First Past the Post or AV

[Huguenot]

BTW I'm frankly incredulous that someone wants to argue that our political system is better than someone else's because we had an empire that indentured half the world into slavery.

As any idiot would know, we didn't have universal suffrage during the imperial phase. At that point leadership was considered both a genetic imperative and the birthright of the oldest male.

[david_carnell]

Huguenot - where would be without your ever incisive wit?

The comparison to Australia is meaningless. Not only is their small-population, federal system more geared to AV voting, but it was so damaging to voter turnout that they had to introduce compulsory voting.

I don't see how I'm cutting off my nose by arguing that introducing a new voting system, that an independent review found to be less proportional than the existing one, in a bid to have a more proportional voting system is anything more than exposing the inherent flaw in the argument of those who propose it. So desperate are they for "change" (and hasn't this Obama mantra infected our political landscape) that they are blind to the fact that change will make things worse.

As a pinko leftie I feel this foray into conservatism on my part is borne-out of a genuine care to see things done properly rather than ram-raid the constitution and land ourselves with a system that no wants, understands or can do anything about. No one will look at AV in 10 years, say "well, this hasn't worked - lets try another form of PR".

The idea that this will be a first step to the promised land of STV+ hybrid-shenanigans is utter rhubarb of the highest order.

[Huguenot]

At last, I cross swords with Carnell. Hurrah! :)

I don't think AV is proportional representation. I don't agree with proportional representation. I don't even think that proportional representation is healthy.

I'd like to see representational democracy migrate to a centre ground that reflects a compromise in the views of the electorate.

I don't want ideology, I want commonsense. I'd like to see this delivered by a politician who got everyone's second vote, not 30% of the bad attitude kids.

Swinging like a tyre on a tree, between individualist ideology and socialist agitprop is neither healthy nor productive. Gimme the middle ground every time!

[silverfox]

What david_carnell said so eloquently.

Proponents of AV are not only barking up the wrong tree but also barking mad. It will not improve democracy in this country one jot and all this talk of empowering the electorate is drivel.

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

What will improve democracy in this country is limiting the powers of the European Union and telling them parliament is supreme and we make our own rules. If you have 100 candidates standing in your constituency and some super computer that can work out how the hell to transfer all the AV votes the winning candidate will still have to doff his or her cap and tug forelock to Europe.

Forget Egypt and the Spring uprisings in the Middle East - the people of Europe should be hanging several hundred gravy train Eurocrats from the nearest lampost.

Vote (FPTP) Silverfox for Parliament!

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'd rather not, thanks

[silverfox]

Okay Sean, fair enough.

But do you realise under AV, by voting for me because you don't want me to get into Parliament, I could get into Parliament by default because of a sort of numerical musical chairs. So, if I understand it, you're better off voting for me because there's less chance of me getting in/50% etc.

Confused? I am.

Actually Sean, while I think of it, you must be old enough to vote these days so let me put an idea to you if I may.

If AV is such a good idea, why not make the referendum on AV an AV referendum?

It seems absurd to have a yes/no referendum to introduce, or reject, AV, ie relying on a FPTP type vote to possibly replace FPTP. So, let's make the referendum AV.

Obviously we'd have to introduce a least one more category, ie yes/no/maybe - maybe could mean postpone any decision for discussion by the next Parliament.

How would it work? No bloody idea. By the time votes are redistributed Global warming may have claimed this fair isle.

What do you think?

[Loz]

Carnell - you are arguing from the same side of the table as UKIP-touting silverfox, Margaret Beckett and most of the Conservative Party. That must tell you something. Give up now!

Why do they call it First Past the Post, anyway? It's actually Closest to the Pin (for the golfers), since you don't actually have to make it to the 50% winning line.

The comparison to Australia is meaningless. Not only is their small-population, federal system more geared to AV voting, but it was so damaging to voter turnout that they had to introduce compulsory voting.

Actually Australia's huge landmass makes it more suited to the FPTP system, as you don't need to have all the votes in the same place to do the count. But since the UK brings the votes to a single counting room anyway, even for FPTP, there is no real impact on the UK by changing.

