Lambeth votes Yes to AV

[Gramsci]

No, I mean that I haven't been given an answer that is satisfactory in explaining objectively how AV is "fairer" than FPTP.

It's all very well to rattle on about the extremely minor differences that AV has over FPTP, but as for the AV system being quantitatively fairer than FPTP, I've seen bog all.


In those fantasies you have where you've actually presented a decent argument in favour of AV, perhaps?

The only reason to vote for this flawed AV system was that the No vote effectively means that reform of voting to something that might work like full PR is now never going to happen. It seemed to me that the argument that pro AV people put was that AV is not very good but its a stepping stone to something better.

I still think there is a fundamental crisis of democracy as clearly the Banks/ Markets have effectively dictated to democratically elected governments what there social spending should be. Not something any of the three main parties wish to have a debate on. In fact all debate has been quashed as its now "commonsense" that deficit must be cut. I see precious little democracy at the moment.

 

[paolo]

No. I have seen no explanation of why AV is fairer that is anything other than entirely subjective. The argument basically seems to be that the AV system allows you to have a vote for a smaller party that will be less likely to be elected than under FPTP, whilst also having a vote for a mainstream party. Which basically means that under AV you can be less likely to get what you actually want but also less likely to get the worst option. I can see that as a reasonable POV for a pessimist, but I don't see how it's "fairer".

People can vote for smaller parties, without the "wasted vote" issue.

So it promotes voting that is more genuine, less tactical.

The smaller parties command a much bigger share of the vote than they did 20 years ago. The results of FPTP do not reflect this.

 

[embree]

AV - allows you to register a pointless vote for a small party, then the big one that you hate gets in anyway

Great

In fact, the main difference to what I often do anyway is that the big party gets to claim some legitimacy from me under AV by getting my vote eventually.

 

[strung out]

The smaller parties command a much bigger share of the vote than they did 20 years ago. The results of FPTP do not reflect this.

the results of AV (ie the proportion of MPs elected to parliament) would not reflect this either

 

[embree]

...because AV isn't proportional. So it's rubbish

 

[paolo]

the results of AV (ie the proportion of MPs elected to parliament) would not reflect this either

It would better reflect it.

 

[embree]

No it wouldn't

 

[paolo]

No it wouldn't

The two different systems would produce the same outcome?

 

[strung out]

pretty much, yes. although as the jenkins report said, AV actually has the potential to produce even more disproportionate results that FPTP

 

[paolo]

So if there would be no change, I assume you believe that neither side campaiging understood the matter as you see it.

Why did they campaign?

 

[Andrew Hertford]

No, I mean that I haven't been given an answer that is satisfactory in explaining objectively how AV is "fairer" than FPTP.

It's all very well to rattle on about the extremely minor differences that AV has over FPTP, but as for the AV system being quantitatively fairer than FPTP, I've seen bog all.



In those fantasies you have where you've actually presented a decent argument in favour of AV, perhaps?

I was referring to a subject we were discussing a few weeks ago when I said I hadn't heard a satisfactory justification for the actions of a minority on the 'hard' left. I was told (might even have been you) that I just hadn't been given an answer that I found satisfactory. But enough of that.

You see there are (were) decent arguments in favour of AV, some of which I did little more than repeat somewhere on one of the other threads. They may not be convincing arguments in your eyes or in the eyes of the majority of British voters, but to many of us they were decent arguments none the less.

I'm more of a Southwark man myself, but viva Lambeth all the same.

 

[strung out]

So if there would be no change, I assume you believe that neither side campaiging understood the matter as you see it.

Why did they campaign?

correct. both campaigns were utter shite, particularly as AV and FPTP are barely distinguishable from each other in any practical sense anyway.

they campaigned for it, because they were obliged to after signing their grubby coalition agreement.

 

[paolo]

So it was a secret "nod" between each side to keep the status quo, knowing that either way the result would be the same?

At this point, I'll duck out. The illuminati are probably controlling this thread.

 

[strung out]

no idea how you read any kind of conspiracy theory into that. the merits/similarities of the two systems have been discussed at length across numerous threads on here if you care to read them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No. I have seen no explanation of why AV is fairer that is anything other than entirely subjective. The argument basically seems to be that the AV system allows you to have a vote for a smaller party that will be less likely to be elected than under FPTP, whilst also having a vote for a mainstream party. Which basically means that under AV you can be less likely to get what you actually want but also less likely to get the worst option. I can see that as a reasonable POV for a pessimist, but I don't see how it's "fairer".

