First Past the Post or AV

[silverfox]

For those who may think AV is the thin edge of the wedge, cop a load of this:

Hungary considers giving mothers extra votes

Hungary's new government is considering controversial plans to give mothers with small children additional votes in elections.

Jozsef Szajer, a senior official from the ruling conservative Fidesz party, explained that 20 per cent of Hungary's population are children and that "the interests of future generations are not represented in decision making".

The proposed legislation, which would be a first for modern democracy, is inspired by a concept developed in 1986 by American demographer Paul Demeny, who argued that children "should not be left disfranchised for some 18 years".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/hungary/8457723/Hungary-considers-giving-mothers-extra-votes.html

Sound vaguely familiar?

[Huguenot]

Really silverfox, you are completely mental now, right?

Having failed to make any valid point against AV, you're now resorting to referencing weird unrelated stuff somewhere else in the world?

[PeckhamRose]

Radio Four Woman's Hour. Now. 10.00am Monday 18th April 2011.

All about AV!

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Loz said,

>

> "...I am really starting to see why the BNP are so

> in favour of FPTP. Let's face it - they will never

> have majority support in the UK, so the best they

> can hope for is a minority following that can

> split the opposition vote. With AV in place they

> could never hope to gain seats."

>

> Can you state that with any certainty Loz? I can

> see many cases where the BNP may get a second

> preference protest vote. Or the Green Party get a

> second Preference vote because they'll never get a

> majority. If minorities won't really benefit under

> AV then that means there is no benefit to the

> Green Pary etc under AV and they may as well stick

> with FPTP.

They may pick up the odd preference from the UKIP people, etc, but it does not take much analysis to see that the BNP would never gain enough support to push them up to a 50% majority needed to win under AV. This is the 'I really don't want X to win' scenario that works so well under AV. If the worst happened and BNP support in an area went up to, say, 25% then that is 'win territory' under FPTP, but as that will almost certainly be the end of their support they would fail to score the seat under AV.

Of course, it's easy to see why this would not apply to Greens, etc.

The BNP want you to keep FPTP because they know it is the only way they can ever win a seat at Westminster. AV would permanently scupper their chances.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> For those who may think AV is the thin edge of the

> wedge, cop a load of this:

>

> Hungary considers giving mothers extra votes

[...]

> Sound vaguely familiar?

Errm, no. It sounds vaguely irrelevant. You've tried it on with some weird scare stories, but that is as far away from AV as you can get.

In fact, the only familiar ring to it is that fake and irrelevant scare stories are the only real tactic of the No camp. I got my leaflet in the post on Friday and the number of half-truths and downright lies in it were an embarrassment to democracy.

[Loz]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Radio Four Woman's Hour. Now. 10.00am Monday 18th

> April 2011.

> All about AV!

Missed it PR. Anything good? Lots of positive stuff from the Yes people? Lots of half-truths and scare stories from the No people?

[silverfox]

But the Hungary example is based on the same thinking as AV surely? EG,

How a person can have a vote but it's unfair if the candidate they chose doesn't win so they need another vote, otherwise their vote is wasted. It extends the idea of disenfranchisement as does AV. Also, if AV is voted in it will be continually tweaked over the years and could well include children.

In fact my dog, Butch, probably desrves to put his paw prints on a ballot paper as he's under represented in the current electoral process.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> But the Hungary example is based on the same

> thinking as AV surely? EG,

>

> How a person can have a vote but it's unfair if

> the candidate they chose doesn't win so they need

> another vote, otherwise their vote is wasted. It

> extends the idea of disenfranchisement as does AV.

> Also, if AV is voted in it will be continually

> tweaked over the years and could well include

> children.

>

> In fact my dog, Butch, probably desrves to put his

> paw prints on a ballot paper as he's under

> represented in the current electoral process.

You could make the same (poor) argument that the weaknesses in FPTP (which you've admitted exist) means that it would need to be extended to children. The rejection of a valid, strong system such as AV would lead the UK down the path of trying desperately to tweak FPTP into something more democratic.

