Commons approves AV referendum

[Filuwaúrdjan]

364 to 187. If the legislation manages to get through all the loops and so on before the election, then there will apparently be a referendum on the issue in 2011. I suspect that this might end up going nowhere, but this is the biggest victory that any kind of electoral reform for the Commons has had since the 1940s.

[Hash]

Who (generally) voted against (and for)?

[Meeker]

From the BBC article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wtf?

[afleitch]

The Lib Dems amendment for an earlier referendum and an STV voting system was roundly defeated.

The BBC have a graphic about how AV would have effected the last few elections which would have seen the Tories knocked into a distant 3rd in 1997.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm

What is most interesting however is the analysis that applying AV to the latest set of polls would see Cameron being given a stonking majority...

[Verily]

Who (generally) voted against (and for)?

As I recall, the vote was expected to be pretty much Everyone-against-the-Tories, and it looks like that's how it ended up. The LDs, SNP and Plaid all said that they didn't think Labour was actually committed to electoral reform but that they would support it on principle anyway. Not sure how the NI parties voted; on the one hand the DUP and the Tories are trying to play nice, but on the other hand, NI already uses STV, so the DUP can't really justify voting against AV for Westminster.

Afleitch is pretty much right about the implications of the switch to AV--would have destroyed the Tories in 1997, but might well destroy Labour if implemented for 2010. Certainly throws the "Labour are evil gerrymanderers and we have to stop AV because it will doom the Tories" Conservatives who are mobbing sites like PoliticalBetting right now. Especially because, if AV really would doom the Tories, surely it is just as much of a gerrymander to support maintaining the current system, which logically would have to have a huge in-built advantage for the Tories if AV, a system not by nature more biased, would destroy them.

Whatever. I'm not a huge fan of Instant Run-Off anyway. Labour are clearly making a disgusting political maneuver here, and the Tories are also making an unpleasant political maneuver (and also a stupid one; supporting AV would lose them nothing). And of course the Lib Dems' and Nats' support for any form of PR has always been at least a little bit self-interested.

[afleitch]

Who (generally) voted against (and for)?

As I recall, the vote was expected to be pretty much Everyone-against-the-Tories, and it looks like that's how it ended up. The LDs, SNP and Plaid all said that they didn't think Labour was actually committed to electoral reform but that they would support it on principle anyway. Not sure how the NI parties voted; on the one hand the DUP and the Tories are trying to play nice, but on the other hand, NI already uses STV, so the DUP can't really justify voting against AV for Westminster.

Interesting that the Lib Dems have thrown their support behind a less proportional system of election. I've spent yeas studying politics but the Lib Dems are still an alien indecipherable babble at the best of times.

[Verily]

Who (generally) voted against (and for)?

As I recall, the vote was expected to be pretty much Everyone-against-the-Tories, and it looks like that's how it ended up. The LDs, SNP and Plaid all said that they didn't think Labour was actually committed to electoral reform but that they would support it on principle anyway. Not sure how the NI parties voted; on the one hand the DUP and the Tories are trying to play nice, but on the other hand, NI already uses STV, so the DUP can't really justify voting against AV for Westminster.

Interesting that the Lib Dems have thrown their support behind a less proportional system of election. I've spent yeas studying politics but the Lib Dems are still an alien indecipherable babble at the best of times.

I'm not sure where you get that AV is less proportional, other than from some traditionalist talking box. More proportional, perhaps not, but not less proportional, either. Think 1997: If, in a constituency-based system, a majority in nearly every constituency opposed the Tories, surely the Tories should not win any of those seats. That looks like as much of a proportionality argument to me as the argument for FPTP. Also, the current Tory line seems to be that AV would let the BNP in--I wish we knew who planned to second-preference them!

Not defending AV, really. It's just certainly not worse than FPTP.

[afleitch]

Not defending AV, really. It's just certainly not worse than FPTP.

In 1997, the Tories polled nearly twice as many votes as the Lib Dems, but would under AV would have got 70 seats to the Lib Dems 115. I fail to see how that is not worse than FTP.

[Hash]

If there's a referendum on this in 2011, what are the chances it passes? Personally, I'm not too hopeful since electoral reform is a big unknown to the regular voter who ends up being convinced by the stupid, false and strawman examples of the FPTPists and a lot end up being skeptic of change when they don't know what it's about (these referendums are usually very low-key).

[afleitch]

If there's a referendum on this in 2011, what are the chances it passes? Personally, I'm not too hopeful since electoral reform is a big unknown to the regular voter who ends up being convinced by the stupid, false and strawman examples of the FPTPists and a lot end up being skeptic of change when they don't know what it's about (these referendums are usually very low-key).

