UK AV Referendum Poll

[Leftbehind]

I was going to vote no*, but I think I'll take a leaf out of some of the posters in this thread and just spoil my ballot with a statement making clear I wanted PR on there.

*
1) the system itself rewards centrism - the last thing we need in Britain at the moment, and the 50% requirement will make it harder for the few left-wingers who've managed to break the mould. 
2) it's a self-serving option accepted by the Lib Dems because they'll do the best out of it
3) it's all Clegg's got to show for his disastrous coalition agreement; if this fails Lib Dems will have got nothing in turn for propping up an extreme-right government that's alienated nearly every left-winger who voted for them, and will be less resolute in sticking with the coalition once we hit the 'summer of discontent'.
4) it'll feel so good to give Clegg/the traitorous Lib Dems a kicking.

[Leftbehind]

So will the vast majority - usually pushing to around 80% - of voters, those for Labour or Tory get their dislike registered? No. It's not in the least proportional (you've mentioned the '97 distortion but not once throughout the 80's would it have readdressed Thatcher's overall majorities on a low 40's mandate) and it's not dishonest to use first preferences-only when for near-4/5ths of the electorate that's all it will be.

In truth Orange Bookers, UKIP and BNP voters will be the one's dominating the dislike field - and they're hardly typical of the UK voter.

[Leftbehind]

Labour voters will, all across the South of England with a few exceptions mostly in the cities.

Of course, we don't know exactly how many South of Englanders, both in ConLab and ConLD seats, are already simulating AV with their fptp ballots. Evidently it's quite a few - Labour and LD support are blatantly not naturally distributed - but it's impossible to pinpoint how many.

An assumption based off the 2010 electorate which isn't relevant anymore. If Labour haven't already overtaken the Lib Dems in most constituencies in the South, which polls suggest they have, then they'll be unlikely to go on preferencing the Lib Dems again. For a long time Lib Dems courted the Labour vote saying they were the best chance at keeping out the Tories, and so these voters in many ways were one of the first casualties of the Lib Dem vote.

No, no it wouldn't have. It would have made things marginally more proportional but nowhere near actually proportional. It's still basically the same thing as FPTP and still suffering from basically the same defects.
Then again, half the Alliance voters appear to have still preferred Thatcher to Foot and Kinnock, so...

But that's surely the point - the Alliance voters shouldn't have to have picked between Thatcher or Foot - they should've had enough seats proportional to their vote to bring about a coalition. We're getting a system that is essentially the same as FPTP, with even some notable downsides, but dressed up as voting reform for a proportional and mandated government - which is absolute rubbish.

When comparing a system based on the premise that first preferences only should count with a system based on the premise other factors too should matter, it is intellectual dishonesty to set the parameters of the comparison based on the more exclusive premise. It's quite a common obfuscating tactic.

Nothing personal, of course.

You're still left with an overwhelming majority of voters not factored into an exclusive system whereby they lose any input via preferences simply because they chose one of the main two.

[Leftbehind]

It could shelve demands for proper reform, or it could prejudice voters away from a proportional system, seeing as coalitions in FPTP/AV are awkward and will require matching parties of two different electoral basis, rather than in a PR system that would have a fairly varied spectrum of political parties to choose from which allow for logical coalitions.

It is still a FPTP system, and including just minor parties in the preferences, which is dominated by the Right (Liberals, UKIP, BNP) surely means the Right could win far more constituencies, but with no proportionality in place to allow the Left and its significant electorate to be represented.

Are two of my biggest concerns.

[Leftbehind]

That's true, but I doubt we'll be adopting a whole new voting system to then change it in a couple of years - whereas I think it's fairly easy to argue that AV's failure isn't representative of a lack of desire for PR, and that it's time we were offered a PR system through referenda.

[Leftbehind]

I really don't understand the arguments of PR supporters against AV. FPP is the worst possible system in the world (excluding multi-seat winner-takes-all, but this would be just crazy) and whatever would replace it would be better.