It is, of course, a silly argument. As is yours. Especially since Hungary uses a form of PR. So it's a complete non-sequitur to the UK debate.

Anyway, silverchicken - where's that answer to you admitting that FPTP could be improved on and AV isn't better (in your opinion), so what do you think is a better system, then?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/9/11364375_ba370ac73f.jpg

[silverfox]

I've already said it would be an insult to you to give you a quick answer given the political, philosophical and procedural issues involved in answering your question. It would also be off topic on this thread. So I'll save it for another time, another thread.

My concern at the moment is that the yes vote could win this referendum because of a low turnout and the Scots' support for AV could be the deciding factor.

The Scots? Yes dear friends, can you imagine. They have their own parliament but can you fathom Rab C Nesbitt types determining whether we have to adopt AV?

[Loz]

Anyway, I've spent a lot of time extolling the many virtues of AV, but I think more needs to be said on the weaknesses of FPTP. The main arguments are:

- FPTP creates a lot of wasted votes - people who vote for minor parties may as well not bother to vote. This leads to at least 10% to 20% of votes in any given election being effectively ignored.

- FPTP unduly focuses both the election debate and the party campaigns on a small number of marginal constituencies;

- FPTP is very ineffective at representing the views of minor party supporters, particularly when that support is geographically spread

- FPTP, in most situations, elects candidates with only a strong minority vote, rather than the support of the voter majority.

- FPTP is the BNP's voting system of choice. That in itself says a lot.

What is FPTP's single strength? It is simple. Can't argue really - it is really, really simple. I mean, FPTP is really, really, REALLY simple. But, AV is hardly complicated - you number as many candidates as you like. Can you count from 1 to 10? Hey! You passed the AV test. Somehow the No camp seem to suggest this is beyond British intelligence levels.

Australian's have been successfully using the system for decades and, unless the No camp want to put forward the argument that Brits are lot less intelligent than Aussies (though silverfox's posts do go some way in making this argument), then the UK shouldn't have any difficulty voting with AV.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> I've already said it would be an insult to you to

> give you a quick answer given the political,

> philosophical and procedural issues involved in

> answering your question. It would also be off

> topic on this thread. So I'll save it for another

> time, another thread.

No, no. No insult at all. Please enlighten us. You've already tried insulting our intelligence today with that weird Hungarian story, so I'm surprised at your concern.

Or is this a picture of silverchicken giving a lecture on voting systems?

[silverfox]

I really like that picture Loz. The writing on the board over my shoulder makes more sense than your explanations and attempts at justification for AV.

Only three countries use AV to elect their governments: Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

You need to ask yourself why this is Loz? Why Koalas always looked stoned as they ponder that voting system? and why my board above makes more sense than the four page explanatiion of how AV works that popped through my door.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> I really like that picture Loz. The writing on the

> board over my shoulder makes more sense than your

> explanations and attempts at justification for

> AV.

You believe that FPTP is better than AV, so yes that powerpoint would make a lot of sense to you. "What are the advantages of FPTP, silverfox?" "Buark buark, buark. Buk!"

> Only three countries use AV to elect their

> governments: Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

Hang on - AV is already used extensively to elect many forms of government in the UK. Why is the UK not on your list? It's also used to elect the president of Ireland. It's also used extensively across the US to elect various forms of government.

But let's look at the bastions of democracy that use the FPTP system. First up, Zimbabwe. Yes, FPTP is the weapon of choice for Mr Robert Mugabe. After all, if you are going to rig an election, you may as well use the easiest system to manipulate. Next up - China. They don't really like elections, so it makes sense to use the system that is the least democratic, so FPTP it is. Who else? Pakistan, Belize, Iran, Yemen.

FPTP - the election manipulator's choice. Why worry about democracy when you have FPTP?

> You need to ask yourself why this is Loz? Why

> Koalas always looked stoned as they ponder that

> voting system? and why my board above makes more

> sense than the four page explanatiion of how AV

> works that popped through my door.

Do the Brits really need a four page explanation of how to number some boxes? Really? Wow. No wonder employers are complaining the educations system is failing. Or is it that naughty No campaign trying to make AV look harder than it really is?