And you've been reading Margaret Beckett in the Guardian today, haven't you. (She also claimed AV would need "extra polling stations", which is a good indicator of the sorts of fallacies being peddled by the No camp). The first poll in Australia with AV (1917) had normal levels of turnout. The second (1922) did have a lower turnout, but I've not seen anything that attributes that to the change in voting system. In fact, as the table shows here, the voting turnout merely returned to their pre-war, old voting system levels. I think Beckett has jumped on and interpreted a single stat to meet her own prejudices, without actually examining history to see if that was actually the case.

Incidentally, a similar drop in turnout can be seen to have occurred after Labout won in 1997. Maybe we should ban Labour...! :)

[Loz]

Silverfox is the best argument for a Yes vote I've seen.

[silverfox]

Loz,

Explain to me how AV will enhance democracy?

Why 50% is significant or desirable?

Why you think it will do any more than give the Liberal Democrats perhaps another 10 to 15 seats in Parliament?

That'll do for starters.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Explain to me how AV will enhance democracy?

Easy. The whole purpose of democracy in this country is to elect a representative and send them off to Westminster. AV enhances this by allowing people to express their preferences, it allows them to vote for smaller parties and protest parties without it being a wasted vote, means guesswork tactical voting is no longer required and means that, when it comes down to the final two candidates with the most support the winner knows that on that two-person basis he/she has the support of the electorate.

FPTP is an extremely limited way of trying to gauge opinion.

> Why 50% is significant or desirable?

Erm... are you kidding? Because it is majority! Which is pretty much a central tenet of democracy. Apparently two-thirds of MPs in 2010 were elected with less that 50% of the vote. How can that be democracy in action?

> Why you think it will do any more than give the

> Liberal Democrats perhaps another 10 to 15 seats

> in Parliament?

What makes you think it will? AV does strike at the two-party system, so I would say all the all the smaller parties will benefit. But the Tories and Labour will also benefit from, in most cases, getting those lost votes back again as the preferences are counted. And does it matter whichever party benefits or loses out? If it means that the will of the people is better reflected then democracy can only be the winner.

Interestingly the exchanges between silverfox and I will probably reflect how the campaigns will be run. The Yes camp will be positive and show up the benefits of AV. The No camp will be negative, trying the discredit AV without ever trying to show the benefits of FPTP. Possibly because they realise there aren't that many to shout about.

So, how about it silverfox... what is so good about FPTP?

[Brendan]

It maintains the status quo and doesn?t allow any threat to the entrenched prejudices of an unrepresentative 2 party system you petulant shit.

[silverfox]

Brendan, if that is an answer to Loz's question ... what is so good about FPTP? I think you should apologise - that's no way to talk to a lady.

[silverfox]

Loz said: ...The whole purpose of democracy in this country is to elect a representative and send them off to Westminster...

No it's not. That may be the purpose of the electoral system but Democracy is about lots of very important things such as protecting liberty, the absence of restraint, freedom of expression, the ability to worship, not to be unfairly incarcerated and tortured for opposing the views of the ruling classes, not to have to bribe corrupt officials and so on. Many of these ideals are denied to millions around the world. Electing representatives to Parliament, local government and other public offices and the way we organise this is just a structural means to an end.

> Why 50% is significant or desirable?

Loz said: "...Erm... are you kidding? Because it is majority!..."

It's one possible majority Loz. 30% can be a majority of total votes cast if several candidates receive lesser percentages. In cases where no one candidate genuinely achieves 50% of the vote, the AV idea of a 50% majority is a contrivance - an artifical arrangement whereby the votes are transferred on a notion of 'best of a bad bunch'. They are not genuine votes for the candidate to whom they are transferred.

Loz said: "... If it means that the will of the people is better reflected then democracy can only be the winner..."

If I thought AV would better reflect the will of the people then I would support it. But it just appears to me to be tinkering with process. I suspect the Conservatives will still get in in Kensington and Chelsea and Labour will win the seats in Glasgow. AV may help the smaller parties but most of these tend to have limited issues or are single-issue parties. The BNP may win Barking, the Greens Hampstead. Society will hardly be transformed.

Loz asked: "...what is so good about FPTP?..."

I'm not claiming FPTP is the best electoral system. But it works. For all its faults it generally results in strong governments able to make policy. Unlike many of our continental neighbours who are plagued by coalition governments, compromise that satisfies nobody and paralysis when it all breaks down, the English Parliament can legislate even if the policies aren't to your taste.

