UK AV Referendum Poll

[Phony Moderate]

Al, what are the plans for tomorrow night? Are we going to keep all the UK results to one thread, or to multiple threads for each election?

[Leftbehind]

Refudiate: It's unfair to blame it on AV - it's what a piss-poor selection from Labour gave us, made even worse by their leadership rules whereby their MPs can screen any unpopular MPs out of the race.

Swedish Cheese: I can sort of agree with you Ed Miliband is pretty underwhelming as a leader so far, but he hasn't announced any policies, and even then I don't think that's automatically good news for Cameron. Unlike in Swedish politics, if you're disillusioned with the Social Democrats there, there's nothing stopping you from voting elsewhere; with the demise of the Lib Dems it'll be a straight choice between Cameron and Miliband, and having spoken to Labour voters who actively dislike Miliband, the idea that they won't be voting Labour, or that they could ever vote Tory (or Liberal now), is unthinkable. Politics is a lot more tribal than it was only a year ago (and even then it was still pretty tribal), and unless you're a massive Tory (which is what the Tories will be offering come 2015 - the Right will see to that), you'll vote Labour to keep them out. The anti-Tory vote doesn't have many options left, and that antipathy isn't something that can be ridden of by superior performance from Cameron in PMQ/leaders' debates.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So tomorrow the British will decide to remain under an unfair, undemocratic, primitive electoral system. Good for them.

It's worth noting that Harper wouldn't have got a majority monday if Canada used AV.

[You kip if you want to...]

So tomorrow the British will decide to remain under an unfair, undemocratic, primitive electoral system. Good for them.

It's worth noting that Harper wouldn't have got a majority monday if Canada used AV.

He would've still got another minority government though. Britain and Canada need PR and AV would make both our countries representation problems worse.

We're being offered two unfair and undemocratic electoral systems, so it's a poor result no matter if there's a yes or a no.

[Phony Moderate]

Angus Reid apparently says:

Yes - 42%
No - 58%

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, what are the plans for tomorrow night? Are we going to keep all the UK results to one thread, or to multiple threads for each election?

There will have to be a lot of threads in order to avoid confusion. So...

1. Wales

2. Scotland

3. Northern Ireland

4. English Municipals

5. That Miserable Compromise

Well... technically six... but there's obviously no need for a new thread on the Leicester South by-election.

[afleitch]

So tomorrow the British will decide to remain under an unfair, undemocratic, primitive electoral system. Good for them.

It's worth noting that Harper wouldn't have got a majority monday if Canada used AV.

AV is less proportionate than FPTP; it's making a bad problem even worse. I want STV or a genuine proportional system.

[Leftbehind]

Agree with Refudiate and afleitch; in reality we're being offered two unfair, undemocratic systems thanks to spinelessness from a supposedly pro-PR party. I'll not mourn the death of AV. 

[You kip if you want to...]

YouGov has it at 60-40.

[Leftbehind]

 .

[Antonio the Sixth]

He would've still got another minority government though. Britain and Canada need PR and AV would make both our countries representation problems worse.

We're being offered two unfair and undemocratic electoral systems, so it's a poor result no matter if there's a yes or a no.

The point of politics is picking the less worse of two options. And, in any possible way, it is absolutely impossible for anyone who dislikes FPP to dislike AV even more. It's just absolutely inconsistent.
If you find FPP very very very undemocratic, you must find AV at worst very very undemocratic. The point is that you guys only think to Nick Clegg and about punishing this damn traitor. I understand it, but it's damn immature.

AV is less proportionate than FPTP; it's making a bad problem even worse. I want STV or a genuine proportional system.

AV is neither more nor less proportional than FPP. It, however, avoids vote splitting, which is the second most hideous flaws of FPP (the first being absence of clear links between vote count and seat results, and which indeed only PR can solve).

[Franzl]

AV is neither more or less proportional than FPP. It, however, avoids vote splitting, which is the second most hideous flaws of FPP (the first being absence of clear links between vote count and seat results, and which indeed only PR can solve).