(And shhh! Koalas don't vote.)

And still dodging the question, silverchicken. Still dodging.

[silverfox]

Great leader in The Times this morning. Well worth a read. Here are the juicy bits:

Alternative Reality

AV has almost none of the attributes its most passionate advocates claim make it appealing

? The striking thing ? was that the advantages ascribed to AV ? presumably regarded by its proponents as the strongest case for the change ? were things that AV has no power whatsoever to bring about.

The first claim was that AV would ?make MPs work harder for you?. This begins with the incorrect ? and in most cases, insulting ? assumption that the problem with MPs is that they do not work hard. It then asserts that a different voting system would produce more industrious representatives. It remains a mystery why the ?yes? campaign believes that this would be the case.

? The ?yes? campaign states that the reform it advocates would greatly reduce the number of safe seats and require MPs to get more than 50 per cent of the vote in each constituency. Neither of these arguments is correct. Seats that are safe under the current system are unlikely to be vulnerable under AV. And ? despite the vehemence and frequency with which the assertion is made ? it would not be necessary to win 50 per cent of the vote in order to win a constituency under AV.

The ?yes? campaign also seems, rather oddly, to suggest that under AV, Members of Parliament would have a less comfortable way of life, and would not be able to claim so much in expenses. There is a delicious irony about a campaign promising more honesty in politics through the deployment of an argument it must know to be entirely dishonest?.

The ?yes? campaign?s broader argument ? that AV is a fairer system ? is no better founded. The alternative vote is not a proportional system and there are many circumstances in which the outcome would be less proportional than the current system. Thus, even if proportionality were the correct measure of fairness, AV would not be an improvement on first-past-the-post.

Campaigners for AV like to suggest that it will open Westminster to fresh air and sunlight. Its opponents are painted as staid defenders of the Establishment; its proponents as the bright-eyed harbingers of change. But saying no to AV is about stopping the current electoral system, for all its flaws, from being replaced by a worse one.

The more that we learn about the system of AV, the less there is to like about it. In fact, there is something very ?old politics? about the ?yes? campaign, in the gulf between its rhetoric and the reality that lies behind. It is a false promise.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article2990967.ece (subscription required to read full article)

[mockney piers]

In all fairness whatever the merits or otherwise of the yes campaign, and many of those ststements are rather non-sequitur, they are not claims that supporters on this thread have made.

In other words the Times is undermining the argument of the campaign, not of AV itself.

And judging by the tactics of the No campaign, pots and kettles spring to mind.

Of course old Murdoch doesn't like the idea of AV as getting to be king maker* wont be quite as easy any more.

*or at least back the winner, it's usually pretty obvious under FPTP, though he nearly got it wrong in '92 then changed his mind last minute making his king maker claim look even more convincing. He obviously doesn't like this coalition nonsense, so am not surprised the Times is campaigning for a no.

Personally if he doesn't like it thats enough for me to vote the other way.

[LadyDeliah]

I'm voting yes. Anything to stop splitting the left-ish vote and giving the Tories more power than they deserve.

[Marmora Man]

LadyDeliah, your point of view seems to be a modish one at present. However, there may come a time when the "left-ish" vote isn't something you want to support anymore.

The left-ish tendency of the Blair / Brown years was hardly a highlight of political rule - several underfunded wars and underestimated subsequent death and world turmoil, ever increasing restrictions on the liberty of the people (90 days detention without trial anyone?), embarrasingly "hip" "Cool Britannia" speak that decried anything traditional as out of date. Horrible times.

Only FTPT will give the you the opportunity to turf an unsatisfactory government out of power completely. AV will allow a trickle of change with many political faces remaining on stage no matter what the voters want.

[Huguenot]

*chuckle*

I haven't got time to locate all those quotes from MM where he says 'the British don't do sudden change' is a good thing.

Now it's 'trickle change' is a bad thing.

You can't have it both ways!!

It is clear that politicians under AV will have to do far more to attract a broader base of voters under AV. What FPTP offers is a sudden change to a minority extremist position.

According to MM's own views, that's a bad thing.