If it ain't broke why fix it? and be careful what you wish for.

[Huguenot]

It most certainly is broken, or else you've conveniently forgotten modern British history. 'Strong governments' flip-flopping between selling off school playing fields and driving public services into the ground, whilst the other team try to pick up the pieces and introduce excessively bureaucratic spending inefficiencies is childish and counter-productive.

It damages the economic, social and future wealth of the UK.

The idea that AV threatens liberty and religion in return for torture and corruption is such complete rubbish it beggars belief.

There's no such thing as 'one possible majority'. A majority, by definition is over 50%.

Your comments on best of a 'bad bunch' and not genuine votes are most accurately applied to FPTP. The Conservatives currently rule with only 36% of the vote, meaning twice as many people voted against them as for them.

If you cannot see the absolute fraud in this situation you must be clinically insane.

Besides, AV simply allows the electorate to state their compromise ("If I can't have A, I'll have B"), rather than Cameron, Clegg and Brown making dodgy undemocratic decisions in back rooms - that's in fact 'corruption'.

Your comments on AV and our continental neighbors is baffling, as they don't have AV. Either you don't know this, and should be ashamed for being so opinionated on a subject you know so little about, or you do know it and you're deliberately lying. If so, I would like to know your motivation.

To summarize, our current government system is destructive, non-democratic, non-representative and corrupt. It only meets the requirements of the current political elite.

It most definitely is broken, and needs fixing.

[minkturtle]

...

[david_carnell]

Whilst I do not wish to be associated with SilverFox's unique brand of euro-scpeticism, I am of the opinion that both camps of the AV debate have pan-political support so to depict either as being the last saloon of eccentrics, cranks or has-beens is an unfair caricature.

Hueguenot - your assertion of corrupt back-room deals is also a misnomer. We do not elect governments, merely localised representatives who we entrust to collaborate as necessary in our best interests. The current coalition deal is nothing more than that and nothing less than we should expect.

Loz - I confess to Guardian readership and limited plagiarism. It's called first past the post as he with the most votes wins. Simples. And that is a mjor appeal for the public. I think a more confusing voting system is not going to endear itself to a public disallusioned with politics when it is little more than a sop. Fundamental voting reform is needed and this, sadly, is not it.

[Huguenot]

There's nothing confusing about the system at all. It's blindingly straightforward.

Unless you're suggesting that Australians have some sort of genetic or evolutionary intellectual advantage, then if they can grasp it, so can Brits.

What I have no doubt we will see is a whole brigade of dishonest manipulative snakes attempting to make it complicated or confusing simply in order to serve themselves well at the expense of the electorate.

It'll almost certainly be the same depsicable buggers who tried to make climate change 'confusing' or 'uncertain'.

[david_carnell]

If there is anyone here who is acting as a "manipulative snake" it is only those who seek to conflate those sceptical of major constitutional change with little forethought with climate change deniers who ignore the evidence in front of them; and those who use such provocative language in an attempt to stifle debate.

The only one of us denying evidence here is you, Huguenot. AV is less proportional than FPTP. Fact. So if the goal is to make our voting system more proportional then this is an epic fail.

[Huguenot]

Why are you trying to make this argument about proportionality?

At no point have I suggested that the goal is to 'make our voting system more proportional'. I'm on record a few posts earlier as saying that I don't believe in PR.

AV (in the title of this thread) stands for Alternative Vote, not for Proportional Representation. There is no PR proposition on the table here - so why are you trying to muddy the waters?

I'd like the voter to choose the compromise, not a bunch of whoopy poopy self-important apparatchiks strutting smugly between committee rooms with a bunch of conditional earmarks.

[Loz]

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Loz said: ...The whole purpose of democracy in

> this country is to elect a representative and send

> them off to Westminster...

>

> No it's not. That may be the purpose of the

> electoral system but Democracy is about lots of

> very important things such as protecting liberty,

> the absence of restraint, freedom of expression,

> the ability to worship, not to be unfairly

> incarcerated and tortured for opposing the views

> of the ruling classes, not to have to bribe

> corrupt officials and so on. Many of these ideals

> are denied to millions around the world. Electing

> representatives to Parliament, local government

> and other public offices and the way we organise

> this is just a structural means to an end.

