UK AV Referendum Poll

[Leftbehind]

why is No now leading in the polling when they weren't before?

The default action for most people when presented with a choice they don't really care about is to stick with the status quo rather than face the risk of change producing something worse.  Unless you were a LibDem, there wasn't anything obviously bad about the voting system in the UK.  Why risk ending up with something worse?

I think this is false: there's a lot of Labour voters and Tory voters who'd sooner be voting elsewhere, who'd want PR. The trouble is, this isn't remotely proportional, and so they've no incentive to vote for it; on the contrary, it looks like a system that benefits the Lib Dems at a time when Labour voters - the deciders on whether this passes - have disincentives not to.

Antony Green's articles reminds me of the US Right's demonisation of the NHS in their healthcare debate. Apt, really, given the sort of people running No2AV are no different to their American counterpart.

[ilikeverin]

why is No now leading in the polling when they weren't before?

The default action for most people when presented with a choice they don't really care about is to stick with the status quo rather than face the risk of change producing something worse.  Unless you were a LibDem, there wasn't anything obviously bad about the voting system in the UK.  Why risk ending up with something worse?

Precisely.  The fact that people swing against referenda is a very well replicated finding in political science.

[YL]

Just seen an article about Huhne telling the NO camp to stop telling lies. I thought it was YES who was telling voters that AV means all MPs will have 50%+ and get rid of safe seats... seems a bit questionable as well, to be fair.

Having now seen both campaign leaflets, I think the Yes leaflet, like many political leaflets, is misleading but avoids out-and-out lies.  The No leaflet, on the other hand, contains lies: there is no other word for saying that adopting AV would require us to spend £130 million on electronic vote counting machines.  Also, the claim in the leaflet that Australia wants to get rid of AV seems to have been demolished by Antony Green.

The No leaflet also says, and this is a verbatim quote, "The only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg's".

[You kip if you want to...]

Just seen an article about Huhne telling the NO camp to stop telling lies. I thought it was YES who was telling voters that AV means all MPs will have 50%+ and get rid of safe seats... seems a bit questionable as well, to be fair.

The No leaflet also says, and this is a verbatim quote, "The only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg's".

Not really a lie. It's more just big rhetoric.

[YL]

Interesting article at
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sigh. Bye bye to electoral reform...

[You kip if you want to...]

Sigh. Bye bye to electoral reform...

[Joe Republic]

Sigh. Bye bye to electoral reform...

Is that thing in your signature a genuine poster from the No campaign?  I guess it wouldn't surprise me if it was...

[Phony Moderate]

Sigh. Bye bye to electoral reform...

Is that thing in your signature a genuine poster from the No campaign?  I guess it wouldn't surprise me if it was...

Why do you have to make a wise-ass comment in every thread you post in?

[Joe Republic]

Because I am a wise-ass.

Genuine question, though.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Interesting article at
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

"Nick Clegg is toast already. Vote yes to spite David Cameron and George Osbourne!"

Probably a good thing for the Tories a lot of left-wingers like Change 08 are willing to give up electoral reform that would  probably help their party in the long run just to emberass someone who's political life is already over.

[minionofmidas]

"Nick Clegg is toast already. Vote yes to spite David Cameron and George Osbourne!"

That would be rational behavior. Never expect rational behavior from a voter.

[Joe Republic]

So, if I'm reading this bizarre referendum debate correctly, the answer to my previous question is 'yes', and that poster from the No campaign in Refudiate's signature is actually genuine.

Is this really how this matter of constitutional reform is being framed; a question of "Do you like Nick Clegg... yes or no?"  Jeez, I thought our politics were f'ed up.

[You kip if you want to...]

Interesting article at
http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

"Nick Clegg is toast already. Vote yes to spite David Cameron and George Osbourne!"

Probably a good thing for the Tories a lot of left-wingers like Change 08 are willing to give up electoral reform that would  probably help their party in the long run just to emberass someone who's political life is already over.

I genuinely don't like AV though. I honestly don't see how it's better than FPTP. It's less proportional and it increases government majorities, this is exactly the opposite of what we should be having. I also don't see how a No vote would stop PR in the future anymore than a Yes vote would. Let's say the referndum results in a 'yes', what future Tory or Labour administration is going to give the people PR? They've put it off for decades and decades, they certainly wouldn't change their mind on PR now whether it's a Yes or a No.

