UK AV Referendum - Results Thread

[You kip if you want to...]

The government tensions of the past few weeks seem to be too... quiet.

I wonder what tensions will surface in Labour?

None probably, but they're definately there...

[Joe Republic]

It would be interesting to see just how many 'No' voters thought that FPTP is genuinely the best possible system for the UK, compared to those who agree that it's sh**t but that AV is no improvement.  I wonder if it would even have been a majority of the overall vote.

[afleitch]

[Phony Moderate]

"Red Ed" is more right-wing than John Major.

[You kip if you want to...]

"Red Ed" is more right-wing than John Major.

...

[You kip if you want to...]

At the risk of sounding like a Conservative:

He's the walking, talking example that AV would've given us "2nd best" politicians - Who was the most popular with the public, most popular with the party, most popular in the first three rounds, until... AV gives us the miserable, little compromise Miliband.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

http://keithdavies.org.uk/2011/04/ed-miliband-visits-llanelli/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-13305227

[Meeker]

Final numbers were 67.9% for 'No' to 32.1% for 'Yes'

[minionofmidas]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/may/06/av-referendum-results-map

Pretty map app. (Note: orange = 50-60% no. Yes is a couple of urban thingies in purple. Darker green = over 70% no.)

[Smid]

It's a good map and all, but I think we could shade it better. Is there a blank map showing these - I assume they're municipal boundaries?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In England, yes. In Wales and Scotland they've used the devolved constituencies (which in Wales are the same as for Westminster).

[Novelty]

Yes is a couple of urban thingies in purple.

It's interesting that Oxford and Cambridge both voted yes.

[Joe Republic]

It's interesting that Oxford and Cambridge both voted yes.

I guess you really do have to be a genius to understand AV.

[Antonio the Sixth]

When Oxford and Cambridge support something and the rest oppose it, such thing can't not be a good thing.

[Smid]

In England, yes. In Wales and Scotland they've used the devolved constituencies (which in Wales are the same as for Westminster).

I've downloaded and saved their Excel Spreadsheet of votes, so I might do that as a future project (unless someone else wants to beat me to it - I have a couple of other projects on the go, so someone else will almost certainly be able to get it done before me).

[Leftbehind]

At the risk of sounding like a Conservative:

He's the walking, talking example that AV would've given us "2nd best" politicians - Who was the most popular with the public, most popular with the party, most popular in the first three rounds, until... AV gives us the miserable, little compromise Miliband.

Again, I'd have to argue - as someone who is opposed to AV - that it wasn't AV's fault that Labour had an awful selection of leaders to choose from. The only reason the David vs Ed contest was competitive was purely down to David's platform to be the continuity candidate, the staunch New Labourite, and as such was far more transfer repellent - despite being the obviously more charismatic and leader-like option - from the majority of Labour members wanting a more left-leaning direction.

[Meeker]

The Wikipedia map is pretty darn good: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/United_Kingdom_AV_referendum_area_results.svg

[redcommander]

It would be interesting to see just how many 'No' voters thought that FPTP is genuinely the best possible system for the UK, compared to those who agree that it's sh**t but that AV is no improvement.  I wonder if it would even have been a majority of the overall vote.

It seems like the reform was too much too fast. Even with the argument that Clegg's support sank the campaign, the AV system seemed to be too complicated for the average British voter to get in favor of. FPPT has its defaults, been many voters saw the status quo as the best choice. Also the No campaign was effective in its message of an AV system leading to more Coalitions, more Nick Cleggs in government, and a rise in the far right whether it be the BNP or the tamer UKIP. Proponents of electoral reform probably should have pushed for a MMP system first and seen how that went. In fact that system seems to work perfectly fine in Scotland and Ireland, and is less unstable than a purely proportional system.

[redcommander]

"Red Ed" is more right-wing than John Major.

The Labor Party platform is pretty much to the right of Major nowadays thanks to that piece of sh*t Tony Blair.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would be interesting to see just how many 'No' voters thought that FPTP is genuinely the best possible system for the UK, compared to those who agree that it's sh**t but that AV is no improvement.  I wonder if it would even have been a majority of the overall vote.

It seems like the reform was too much too fast. Even with the argument that Clegg's support sank the campaign, the AV system seemed to be too complicated for the average British voter to get in favor of. FPPT has its defaults, been many voters saw the status quo as the best choice. Also the No campaign was effective in its message of an AV system leading to more Coalitions, more Nick Cleggs in government, and a rise in the far right whether it be the BNP or the tamer UKIP. Proponents of electoral reform probably should have pushed for a MMP system first and seen how that went. In fact that system seems to work perfectly fine in Scotland and Ireland, and is less unstable than a purely proportional system.

MMP/PR is far more favorable to centrist/far-right parties than AV is.

[Insula Dei]

How is MMP better for centrist parties. If the LibDems poll 20% of the vote under PR, they ought to get A fifth of the seats. If the numbers fall right they can hope for more under AV.

[minionofmidas]

Not really. A centrist party that is also the largest party though... The Chrétien Liberals would have enjoyed even larger majorities under AV.

[You kip if you want to...]

Not really. A centrist party that is also the largest party though... The Chrétien Liberals would have enjoyed even larger majorities under AV.

AV ensures larger majorities, centrist parties or not. Majorites aren't exactly bad, but large ones lead to complacency. MMP (or AV+) atleast mean that the result is fairly proportional, small parties don't get shut out and majorities can be acheived if the leading party is popular enough (SNP, for example), which i'd, personally, be okay with. It also means that everyone still has their local MP, which is fairly important in terms of illusionment and disillusionment.

Closed list is brilliant, it's one person, one vote, but the party leadership is too dominant in selection and we'd be governed by 650 faceless MPs and constant coalition isn't always the best idea.

STV is fine, but isn't always the most proportional it can be (see Fianna Fail's 20 seats on 17.4%. 17.4% should've gotten them about 30.)

[Smid]

The Wikipedia map is pretty darn good: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/United_Kingdom_AV_referendum_area_results.svg

Excellent! Very good! Exactly what I was hoping for!

[Antonio the Sixth]

AV doesn't favor larger or smaller majorities. AV doesn't make representation more or less proportional. In terms of global results, the only thing it does is avoiding the effect of vote split. Let's say that if party A polls 40%, and parties B and C, which are nearly identical and allied, poll 25% each, party A won't win in a landslide and parties B and C would likely have a majority together.