Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
You misunderstand me - there are entirely coherent reasons to believe that AV isn't the best system for electing MPs, that it doesn't go as far as is necessary, that it isn't going to give small parties their due representation etc.etc. This is entirely true, and I would share these criticisms.
But I *don't* see any coherence in the argument that says because AV is only a relatively moderate change, it would therefore be better to make no change at alll, even though there is no remotely realistic chance of introducing PR for the commons in the forseeable future.
I mean there is a certain logic to Butchers position of "electoral reform even full PR would mean jack shit anyway so lets put the boot into the Liberals" (even though I don't think he has fully thought through the consequences of this).
But the argument that says we want PR but AV isn't good enough needs to make the case that FPTP ( with all the problems with a tiny handful of swing voters in the marginals deciding it, the political cross-dressing it encourages, thee blight of concealed tactcal voting etc.) is superior to AV and therefore sticking with what we've got is desirable over against making a small (but potentially significant) change.
As for your internal polling, unless you're looking at the datasets (as opposed to the headline figures), you're seeing an interpretation. Even then, unless your sample size is above a "critical mass", and is adjusted for demographic loading, it's not going to give an accurate reflection of voter intentions.
Having long ago learned (and got paid for doing so!) to construct polls, I'm generally cynical as to their utility for anything other than ego-boosting.
I have looked at the datasets, the sample size is huge and demographically weighted, and furthermore because it's our internal polling - to tell us how things are really going and therefore to show what we need to improve on and where the opposition comes from - it isn't designed to give us positive results. That was a bonus (though I don't deny that there is plenty of work to do to stop the DKs falling into the No camp).
You've still not shown a shred of evidence for any of this. An equally plausible effect it will have is that mainstream parties pay even less attention to radicals. E.g, Labour ignores anyone to the left of it because it knows it'll get their votes anyway to keep out Tories and Lib Dems.
If the best you can offer is stories based on what you reckon might happen you must be really desperate.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Yes i have I have given the example of a constituency (Hendon - but it is far from unrepresentative) which would have gone Labour rather than Tory under AV, *if Labour had successfully won more transfers from the Greens. They would have every incentive to appeal to a party which has manifesto to the left on most issues.
But if you want a practical example, look at the Mayoral race in London (under SV - basically a truncated AV). Ken Livingstone knows that it was in his electoral interests to develop closer relations to the Greens, the centre-left LDs (not the ones in direct opposition to Labour), and Respect/Left List or whoever etc. [It hasn't escaped my attention that Boris won last time.But this wasn't due to LD 2nd preferences - it was due to the lead he took in 1st preferences due to higher than usual Tory turnout in the outers]
In fact, Ken Livingstone might owe his continued presence as Labour candidate = as opposed to someone like Oona King - because the parties know he's better placed to work the system. And Progressive London" wouldn't need to exist as an organisation if it wasn't for a system which meant preferences we're needed.
Now, a slightly better Labour party might not be what you are aiming for. Fair enough, I don't think it's sufficient myself. But it does show that the effect of preferential systems isn't always to drag politicians to the centre.
So the evidence that AV "would begin to introduce a different political dynamic which allows voices critical of the existing socio-economic dispensation to more accurately demonstrate their support" is... that Labour would have won in Hendon. Do you see why everyone thinks you're, at best, deluded?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
err if Labour had taken seats like Hendon (far from the only example - as the British Election Survey shows) we might not have the Tories in government, and the cuts - though real and damaging - would not be occuring at the same rate or to the same extent then they are. Fewer people would be out of work etc..
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
What ifs and maybes. Not good enough. What if Thatcher had never been born?
You're not trying to prove that Labour would have won the 2009 election, you're supposed to be proving that AV leads to more radical politicians getting elected. Remember?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
FPTP in 2010 = Tories in govt. AV might well have meant Tories not in government.
I've never claimed it is enough of a reform to get left wing parties represented unless they do considerably better in building support. I do claim that in some circumstances AV can give Labour MPs an incentive to widen their appeal and *to some degree* shift their message to the left.
What we do know is that FPTP will neither get more radical MPs elected or encourage major parties to loosen their obsession with swing voters in middle England Maginals.
So what you need to show is why it's worth keeping FPTP.
I've never claimed it is enough of a reform to get left wing parties represented unless they do considerably better in building support. I do claim that in some circumstances AV can give Labour MPs an incentive to widen their appeal and *to some degree* shift their message to the left.
