Do you want AV for the UK? Cast your vote here!

[Santino]

I've got these handy arguments against AV from the Electoral Reform Society:

• It can be less proportional than First-Past-the-Post.
• It does very little to improve the voice of traditionally under-represented groups in parliament, strengthening the dominance of the 'central' viewpoint.
• There is no transfer of power from party authority to the voters.
• It is prone to a certain amount of 'Donkey voting', where voters rank candidates randomly, not knowing enough about all of them to make an informed decision.
• Under certain circumstances, a shrewd voter can get a better result by lying. If, for example, it is known that the contest will be fought between two strong candidates, supporters of one might rank third parties above the other, even if the other is technically their second choice.
• In a broadly three-way race, where there are two strong parties who actively dislike each other and a third 'compromise' candidate sitting in between, the compromise candidate is likely to be defeated in the first round, despite the fact that they could well be the most universally acceptable option.

 

[8ball]

Have you been following these debates?

I was following it a little while back and have popped back in without reading a page or two, I guess. When I was last looking it didn't look like there was much support for the idea that either option in itself was going to make things meaningfully better.

 

[Streathamite]

All this referendum does is highlight the rotten situation we are in. I shall be boycotting it.

vote against FFS! hurt the LibDems

 

[ViolentPanda]

STV please, not some poor alternative which is about all the Lib Dems could muster from their coalition agreement. I'd rather stick with FPTP than AV.

Quite. I'll vote "no" because no convincing argument has been made (by anyone in the "yes" camp, not just articul8) for the replacement of FPTP with a system that won't, in the medium to long term, change the electoral dynamics.
Clegg himself called AV a "miserable little compromise" not too long ago, and that's exactly what it is - a miserable little compromise that secures minimal change in political dynamics, while pretty much putting further change out of bounds for generations to come. At least, in the event of a "no" vote, there'll still be room for those in favour of PR to argue that, given the limited choice in this referendum, there's still room to agitate for something that is closer to proportional representation than AV.

 

[8ball]

vote against FFS! hurt the LibDems

I wonder if maybe that's the way - if the Lib Dems find they've not even won their scummy PR-lite compromise they might reevaluate the cost/benefit balance of their little Faustian pact.

Plus it hurts those scummy stationer fucks who are funding the 'yes' campaign...

 

[ViolentPanda]

No it's not PR, that's not on offer, but it's better than fptp.

Could you please quantify how AV is better that FPTP, as per your claim above?

Thanks.

 

[Streathamite]

I've got these handy arguments against AV from the Electoral Reform Society:

linky?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

vote against FFS! hurt the LibDems

No. I'll vote where I'm being asked more than 'how do you want to be kicked'.

 

[Santino]

linky?

http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

 

[weltweit]

Could you please quantify how AV is better that FPTP, as per your claim above?

Thanks.

Indeed, I would also like to see that.

 

[Streathamite]

Yep - that's why chasing after electoral reform without changing the economic system that the political process legitimises is a chimera.

Yeah, fair enough...

 

[Streathamite]

http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

thank you

 

[articul8]

This just gets better

Nice little stitch up here eh? More New Politics from the pluralists.

Regular reader of the Spectator are we? Wonder what political interests they are advancing?

This is a deliberate smear. It does NOT run public elections or provide ballor papers/poll cards etc for them - that is the electoral commission. Insofar as the election will drum up business for them it is simply because electoral reform will be in the news quite a bit, and people who hear the democratic case for using AV to elect people might want to employ the same system in their own *private* ballots.

There is absolutely no conflict of interest. That you are falling for this Taxpayers Alliance funded crap is telling in itself.

 

[articul8]

I've got these handy arguments against AV from the Electoral Reform Society:

They aren't arguments "from" the society - that was an even-handed piece reporting arguments commonly used by others. It isn't saying they are vaild, just that they are used.

 

[articul8]

More positive polling - from IPSOS/MORI
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2726/ReutersIpsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-AV-Questions.aspx

Yes 49%
No 37%

Looks like Urban is not representative of the UK electorate. Who'd have thunk it??

 

[The39thStep]

Latest paddy power odds :

Pass (Changes brought into Law) 4/5

Fail (Rejected by the people) 10/11

On another notes Sinn Fein to get 14 or more seats is odds on now , when I put a tenner on they were 4-1

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

My biggest concern is that a no vote means the death of electoral reform in this country... the only good thing about a yes vote for AV is that within 10 years we'd have another vote to amend the voting process as it was still shite where as I can't see that happening ever again if we don't... as we'll be told repeatedly there's no call for it...

but most people are so short sighted as to just want to fuck over the libdems as evidenced on this thread that the reality is the no vote has already won... shame...

 

[butchersapron]

Regular reader of the Spectator are we? Wonder what political interests they are advancing?

This is a deliberate smear. It does NOT run public elections or provide ballor papers/poll cards etc for them - that is the electoral commission. Insofar as the election will drum up business for them it is simply because electoral reform will be in the news quite a bit, and people who hear the democratic case for using AV to elect people might want to employ the same system in their own *private* ballots.

There is absolutely no conflict of interest. That you are falling for this Taxpayers Alliance funded crap is telling in itself.

Nope, you're not wriggling out of this. The ERSL provides services to UK and European and local public elections - the ERSL document this article is based on makes this absolutely clear:

"There is almost no aspect of our democracy ERSL’s services do not touch – their stationary and postal voting packs, poll cards and ballot papers are used in parliamentary, European and local elections. They have already been awarded to contract to administer the 2012 Mayoral election using electronic counting machines. So, should Britain decide to hold more complex elections as with the Alternative Voting system, ERSL could be well-placed to receive the contracts."

as i said "providing electoral services" and as i corrected gosub on the other thread about ERSL actually running the things. So when the ESRL say that they provide poll cards, ballot papers etc in public elections and you say that they don't who is wrong? Is the internal document invented? If not, have you seen it? if so, why are you saying things that clearly contradict it?

