littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Depends what you call proportional. AV allows for 'least liked' to be weighed against 'most liked'.
Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
Depends what you call proportional. AV allows for 'least liked' to be weighed against 'most liked'.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
If you're arguing for AV on the grounds that it's more proportional than FPTP then using an example of 33% of the vote gaining 8% of the seats as a supportive example then i can only suggest that articul8 signs you up to his strategy team.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Looking at those figures more closely, they do show a pattern under AV. As you might expect, the Libdems gain most 2nd prefs from both Labour and Tories, but that fact only has a small effect on the overall result – a handful of seats gained by the lds at the expense of the other two, but only a handful.
What seems, not surprisingly, to be the crucial figure is the 2nd prefs of the ld voters. I'm slightly surprised by the figures in that they suggest more 2nd prefs for the tories than labour right through the Thatcher years. That does surprise me, I admit, and it undermines some of what I've been saying. Then, there is a decisive shift towards Labour in 97, which is what leads to the collapse in the tory seats. Even relatively small shifts in the 2nd prefs of the libdems can have large effects on the results, it seems.
So, perhaps, AV would lead to a veering of strategists away from their obsession with wooing swing voters in marginal constituencies towards wooing LibDem voters in all constituencies. I agree that this is not exactly an ideal situation – whether or not it would represent even more of a pull to the centre than the current situation I could not say, though: the current system, with its obsession with a tiny number of 'swing' voters already has this effect pretty powerfully. I would argue that it also leads to the argument being carried out on entirely phony grounds: swing voters aren't renowned for their deep political analysis; on the contrary, I would suggest that someone who doesn't know who to vote for is more likely to be ill-informed than someone who does, and a system that pushes all parties to obsess on the opinions of a tiny group of ill-informed people is pretty much the worst of all possible worlds.
Of course, the effect having been in coalition with the tories will have on the lds is hard to factor in – these stats from past elections may have little bearing on the next election.
What seems, not surprisingly, to be the crucial figure is the 2nd prefs of the ld voters. I'm slightly surprised by the figures in that they suggest more 2nd prefs for the tories than labour right through the Thatcher years. That does surprise me, I admit, and it undermines some of what I've been saying. Then, there is a decisive shift towards Labour in 97, which is what leads to the collapse in the tory seats. Even relatively small shifts in the 2nd prefs of the libdems can have large effects on the results, it seems.
So, perhaps, AV would lead to a veering of strategists away from their obsession with wooing swing voters in marginal constituencies towards wooing LibDem voters in all constituencies. I agree that this is not exactly an ideal situation – whether or not it would represent even more of a pull to the centre than the current situation I could not say, though: the current system, with its obsession with a tiny number of 'swing' voters already has this effect pretty powerfully. I would argue that it also leads to the argument being carried out on entirely phony grounds: swing voters aren't renowned for their deep political analysis; on the contrary, I would suggest that someone who doesn't know who to vote for is more likely to be ill-informed than someone who does, and a system that pushes all parties to obsess on the opinions of a tiny group of ill-informed people is pretty much the worst of all possible worlds.
Of course, the effect having been in coalition with the tories will have on the lds is hard to factor in – these stats from past elections may have little bearing on the next election.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
That AV won't eliminate every safe seat is not sufficient ground for rejecting altogether a system that would make *more* seats *more* marginal. How does keeping FPTP help?
No-one has so far sustained an argument to the effect that FPTP is a better system than AV.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Uh huh
It's easier for most people to understand and produces less spoilt ballots. Preferential voting hasn't been used in England & Wales so could cause a lot of confusion. Preferential voting systems such as AV and STV take longer than FPTP to count and have more complications:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6622963.stm
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Combustible
Well-Known Member
It also creates a centrist bias, may make it harder for smaller parties and may produce a less proportional result.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The current system creates a strong 'centrist bias' by concentrating the minds of all main parties on the thoughts of a tiny number of swing voters in marginal constituencies. Would AV be worse, or better? The answer doesn't seem obvious to me.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why does it have to be worse or better? Why should we argue on those grounds? Vote no, hurt the lib-dems, hurt the coalition, another front to stop the cuts.
I think that's a very short-sighted attitude.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's not incumbent on people to do so, and nobody has (as far as I recall) actually made that argument in the first place. The argument is (and has always been) that AV is no better than FPTP, that any putative gains it gives to the electorate can be easily nullified by the big parties.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Which is more important, attacking the cuts and those pushing them through, or seeking possible marginal changes to the electoral system (changes which could further entrench the limited centrist politics currently on offer)?
Louis MacNeice
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
exactly.
Bringing about a defeat for the LD's on the subject of AV will not, of itself, bring down the government. FPTP is so clearly less democratic than AV (however much PR would be preferable), that voting against AV seems to me to be very short-sighted.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It doesn't need to, no one has argued that it will. There's posts above which demonstrate that AV has the potential to be less proportional than FPTP (you neglected to say what 'democratic' meant so i assume that you meant this. Please exapnd if you meant something different). Make an argument why "voting against AV seems to me to be very short-sighted" - given that a lot of us don't share the same aims as you. What is it short sighted in relation to?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
If the big parties all believed that, then no-one would waste time and energy opposing it. But the Tories are against it practically to a man or woman - Cameron will call for a NO vote, the Taxpayers Alliance have lent their chief exec to head it up, climate change scpetic Sir ROdney Leach is helping to finance it. Which kind of suggests they are less than relaxed about it?
#
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Oh no!!!
The game changes.
Also, 'they' includes the party of which you are - no doubt a tireless - member.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
How is voting down AV attacking the Tories - who are only too happy to see it fall.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
why do these people give a shit if makes no difference?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Have you even been on this thread? Are you so intellectually voracious that you can't remember anything? The argument is that is will hit the lib-dems, and so the coalition and accentuate internal contradictions (based on either self interest or principles - doesn't matter) that will stalemate cuts on the parliamentary front. You've had this argument explained to you countless times on this thread. Why pretend otherwise? Why insult us so?
When I was young and lived in Argyll, an election meant a choice between Tory or Liberal, as the Labour Party stood no chance, and, at that time, the SNP had yet to rise. It seems to me that in that situation it’s an obvious advantage for democracy (or, if you prefer, choice), if a voter can choose Labour, without fear of increasing the Tory’s majority. PR, of course requires a less important role for constituencies, but while PR is unavailable I think that AV is better for democracy while elections are governed by constituencies. To simply vote No, in order to spite the LD’s does appear to me to be short-sighted.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Oh it does make a huge difference then. If you want to play that game. It must make a massive difference if 'climate change scpetic Sir ROdney Leach is helping to finance' a no campaign.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The one articul8 wants just with tories changed for labour. And the disaggregation of course.
Having an argument explained doesn't automatically make it right.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
In this case it does. The point, however, is to correct an inaccurate characterisation of a position.
Say something. Please. Say something.
Similar threads
