UK AV Referendum Poll

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is not about what would advantage/disadvantage my political side, that's not the way I reason. I support AV over FPP because no MP should be elected if a majority of the voters haven't voted for him.

[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.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 than that MPs can be elected with less than a majority. 

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

[Јas]

It could shelve demands for proper reform

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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

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.)

[YL]

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 think some of it (not all) is people looking for an excuse to vote No for Clegg-bashing reasons.  (Personally, I'll do my Clegg-bashing in the local elections on the same day.)

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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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'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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Let's put it that way. Say that the national results are as such :

Labour : 43%
Conservative : 35%
Miscellaneous right-wing : 22%

Which party is more legitimate to form a government ? Clearly the tories, because a majority (57%) of the electorate is closer to their views than to those of the Labour.

[Leftbehind]

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

[Serenity Now]

Does anyone have any guesses as to what the geography of this referendum might look light? e.g. most pro/anti areas. I haven't thought about this enough yet.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Since when is the system used in Australia for millenia "unproven"?

We aren't having a vote on whether to use the Australian federal system

But the system used in some Australian state elections so, yeah. Hardly unproven either. Though as we aren't used to it large numbers of people will not use their preferences but just vote for their party of choice.

[minionofmidas]

Since when is the system used in Australia for millenia "unproven"?

We aren't having a vote on whether to use the Australian federal system

In that votes that don't rank all choices won't be thrown out, or are you referring to something entirely different here?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On the subject of stupid arguments, the most deranged of all hasn't been raised yet; the idea that AV will be a magic bullet to cure all that is wrong with the political system in this country.

Does anyone have any guesses as to what the geography of this referendum might look light? e.g. most pro/anti areas. I haven't thought about this enough yet.

Probably the most favourable areas would be 'liberal' residential districts.

[minionofmidas]

Does anyone have any guesses as to what the geography of this referendum might look light? e.g. most pro/anti areas. I haven't thought about this enough yet.

Will certainly be interesting to look at. I suppose the southeastern LD strongholds will be easy to spot and the True Blue shires will be voting against, but outside of that it's anyone's guess. Might see some fascinating and hard-to-explain patterns of some Labour areas voting for and others against by stronger-than-expected margins, for instance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Since when is the system used in Australia for millenia "unproven"?

We aren't having a vote on whether to use the Australian federal system

In that votes that don't rank all choices won't be thrown out, or are you referring to something entirely different here?

First option.

[YL]

On the subject of stupid arguments, the most deranged of all hasn't been raised yet; the idea that AV will be a magic bullet to cure all that is wrong with the political system in this country.

Maybe because it's such a crazy idea that no-one really believes it?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On the subject of stupid arguments, the most deranged of all hasn't been raised yet; the idea that AV will be a magic bullet to cure all that is wrong with the political system in this country.

Maybe because it's such a crazy idea that no-one really believes it?

I personally suspect that those people in the real world who make that claim are moles working for the no campaign.

[YL]

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.  (Source: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/PVSCBill_analysis2.html )

[Insula Dei]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[minionofmidas]

In closed lists, even voters' ability to rebel against dreadfully bad candidate selection is massively impaired - you'd have to reject the entire list. Closed lists are fairly undemocratic. I'm not talking about "inattractive" candidates - belgian is quite right about those - but for example known corrupts being granted a comeback. It's happened before.

The obvious solution is open lists, of course.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In closed lists, even voters' ability to rebel against dreadfully bad candidate selection is massively impaired - you'd have to reject the entire list. Closed lists are fairly undemocratic. I'm not talking about "inattractive" candidates - belgian is quite right about those - but for example known corrupts being granted a comeback. It's happened before.

The obvious solution is open lists, of course.

Indeed, thus not ab inherent flaw of PR.

Actually, open-list PR is far more democratic that uninominal constituency voting, where voters aren't given the ability to turn for another candidate of the same party if they don't like the first one.