Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[ViolentPanda]

You claim you want to end the knee-jerk reflex support for Labour. Yet a system that would allow people to vote for left, green, trade union or anti cuts candidates without making life easier for the coalition parties you oppose. Go figure.

Will AV substantially alter the electoral dynamics with regard to the three main parties (given the dynamics of smaller parties/single-issue candidates won't change significantly, I'm not concerned at the moment about them)?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It would make no such difference - it would funnel votes to the 3 big parties.

This is precisely my concern. A fractional change from FPTP to FPTP with bells on (AKA AV) doesn't appear to offer much of substance to "the average voter", while continuing to legitimate the three main parties.

 

[articul8]

It would make no such difference - it would funnel votes to the 3 big parties. Caroline Lucas would probably not have been elected with her 31%.

Seriously, you need better arguments because these are a piece of piss to deal with.

a) according to academic modelling the Greens would still have won Brighton Pavillion (Greens pick up preferences not only from Labour but also from Cameronite Tories and some on the left)
b) They are already "funnelled" by the tactical voting imperative under FPTP. AV allows voters to disaggregate their true preferences.
c) OK you can say "well what difference does that make" - well it allows smaller parties to identify their local concentrations of first preference support for better local election targeting.

Or, if not very many votes disaggregate from Labour - this shows the mountain that the left really does have to climb - and blows out of the water this "oh well we knew we would be squeezed" defence.

Yes PR would be more of a gain. But the ERS has been campaigning for that since 1884 and got precisely nowhere (for the commons at least- we have it at other level- but this is th ebig one). We could have had AV back in the 30s but Liberal pro STVers shot it down and left us with FPTP, Thatcher majorities on 30odd percent etc.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You claim you want to end the knee-jerk reflex support for Labour. Yet a system that would allow people to vote for left, green, trade union or anti cuts candidates without making life easier for the coalition parties you oppose. Go figure.

FPTP already allows those candidates on much the same basis. Remember Richard Taylor, the Wyre Forest indie MP?

 

[ViolentPanda]

a) according to academic modelling the Greens would still have won Brighton Pavillion (Greens pick up preferences not only from Labour but also from Cameronite Tories and some on the left)
b) They are already "funnelled" by the tactical voting imperative under FPTP. AV allows voters to disaggregate their true preferences.

And what degree of difference do you believe that'll make?
Colour me cynical, but I can't see it making a significant difference except in an already-marginal constituency.

c) OK you can say "well what difference does that make" - well it allows smaller parties to identify their local concentrations of first preference support for better local election targeting.

Only if said smaller parties aren't beneficiaries of "protest votes", in which case any identification for local purposes is going to be skewed.

Or, if not very many votes disaggregate from Labour - this shows the mountain that the left really does have to climb - and blows out of the water this "oh well we knew we would be squeezed" defence.

Which is, any way you chose to look at it, a very cheap price to sell a swap from a shitty system to a slightly less shitty system for.

Yes PR would be more of a gain. But the ERS has been campaigning for that since 1884 and got precisely nowhere (for the commons at least- we have it at other level- but this is th ebig one). We could have had AV back in the 30s but Liberal pro STVers shot it down and left us with FPTP, Thatcher majorities on 30odd percent etc.

If that's the case, why your claim that AV could be a "stepping stone" to PR? Surely PR, even if included in a referendum and supported by a majority of the population, would still be fought against tooth and nail in Parliament, and a way found to delay or dilute it to the liking of the political classes and their paymasters?

 

[kyser_soze]

I think you'd have more of a case if the ref was to be on AV+, but it's not. It's regular AV, which while allowing people to think their minority party vote counts, by only having single member consituencies and no wider lists, all those 'alternative' votes are wasted.

 

[articul8]

FPTP already allows those candidates on much the same basis. Remember Richard Taylor, the Wyre Forest indie MP?

Yes great example. Look what happened under FPTP in 2010:

Mark Garnier, Conservative 18,793 36.9%
Richard Taylor, Independent Community and Health Concern 16,150 31.7%
Nigel Knowles, Labour 7,298 14.3%
Neville Farmer, Liberal Democrat 6,040 11.9%
Michael Wrench, UK Independence Party 1,498 2.9%
Gordon Howells, British National Party 1,120 2.2%

Just about every Labour voter (and no doubt a fair few Lib Dems) would have preferred Richard Taylor to a Tory winning the seat. But the anti-Tory vote split. Under AV the indie would still be there representing that seat.