I don't really understand how you can make such a blanket statement, especially since I've listed quite a few reasons already.

Also, my support for PR is because left of centre politics is woefully represented in the UK, and AV, with its majoritarian demands for a 50% mandate, with no attempt at matching parliament seats with voter percentage, could very well lead to a worse system because the UK's kingmakers - the Others - are overwhelmingly right-of-centre.

[Leftbehind]

That's my point - you're not understanding isn't taking into account I find it far more reprehensible to be stuck in a system where the Left gets even less of its rightful percentage of parliament seats then the fact MPs can be elected with less than a majority.  

[Leftbehind]

Underrepresentation is far greater with FPP than with AV, the link posted earlier shows it.

 
The link posted is modelling a completely different political environment to now. Polls are suggesting a return to pre-SDP two-party politics.  

The people who now make up the deciders in the constituencies that aren't safe Labour or Tories are overwhelmingly rightists, and so they'll be able to swing every constituency Tory that isn't safe Labour, making representation for the left disproportionately weaker.

I don't get the 'hold out for a better electoral reform theory' of voting No. (I assume such people have serious qualms voting at just about every election, presumably not voting a lot, instead preferring to hold out for their dream candidate to register to run in their constituency.)

At any rate, I think the holding out for something better is rather optimistic thinking. Under what circumstances would a No vote help lead to more ambitious electoral reform being on the table within the next generation?

This was the system Labour were ostensibly inclined to adopt - if it's rejected, then they're unlikely to pursue it at any stage (or I'd presume, any change at all).
The Conservatives want no change at all.
This is the best the LibDems could get, and it seems they're unlikely to get another swing at things.

It's easy - I'd much rather have FPTP than AV. I don't expect either Labour or the Tories to deliver on electoral reform, and the Lib Dems have blew their chance, so I'll wait until either FPTP spits out another hung parliament or we get another third party - my rush to see it within the next generation's only because we'd be stuck with AV until then.  

Also, you're pretty much arguing the opinions of those voting BNP or UKIP or ED as a protest shouldn't be taken into account in a democracy (and taking for granted that they would cast a second preference at all, which is doubtful.)

No, I'm arguing that they shouldn't be the deciders. I'd be quite happy for either to be represented in parliament by their proportional vote, but they'll be given an undue influence under AV.

[Leftbehind]

I also think this idea that if AV is rejected we'll get STV or some other more proportional system on the table is nonsense; the anti-reform people will take the result as an endorsement of FPTP, and the turnout as evidence that people aren't really that interested anyway, and there'll be no chance of reform for 20 years or more.

I've already answered this in my earlier longer post, but I gave up on PR once Clegg chose that as his referendum. I don't expect to see it in the near future, whether AV is adopted or rejected.

I'm not fond of making those assumptions about what the political scene could become and how it could affect the results.

And anyways, whether or not this would disadvantage Labour, I think it's fair not to be elected if you don't manage to get an absolute majority.

It's not about what the political scene could become, it's what it has become.

It evidently is unfair but it's also unfair that in an election where Labour achieve the biggest mandate (say an 8% lead) they could only win their safe seats - and thus a tiny minority of seats - because the minority parties' voters preferred the Tories.

[Leftbehind]

Absolutely. But Labour shouldn't have a tiny amount of seats on that percentage, which is what AV could ensure.

[Leftbehind]

Absolutely. But Labour shouldn't have a tiny amount of seats on that percentage, which is what AV could ensure.

We can't know for sure, but I really doubt AV would make that much difference.  Transfers won't be that predictable, and a lot of people (and I'd think this would include a lot of people who vote for the likes of the BNP) won't transfer to either Labour or the Tories.

Note that a poll last July actually showed slightly more second preferences from "Others" going to Labour than the Tories, and the Tories only slightly ahead on second preferences from the Lib Dems.

I accept they won't all bother to preference, but judging how hysterical BNP/UKIP types get about the thought of another Labour government, I think the vast majority could be persuaded to keep Labour out (I'm sure UKIP will be advising its voters to preference Tory - not that they'd need to, with most coming straight from there).