You're assuming that votes are always for a particular political party, but in reality voting for a particular candidate can have several reasons completely independent of party.

[Antonio the Sixth]

AV is neither more or less proportional than FPP. It, however, avoids vote splitting, which is the second most hideous flaws of FPP (the first being absence of clear links between vote count and seat results, and which indeed only PR can solve).

You're assuming that votes are always for a particular political party, but in reality voting for a particular candidate can have several reasons completely independent of party.

We've discussed about this several times. Voters shouldn't vote for candidates, but for parties (and, inside the party, for one candidate, why not). One of the deepest flaws of constitutency voting is precisely that it encourage silly votes based on personality instead of policies. Parliamentary elections are about parties, period.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

@Leftbehind: I'm of course more than willing to give Ed Miliband the benefit of the doubt as he's only had a very short period as a leader. There have been several politicians I've changed my mind about and who has turned out to be quite different than they initially appeared. It's also easier to go from irrelevant to good, than from bad to good. Still I wouldn't asume that a united left due to the upcoming destruction of the LibDems will necessarily result in a Labour victory either. There are still a lot of voters who consider themselves neither left nor right, who Cameron could possibly win back. And if Ed turns out to be unpopular with the left, even if they're not going to vote for another party, there's always the option of not voting. (Far too common unfortunatley)

 

[You kip if you want to...]

BREAKING: Yes campaign surges ahead on the final night!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[afleitch]

BREAKING: Yes campaign surges ahead on the final night!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those polls are always sweet

[Leftbehind]

@Swedish Cheese: Oh yeah, it's not a sure thing for Labour by any means, but Labour will have the benefit of:

a) following a term where the Tories were "making cuts that Thatcher could only dream of" (as one Tory boasted), which should see to it that floating voters swing leftwards and unreliable Labour supporters would be more likely to turn out (especially if their NHS "reforms" are only held off by Liberals).

b) the 2015 election will be about placating the Right, so even if Cameron's still leader, he'll be doing his best to make it a deeply Conservative platform, making it less likely that they'd be able to attract centrists - or at least no more so than Ed Miliband's Labour.

[Хahar 🤔]

AV is neither more or less proportional than FPP. It, however, avoids vote splitting, which is the second most hideous flaws of FPP (the first being absence of clear links between vote count and seat results, and which indeed only PR can solve).

You're assuming that votes are always for a particular political party, but in reality voting for a particular candidate can have several reasons completely independent of party.

We've discussed about this several times. Voters shouldn't vote for candidates, but for parties (and, inside the party, for one candidate, why not). One of the deepest flaws of constitutency voting is precisely that it encourage silly votes based on personality instead of policies. Parliamentary elections are about parties, period.

Why should that be? If you are to take that view, why even have members of parliament? Instead of having 255 Labour members, why not just give Ed Miliband 255 votes that he can cast by himself?

[Franzl]

Agree with Xahar. I don't see the purpose of giving individual MPs their own mandate in parliament if it's all about the party and nothing else. What if I don't trust any party enough to cast a vote for them? Why should the voting system serve to limit my options?

STV, however, is an exception. I can accept that because it allows me to choose between individual candidates.

Any list based systems, though, as Antonio seems to favor.....are absolutely awful IMO.

[afleitch]

Any list based systems, though, as Antonio seems to favor.....are absolutely awful IMO.

That's one issue I have with AMS in Scotland. While it allows for proportionality to an extent, it is a closed list.

Ironically, there were murmurings of moving towards STV at Holyrood if AV was adopted. That may be my only regret.

[Insula Dei]

@Antonio, I for one don't like FPTP, yet I have discovered that I like AV even less. It is (or has the potential to be) less proportional, even when people base their vote on parties . Under AV the BNP hypothetically could poll 25% nationwide, but still win only 1 or 2 seats, because they'd be poisonous in terms of preferences. I can see a similar situation with the Greens or some more likable party. Australia seems to be the best case study.

