Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[butchersapron]

why should there be a trade off between choice and fairness? Left candidates could stand under AV in the knowledge that they weren't inadvertently splitting the anti-reactionary vote.

You mean the labour, tory and lib-dem vote? I do rather want to split them.

 

[butchersapron]

...and this just for the commons isn't it? Are any MPs elected on 26%?

 

[articul8]

You mean the labour, tory and lib-dem vote? I do rather want to split them.

there' a distinction between differentiating them (i agree!) and splitting them if the beneficiary is the BNP.

AV would differentiate the Labour vote (how many would really prefer lefts or greens?) and the LD vote (how many would prefer lefts or Labour?)

 

[articul8]

...and this just for the commons isn't it? Are any MPs elected on 26%?

not quite - I think not much over 30 odd. BNP have had cllrs elected on 26 though.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Third preferences can easily count. Say your 1st preference is for the candidate who turns out to have least votes. Your 2nd preference is then used. If the candidate who is your 2nd preference is eliminated next, your 3rd preference is counted.

Realistic example: If your 1st preference is for the SLP and your 2nd is for the TUSC and your 3rd is for Labour, you could easily end up with your vote helping to get the Labour candidate elected.

Yes, I think you must be right. Otherwise there'd be no point in voting above 1, 2, which can't be the case. Here's an example of the rules for counting under AV. Incidentally, under these rules, both the SLP and TUSC could be eliminated together so we'd never know how many SLP 2nd preferences went to TUSC.

 

[butchersapron]

Norwich on 29.36% is lowest, next is Brighton pav 33.33% - Green vote obv made difference in both of these.Massive overwhelming majority are at 40%+. Almost every single of them if we drop down 1 or 2%.

 

[shagnasty]

Seems there tying it in with the constituency changes and less mp's i don,t think labour will wear that

 

[articul8]

Incidentally, under these rules, both the SLP and TUSC could be eliminated together so we'd never know how many SLP 2nd preferences went to TUSC.

not unless they tie?

 

[butchersapron]

Basically, it shepards vote to the tories, lid-dems and labour. A big half funnel.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Basically, it shepards vote to the tories, lid-dems and labour. A big half funnel.

Yep.

Not that I care but I think Caroline Lucas would have been much less likely to win a seat under AV, in fact the seat would probably have gone Libdem

 

[butchersapron]

I'm a NO.

 

[London_Calling]

Is there any evidence AV encourages turnout, as in some thinking 'my vote might count for something now'?

 

[butchersapron]

Would that matter to you?

 

[London_Calling]

Might be an interesting by-product, might skew expectations. No bad thing if more feel enfranchised.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

No bad thing if more feel enfranchised.

First of all, yes it is, the fact that huge numbers currently know they are disenfranchised is a very good thing indeed.

 

[Jean-Luc]

:
Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
Incidentally, under these rules, both the SLP and TUSC could be eliminated together so we'd never know how many SLP 2nd preferences went to TUSC.

not unless they tie?

Having misinterpreted the regulations once I hesitate to be dogmatic about this but here's an extract from the ones I provided a link to (for STV by-elections in Australia, I think):

1. The returning officer shall count the papers in each such parcel and shall credit each candidate with a number of votes equal to the number of valid papers on which a first preference has been recorded for that candidate.
2. If the vote for any one candidate equals or exceeds the votes of all the other candidates combined, that candidate shall be declared elected.
3.
1. If not, the returning officer shall exclude together the two or more candidates with the least votes if the total vote of such two or more candidates does not exceed the vote of the candidate next above, otherwise he/she shall exclude the candidate having the fewest votes
2. The papers of the excluded candidates shall be transferred to whichever of the continuing candidates is marked by that voter as his/her next available preference, and the votes thus transferred shall be added to the first preference votes of those candidates.
3. Any paper on which no further preference is marked shall be set aside as non-transferable and the total of such papers shall be recorded.

So, to take a realistic example, the last 3 candidates are:
BNP 1500
SLP 500
TUSC 400
this would seem to mean that the SLP and TUSC candidates would be eliminated together. I agree that this is an optional extra, presumably to save time counting which might not necessarily be included in the UK scheme (which is beginning to look increasingly unlikely as voters prepare to punish the Liberals by voting No).

 

[joevsimp]

Yep.

Not that I care but I think Caroline Lucas would have been much less likely to win a seat under AV, in fact the seat would probably have gone Libdem

no way, they'd have been eliminated before the tories and transfered mostly to Labour I think

 

[ViolentPanda]

Might be an interesting by-product, might skew expectations. No bad thing if more feel enfranchised.

Well, if they merely feel more enfranchised, rather than actually being more enfranchised, I'd contend that it is indeed a "bad thing".

 

[London_Calling]

Which returns us to the original question of evidence regarding turnout . . .

