Yes/No to AV - Urban Votes

[danny la rouge]

Seemed pretty quiet when I went too. I was the only person from my block of flats to turn up at that point. Although lots aren't eligible apparently because they are EU residents. So there you go.

It was going like a fair when I went. But we do have a Holyrood General Election as well.

 

[weepiper]

It was going like a fair when I went. But we do have a Holyrood General Election as well.

Likewise, I had to queue to vote at 9am

 

[ymu]

the polls aren't going to be much out. around 60/40, maybe as much as 65/35...

2:1 for NO, I reckon. Tories are much better at turning out than us feckless workshy types.

 

[Refused as fuck]

According to a friend in the know, 11% turnout in Islington (where there is only Av referendum). Shhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

 

[killer b]

a ringing endorsement for 'a plague on both your houses' then...

 

[danny la rouge]

According to a friend in the know, 11% turnout in Islington (where there is only Av referendum). Shhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

That's heart-warming.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

AV ends tactical voting, ends the "wasted vote for minority parties". It just makes sense.

AV is a more literal voting system of the term "first past the post" as the first party to get past the 50% "post" wins. However with FPTP there is no fucking post.

Yep. I haven't voted and I won't, for various reasons, but I have voted here. I still have not heard a single decent argument to say that AV is a step backwards from the current system. I just don't think it is.

 

[Santino]

Yep. I haven't voted and I won't, for various reasons, but I have voted here. I still have not heard a single decent argument to say that AV is a step backwards from the current system. I just don't think it is.

How do you think it will change the make up of parliament for the better?

 

[butchersapron]

Yep. I haven't voted and I won't, for various reasons, but I have voted here. I still have not heard a single decent argument to say that AV is a step backwards from the current system. I just don't think it is.

Yes you have.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How do you think it will change the make up of parliament for the better?

I don't know – by reflecting the voters' preferences a tiny bit more, perhaps?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes you have.

I've read many arguments. They seem weak to me. And your argument, specifically, is about what you see as the potential to damage the government. I'm not convinced by that, either. A very narrow yes vote on a miserably low turnout would do the govt most damage, imo.

 

[Santino]

I don't know – by reflecting the voters' preferences a tiny bit more, perhaps?

How? How will AV translate in parliament reflecting voters' first preferences better? How does the maths work?

 

[William of Walworth]

I was never against AV as such (for similar reasons to lbj's). My main issue was always the associated Tory gerrymandering of constituency boundaries. That seems seems most likely to happen whichever way the AV result. So liking as I did the (very modest!) advantages of ranking candidates 1 2 3, I voted for AV.

I'm confident though that the polls are right and that the No vote will be hugs and will steamroller the plan. So any risk/danger of delivering anything heartwarming to Clegg from my vote is ultra low, and he will rightly take most of the flak and blame for losing it.

In the Welsh Assembly elections, mine were Labour votes on both ballot papers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How? How will AV translate in parliament reflecting voters' first preferences better? How does the maths work?

AV doesn't just reflect the first preferences. That's the whole point. mdma's point is a good one – the current system makes no sense where there are more than two candidates. Potentially in a place with four parties in contention – in Wales, perhaps – a candidate can be returned when more than two thirds of voters expressed no desire for that candidate to be elected at all. That really makes no sense, and if you were choosing a system from scratch you would never choose the current one.

 

[Santino]

AV doesn't just reflect the first preferences. That's the whole point. mdma's point is a good one – the current system makes no sense where there are more than two candidates. Potentially in a place with four parties in contention – in Wales, perhaps – a candidate can be returned when more than two thirds of voters expressed no desire for that candidate to be elected at all. That really makes no sense, and if you were choosing a system from scratch you would never choose the current one.

How does the maths work? How does AV make the 650 MPs better reflect the first preferences of the country than FPTP? How would it have made it reflect those first preferences better in 1997?