Absolutely.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The only reason to vote for this flawed AV system was that the No vote effectively means that reform of voting to something that might work like full PR is now never going to happen. It seemed to me that the argument that pro AV people put was that AV is not very good but its a stepping stone to something better.

The "stepping stone" argument is as fatuous as the "no more possibility of electoral reform" argument. If people care that deeply then they have to make their presence felt.
I mentioned on another thread about AV (in P&P) that it wouldn't be impossible to have some kind of Chartism for the 21st century. It just needs people to see beyond being disgruntled, and get off their arses.

I still think there is a fundamental crisis of democracy as clearly the Banks/ Markets have effectively dictated to democratically elected governments what there social spending should be. Not something any of the three main parties wish to have a debate on. In fact all debate has been quashed as its now "commonsense" that deficit must be cut. I see precious little democracy at the moment.

I've lost count of the amount of times people have talked about how this is a democratic country, and I've had to explain to them that "parliamentary democracy" is nothing of the sort, because we have no recourse to preventing those (of any party) that supposedly represent us doing whatever the fuck they like.

 

[ViolentPanda]

People can vote for smaller parties, without the "wasted vote" issue.

So it promotes voting that is more genuine, less tactical.

The smaller parties command a much bigger share of the vote than they did 20 years ago. The results of FPTP do not reflect this.

While AV may well reflect the votes for smaller parties, it provides no means for smaller parties to represent those that voted for them. Effectively, it's as exclusionary as FPTP in terms of division of power.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The two different systems would produce the same outcome?

In General Elections? Certainly.
In local elections? Perhaps not, but that'd be something we could only assess over time (and results).

 

[embree]

So it was a secret "nod" between each side to keep the status quo, knowing that either way the result would be the same?

At this point, I'll duck out. The illuminati are probably controlling this thread.

It would have funneled votes to all three main parties eventually as second/third preferences. Yes, it would have given the Lib Dems more seats apparently so of course they campaigned for it. As a means to give any other parties a more proportional share of seats, no it would have made no difference. So yes, it was worth the Liberal Democrats' while campaigning for it and the Tories' while campaigning against. As a means of gaining 'fairer' representation for anyone else on the political spectrum, utterly pointless.

 

[London_Calling]

Haven't seen the point made . . . the fact London was only voting on AV (and not in comination with local elections) must have affected the results; who would be more likely to make a trip to the booth . . .

 

[kabbes]

Our region had 27.83% Yes and 72.17% No.

Oh, the intellectual bankruptcy!

 

[butchersapron]

Where was the highest NO? Where is the thickest part of the country?

 

[TruXta]

Where was the highest NO? Where is the thickest part of the country?

Somewhere in thickest Wales?

 

[Garek]

Where was the highest NO? Where is the thickest part of the country?

Castle Point with only 20.29 being part of the righteously enlightened class.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

I haven't had a chance to go through all this, but I've found a site w/the results by areas etc: http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/all-local-voting-area-declarations.aspx?ft=1

Looking at the regional totals, looks like the West Midlands comes out on top with 71.48% being No.

 

[kabbes]

I haven't had a chance to go through all this, but I've found a site w/the results by areas etc: http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/all-local-voting-area-declarations.aspx?ft=1

Looking at the regional totals, looks like the West Midlands comes out on top with 71.48% being No.

North-East is 71.95% No.

Within that region, Hartlepool was the highest at 76.9% No.

Still not as high as Castle Point though.

 

[kabbes]

Something that struck me in my data trawl, however, was how consistent it all was. Almost everywhere was somewhere between, say, 62% and 72% No (to pick a 10% band).

 

[MellySingsDoom]

^^^Thanks for the correction there. My own area (Wandsworth) was 60.78% No. Admittedly a lotta Tory types here, but also plenty of w/c peeps too.

 

[Garek]

I haven't had a chance to go through all this, but I've found a site w/the results by areas etc: http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/all-local-voting-area-declarations.aspx?ft=1

Looking at the regional totals, looks like the West Midlands comes out on top with 71.48% being No.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/06/av-referendum-results-map

 

[kabbes]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/06/av-referendum-results-map

I think that demonstrates my point about consistent results. Almost the whole country is the same shade of green.