 

[articul8]

Having misinterpreted the regulations once I hesitate to be dogmatic about this but here's an extract from the ones I provided a link to (for STV by-elections in Australia, I think):

So, to take a realistic example, the last 3 candidates are:
BNP 1500
SLP 500
TUSC 400
this would seem to mean that the SLP and TUSC candidates would be eliminated together. I agree that this is an optional extra, presumably to save time counting which might not necessarily be included in the UK scheme (which is beginning to look increasingly unlikely as voters prepare to punish the Liberals by voting No).

doesn't meant this - it means if people are 2 or more are *tied* for last place (assuming that isn't also a tie for first place!) then both get eliminated. Agree wording is confusing - but in multi-member STV with lots of candidates but relative few voters you can frequently get a lot of people tying for last (ie. with 0 first prefs). would make more sense.

 

[articul8]

Basically, it shepards vote to the tories, lid-dems and labour. A big half funnel.

if there was a chance even in medium-long term of significant Green or Left breakthroughs under FPTP (beyond freak individual cases like Lucas or Galloway previously) on 25-40% of the vote you'd have a point.

BUT seeing as that isn't the case it's more important to free up Green/Left voters from the argument that they are only helping Tories (or yellow tories) if they vote anything other than Labour. Greens know this themselves - they know that AV would show the true extent of their 1st pref votes currently masked by the need to tactically vote. Once people get used to voting for a "left" in a GE they will also be more likely to vote the same way in a Euro election or local elections - *where it actually counts*. ie even though the net effect in terms of MPs would be nil to begin with - it would help give alternatives to Labour space to grow meaningful alternative electoral platforms in the longer term.

If you're a NO man you're lining up alongside Cameron and Prescott - those well-known friends of the working class At least have the good grace to stay at home!!!

 

[Jean-Luc]

doesn't meant this - it means if people are 2 or more are *tied* for last place (assuming that isn't also a tie for first place!) then both get eliminated. Agree wording is confusing - but in multi-member STV with lots of candidates but relative few voters you can frequently get a lot of people tying for last (ie. with 0 first prefs). would make more sense.

This is getting very technical but here's an example of an AV election where the bottom 3 of 6 candidates are eliminated in one go because the total number of their votes is less than that of the third candidate.

Here's another (that of 18 September 2008) where this didn't happen (because there wasn't the gap between the votes for candidates) but which is interesting for other reasons, not least that most of the 2nd preference votes of the SSP were not transferred to Solidarity but directly to Labour and the SNP. Which would probably happen in a contest between the SLP and TUSC whichever finished last.

 

[articul8]

OK, interesting - but that is in the context of a by-election where STV is ordinarily used. I honestly don't know whether that is a general rule under AV - perhaps it is. I don't suppose it makes any difference except to shorten the count stages and make the results a bit simpler to follow.

 

[butchersapron]

if there was a chance even in medium-long term of significant Green or Left breakthroughs under FPTP (beyond freak individual cases like Lucas or Galloway previously) on 25-40% of the vote you'd have a point.

BUT seeing as that isn't the case it's more important to free up Green/Left voters from the argument that they are only helping Tories (or yellow tories) if they vote anything other than Labour. Greens know this themselves - they know that AV would show the true extent of their 1st pref votes currently masked by the need to tactically vote. Once people get used to voting for a "left" in a GE they will also be more likely to vote the same way in a Euro election or local elections - *where it actually counts*. ie even though the net effect in terms of MPs would be nil to begin with - it would help give alternatives to Labour space to grow meaningful alternative electoral platforms in the longer term.

If you're a NO man you're lining up alongside Cameron and Prescott - those well-known friends of the working class At least have the good grace to stay at home!!!

No, the point stands regardless of hypotheticals - 2nd, 3rd prefs will still go overwhelmingly towards those established parties. The anti-vote will just kick in at the 2nd round. It won' be the fist prefs where Greens (who i don't believe it's my responsibility to prop up) will notive a difference, it'll be in the 2nd and 3rds.

Anyway, my fundamental objections to this aren't on the grounds of potential outcome, but on the fact that putting a nice hat on the political system not only won't change anything substantial about the economic system (you know, the really important thing) but will act to re-legitimise both of them, and at a time where this has been and is going to be under severe strain.

I can understand the greens and the lib-dem voting idiots who think they're socialists getting all excited but those with wider ambitions and a more coherent critique really shouldn't be. No one really think that change can come through MPs and national parliaments, so why pretend?

So, thinking politically, pragmatically, my priority is to stop the cuts. Clegg's failure to get AV (and that it's only AV is already a damaging failure) will fuck him, his party and the coalition up - might even bring them down. That's far more important than a new hat.

And you should be ashamed of those last lines you really should

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No to AV. Yes to PR. And yes to the collapse of the coalition.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Yep, simple. And supporters of PR really should not be voting for AV on the small step basis. It might well be a small step, but it'll very likely be the last one.

 

[London_Calling]

So how else might the 'big' step come?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yep, simple. And supporters of PR really should not be voting for AV on the small step basis. It might well be a small step, but it'll very likely be the last one.

It's not at all clear that it would be a small step in the right direction; AV can produce very unproprtional results. That AV is what's on offer is a sign of the LD leadership's greed and the weakness of the membership.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Wolveryeti]

AV can produce very unproprtional results.

Consistently more unproportional than FPTP though? I don't think so.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So how else might the 'big' step come?

A referendum on PR. Future Labour party faced with the loss of Scotish seats following independence vote?

Louis MacNeice