 

[ymu]

AV doesn't just reflect the first preferences. That's the whole point. mdma's point is a good one – the current system makes no sense where there are more than two candidates. Potentially in a place with four parties in contention – in Wales, perhaps – a candidate can be returned when more than two thirds of voters expressed no desire for that candidate to be elected at all. That really makes no sense, and if you were choosing a system from scratch you would never choose the current one.

The AV ballots have up to 100% vote for every party hidden somewhere in them. Why do we want a system that allows a candidate with an even smaller proportion of the first choices than the 30-40% usually needed for FPTP, to accumulate non-supporters' votes until they look popular enough to elect as the sole representative?

What's actually changed here?

If we had a long history of introducing significant electoral reform every decade or so, you might have an argument. But we don't. We've managed it once or twice a century in recent times. If you genuinely want PR, hold out for that.

Besides, voting no kills the coalition quicker. Come the revolution, we can have as many referenda on voting systems as we like.

 

[doddles]

This would be the PR envisaged by the Lib-Dems not so long ago, the one with recall of representatives? Recall that would mean that MPs would be shit-scared of defying the will of their constituents because it could lose them their job?

Your argument is well stated. PR by itself would not have prevented the cuts, but other systems might have (e.g. potential recall of candidates, but citizen-initiated referenda are another possibility).

But that wasn't the point of my post. I was just pointing out how superficial and baseless the "No. The end" statement was.

Here's the thing: Anyone who categorically states that they *know* defeating AV at this referendum will have good longer term consequences is peddling exactly the same sort of unproven, speculative BS as the folks who *know* it is a stepping stone to a more representative system. The only certainty in this choice between two crappy alternatives is that the consequences of a No are about as difficult to predict as the consequences of a Yes. Maybe a No brings down the government, maybe it leads to renewed efforts for more proportional voting reform. But maybe the Lib Dems, seeing a thrashing at the polls should the government collapse, figure that the only option is to cling on and hope things get better. And maybe the pro-FPTP spin machine (e.g. Tories, most of Labour, all of big business including most media) convinces the overwhelming majority of the public that the people have voted for FPTP. Same thing goes for possible outcomes of a Yes.

It's a shitload more complicated than "No? The end."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How does the maths work? How does AV make the 650 MPs better reflect the first preferences of the country than FPTP? How would it have made it reflect those first preferences better in 1997?

ffs it doesn't just reflect the first choices. And where there are more than two candidates, no system should.

Choosing 1997 is a good example. Psephologists for the BBC calculated that with AV in 1997, the Tories would have come third in terms of seats – they would have lost their place as the official opposition.

 

[butchersapron]

ffs it doesn't just reflect the first choices. And where there are more than two candidates, no system should.

Choosing 1997 is a good example. Psephologists for the BBC calculated that with AV in 1997, the Tories would have come third in terms of seats – they would have lost their place as the official opposition.

Despite having 30% of the vote. Make your mind up.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I don't know – by reflecting the voters' preferences a tiny bit more, perhaps?

Yeah but the problem is, the votes of anyone but a few middle class voters in key marginals don't make any difference to who ends up forming a government.

AV wouldn't change that as far as I can see. All it would do is let the fuckers who get elected claim a larger mandate for their policies based on the secondary preferences of the disenfranchised.

 

[Santino]

ffs it doesn't just reflect the first choices. And where there are more than two candidates, no system should.

Choosing 1997 is a good example. Psephologists for the BBC calculated that with AV in 1997, the Tories would have come third in terms of seats – they would have lost their place as the official opposition.

So an even bigger majority for Labour (with less than 50% of first preferences) and the Tories below the Lib Dems in terms of MPs but not votes is fairer and more representative than FPTP?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Despite having 30% of the vote. Make your mind up.

30% of the first preference vote.

It's an interesting result, though, you must admit. The Tories may have bounced back in 2001, or they may have imploded.

