UK AV Referendum Poll

[You kip if you want to...]

I know that, which is why countries with more than two significant parties have no business using FPTP.

Or any majoritarian system, for that matter. We're being asked whether we want a system that doesn't fit Britain or a new system which also doesn't fit the country.

[Joe Republic]

I disagree with your latter assessment; pretty much anything is better than FPTP.  It seems like most of the specific arguments against AV have largely fallen flat.  Not that it matters any more though, once the matter of reforming the constitution became a debate on the Deputy Prime Minister instead.

[Sibboleth]

I disagree with your latter assessment; pretty much anything is better than FPTP.

From the point of view you have, PR with two seat districts would be worse (actually that's dreadful from almost all points of view), as would FPTP with multi-seat districts (which we have in local elections in some places, notably London). Functionally, I don't think a switch from FPTP to optional-preference AV would make much of a difference.

Not that it matters any more though, once the matter of reforming the constitution became a debate on the Deputy Prime Minister instead.

Often the way with referendums.

[True Federalist]

The electoral college is really a warped, presidential version of FPTP. It's just that the US only has two parties so it works properly. When there's a significant 3rd candidate, it breaks down (Ralph Nader).

Nader never was and never could be a significant third candidate.

[You kip if you want to...]

The electoral college is really a warped, presidential version of FPTP. It's just that the US only has two parties so it works properly. When there's a significant 3rd candidate, it breaks down (Ralph Nader).

Nader never was and never could be a significant third candidate.

Significant in that he, arguably, swung Florida to Bush...

[Vasall des Midas]

I disagree with your latter assessment; pretty much anything is better than FPTP.

From the point of view you have, PR with two seat districts would be worse (actually that's dreadful from almost all points of view), as would FPTP with multi-seat districts (which we have in local elections in some places, notably London).

Well, yeah. But no one is thinking of introducing these things anywhere. It is only a matter of not enough people understanding that they need to go where they exist (the Chilene parliament and UK and some US local elections, respectively. Don't think they exist anywhere else in the world.)

[Χahar]

I disagree with your latter assessment; pretty much anything is better than FPTP.

From the point of view you have, PR with two seat districts would be worse (actually that's dreadful from almost all points of view), as would FPTP with multi-seat districts (which we have in local elections in some places, notably London).

Well, yeah. But no one is thinking of introducing these things anywhere. It is only a matter of not enough people understanding that they need to go where they exist (the Chilene parliament and UK and some US local elections, respectively. Don't think they exist anywhere else in the world.)

I find it amusing but also sad that Chile still uses Pinochet's ridiculous electoral law. It may be the worst system in the world that isn't actively antidemocratic.

[Californian Tony]

How does it work ? I'm curious.

[Vasall des Midas]

You have one vote. Top two votegetters elected in every constituency.
I'm not sure, maybe it's D'Hondt and you can have a running mate and get both seats if you poll twice as much as the nearest opposition. Anyways the result is that parliament is always almost exactly half Conservative and half the Left Coalition (which really is a coalition, not a single party), with the occasional stray indy.

EDIT: Looks it up and yeah, that's right. Two candidate "lists", and D'Hondt. Oh, and they're open "lists", at least.

[Californian Tony]

You have one vote. Top two votegetters elected in every constituency.
I'm not sure, maybe it's D'Hondt and you can have a running mate and get both seats if you poll twice as much as the nearest opposition. Anyways the result is that parliament is always almost exactly half Conservative and half the Left Coalition (which really is a coalition, not a single party), with the occasional stray indy.

EDIT: Looks it up and yeah, that's right. Two candidate "lists", and D'Hondt. Oh, and they're open "lists", at least.

LOL, that's retarded indeed.

[You kip if you want to...]

The Sunday Times/YouGov says that voters think a Yes would hurt Dave slightly more than a No would hurt Clegg and a No vote would be slightly more likely to destablise the coalition. Wouldn't have expected that.

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/st20110501.pdf

[Sibboleth]

It is only a matter of not enough people understanding that they need to go where they exist (the Chilene parliament and UK and some US local elections, respectively. Don't think they exist anywhere else in the world.)

Well, yeah. Was just pointing out that even from a 'proportionality is good' perspective, there are worse systems around than what we have now.

Of course one of the many reeking features of this unnecessary referendum is the fact that AV would only be introduced for General Elections, meaning that the far worse electoral system used in local elections in more than a few parts of the country (did you know that there are actually a few five member FPTP wards in Wales? Actually you probably did; most reading this won't though) will remain in place no matter the outcome of the poll.

[Swedish Cheese]

To me it seems increadibly strange to use different voting systems for different levels of goverment. Of course the only variations that exist in Sweden is that County Council elections have a 3% threshold instead of a 4%, and that city council elections have no threshold at all and no evening out seats. 

[Sibboleth]

To me it seems increadibly strange to use different voting systems for different levels of goverment. Of course the only variations that exist in Sweden is that County Council elections have a 3% threshold instead of a 4%, and that city council elections have no threshold at all and no evening out seats. 

There's nothing British politicians love more than piecemeal reform, nothing the Civil Service hates more than comprehensive reform.

[Californian Tony]

To me it seems increadibly strange to use different voting systems for different levels of goverment.

France beats every country for that matter :
- Two-round FPTP for Presidential.
- Two-round FPTP (with different qualification criteria) for Parliamentaries and Cantonals.
- Proportional representation by constituencies without a threshold for Europeans.
- Proportional representation with a 10% threshold and a 25% majority bonus for Regionals.
- Proportional representation with a 10% threshold and a 50% majority bonus for Municipals, except in Paris, Lyon and Marseille.

Not to speak about Senatorials...