There will not be a referendum (The Lords will kill it if time doesn't) as the Tories dont back it, Labour post election will not be interested in pursuing it (as the AV system would probably have made the expected Tory victory this year more one sided) and the Lib Dems won't know what day it is. The first poll about it on PoliticsHome suggests that 70% of voters perceive it as Brown trying to improve his chances with the Lib Dems. There is a plus side to the 'hung parliament narrative' afterall.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Assumptions about the electoral impact of AV work on the basis that existing voting patterns would be maintained in all details - which is very unlikely*. But, no, there probably won't be a referendum; if the legislation does make it out of this parliament (which is tricky given time restraints) the Tories-in-government will find some way to kill it. I don't think that any party wants to be the incumbent in the first election that a system like this is tried; you'll note that the government did not seriously propose it until long after the possibility of it being in force in 2010 was no more.

I still think this is a positive thing though. The Commons has just accepted that fptp is a shitty electoral system. Baby steps, baby steps.

*Though, yeah, long-serving governments would get punished on transfers. That much is obvious.

[Хahar 🤔]

AV? This the hilariously bad system used to elect the London Mayor?

[Verily]

AV? This the hilariously bad system used to elect the London Mayor?

Not quite. It would be true IRV, not the weird modified IRV that London and some other cities use to elect mayors.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

AV? This the hilariously bad system used to elect the London Mayor?

Not quite. It would be true IRV, not the weird modified IRV that London and some other cities use to elect mayors.

The tendency of that particular system to produce freak results has been a little unfortunate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How does the London mayor system work?

There was a lot of lies and propaganda spread about IRV when Minneapolis adopted it (crap like "It's too confusing!" or claims that it would give some people more than one vote, etc.) but that was all basically debunked last election when it went smoothly and St. Paul also voted to implement it, though granted it was kind of pointless, every winning candidate got a plurality on the first vote anyway and would've won under FPTP. Not to mention Minnesota municipal elections already used a runoff instead of FPTP (the first round being the primary). There wasn't much reason to implement besides kind of a "fuck you" to the Republicans.

[ag]

Not defending AV, really. It's just certainly not worse than FPTP.

In 1997, the Tories polled nearly twice as many votes as the Lib Dems, but would under AV would have got 70 seats to the Lib Dems 115. I fail to see how that is not worse than FTP.

You deliberately forget , that in that case votes would have meant something else.  Tories wouldn't have polled twice as many votes as LD in that case - but only twice as many first preference votes. And even that's not clear: in some districts, once freed from the constraint of having to vote Labor to screw Tories, voters could put their (meaningless) first preference for LD -  it would have been safe to do, as long as they put Labor ahead of the Conservatives.

AV (like any run-off) favors the centrists and screws the extremes, as compared to FPTP. It's not proportional, of course. But, long term, it should lead to a two-coalition structure, rather than a two-party structure, in most districts. LD have to love it.

[Хahar 🤔]

How does the London mayor system work?

IIRC, you have two votes. Your second vote only counts if your first vote is for a candidate who wasn't in the top two in first votes, and your second vote was. Basically, you have to guess who will finish in the top two, and cast your second vote for the candidate ou prefer that you think will. It's a two-round system for retards.

[minionofmidas]

How does the London mayor system work?

IIRC, you have two votes. Your second vote only counts if your first vote is for a candidate who wasn't in the top two in first votes, and your second vote was. Basically, you have to guess who will finish in the top two, and cast your second vote for the candidate ou prefer that you think will. It's a two-round system for retards.

IRV for Retards, is more like it.

[k-onmmunist]

It's a step forward but really, we need an STV system.

[Јas]

Hansard Full Division Result

In terms of minor parties and independents:

For
SDLP
SNP
Plaid
Sylvia Hermon
George Galloway
Richard Taylor
Bob Spink

Against
DUP
Dai Davies

[Verily]

AV? This the hilariously bad system used to elect the London Mayor?

Not quite. It would be true IRV, not the weird modified IRV that London and some other cities use to elect mayors.

The tendency of that particular system to produce freak results has been a little unfortunate.

lolDoncaster. Yeah, I think that election permanently prevented LondonAV from being a system with serious support.

[Verily]

Hansard Full Division Result

In terms of minor parties and independents:

For
SDLP
SNP
Plaid
Sylvia Hermon
George Galloway
Richard Taylor
Bob Spink

Against
DUP
Dai Davies

Any Tories in favor/Labour or LDs opposed?

[Јas]

Hansard Full Division Result

In terms of minor parties and independents:

For
SDLP
SNP
Plaid
Sylvia Hermon
George Galloway
Richard Taylor
Bob Spink

Against
DUP
Dai Davies

Any Tories in favor/Labour or LDs opposed?

Haven't noticed any Tories out of place.
Diane Abbot, Kelvin Hopkins and Meg Munn appear to be Labour votes against.
Paul Rowan looks like a LibDem vote against as well.

[Јas]

And on the LibDem motioned STV vote straight afterwards:

Some Labour Ayes: Jim Cousins, Doug Naysmith, James Purnell, Andrew Smith

SNP, Plaid, SDLP, Galloway also in favour.
DUP and Hermon against.