 

[butchersapron]

AV doesn't just reflect the first preferences. That's the whole point. mdma's point is a good one – the current system makes no sense where there are more than two candidates. Potentially in a place with four parties in contention – in Wales, perhaps – a candidate can be returned when more than two thirds of voters expressed no desire for that candidate to be elected at all. That really makes no sense, and if you were choosing a system from scratch you would never choose the current one.

What is this freaky obsession with having more than one vote (sorry, having your vote counted more than once). It's the worst sort of middle class entitlement/self-obsession.

 

[Corax]

Oooooooh! Look at the evenly balanced poll! 70 votes each!

Now we need to know the 2nd preference of the 17 'Don't give a monkey's arse' voters.

 

[butchersapron]

30% of the first preference vote.

It's an interesting result, though, you must admit. The Tories may have bounced back in 2001, or they may have imploded.

What - it would have went down after that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What is this freaky obsession with having more than one vote (sorry, having your vote counted more than once). It's the worst sort of middle class entitlement/self-obsession.

That's a fucking stupid post.

 

[Corax]

What is this freaky obsession with having more than one vote (sorry, having your vote counted more than once). It's the worst sort of middle class entitlement/self-obsession.

It's also disingenuous bullshit from Cameron. Everyone's vote counts the same number of times, whether for the same or different candidates.

There are plenty of good arguments against AV, but Dave's bullshit about people having more than one vote was shamelessly rancid bollocks.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Your argument is well stated. PR by itself would not have prevented the cuts, but other systems might have (e.g. potential recall of candidates, but citizen-initiated referenda are another possibility).

But that wasn't the point of my post. I was just pointing out how superficial and baseless the "No. The end" statement was.

Which is all well and good, but very few people on this thread or any other on the same subject have made a "no, the end" argument.

Most of us have, at the very least, enunciated the reason(s) why we don't believe a "yes" vote for AV is tenable, whether the reason be ideological or technical.

Here's the thing: Anyone who categorically states that they *know* defeating AV at this referendum will have good longer term consequences is peddling exactly the same sort of unproven, speculative BS as the folks who *know* it is a stepping stone to a more representative system.

Quite.

Which is why articul8 and moon23 get laughed at over on the "Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011" thread - because their arguments express their predictions as knowledge.

The best we can do is speculate, and give best-guess estimates of what will happen that account for the more obvious variables to the situation.

The only certainty in this choice between two crappy alternatives is that the consequences of a No are about as difficult to predict as the consequences of a Yes. Maybe a No brings down the government, maybe it leads to renewed efforts for more proportional voting reform. But maybe the Lib Dems, seeing a thrashing at the polls should the government collapse, figure that the only option is to cling on and hope things get better. And maybe the pro-FPTP spin machine (e.g. Tories, most of Labour, all of big business including most media) convinces the overwhelming majority of the public that the people have voted for FPTP. Same thing goes for possible outcomes of a Yes.

It's a shitload more complicated than "No? The end."

Of course, but at least part of the issue lies in the way the choice is represented to us by the "interested parties, IMO. If there had been a little more focus on the mechanics, and on the future ramifications, people would be making a more informed choice at the polls, but they've instead been beaten over the head with what is basically a binary " change is good"/"change is bad" argument that takes into account hardly any of the ramifications.

 

[butchersapron]

That's a fucking stupid post.

Go on then - cut the psychology of middle class entitlement away from the supporting social conditions that produce it.

But no, of course, you're too busy being a twat tonight.

 

[butchersapron]

It's also disingenuous bullshit from Cameron. Everyone's vote counts the same number of times, whether for the same or different candidates.

There are plenty of good arguments against AV, but Dave's bullshit about people having more than one vote was shamelessly rancid bollocks.

Yeah, the same number of votes for each person - just that some get to vote for all different sorts of candidates and some don't. This is one of the reasons they lost - you cannot nail this as a lie. It's what happens. People don't like it.