First Past the Post or AV

[????]

Any views? I haven't looked or thought yet but am open minded at the moment

[mockney piers]

Having wasted every vote I've ever cast, I'm inclined towards more representative systems.

I loved the plummy woman on breakfast yesterday who said AV was unfair favouring those with wider opinions, forcing those with strong political affiliations to have more votes. .... what?!?!

err, right, so current system doesn't limit the more sophisticated voter in favour of those with strong political affiliations?

Duh.

Plus if they want to only vote for one person they can. I think she was a bit thick.

Anyway, the pro guy pointed out that all internal parliamentary votes (staffing committees and such like) use AV, so they know it's fairer, they just don't want US to have a fairer system because it doesn't benefit THEM.

For that reason alone I'm in favour!

Mind you, I'm pretty sure 90% of people just vote what their dads voted.

[Brendan]

I tried but there wasn't anyone from the Progressive Federal Party standing in the East Surrey ward at the last election.

[Loz]

Why AV?

1) It allows you not just to vote for who you want, but who you DON'T want. If you say "I really want the Green party person, but if I can't have that then give me anything but bloody Labour" then AV allows you to express that opinion in full.

2) A vote for a smaller party is no longer a 'wasted' vote. You can vote for the SWP candidate, but as you are in the minority of about 100, your other preference to the Tory candidate still holds. Protest votes won't have unfortunate side effects of allowing a candidate who may not normally have won to sneak through.

3) Any elected MP knows that they have the backing of the electorate. Take an example where the candidates for an election were (and their %age support):

Fred (Labout): 25%

Sue (Old Labour): 20%

Harry (New Labour): 24%

Tristan (Tory): 31%

Under FPTP the Tory candidate would be the victor, even though it's pretty obvious that a vast majority of the electorate were Labour voters of some form.

4) If you really, really like FPTP, you will still be able to just stick an X next to your favoured candidate.

I could go on...!

[dbboy]

FPTP

[david_carnell]

Loz - whilst I am in favour of PR, AV seems like the worst of all worlds. The Jenkins Commission that impartially assessed all forms of PR back in 1990s found it to be even less proportional that FPTP. It reads:

It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election [1997] and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional that FPTP

In the example you gave, if a fractured left-wing can't get its act together enough to present a united front I presume the schisms are great enough that, frankly, the Con candidate represents the will of the majority. You can't just group all parties into "left" or "right" to make it fit.

Do we wish to spend ?250 million only to get a voting system that isn't much better than the one we have if at all? I'd rather not.

[Brendan]

Party line?

[david_carnell]

Pardon, Brendan? Are you trying to imply I'm acting as some mouthpiece?

As someone who spent 3 years at university studying, amongst other political matters, electoral systems I think you should give me enough credit to have my own opinion.

Like I said, I want PR, just not AV.

[mockney piers]

I can only think it's salami tactics by the libs. They were never going to get get anything more drastic past the Tories, so figured one slice at a time.

[david_carnell]

Because what voters really want is politicians dicking around with the electoral system for the next 20 years until they hit on a formula that no one likes?

If you're not improving something, and I don't think AV is an improvement, then just bloody well leave it alone.

Labour should have done this in 1997 of course - and the Jenkins Commission was a start - but then realised how FPTP got them 3 successive election victories and thought they'd stick with that. Short-termism has never come home to roost with greater vengeance.

[Loz]

It's not a proportionality issue to my mind, it is being able to caste your vote as you see fit. FPTP is extremely limited in reflecting my wishes as a voter. AV allows me to say "I'd like person A, but if I can't have that then I'd like person B. And I certainly don't want person Z".

The other advantage with AV (over, in this case, PR) is that it still produces stable governments, rather than leaning towards coalitions. I think Australia have this pretty much right: the lower house is voted with the more stable AV system and the upper, reviewing house with a version of PR. It works well (though I don't really like Oz's PR voting system, but still, it works).

Mockney Piers is sort of right on the Lib Dems. A vote for AV will be seen as a vote for electoral reform, wherever that may lead. A vote against AV will be taken as a vote for the status quo and we will probably find that nothing will ever change. Anyone who votes against AV on the basis that they want PR instead is almost certainly going to be disappointed.

(And DC - tut tut for quoting that ?250m figure. That is a completely bogus amount - mind you it came from the head of the Tax Payers Alliance, so no surprise it's pulled from thin air.)

[Loz]

In the example you gave, if a fractured left-wing can't get its act together enough to present a united front I presume the schisms are great enough that, frankly, the Con candidate represents the will of the majority. You can't just group all parties into "left" or "right" to make it fit.

You're right, but that was my shorthand way of trying to give an example where 69% of the electorate probably least wanted the person that won the election. FPTP can never reflect this, AV can.

[Brendan]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pardon, Brendan? Are you trying to imply I'm

> acting as some mouthpiece?

Not at all. I'm just trying to annoy you.

[Loz]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Pardon, Brendan? Are you trying to imply I'm

> > acting as some mouthpiece?

>

> Not at all. I'm just trying to annoy you.

Well that seems to have worked...

[Brendan]

That?ll learn him. Walked right past me in Westminster the other day without saying hello.

Crushed and devalued I was.

[david_carnell]

The other advantage with AV (over, in this case, PR) is that it still produces stable governments, rather than leaning towards coalitions. I think Australia have this pretty much right: the lower house is voted with the more stable AV system and the upper, reviewing house with a version of PR. It works well (though I don't really like Oz's PR voting system, but still, it works).

I'm never convinced by this "stable govt" argument. Everyone knows what the deal is. If a stable govt is high on your wish list then you can vote for one of the two main parties. If you want a representative parliament and a coalition then you vote for whomever you so desire. Coalitions aren't always unstable or ineffective either. This one, for instance, seems to be getting quite a lot done.