In fact AV will work particularly well for "save our local hospital" etc. candidates as they will pick up transfers from across the board.

 

[articul8]

I think you'd have more of a case if the ref was to be on AV+, but it's not. It's regular AV, which while allowing people to think their minority party vote counts, by only having single member consituencies and no wider lists, all those 'alternative' votes are wasted.

Of course AV+ would be better still. But we can still fight for that once AV is in the bag. If FPTP wins out electoral reform will be a dead issue for decades because such a vote would be taken as an endorsement of what we've got. Once you blow open new possibilities and move on from the "tried and tested", the cat hardly ever goes back in the bag.

 

[frogwoman]

if AV wins electoral reform would also be a dead issue for decades.

 

[butchersapron]

if AV wins electoral reform would also be a dead issue for decades.

It should be a dead issue, what a thing to waste energy on.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course AV+ would be better still. But we can still fight for that once AV is in the bag. If FPTP wins out electoral reform will be a dead issue for decades because such a vote would be taken as an endorsement of what we've got. Once you blow open new possibilities and move on from the "tried and tested", the cat hardly ever goes back in the bag.

Nope, unless they got 50% straight off they'll be killed by mainstrean 2nd votes

 

[frogwoman]

yep .

 

[Quartz]

Yes great example. Look what happened under FPTP in 2010:

Equally, here in Luton South, the anti-Labour vote was split and so a Labour MP was elected. Swings and roundabouts.

I've yet to see (which means I've probably missed it) a decent explanation of why they're proposing AV - as opposed to other voting methods - anyway.

 

[articul8]

Nope, unless they got 50% straight off they'll be killed by mainstrean 2nd votes

Well it depends - if you take a totally sectarian POV or go way off beam with armed workers militia you won't pick up transfers. But if you set out a broad appeal against cuts or in defence of services whatever I don't seen any reason that left or independent candidates can't pick up transfers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes great example. Look what happened under FPTP in 2010:

Mark Garnier, Conservative 18,793 36.9%
Richard Taylor, Independent Community and Health Concern 16,150 31.7%
Nigel Knowles, Labour 7,298 14.3%
Neville Farmer, Liberal Democrat 6,040 11.9%
Michael Wrench, UK Independence Party 1,498 2.9%
Gordon Howells, British National Party 1,120 2.2%

Just about every Labour voter (and no doubt a fair few Lib Dems) would have preferred Richard Taylor to a Tory winning the seat. But the anti-Tory vote split. Under AV the indie would still be there representing that seat.

Whereas Taylor only, what, held it for three elections, and the Tories had to resort to Ashcroft money?

In fact AV will work particularly well for "save our local hospital" etc. candidates as they will pick up transfers from across the board.

Or so you expect. It's all just optimistic speculation at the moment, though. What convinces you that the three main parties won't just be able to carry on business as usual, with scarcely a ripple made by the single-issue candidates?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Of course AV+ would be better still. But we can still fight for that once AV is in the bag. If FPTP wins out electoral reform will be a dead issue for decades because such a vote would be taken as an endorsement of what we've got. Once you blow open new possibilities and move on from the "tried and tested", the cat hardly ever goes back in the bag.

The same argument applies to AV being taken up, though. AV gets the nod and anything beyond AV is just as likely to become a dead issue as AV is if FPTP wins the day. You appear to be relying on a spirit of progress in your last sentence that goes directly against the inertia you talk of in your second sentence.

 

[ViolentPanda]

if AV wins electoral reform would also be a dead issue for decades.

Quite. The pols will make the occasional gesture such as a commission, a report or a committee, but that's all.

 

[articul8]

but that ignores the dynamic in favour of likelihood of regularising prefence voting in Commons with local elections (NI and Scotland already use it at that level and with England and Wales already having multi-member districts it won't need boundary reviews to do it for locals there). I think all it would take is one or two very obviously disproprotionate results and the need for top up lists alongside AV constituencies would come around too.

but even if it did stall there, at least we would be a small step forward rather than not stuck at first base. I haven't heard one plausible argument here for a NO vote.

 

[Sgt Howie]

but even if it did stall there, at least we would be a small step forward rather than not stuck at first base. I haven't heard one plausible argument here for a NO vote.

