Today, I've been hearing the first (pretty strong) indications that the coalition will not last the five years.

 

[imagination]

AV may not have been perfect, but it would have been better than what we're now stuck with. Any flaws AV has, FPTP has. And AV has the added advantage of requiring any candidate to seek broader support from the electorate.

Quoted for truth

 

[Zoe]

Depends on whether or not Parliament is dissolved before the five years are up. Today, I've been hearing the first (pretty strong) indications that the coalition will not last the five years.

It's not going to be easy for the LibDems now though, if they and other force a general election we could end up with a Tory majority. Actually the Liberal party in Canada recently did that and Canada ended up with a majority Tory government. Also under new legislation even if a vote of no confidence passes it does not automatically result in an election. There are two weeks to form a new government before an eleciton is called.

 

[table38]

But by voting "no", you've sent a strong message to the politicians that we don't want to change the way we vote

Not me.

The whole campaign was based "yes" or "no" to AV.

Only the merits of AV were discussed by the "yes" campaign, and whilst I concede that some saw it as potentially a stepping stone to a more representative system in the future, others saw it as a road-block to reform, and just a sop to keep the Lib Dems happy.

Perhaps the ballot paper should have had three options, "yes", "no" and "none of the above"

 

[SS4]

But by voting "no", you've sent a strong message to the politicians that we don't want to change the way we vote. On the contrary, I think plenty of people in the UK do actually want a fairer system. The "no" vote will actually please many Labour politicians, and most Tory ones as well, because it suits them just fine. It makes life nice and easy for them, and they'll continue to get elected; now with the added bonus that they can demonstrate (wrongly) that there's no desire for change.

AV may not have been perfect, but it would have been better than what we're now stuck with. Any flaws AV has, FPTP has. And AV has the added advantage of requiring any candidate to seek broader support from the electorate.

Quoted for Truth

Not me.

The whole campaign was based "yes" or "no" to AV.

Only the merits of AV were discussed by the "yes" campaign, and whilst I concede that some saw it as potentially a stepping stone to a more representative system in the future, others saw it as a road-block to reform, and just a sop to keep the Lib Dems happy.

Perhaps the ballot paper should have had three options, "yes", "no" and "none of the above"

That is true but do you really see the Conservatives and possibly Labour drawing a different conclusion to the one me123 came up with? I didn't want AV either, I wanted full PR or the system they have in Scotland.

I no longer see any point in voting, Retention of FPTP means my vote will count for nothing

IMO the referendum goes to show that it's far more effective to brainwash through excessive media coverage, lies and misinformation than it is through truth and honesty.

 

[passmore]

But by voting "no", you've sent a strong message to the politicians that we don't want to change the way we vote. On the contrary, I think plenty of people in the UK do actually want a fairer system. The "no" vote will actually please many Labour politicians, and most Tory ones as well, because it suits them just fine. It makes life nice and easy for them, and they'll continue to get elected; now with the added bonus that they can demonstrate (wrongly) that there's no desire for change.

AV may not have been perfect, but it would have been better than what we're now stuck with. Any flaws AV has, FPTP has. And AV has the added advantage of requiring any candidate to seek broader support from the electorate.

By voting 'no', we have seen the half-hearted attempt at electoral reform AV really was. It was nothing more than a poor attempt at pandering to grass roots Liberal Democrats by substituting genuine PR voting with a half-hearted second-best system, in this case, AV.
The result of the referendum is proof that the British public care about electoral reform. It is not proof that we are happy with the current system of voting. It shows that the majority of the public want genuine change in the form of PR voting.
As for the issue of whether it would've been any more 'fairer', that's a subjective argument I'm afraid. I consider the FPTP system 'fair', but someone else I know doesn't consider the FPTP system 'fair' and would be willing to vote for electoral reform but not in the shape of AV, which he consideres 'unfair'. It's impossible to comfortably say that one form of voting is wholly 'fairer' than the other form when there is so many conflicting personal opinions about which system is best for this country. Referendums can help to assess the opinion of the electorate, so I ask, why do the 'Yes' campaigners still insist there's apathy to electoral reform based on the referendum result?
There is desire for change. People just need to look beyond the farce of AV and accept that the UK's voting system does not revolve around AV or FPTP.