Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[Crispy]

If it's anything like the AV system for the London Mayor, then most people won't vote properly anyway. The 'minority' candidates for the Mayoral election get more secondary votes than primary votes, which doesn't make any sense if you actually want a minority candidate to win.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

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

Consistently less proportional than PR and sometimes less proportional than FPTP.

Louis MacNeice

 

[London_Calling]

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

I don't need to say that's not, of itself, an overly convincing strategy?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I don't need to say that's not, of itself, an overly convincing strategy?

That was just off the top of my head, typing one handed while taking part in a phone conference at the same time.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

If it's anything like the AV system for the London Mayor, then most people won't vote properly anyway. The 'minority' candidates for the Mayoral election get more secondary votes than primary votes, which doesn't make any sense if you actually want a minority candidate to win.

That's just what i was suggesting above - the safety vote is just as likely to be the first vote rather than the 2nd or 3rd as some AV supporters are assuming will be the case.

 

[Jean-Luc]

I don't know why people want proportional representation on a national scale. The House of Commons, originally House of Communes (and still is in French), is supposed to be a body of representatives from geographical districts. What one district chooses as its representative is up to it and AV is a fairer way of choosing this than FPTP. If FPTP has not been adopted for the election of London and other mayors why is it appropriate for electing a constituency's representative or delegate to parliament?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know why people want proportional representation on a national scale. The House of Commons, originally House of Communes (and still is in French), is supposed to be a body of representatives from geographical districts. What one district chooses as its representative is up to it and AV is a fairer way of choosing this than FPTP. If FPTP has not been adopted for the election of London and other mayors why is it appropriate for electing a constituency's representative or delegate to parliament?

You're assuming that people who support PR want it on national rather than constituency scale.

 

[ericjarvis]

We aren't going to be offered anything that breaks the domination of the three existing major parties, least of all anything that would readily allow working class people back into politics. Whatever is offered my first reaction will be to vote against it.

 

[Jean-Luc]

You're assuming that people who support PR want it on national rather than constituency scale.

Then why are people here saying that AV is not much more proportional than FPTP if they don't mean that it won't help ensure that parties are represented in parliament in proportion to the number of votes they receive in the country as a whole?

And having 4 or 5 representatives with conflicting views from a geographical district doesn't make sense. If that geographical district has a majority view that's the view that should be expressed by its representative or delegate.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Then why are people here saying that AV is not much more proportional than FPTP if they don't mean that it won't help ensure that parties are represented in parliament in proportion to the number of votes they receive in the country as a whole?

And having 4 or 5 representatives with conflicting views from a geographical district doesn't make sense. If that geographical district has a majority view that's the view that should be expressed by its representative or delegate.

Your second paragraph doesn't make sense; a geographical district may well have a majority view (although not neccessarily - could just be lots of minority views) but also a sizeable minority view (particularly in big districts). A multi member approach could reflect this.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Then why are people here saying that AV is not much more proportional than FPTP if they don't mean that it won't help ensure that parties are represented in parliament in proportion to the number of votes they receive in the country as a whole?

And having 4 or 5 representatives with conflicting views from a geographical district doesn't make sense. If that geographical district has a majority view that's the view that should be expressed by its representative or delegate.

Well there you go - you recognise at least two different ways of doing it. My point was that you're assuming (without any good grounds that i can see) in that post i replied to that people here are supporting one type rather than another.

 

[Jean-Luc]

a geographical district may well have a majority view (although not neccessarily - could just be lots of minority views) but also a sizeable minority view (particularly in big districts). A multi member approach could reflect this. Louis MacNeice

I'd have thought that, in terms of closeness of the representative/delegate to their electors, 5 smaller constituencies would be better than one big one.

 

[Wolveryeti]

What worries me most is how it will get much harder it will be with AV to interpret results from a fairness angle in terms of how well the votes expressed the will of the people. At least with FPTP the injustice of the vote-share/seat-share disconnect quite clearly. Under AV it will get much murkier and harder to interpret. Probably to the benefit of the big 3 parties trying to legitimise their mandate to govern.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'd have thought that, in terms of closeness of the representative/delegate to their electors, 5 smaller constituencies would be better than one big one.

You're presuming a very close geographical/poltical match.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Jean-Luc]

You're presuming a very close geographical/poltical match.

I'm just assuming that single-member constituencies are better than multi-member constituencies which PR requires and which is part of the case against PR and for AV.