That's not correct. Democracy is defined as "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." All the things you mention *usually* flow from a democracy, but a democracy could elect a government that does not allow such things, should it so desire.

So therefore an improvement, like AV, to the electoral system is, ergo, an enhancement to democracy.

> > Why 50% is significant or desirable?

>

> Loz said: "...Erm... are you kidding? Because it

> is majority!..."

>

> It's one possible majority Loz. 30% can be a

> majority of total votes cast if several candidates

> receive lesser percentages. In cases where no one

> candidate genuinely achieves 50% of the vote, the

> AV idea of a 50% majority is a contrivance - an

> artifical arrangement whereby the votes are

> transferred on a notion of 'best of a bad bunch'.

> They are not genuine votes for the candidate to

> whom they are transferred.

You mistake a majority for a plurality. A majority is *always* more that 50% of the vote, which is why FPTP is an inferior voting system as it does not always respect the wishes of the majority.

> Loz said: "... If it means that the will of the

> people is better reflected then democracy can only

> be the winner..."

>

> If I thought AV would better reflect the will of

> the people then I would support it. But it just

> appears to me to be tinkering with process. I

> suspect the Conservatives will still get in in

> Kensington and Chelsea and Labour will win the

> seats in Glasgow. AV may help the smaller parties

> but most of these tend to have limited issues or

> are single-issue parties. The BNP may win Barking,

> the Greens Hampstead. Society will hardly be

> transformed.

If the BNP win Barking, then that is the will of the people of Barking. Is it democracy to put in an electoral system to achieve a certain result because you don't like what might happen otherwise?

> Loz asked: "...what is so good about FPTP?..."

>

> I'm not claiming FPTP is the best electoral

> system. But it works. For all its faults it

> generally results in strong governments able to

> make policy. Unlike many of our continental

> neighbours who are plagued by coalition

> governments, compromise that satisfies nobody and

> paralysis when it all breaks down, the English

> Parliament can legislate even if the policies

> aren't to your taste.

>

> If it ain't broke why fix it? and be careful what

> you wish for.

That's rather disingenuous. You are trying to cloud this issue by bringing up continental electoral systems, none of which, as far as I'm aware, use AV. AV produces just as stable government as FPTP (as Australia has proven), but with the added advantage of more accurately reflecting the views of the electorate.

It's interesting that, when pushed for the advantages of FPTP, you've not come up with any that AV can't match. AV is a better system. Why stay with FPTP just because "it works", especially when there is something better? AV has been proven to work and, with it's greater advantages to the electorate, we'd be crazy not to switch.

[silverfox]

David Cameron: Gordon Brown would still be prime minister under AV

Gordon Brown would still be prime minister if the alternative vote system had been in place at the last general election, David Cameron will warn today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8331360/David-Cameron-Gordon-Brown-would-still-be-prime-minister-under-AV.html

[SeanMacGabhann]

I?m minded to adopt AV, for one main reason

Given the downward trend in voter turnout over the last several decades, the introduction of A New System (I?m agnostic about which one ? but AV stands the best chance of adoption. It, like any system, has it?s pros and cons so given that fact?. ) it?s a once in a generation chance to press the reset-button with the electorate and say ?ok you have expressed your antipathy to the current system ? here is a new one which you will need to sit down and engage with but gives you a chance to influence the outcome in a way you couldn?t before?

You can argue that the response might still be ?don?t really care mate? but I suspect we would see a significant increase in turnout, for at least the first couple of elections. And as a democracy, I don?t think the current levels of participation are sustainable so I can only see the chance to increase turnout as a good thing

[silverfox]

To save time I won't go into detail counteracting some of the replies above but just make the following observations:

minkturtle has hit the nail on the head, as below.

Huguenot in desperation tries his usual trick of inventing what he'd like you to have said and then shoots down his own fantasy.

Loz, you're getting closer to a definition of democracy that I would recognise but don't forget Democracy flourished in Ancient Greece if you were a man although the society was based on slavery. There have been numerous forms of Democracy in between then and now.

