UK AV Referendum Poll

[Franzl]

Anything that has to do with party lists is bad.....FPTP, AV or STV are all acceptable to me.

Why is that? I quite like Party Lists in that they allow for less charismatic candidates with specific competences to get into parliamentt, without the party having to parachute them into a safe seat.

The parties and government know best, obviously.

[Franzl]

Anything that has to do with party lists is bad.....FPTP, AV or STV are all acceptable to me.

Are you naive enough to believe that parties have any less influence in the choice of candidates in uninominal systems ? Come on, you know that except in a few countries parties always choose the candidates whatever the voting system is.

Choice of candidates, yes.....but the voters are still able to reject an individual candidate without rejecting the entire party's choices.

I know I don't vote against a party list because of a couple of people on it I might not like. I don't like the fact that I have to cast a ballot for an entire list.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Choice of candidates, yes.....but the voters are still able to reject an individual candidate without rejecting the entire party's choices.

I know I don't vote against a party list because of a couple of people on it I might not like. I don't like the fact that I have to cast a ballot for an entire list.

1. Read my answer to Lewis and acknowledge that closed lists is only one form of PR. What you treat as a flaw of PR just isn't one.

2. The problem is that if everybody follow your logic (refusing your party's candidate because of his personality), nobody actually votes for the party that best fits his ideology (or, if so, he does incidentally). The reason why I like party lists is precisely because they de-personalize elections. The primary goal of parliamentary elections isn't to elect MPs, its to elect parties, or at least currents or opinions.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't necessarily oppose proportionality. As previously stated, I could very easily support PR-STV.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very strongly disagree. I value personal, individual representation as the most important thing, and I view parties mainly as a necessary (very necessary, mind you) evil. It's not just about personality, it's about who you believe is the most competent and best suited to represent your district/state.

I don't think ideology trumps everything else.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't necessarily oppose proportionality. As previously stated, I could very easily support PR-STV.

I was not refering to STV, but to open lists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But what does matter when you look at the results of a parliamentary elections ? The party tally. What will matter on the composition of the future government ? The party tally. With the notable exception of the USA, where personality matters a lot more, european MPs vote as their party wants. So, the personality of the candidate is just a way to distort the voters' choice from what it should be.

[Iannis]

I agree with senator Antonio and I add that the optimal solution it would be the possibility to write a preference for one or more candidates of the voted list.

[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).
 

[You kip if you want to...]

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).
 

Gotta link to the Monday poll? Did it ask about which parties that voters would preference?

[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).

[You kip if you want to...]

So basically, with others considered, Labour'd be ahead about 52-48 on the 2-party preferred vote.

[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.

[You kip if you want to...]

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.

From a 42-36-9 FPTP result

9% Lib Support, so:

If 53% go Tory = 40.77% 2pp
13% go Labour = 43.17% 2pp

Assuming the 13% for "others" from the FPTP splits evenly, with a tiny Tory advantage (UKIP, BNP etc), you get about a 3-4% gap.

I'm not a mathematician, and it was only a rough calculation.

[You kip if you want to...]

A splinter group of no2av has formed called No2AV-Yes2PR, leading with the endorsment of David Owen.

http://www.no2av-yes2pr.org/

[Antonio the Sixth]

If this referendum fails, electoral reform is dead in UK for the next 50 years at least.

[Platypus]

It seems to me that you're all essentially arguing either in favour of the Australian senate model or the Australian House of Reps model. I spot a solution.

[You kip if you want to...]

If this referendum fails, electoral reform is dead in UK for the next 50 years at least.

Same for if it passes. Labour/Tory/(Today's) Liberals aren't supportive of PR, so none of them will give us it in government.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fifty years? I don't think we should ever be in the business of making predictions that far into the future.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It has remained the same for 400 years... So I don't think it's an irrealistic extrapolation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It seems to me that you're all essentially arguing either in favour of the Australian senate model or the Australian House of Reps model. I spot a solution.

Move to Australia?

[You kip if you want to...]

It seems to me that you're all essentially arguing either in favour of the Australian senate model or the Australian House of Reps model. I spot a solution.

If only we had an upper house like Australia, actually elected... but you can keep Tone and Jules.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It has remained the same for 400 years... So I don't think it's an irrealistic extrapolation.

Ignoring the fact that Britain didn't become even semi-democratic until 1884, that's not actually true. Until the Attlee government changed things there was a thing called the business vote (which meant that the owners of businesses/property could vote both at home and wherever they had other interests), university graduates elected both an MP in their own constituency and one representing their old university and it was not unusual for constituencies to have two members. Until 1918 people entitled to vote in borough constituencies under a freehold franchise were also entitled to vote in the nearest county constituency. And so on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fair enough, but still the voting system in Britain in its main principles is a particularly well-established tradition.

[YL]

It seems to me that you're all essentially arguing either in favour of the Australian senate model or the Australian House of Reps model. I spot a solution.

Not a bad idea, as long as we can discard compulsory full preferencing and above the line voting.

[Smid]

It seems to me that you're all essentially arguing either in favour of the Australian senate model or the Australian House of Reps model. I spot a solution.

Not a bad idea, as long as we can discard compulsory full preferencing and above the line voting.

I'm totally satisfied with OPV (optional preferential) as occurs in Queensland, New South Wales and the Upper House in Victoria (below the line, you only have to number five or more boxes - to elect five Members - so exactly like needing to number one or more boxes in the Lower House). Above-the-line isn't so bad, so long as there's also a below-the-line voting option.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just to know, how many spoilt votes you get in Australia due to this silly rule ? I wouldn't be surprised if they reached 5%.