 

[Quartz]

Single-member constituencies preserve the link between elector and elected, which is good. Party list systems don't.

 

[Wolveryeti]

The link between elector and elected has become a running joke though. Parachuting? The party whip? The truth is that you the individual are as anonymous to your local MP as you would be in any party list system.

 

[kabbes]

The idea of an individual genuinely representing a constituency is completely incompatible with modern party politics. By all means keep FPTP in its current form, but only by junking the whole concept of political parties at the same time. Then and only then will you actually be represented by someone who has your constituencies needs at heart.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Single-member constituencies preserve the link between elector and elected, which is good. Party list systems don't.

It's only "good" insofar as the elected representative has any intention of representing the opinions of the majority of his constituents.
As we know, this is mostly not the case. Party interests predominate.

 

[butchersapron]

The idea of an individual genuinely representing a constituency is completely incompatible with modern party politics. By all means keep FPTP in its current form, but only by junking the whole concept of political parties at the same time. Then and only then will you actually be represented by someone who has your constituencies needs at heart.

Why on earth would that mean you'll be represented by someone who has your constituencies needs at heart?

 

[kabbes]

OK, fair point. It means that you won't definitely not be represented by someone with your contituency's needs at heart. Better?

 

[Jean-Luc]

The idea of an individual genuinely representing a constituency is completely incompatible with modern party politics.

Maybe, but PR institutionalises "modern party politics" -- you just get to vote for party lists, as for the European Parliament, or, for the assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London, it's the vote for the party lists that really counts. Another reason why PR is no good.

 

[kabbes]

Maybe, but PR institutionalises "modern party politics" -- you just get to vote for party lists, as for the European Parliament, or, for the assemblies in Scotland, Wales and London, it's the vote for the party lists that really counts. Another reason why PR is no good.

Since this is, in fact, what we get in practice anyway, I'd rather that they were honest and up-front about it.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

To be honest it's all just deck chairs on the Titanic stuff anyway.

Here's the political reform I'd like to see -

1. Create an elected national Economic and Financial Affairs Assembly (NEFAA) (with say 600 members elected on the basis of open regional lists), that is given control over the Bank of England, the FSA and BIS. Fight within that for it to pave the road towards socialisation of all banks, lenders, insurance companies and the like in to credit unions and coops controlled by elected joint committees of staff and customers on a one member one vote basis. Also give it full control over policing Debt Collection and Bailiffs. Turn the FSA into an organisation with the power to carry out criminal invstigations of lenders and collection agencies with the power to arrest and bring to a special financial court with the power to sequester personal and business accounts and imprison felons.

2. Abolish the House of Lords.

3. No elected public official can earn more than the median wage in their area.

 

[Jean-Luc]

with say 600 members elected on the basis of open regional lists.

Sorry, not on offer this time. You'll have to go to Belgium for that.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Sorry, not on offer this time. You'll have to go to Belgium for that.

What Belgium has a an Economic and Finance Assembly?

But yes in the here and now I will very certainly be voting against introducing AV. I think its pointless.

 

[Jean-Luc]

What Belgium has a an Economic and Finance Assembly?

Actually yes sort of, but not elected.

 

[articul8]

So, thinking politically, pragmatically, my priority is to stop the cuts.

mine too

Clegg's failure to get AV... will fuck him, his party and the coalition up - might even bring them down.

Agree with all this too EXCEPT the likely more likely outcome of the LDs getting smashed out of existence is a big TORY majority and the cuts getting worse still.

Ironically, Labour needs the LD vote to hold up in Lib/Con marginals to stand a change of getting back in.

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.

Really don't think this is the case - there will be a disagregation at 1st round level of the Labour and Lib Dem votes - Greens will benefit, as potentially might a broad based new left formation. Won't send any tremors through the system in the first instance but it's a little acorn...which is better than no trees and no acorns but two big party squirrels getting fatter.

more later as I'm rushing

 

[frogwoman]

When is the referendum on it? Have they announced a date yet?

 

[ericjarvis]

The idea of an individual genuinely representing a constituency is completely incompatible with modern party politics. By all means keep FPTP in its current form, but only by junking the whole concept of political parties at the same time. Then and only then will you actually be represented by someone who has your constituencies needs at heart.

Then AV or any other type of electoral reform is pointless. It's not dealing with the problem. The problem is the dominance of party politics over representative democracy. The solution is to find some means by which we can create a better chance of electing representatives who will act independently of political parties.