[afleitch]

@Antonio, I for one don't like FPTP, yet I have discovered that I like AV even less. It is (or has the potential to be) less proportional, even when people base their . Under AV the BNP hypothetically could poll 25% nationwide, but still win only 1 or 2 seats, because they'd be poisonous in terms of preferences. I can see a similar situation with the Greens or some more likable party. Australia seems to be the best case study.

A good example would be the Scottish Conservatives; the Conservatives could make a comeback but still be without seats under AV. Had the Holyrood election been under AV in 2007 (in the constituencies) the Tories are unlikely to have won any seats (they won 4) Playing around with the figures, the Tories could poll 30% in Scotland at Holyrood (I wish!) and still walk away 1 seat out of 73.

[You kip if you want to...]

@Antonio, I for one don't like FPTP, yet I have discovered that I like AV even less. It is (or has the potential to be) less proportional, even when people base their . Under AV the BNP hypothetically could poll 25% nationwide, but still win only 1 or 2 seats, because they'd be poisonous in terms of preferences. I can see a similar situation with the Greens or some more likable party. Australia seems to be the best case study.

A good example would be the Scottish Conservatives; the Conservatives could make a comeback but still be without seats under AV. Had the Holyrood election been under AV in 2007 (in the constituencies) the Tories are unlikely to have won any seats (they won 4) Playing around with the figures, the Tories could poll 30% in Scotland at Holyrood (I wish!) and still walk away 1 seat out of 73.

AV discourages a broad set of ideas and policies, bringing less choice for voters, in comparison to FPTP. It's awful.

[afleitch]

@Antonio, I for one don't like FPTP, yet I have discovered that I like AV even less. It is (or has the potential to be) less proportional, even when people base their . Under AV the BNP hypothetically could poll 25% nationwide, but still win only 1 or 2 seats, because they'd be poisonous in terms of preferences. I can see a similar situation with the Greens or some more likable party. Australia seems to be the best case study.

A good example would be the Scottish Conservatives; the Conservatives could make a comeback but still be without seats under AV. Had the Holyrood election been under AV in 2007 (in the constituencies) the Tories are unlikely to have won any seats (they won 4) Playing around with the figures, the Tories could poll 30% in Scotland at Holyrood (I wish!) and still walk away 1 seat out of 73.

AV discourages a broad set of ideas and policies, bringing less choice for voters, in comparison to FPTP. It's awful.

It may even be worse than that. Let's says there's a seat where the 'big 3' stand and the BNP. BNP finish last, which is great, but their second preferences are counted (and perhaps only theirs) putting a candidate over the line. Whose vote is the elected MP going to try and court throughout the parliament and at the next campaign? 

[You kip if you want to...]

@Antonio, I for one don't like FPTP, yet I have discovered that I like AV even less. It is (or has the potential to be) less proportional, even when people base their . Under AV the BNP hypothetically could poll 25% nationwide, but still win only 1 or 2 seats, because they'd be poisonous in terms of preferences. I can see a similar situation with the Greens or some more likable party. Australia seems to be the best case study.

A good example would be the Scottish Conservatives; the Conservatives could make a comeback but still be without seats under AV. Had the Holyrood election been under AV in 2007 (in the constituencies) the Tories are unlikely to have won any seats (they won 4) Playing around with the figures, the Tories could poll 30% in Scotland at Holyrood (I wish!) and still walk away 1 seat out of 73.

AV discourages a broad set of ideas and policies, bringing less choice for voters, in comparison to FPTP. It's awful.

It may even be worse than that. Let's says there's a seat where the 'big 3' stand and the BNP. BNP finish last, which is great, but their second preferences are counted (and perhaps only theirs) putting a candidate over the line. Whose vote is the elected MP going to try and court throughout the parliament and at the next campaign? 

Exactly. I know France doesn't use AV, but I guess you could call it Sarkozy Syndrome.