[LadyDeliah]

I like the idea of an end to massive swings from right to left-ish and back again an increase in co-operation with smaller parties like the Greens. It will end the arrogance of the leaders of the big 2 parties and make them have to listen to the views of a wider selection of the population.

Also anything that loosens the grip of propagandists such as Murdoch et al is a plus in my book. It's the whole thing about being able to fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but even Murdoch can't fool all of the people all of the time, so the wider the pool of deciding voters, the better in my view.

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> *chuckle*

>

> I haven't got time to locate all those quotes from

> MM where he says 'the British don't do sudden

> change' is a good thing.

>

> Now it's 'trickle change' is a bad thing.

>

> You can't have it both ways!!

>

> It is clear that politicians under AV will have to

> do far more to attract a broader base of voters

> under AV. What FPTP offers is a sudden change to a

> minority extremist position.

>

> According to MM's own views, that's a bad thing.

No inconsistency here - I am a conservative with a small "c". I see no need to change the FPTP system which has worked effectively for over 200 years. The purported advantages of AV are specious and suspect. I am therefore against this change.

I also prefer decisiveness to dither. I campaigned against New Labour and T Blair in the 90's but accepted the overwhelming result and, intellectually (if not emotionally) accepted that the Conservative administration had run out of steam. I was disappointed in the Nu Labour administration and campaigned against it where I could, I am glad that while the General Election result last May was not as decisive as I would have wished it did, at least, rid us of a failed administration.

[James Barber]

AV Doesn't need to incur any extra expenditure - I don't recall a great scandle about the costs of thE London Mayoral eletions. It's just another scare story from the no campaign who lost the argument a long time ago so have made up for it by inventing lies.

Earlier earlier this week in the Indie saying AV was the voting method in some consituencies in UK until the 1950's. It also included an incredibly negative quote from Churchill about FPTP.

[silverfox]

AV has already cost tens of millions preparing for this referendum and at the moment it's just a wish from a bunch of nerds.

If it's voted in costs will inevitably soar because of the bureaucratic nature of the multiple voting.

That's not a lie. Unless computerisation is introduced many polling forms will be manhandled possibly three or four times in an electoral equivalent of pass the parcel.

How can this not increase costs?

[Huguenot]

That's simply not the case Silverfox.

The vast majority of electoral costs are in publicising it and addressing legal obligations - the last one cost about 120m.

The cost of the count itself is a fairly small proportion of that, and there's no reason to assume that AV would impact significantly upon it. 'Counters' are paid for time that already exceeds the duration of the count.

In fact the fake claim by the 'No' bullshitters is that AV would require 100s of millions for electronic voting. This isn't necessary, and the issue of electronic voting is under consideration regardless of whether AV or FPTP is committed to. Just another lie (like the whole 'No' campaign).

Regarding your view on cost of the referendum, it is a reflection of your extraordinary right wing prejudice that you believe democracy should be take from the nation on the basis that asking people their opinion costs a few quid. Nuts.

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot,

You call the No supporters "bullshitters" for apparently shading the truth - but I can see very similar shading of the truth from the yes "bullshitters".

There will be an increased cost of elections if AV is introduced, not I am sure a threefold increase but certainly a measurable number of millions at each election. I believe ?50m is closer to the mark.

Yes "bullshitters" claim AV is more democratic, that it will make MPs work harder and that it would make MPs abuse of expenses a thing of the past. None of these propositions is at all measurable.

The AV system is not self evidently more democratic and simply repeatedly saying it is does not constitute a rational argument. I cannot see how a changed voting system will make MPs work harder and quite how a changed voting system will prevent abuse of expenses is beyond me.

Finally you have exhibited a tendency in this thread to characterise opponents of AV as right wing and anti democratic, implying somehow that left of centre is more democratic. Given that over half the parliamentary Labour Party is intending to vote no - including a number of shadow cabinet members such as Caroline Flint and John Healey I cannot see how the Left /Right analysis supports the Yes case

[LadyDeliah]

I'm sure dictatorship is even cheaper than FPTP. Maybe we should go for that instead.