What about for sitting it out? I can't see any argument against that course of action.

 

[articul8]

well that's your perogative - if you don't think that a limited step forward is worth taking, that's your choice and I can understand it. I just don't understand a NO.

 

[frogwoman]

I don't really uderstand a yes though.

 

[William of Walworth]

well that's your perogative - if you don't think that a limited step forward is worth taking, that's your choice and I can understand it. I just don't understand a NO.

I do, if it's bundled inseparably together with blatantly pro Tory gerrymandering of boundaries and constituency numbers, as appears to be the case?

I've missed a fair bit of this thread of late so apols for that, but I don't think any sensible discussion of the AV referendum (as currently planned?? ) can happen without acknowledging what pig you're likely to end up buying in the AV poke.

 

[articul8]

now that's a different question altogether. I oppose the boundary changes and would have voted against the bill as it stood too. But those changes will be in law and a NO vote won't change them. In fact the Tories think they've played a blinder by getting the LDs to support that bit, but the AV won't go through.

A No vote doesn't please anyone other than those who benefit from the usual lash-up

 

[butchersapron]

You sound like you're trying to convince yourself as you argue for exactly what the neo-liberals who are part of the old lash-up want. Why do you think you've failed so signally to win over a single person on here, on what should be fertile ground? I reckon your arrogant insistence that there are no valid doubts about what the result of AV will be, your casting doubts on others motivations and your desire to impose your own interests on that of the wider electorate whilst pretending that it's good healthy medicine now shut up and eat it might have something to do with it. And, as i've commented more than a few times now, it bodes well for the no vote that the ERS approachlooks like being be so ham-fistedly counter-productive and short-sightedly haughty. Crack on.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

now that's a different question altogether. I oppose the boundary changes and would have voted against the bill as it stood too. But those changes will be in law and a NO vote won't change them. In fact the Tories think they've played a blinder by getting the LDs to support that bit, but the AV won't go through.

A No vote doesn't please anyone other than those who benefit from the usual lash-up

Just saying that last sentence doesn't make it true; there is ample evidence on this thread and in AV projections available on the web that the AV system could benefit 'the usual lash up'.

Also as an attempt to smear those opposing AV, repeating the 'you support the status quo' fib doesn't do you any favours; if you're willing to lie so blatanly and consistently in this instance, why should anybody trust what what else you have to say (even when you have a good point to make you'll be seen to have form)?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

The whole point of AV is to allow people to make a gesture in favour of their ideal politics, while casting a vote for a major party to keep out the major party they dislike even more. It will squeeze small parties, if it doesn't then it makes no sense.

 

[articul8]

case in point - Unite GS election. Under FPTP Hicks could take enough votes off Mcluskey to help Bayliss win under FPTP, even though just about every Hicks voter would prefer McCluskey to Bayliss. Or - as hopefully will happen - people will vote for McCluskey to stop Bayliss even if they actually like what Hicks is saying. Hence true support for Hicks may be higher in reality than it appears to be when filtered through the distortions of the electoral system.

AV allows people the freedom to vote where their heart lies, but safe in the knowledge that doesn't mean sacrificing their ability to influence the outcome. That would help the left get their real levels of support on the map, and help them target more effectively at local elections.

Yes AV wouldn't do everything that people are looking for in electoral reform, I freely admit that. But it's a step worth taking over against sticking with FPTP.

 

[Santino]

Can you point to any country where AV has contributed to more radical parties coming through?

 

[articul8]

It's hardly in use - in Australia it hasn't stopped the Greens breakthing through to some degree recently. But I'm not saying it would lead to an immediate breakthrough. It wouldn't. But it would at least stop the left vote getting squeezed well beyond its true level of support and stop the disinentive for left candidates to even stand ("you're helping the Tories/LDs by taking Labour votes").

 

[Streathamite]

if someone can convince me this isn't true then please do so...it'll save me a lot of wasted time and effort.

For every one second/third pref picked up by the greens/sp/TUSC?monster Raving loony/single-issue independent/whatever, three will go, one way or another to the big three. two of those big three ARE the Coaliton.
Therefore a) this reform will make f-all difference - it's worse than no change becuase it nails the current system in place ever more firmly by giving it an electoral paintjob, and b) it would play into the hands of the Coalition.
Simples! (ok, sorry for using that irritating phrase......)