As for the poll, it's a bit outdated. The Lib Dem vote that existed back then, at the dizzy heights of 18% was much more balanced, but nearly all of those left-leaning Liberals have left by now. Yougov's Monday poll helps demonstrate the Tory/Labour-leaner ratio of the current Lib Dem voter by asking a straight choice between Labour or Tory: only 13% of the remaining Liberals opted for Labour, whilst 52% chose Tory (the rest D/K).
 

[Leftbehind]

Nope. I cannot understand why no pollster has bothered re-running a preferences poll - it's bizarre.

I would've included it in my post, and tried, but got reminded I needed 20 posts (which I've just got)

Yougov, 7th March (bottom of pg 6).

[Leftbehind]

Show your working?

This poll is pretty weird in that it records 2% for Others, when it's rare to even register 1%.  It's difficult to work out where the Others split.

[Leftbehind]

Not only that, but the people who'd be most enthusiastic about it, just can't be bothered. "Miserable compromise", "it's not what we want, but it's a stepping stone" etc. The type of people wanting a new voting system, want proportional, and most have realised that it's non-proportional by now. Even this talk of smaller parties gaining more prominence is unassured, as in most constituencies (read English) they come nowhere near the major parties, so they'll simply be knocked out and reallocated, used as ammo for the main three (or is it simply main two now?).

[Leftbehind]

I noticed that Jonathan Harston has a guess at how the Sheffield seats would have voted under AV on his website:
http://mdfs.net/Docs/Sheffield/Election/2010/VotesGE
I think the conclusion is right (Central flips to LD but the others are unchanged) but the details of the transfers look over-simplified to me (e.g. nearly all UKIP votes seem to go to the Tories, BNP votes don't transfer at all).

Even the one change - Central - would be on shakier ground now, as that presumes Greens' preferences split 2:1 Lib-Lab, whereas I think that's probably changed by a fair bit these days.

Of some relevance:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3424

...and that's even with a surprisingly leftist preferencing (24% Labour + 24% Greens = 48% leftists vs 31% Tory) from the 10% rump of Liberals - a fair bit away from their usually Tory preferences shown in YG cross-breaks.

[Leftbehind]

Yeah, even as someone against AV I think NotoAV are a disgrace, and the fact it was started by a Taxpayers Alliance nutjob is all too clear to see in their cynical arguments.

[Leftbehind]

An easy transformation

Tony Blair vs Charles Kennedy
Ed Miliband vs Nick Clegg

I think it's easy to see who are the social democrats and who are the massive neoliberals in disguise.

[Leftbehind]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/av-referendum

[Leftbehind]

Yeah, multi-round voting is not the same as AV.

[Leftbehind]

Did I overhear someone offering out custard creams?

[Leftbehind]

Aye, seems a bit convoluted and resource heavy; gave up.

[Leftbehind]

Given that Yougov have run a few polls on how people would vote, with this one showing how each individual party's voters would preference*, if anyone can get their head around how to input that into the AV calculator, you could predict 2011's.
 
*I realise it's a one-off poll with small samples when broken down to party preference and thus subject to wide variation, but when taken with a pinch of salt it'll do.

Oh and Yougov showing a 16 point lead for No tonight.

[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.

[Leftbehind]

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.

You're right that AV wouldn't have been a help to the Left in '83 (disgustingly), but PR would've. Post-Foot, PR would've helped the Left enormously, even now when the Left's united there's no guarantee it'll do any good because there's no assurances that we'll get a left-of-centre platform from Labour.

[Leftbehind]

That's weird, considering how splintered the unionist vote is I'd presumed they'd support it - obviously not.

But I agree that it's silly to believe that Electoral Reform or AV would benefit the left more than the right.

I disagree simply because the Left has not been represented anywhere near the amount it should've been since the 70's. AV wouldn't, I agree, but proper electoral reform to a proportional system would've massively helped the Left for the past 30 years.