[Vasall des Midas]

Five seats? Crikey. I thought Welsh wards were small, mostly? (Okay, so not in Cardiff.) Where be these five member wards?

[Sibboleth]

Five seats? Crikey. I thought Welsh wards were small, mostly? (Okay, so not in Cardiff.) Where be these five member wards?

There are two in Swansea; Morriston and Sketty. Had those utter idiots on the Local Government Boundary Committee for Wales not been stopped before their deranged plans became official many more wards of that sort would have been drawn elsewhere in Wales.

[Vasall des Midas]

Lol.

[Leftbehind]

The Sunday Times/YouGov says that voters think a Yes would hurt Dave slightly more than a No would hurt Clegg and a No vote would be slightly more likely to destablise the coalition. Wouldn't have expected that.

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/st20110501.pdf

Probably because, as an earlier question shown, the argument made by pro-AV-ers in a desperate appeal to Labour voters that it'll help keep the Tories out and Liberal/Labour in has gained traction.

As CS has pointed out, it's complete revisionism and a perfect example of the Pro-AV following the anti-AV crowd into the gutter, employing complete lies.

What was most interesting was the question asking what the referendum should've been on, and what the vote would be;

35% A referendum on PR
28% Neither
27% don't know
 9% A referendum on AV

...and if there were a referendum on PR

37% would vote in favour of retaining FPTP
34% would vote in favour of changing to PR
22% don't know
 7% wouldn't vote

So, a 3-point lead for FPTP>PR and a 10-point lead for FPTP>AV.

[You kip if you want to...]

It's still got me annoyed how Huhne can even try and profess that he wants his party to be part of a progressive majority. As part of this coalition, he's part of the problem. I hope he'll man-up and resign, first thing on Friday morning, if he honestly thinks of himself as a progressive.

Although, he didn't have the guts to show up to the tuition vote, so I don't know if he'll have the guts to pull Clegg down.

AV's probably the only way Huhne's seat doesn't turn blue at the next election anyway.

[Peter]

Does anybody know to what level of detail the results will be reported?

In Scotland/Wales I suppose it makes sense to report by devolved consituency?

In England/Northern Ireland, by local authority?

[Vasall des Midas]

Lol.

Offtopic, but I just realized that with lots of people mixing their vote between parties or just voting for part of the slate of their preferred party and letting their remaining votes go to waste, it can be argued as if voters behave much as if under open list pr already. So it seems reasonable to count results on that principle to see what it would do to seat distribution.

I'll start with Swansea (obviously, the single seat wards don't need counting.) Brum might be interesting to do, too.

[Vasall des Midas]

Note: I used D'Hondt.

Well, the overall composition change isn't huge:

Labour 26 (-4)
LD 23 (no change)
Con 7 (+3)
Independents 6 (-1)
independent@Swansea 6 (no change)
PC 3 (+2)
People's Representative 1 (no change)

Of this, 18 are elected in single-member seats anyhow:
Con 4, Labour 3, LD 3, Independents 3, i@Swansea 3, PC 1, People's Rep 1

For the remaining 54 councillors from 18 wards with 2 to 5 seats, it's

Labour 23 (-4), LD 20 (0), Independents 3 (-1), i@Swansea 3 (0), Con 3 (+3), PC 2 (+2)

by ward:
West Cross (2)
Labour 1 (-1), Con 1 (+1)
Dunvant (2)
LD 2 (no change)
Penyrheo (2)l
Labour 1, i@Swansea 1 (no change)
Pontarddulais (2)
Labour 1, i@Swansea 1 (no change)
Sketty (5)
LD 3 (-2), Con 1 (+1), Labour 1 (+1)
Uplands (4)
LD 3 (-1), Labour 1 (+1)
Townhill (3)
Labour 2 (-1), LD 1 (+1)
Castle (4)
Labour 2 (-2), LD 1 (+1), PC 1 (+1)
Cwmbwrla (3)
LD 3 (no change)
Cockett (4)
LD 2 (-2), Labour 1 (+1), PC 1 (+1)
Penderry (3)
Labour 2 (-1), LD 1 (+1)
Landore (2)
LD 1 (-1), Labour 1 (+1)
Mynyddbach (3)
Labour 2, i@Swansea 1 (no change)
Morriston (5)
Labour 3 (-2), LD 2 (+2)
Clydach (2)
Labour 1 (-1), LD 1 (+1)
Llansamlet (4)
Labour 2 (-1), Independents 1 (0), Con 1 (+1)
Bonymaen (2)
Labour 1 (0), Independents 1 (0)
Saint Thomas (2)
Independents 1 (-1), Labour 1 (+1)

[Meeker]

I once had a summer camp counselor from Swansea.

He taught us to always spit after saying Cardiff.

[Bro-mentum]

The Sunday Times/YouGov says that voters think a Yes would hurt Dave slightly more than a No would hurt Clegg and a No vote would be slightly more likely to destablise the coalition. Wouldn't have expected that.

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/st20110501.pdf

Probably because, as an earlier question shown, the argument made by pro-AV-ers in a desperate appeal to Labour voters that it'll help keep the Tories out and Liberal/Labour in has gained traction.

As CS has pointed out, it's complete revisionism and a perfect example of the Pro-AV following the anti-AV crowd into the gutter, employing complete lies.

What was most interesting was the question asking what the referendum should've been on, and what the vote would be;

35% A referendum on PR
28% Neither
27% don't know
 9% A referendum on AV

...and if there were a referendum on PR

37% would vote in favour of retaining FPTP
34% would vote in favour of changing to PR
22% don't know
 7% wouldn't vote

So, a 3-point lead for FPTP>PR and a 10-point lead for FPTP>AV.

Talk about an enthusiasm gap..