What we do know is that FPTP will neither get more radical MPs elected or encourage major parties to loosen their obsession with swing voters in middle England Maginals.
So what you need to show is why it's worth keeping FPTP.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Given that we've never used AV to elect MPs, all I can do is point to probabilties are relevant comparators. On what basis are you arguing we may as well keep FPTP?
You could be right - all those Labour voters who voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out could have voted 1 Labour and 2 Lib Dem
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
The cuts wouldn't have been as severe, schools wouldn't have had their Building Schools for the Future improvements cancelled, Future Jobs fund to help young people wouldn't have gone, NHS reforms would have been much more limited with the NHS as "preferred provider" (Burnham), etc.
Not utopia, still problematic - but less catastrophic.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Poor deluded fool. I would argue that we need real PR not this fudge of a system. However AV is little different to FPTP and nothing that you or TBP say in its defence can alter that.
So why did you leave out my comment about Thatcher? It was entirely relevant to your 'what if' narrative.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
There's an issue here in that it can't even in good light, and plenty of slap, be dressed up as being even "relatively moderate change". It's not structurally designed to be a "relatively moderate change" from FPTP. As a replacement for FPTP, all it manages is to be "not quite FPTP. It still leaves (however hard you argue that it creates a possibility of difference) the three big beo-lib parties holding the reins of power.
My argument is that AV won't, however much its' virtues are extolled, and situations where it might make a difference are theorised, make a difference that can't be compensated for by the party machines of our three mainstream parties. Any social and/or political "good" that might proceed from AV if an ideal-type AV was in place will be negated by the machines (although it might give them a couple of years-worth of sleepless nights until they've got their compensatory mechanisms fine-tuned.
How huge, if you don't mind me asking? Are we talking smaller than or greater than one hundredth of one percent of the electorate?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I agree with a8, I think. I can't see how AV isn't preferable to the current system. It is a small tweak, nothing more, but it is a small tweak in the right direction. I think indicating your most hated candidate is probably more important in the current system than indicating your preferred choice. And there are a lot of 'anyone but the Tories' people. I suspect that long-term the Tories could lose out massively with this (possibly would have been down to 70 seats in 1997) – that's as good a reason as any to think it an improvement on now.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
My constituency is a classic marginal. I would get no 2nd preference choice. It's Lab, Tories, LD or Green. I can't say that I'm impressed with any of them. UKIP and the BNP also stand candidates here. Proper PR would mean more parties (like the SP) standing candidates here, which will not happen under AV.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You missed the words "as quickly" after "as severe".
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why would the tories have been wiped out in 97? It seems most likely that the seats they manged to win that year were their safest ones, ones that would not be effected by AV - not one ones that would be turned over by tactical anti-tory voting. If anything i would expect the labour majority to have been reduced by them not winning in close seats due to the tories having the lib-dems as 2nd prefs rather than just abstaining. That's where any effect would be felt. It seems clear it shovels votes towards the lib-dems from both sides until they reach the size of the other two. Great.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
What it might have meant last year, or even fourteen years ago isn't the issue, it's what it will mean in any future election.
Long-term it might mean an erosion of the mainstream parties, but that doesn't help us now, does it?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
By long term you mean on the geological scale right?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
This constituency (Streatham) has been Labour since '97, with a significant majority each and every time, so 2nd-preference is pretty meaningless except if our local MP is caught nuts-deep in a Great Dane.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Yep. AV is a mirage. Those who support it seem to have not thought it through properly.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
And this is the issue with AV: There will always be constituencies, under FPTP and AV, that are "safe".
Still, if you're part of a party machine, or are tied to the current modes of politics, safe seats are part and parcel of the strategic and tactical underpinnings of party parliamentary politics.
Yep, fantastic, isn't it?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I disagree. I'm sure they have thought about it, long and hard, and as long as it benefits them they don't give a fuck that it short-changes everyone else.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The BBC link from earlier in the thread suggests this would have happened. There is a flaw in the study's methodology in that it doesn't take into account the tactical voting that takes place under the current system, so I'm not sure how much to trust it as an accurate reflection of what would have happened, but it suggests that the Tories would have dropped to 70 seats and third – ie losing its status as the official opposition.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm suggesting that it wouldn't - not with 10 million votes (never mind the hidden tactical voters whose return would push it higher). And if it did then that would be even more un-proportional than FPTP has ever been. 10 million plus votes and 70 seats? 33% votes and 8% of the seats?
Similar threads