Although, of course, hurting Clegg further's a bonus. This referendum, from when it was first discussed, was never going to be an honest debate of AV against FPTP.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I genuinely don't like AV though. I honestly don't see how it's better than FPTP. It's less proportional and it increases government majorities, this is exactly the opposite of what we should be having. I also don't see how a No vote would stop PR in the future anymore than a Yes vote would. Let's say the referndum results in a 'yes', what future Tory or Labour administration is going to give the people PR? They've put it off for decades and decades, they certainly wouldn't change their mind on PR now whether it's a Yes or a No.

It gets rid of tactical voting and spoiled votes, and it makes sure that a party that has the support of less than half the voters can dominate politically. I don't believe AV is perfect, and I much prefer a system like our Swedish one, but it's certainly better than FPTP.

Just imagine, if France used FPTP to elect their president, they could've very well ended up with President Le Pen next year, although she'd never win under AV.

In some cases majorities would be bigger, Blair would have had an even bigger landslide in '97 for example, but not always. I could definatley see a hung parliament happening in 2005 if AV had been used back then, and Thatcher's majorities would have been smaller for sure. 

You are of course right that no matter the outcome electoral reform is dead for a generation, but if I were British, the more reason to switch to something that's at least some-what better.     

[Smid]

Australia currently has a hung parliament, so it does not deliver large government majorities in every election.

[minionofmidas]

And of course...

The No leaflet also says, and this is a verbatim quote, "The only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg's".

is precisely saying "AV produces hung parliaments, so the LDs get to choose who governs." ie, the exact opposite of the same people's other line.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've yet to see a serious and non partisan argument in favor of the no.

[Hash]

I've yet to see a serious and non partisan argument in favor of the no.

Arguments against electoral reform always takes people for idiots, and since they are, it works. The victorious No to MMP campaign in Ontario in 2007 consisted mostly of "PR ALLOES TEH NAZIS N TEH TALEBANS TO WINSZ SEASTS!!!".

[Phony Moderate]

I've yet to see a serious and non partisan argument in favor of the no.

Arguments against electoral reform always takes people for idiots, and since they are, it works. The victorious No to MMP campaign in Ontario in 2007 consisted mostly of "PR ALLOES TEH NAZIS N TEH TALEBANS TO WINSZ SEASTS!!!".

It does.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

and Thatcher's majorities would have been smaller for sure.

Such was the dream of the more constitutional-minded elements of the intellectual Left during the period. But I don't think so. How many Alliance voters would have second Pref'd scary, scary Michael Foot-led Labour in 1983? Quite a few who switched (SDPward, regardless of the candidate in their constituency) from Labour, probably. Despite everything. But how many long-term Liberal supporters? Almost certainly sod all. The assumption that electoral reform must be a boon to the Left (however defined) and damaging to the Tories is based on assumptions about the political views of long-term Centre voters that, with certain important exceptions (like the decade after Black Wednesday), are based more on wishful thinking than much else.

Personally I don't think there should be a referendum on the issue at all.

[Phony Moderate]

Thatcher was more right-wing than Foot was left-wing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thatcher was more right-wing than Foot was left-wing.

Yeah, but Foot had no real support in the media. The Mirror was Labour, yeah, but right-wing Labour and not at all favourable to Foot. The BBC was theoretically neutral, but in practice was favourable to Alliance/Wet Tory discourses and was pretty hostile to Foot most of the time. The Guardian wasn't exactly hostile, but obvious preferred the Alliance. Everything else was pro-Thatcher, usually rabidly so. You add onto that the issues surrounding Labour's rather public civil war and the apparent influence of the newer, harder, vastly more unpopular parts of the Labour Left, and you end up with a party that is not exactly transfer friendly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This referendum, from when it was first discussed, was never going to be an honest debate of AV against FPTP.

Well maybe so but I don't think you should encourage that. Joe might be a little blunt for people's liking at times but I'm pretty much on the same page as him in being astounded that a poster like the one in your sig is actually real. You're a pretty smart guy generally so I don't know why you would play into such a silly shallow manipulative effort on a serious issue.

[minionofmidas]

Thatcher was more right-wing than Foot was left-wing.

Yeah, but Foot had no real support in the media. The Mirror was Labour, yeah, but right-wing Labour and not at all favourable to Foot. The BBC was theoretically neutral, but in practice was favourable to Alliance/Wet Tory discourses and was pretty hostile to Foot most of the time. The Guardian wasn't exactly hostile, but obvious preferred the Alliance. Everything else was pro-Thatcher

What about Tribune?