 

[butchersapron]

My biggest concern is that a no vote means the death of electoral reform in this country... the only good thing about a yes vote for AV is that within 10 years we'd have another vote to amend the voting process as it was still shite where as I can't see that happening ever again if we don't... as we'll be told repeatedly there's no call for it...

but most people are so short sighted as to just want to fuck over the libdems as evidenced on this thread that the reality is the no vote has already won... shame...

lib-dem voters supports system that helps the lib-dems - pretends it's for wider principles. No reason whatsoever why a yes vote would lead to another vote on electoral reform in a decade, chances are it would be the end of substantive electoral reform for decades to come. That's the way things are done.

 

[articul8]

as i said "providing electoral services" and as i corrected gosub on the other thread about ERSL actually running the things. So when the ESRL say that they provide poll cards, ballot papers etc in public elections and you say that they don't who is wrong? Is the internal document invented? If not, have you seen it? if so, why are you saying things that clearly contradict it?

I'm not aware of this "internal document" and the Spectator piece doesn't provide a link to it. If it exists then I'm extremely sceptical of its provenance, given that it says things I know to be untrue (ERSL has no plans to adminster public elections, period. Given the political climate I guess the EC might contract out some of its stationary etc requirements - but this is wholly different from adminstering the elections ie. running things). Given that ERSL would know better than anyone that AV would not change the ballot paper design, and wouldn't need to be counted electronically, I have no idea on what basis this would have been said.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

lib-dem voters supports system that helps the lib-dems - pretends it's for wider principles. No reason whatsoever why a yes vote would lead to another vote on electoral reform in a decade, chances are it would be the end of substantive electoral reform for decades to come. That's the way things are done.

I'd imagine it would be reformed fairly quickly tbh as it would be a master of none law which no one liked...

and you can fuck the fuck off dictating what my principals are cunt, aren't there some EDL supporters you need to quote you plastic anti fash...

 

[Sgt Howie]

Whether the vote is won or lost, any prospect of any variety of electoral reform getting onto the agenda after this is off the table for a couple of decades.

 

[articul8]

True as far as MPs go - but the result will have an impact on the possibiliy of getting PR in any reformed second chamber. The experience in Scotland was also that a reformed system (for the Parliament) led in short order to PR for local councils.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not aware of this "internal document" and the Spectator piece doesn't provide a link to it. If it exists then I'm extremely sceptical of its provenance, given that it says things I know to be untrue (ERSL has no plans to adminster public elections, period. Given the political climate I guess the EC might contract out some of its stationary etc requirements - but this is wholly different from adminstering the elections ie. running things). Given that ERSL would know better than anyone that AV would not change the ballot paper design, and wouldn't need to be counted electronically, I have no idea on what basis this would have been said.

When you say 'administer' do you mean things like the London Mayoral and Assembly elections next year? Because ERS are part of the contract to do the "sorting, counting and recording millions of ballot papers" at those. Same article claims 'ERS have undertaken postal voting administration and electronic counting for a number of local authorities.' - backed up by local councils testimonies on the ERSL site.

 

[Streathamite]

I'm not aware of this "internal document" and the Spectator piece doesn't provide a link to it. If it exists then I'm extremely sceptical of its provenance, given that it says things I know to be untrue (ERSL has no plans to adminster public elections, period. Given the political climate I guess the EC might contract out some of its stationary etc requirements - but this is wholly different from adminstering the elections ie. running things). Given that ERSL would know better than anyone that AV would not change the ballot paper design, and wouldn't need to be counted electronically, I have no idea on what basis this would have been said.

No-one's suggesting they 'administer' them; just that they tender for provision of some ballot services

 

[articul8]

ERSl has done work for local authorities - but for things like local referenda, housing ballots etc. There is a difference between "electoral administration" - which is the statutory duty of the electoral commission which oversees the returning officers etc and providing logistical services for elections.

 

[butchersapron]

So it's just a wriggle based on the word 'administer' then. I see. (As predicted by me i must say).

 

[articul8]

No-one's suggesting they 'administer' them; just that they tender for provision of some ballot services

It would help if you read the smears you are happy to spread. They claim that our internal document said

They have already been awarded to contract to administer the 2012 Mayoral election using electronic counting machines

This casts doubt on the authenticity of it, since it's a basic category error.

 

[articul8]

So it's just a wriggle based on the word 'administer' then. I see. (As predicted by me i must say).

No it's not. This smear is part of a Taxpayers Alliance strategy of falsely suggesting that AV would cost the taxpayer (hence also the "we need bullet proof vests for squaddies not a referendum bullshit), on the totally dubious premise that it would require costly electronic counting machines to be introduced. The idea that ERSL would be bidding to supply these machines - and is a conflict of interest - is a secondary angle.

Actually, AV is counted in Australia by hand, and the Electoral Commission have no plans to introduce electronic counting for General Elections here irrespective of the outcome. Any gains ERSL stand to make are from the increased public understanding of using preferential balloting.

 

[butchersapron]

I've not made that argument and i'm not interested in it in the slightest. I know you lot are though as it's been all you've been attacking with elsewhere for the last week as you're on clear winning ground.

What i am interested in the lack of declaration of financial interest on the part of the ERS who are practically the yes campaign alongside the lib-dems, what this means about how far you can trust them or their motives - and how similar it all sounds to pre-election New Politics Lib-dems when they were already manouvering to simply get power for themselves behind the scenes.