Mockney Piers is sort of right on the Lib Dems. A vote for AV will be seen as a vote for electoral reform, wherever that may lead. A vote against AV will be taken as a vote for the status quo and we will probably find that nothing will ever change. Anyone who votes against AV on the basis that they want PR instead is almost certainly going to be disappointed.

I guess, really, the referendum on the voting system should be run under AV! Put a number next to the system you want the most.....FPTP, AV, AV+, STV, etc etc

(And DC - tut tut for quoting that ?250m figure. That is a completely bogus amount - mind you it came from the head of the Tax Payers Alliance, so no surprise it's pulled from thin air.)

Really? Ah....bugger. Fair cop 'guv.

You're right, but that was my shorthand way of trying to give an example where 69% of the electorate probably least wanted the person that won the election. FPTP can never reflect this, AV can.

Hmmm....maybe. But AV can also lead to unpopular parties being elected off the back of supporters for even more unpopular parties. As an example I present Ed Miliband. David Miliband was leading on every round of counting until the last. That doesn't seem particularly effective.

[Brendan]

Can?t we just make the buggers arm-wrestle for it? Although in that case we may end up with the chap from that Big Fat Gypsies show running the country.

[Loz]

Hmmm....maybe. But AV can also lead to unpopular parties being elected off the back of supporters for even more unpopular parties. As an example I present Ed Miliband. David Miliband was leading on every round of counting until the last. That doesn't seem particularly effective.

Depends what you mean by effective - to me it says that, if Ed and Dave were the only two candidates (and all the other rubbish candidates had stayed out of it :))) then Ed would have won it. Which is what AV sets out to do. Correctly, IMHO.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

FPTP, AV, AV+, STV, etc etc

Are we voting for a clap cliniic?

[silverfox]

Loz said:

" Why AV?

1) It allows you not just to vote for who you want, but who you DON'T want..."

Surely only a simpleton would vote for who he/she didn't want?

If I thought such a change would be fairer democratically and would lead to a more representative government then fair enough. But I suspect it will lead to hung parliaments where no one party can make decisions. Such compromised decisions will not necessarily be for the greater good.

[silverfox]

Just looking at this again. Loz also said:

"... 3) Any elected MP knows that they have the backing of the electorate...."

No they don't. Unless it's clear cut, they've reached 50% in their constituency beacause of some sort of numerical shuffle. If the electorate really thought he/she was the person for the job they've put him/her first.

If Bloggs reaches 50% because the 4th and 3rd votes were transferred then really - ask yourself seriously - is this the new dumbing down?

The paradox of democracy I call it.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz said:

>

> " Why AV?

>

> 1) It allows you not just to vote for who you

> want, but who you DON'T want..."

>

> Surely only a simpleton would vote for who he/she

> didn't want?

I'll be nice and assume you are being deliberately obtuse.

>

> If I thought such a change would be fairer

> democratically and would lead to a more

> representative government then fair enough. But I

> suspect it will lead to hung parliaments where no

> one party can make decisions. Such compromised

> decisions will not necessarily be for the greater

> good.

The experience in Australia is that it doesn't lead to hung parliaments. In fact, the UK have had more hung parliaments over the years than Oz.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just looking at this again. Loz also said:

>

> "... 3) Any elected MP knows that they have the

> backing of the electorate...."

>

> No they don't. Unless it's clear cut, they've

> reached 50% in their constituency beacause of some

> sort of numerical shuffle. If the electorate

> really thought he/she was the person for the job

> they've put him/her first.

>

> If Bloggs reaches 50% because the 4th and 3rd

> votes were transferred then really - ask yourself

> seriously - is this the new dumbing down?

>

> The paradox of democracy I call it.

OK. Try "... 3) Any elected MP knows that they have the backing of the electorate, relative to the other candidates"

In Australia they have the concept of the "two-party preferred vote". It comes down to the fact that, even though you were being obtuse in my point that you can vote according to who you like the least, most peoples preferences lie at the extremes. That is, thy know who they like and who they don't like - it's actually the ones in the middle that leave them saying, "Meh...". So, whomever you number last is actually quite significant.

Take this list of candidates:

Labour, Monster Raving Loony, Tory, BNP, Independent, Lib Dem, UKIP

Most people will immediately decide their first 1 or 2... then their last one or two. So the lower preferences are actually quite meaningful, especially when signifying the 'anyone but X' preference.

To make it easier, take this candidate list: "Independent 1, Independent 2, Independent 3, BNP". Most people would look at that list and say, "Don't mind, just not the BNP" bloke. Under FPTP that is not possible to reflect on the ballot, except via tactical voting. Under AV it is much simpler to express your wishes.

[silverfox]

Australia is a small, fairly insignificant country on the world stage. A Federal system not comparable with ours. Why do you keep harping on about it?

If Australia is the only, or best, example you can offer then we're probably better off staying with what we've got.

[Huguenot]

It seems to me that Loz and Piersy are making consummate sense, that DC is willing to cut his nose off to spite his face, and that silverfox is struggling to get his head around any logical argument...

It seems to me that if your views on politics are polarized, tribal and divisive then FPTP will seem the only logical approach on that basis that it's better to win or lose disgracefully with your principles and ego intact.

If your views are that it would be better to compromise and find a middle ground, with political leadership that reflects the median point (look it up silverfox) of the electorate, be it a little left or a little right, that AV is the right way to go.

Proportional representation isn't on the table, thanks to the current FPTP system, so there's no point discussing it. If you'd like to discuss PR the only way to start is with a parliament elected through AV.

There is no doubt that the current system favors destructive self-righteousness over compromise. I find that a desire to sustain that position on a point of principle to be staggeringly bereft of vision.