Let's just come back to this idea of a majority which appears to be fundamental to the rationanle for AV. If 100 school children vote to elect a milk monitor and there are five candidates the result of the election, where all the school children have to do is put an X next to their chosen candidate, could be as follows:

Silverfox 39 votes (39%), Loz 30 votes (30%), david_carnell 30 votes (30%), Brendan 1 vote (1%), Huguenot 0 votes (0%)

How do we analyse this result? Let's assume all is above board. The hustings were fair, nobody breached any election guidelines with character assassination, racial or homophobic slurs, playgound canvassing and posters were legit. No money changed hands and no promises of an extra bottle of milk were offered. Now Silverfox is the clear winner here. He has received the most votes cast for a single candidate. He has the majority of the votes cast for a single candidate. Okay, he doesn't have the majority of all votes cast but he is a clear winner, judged by his peers to be deserving of holding such high office. Is this vote unfair because Silverfox didn't get 51% of the vote? If so, unfair to whom?

Silverfox can now exercise the burdens of office freely, knowing that he received the most votes from his peers. He doesn't have to attending all-night meetings with a committee to decide if he's distributing the milk efficiently and who question why he always serves pretty little Samantha who sits in the front row first having warmed her bottle on the radiator first on winter mornings.

In short you can't elect a person to office to do a job and then tie one hand behind his or her back.

Now, back to minkturtle who has perceptively identified the real problem here - the relationship of votes to seats in Parliamentary Elections.

At last year's General Election the Tories gained 36 per cent of the vote compared to 29 per cent for Labour and 23 per for the Lib Dems. But the Conservatives received 47 per cent of the seats, with Labour on 40 per cent and the Liberal Democrats eight per cent. (Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/8331360/David-Cameron-Gordon-Brown-would-still-be-prime-minister-under-AV.html]

So Cameron is a bit like Milk Monitor Silverfox above. But the allocation of seats in the House here is the issue of unfairness.

How will AV change this?

[Loz]

Let's just come back to this idea of a majority which appears to be fundamental to the rationanle for AV. If 100 school children vote to elect a milk monitor and there are five candidates the result of the election, where all the school children have to do is put an X next to their chosen candidate, could be as follows:

Silverfox 39 votes (39%), Loz 30 votes (30%), david_carnell 30 votes (30%), Brendan 1 vote (1%), Huguenot 0 votes (0%)

How do we analyse this result? Let's assume all is above board. The hustings were fair, nobody breached any election guidelines with character assassination, racial or homophobic slurs, playgound canvassing and posters were legit. No money changed hands and no promises of an extra bottle of milk were offered. Now Silverfox is the clear winner here. He has received the most votes cast for a single candidate. He has the majority of the votes cast for a single candidate. Okay, he doesn't have the majority of all votes cast but he is a clear winner, judged by his peers to be deserving of holding such high office. Is this vote unfair because Silverfox didn't get 51% of the vote? If so, unfair to whom?

Thank you for this example - it is fundamental to the advantages of AV.

You are right that the analysis of the results shows all to be correct. But, because they used FPTP, it doesn't show the full story. Because, although Silverfox had the support of 39 of his classmates, the other 61 cannot stand the sight of him. Had the election used AV, then after preferences had been distributed the final result would have been Silverfox with 39 votes and david_carnell with 61 votes. Carnell would have gone forward in his duty, safe in the knowledge that he had the support of the majority of his classmates.

Instead, the majority of the class rebelled and would not recognise Silverfox's authority as milk monitor. You can't 'elect' a person to office to do a job if they don't have the support of the majority.

[silverfox]

But surely Loz, on the basis of your argument, if 61 classmates (61%) cannot stand the sight of Silverfox, then one could assume 70 or 70% of people can't stand the sight of Loz and david_carnell - and as for poor old Huguenot ...

So potentially, Mr Unpopular, david_carnell, has usurped the coveted position but only 30% of the people wanted him - 9% less than popular life-and-soul-of-the-party Silverfox.

The FPTP vote was clear, Silverfox was voted for by more people but under AV these people's wishes have been ignored and in the interests of 'fairness' an unpopular person has been imposed on the helpless mites.

So really AV has screwed up?

To be absoluely clear - the majority of people (70%) didn't want david_carnell (in the theoretical example) but under AV with a bit of jiggery-pokery those 70% of people are now being told yes you did want him you silly people, your majority wasn't a majority but now you have a majority?