From The Daily Mail:
The good thing is that when people hear the arguments [against the Alternative Vote system], they do come down on the No side. If we can get people to focus briefly on the arguments – people who vote for extremist parties have their vote counted more times (1), candidates who come third can end up winning, it’s a more complicated system (2), it’s more expensive (3), it isn’t necessarily more fair (4) – I think we can win.’
1) Simply not true. If somebody just casts their first vote for (say) Labour on a ballot paper with five candidates, then that is exactly the same as casting their first, second, third, fourth and fifth votes for Labour. Their ballot slip will be counted (or taken into account) just as many times as somebody else's ballot slip who votes (say) BNP first, Labour second. And a ballot slip with "Tory 1" is counted just as many times as a ballot slip with "UKIP 1, Tory 2", and so on.
And the kicker is this: if somebody just votes "BNP 1" and leaves it at that, the chances are that his ballot paper will only be counted once, so on closer inspection, the situation is anything the opposite of what Cameron says.
[As an aside: if these pro-FPTP politicians had any principles whatsoever, they would announce that they would refuse to accept their seat if the only reason they won the election because more ballot papers showing a vote for the BNP (or another 'extremist' party - presumably they mean UKIP? The Greens? Plaid? SNP?) than the second candidate.]
2) No it's not. You put a "1" against your favourite candidate, a "2" against your second-favourite and so on. This won't take any longer than standing in the polling booth thinking "OMG, who is the least-worst out of all these numpties?"; it might even be quicker.
3) Agreed, it will make the actual counting procedure take about a tenth longer, but the counting itself is only a small part of the cost of running an election and this is a price worth paying.
4) FPTP "isn’t necessarily more fair" either, the point is to allow people to cast more 'protest' votes. Yes, AV might lead to some quirky results, but so does FPTP, across six hundred constituencies, it will all even out.
And the intellectual giant managed to completely contradict himself within the space of one speech:
Exhibit A: "He said that once people realise AV... boosts the influence of those backing the BNP and other extremist parties... they back the No campaign.
Exhibit B: "The Prime Minister also warned that AV would lead to more tentative and boring politicians, as candidates would be careful not to offend anyone because they would be concerned about the second preferences of voters."
Is it just me or are those two statements completely at odds?
A simple solution
1 hour ago
64 comments:
"Yes, AV might lead to some quirky results, but so does FPTP, across six hundred constituencies, it will all even out."
Under AV in 1992, with a huge lead in the polls, John Major would not have won a majority. In 1997, with fewer votes than John Major, Tony Blair would have won a majority of over 200. In 2005, with just over a third of the votes cast and a lead over the Tories of less than 2%, Blair would have won a majority of over 80.
Some "evening out".
Never mind technical arguments about whether AV or FPTP is "fairer" in individual constinuencies. We're talking about electing a government, not just individual MPs. AV will make it very difficult for the Conservative Party to win a working majority, but perversely much easier for Labour to win an undeserved landslide. This cannot be healthy for democracy.
"Candidates who come third can win"
WTF?
That doesn't even make sense.
If you came third, you didn't win did you?
Perhaps he means "came third in the popular vote". Which is nonsense. I should like to see his explanation of how you can win in an AV election having received fewer votes than another candidate.
Sounds to me like he is twisting the facts. Let's say there are 1000 electors. 499 put "Tory 1" and nothing else. 501 put "UKIP 6" and some other votes. Does that mean UKIP should win because they got 501 votes? Of course not, in AV it is the rank that matters, not the number of votes.
".. people who vote for extremist parties have their vote counted more times."
Easily rebutted. Count every vote again in each iteration. Extra cost involved? You're 'avin a bubble.
@The Heresiarch
"Under AV in 1992, with a huge lead in the polls, John Major would not have won a majority"
What a load of crap.
There is no possible way you can know who would have won an AV vote. If there were, then FPTP would be identical to AV.
Unless AV votes were also collected for every elector during that election, you are making up facts.
And besides: the goal of AV is not to get John Major elected. It is to get a result that matches more voter's preferences than otherwise.
H, those statements are just myths. Nobody knows how people would have voted had we had AV in those elections.
Also, remember that FPTP is stacked against the Tory party because although they have the same number of core voters as Labour, these are evenly spread across all constituencies; whereas Labour votes are concentrated in urband areas (about two thirds of all constituencies) and non-existent in 'the shires'.
OP, I didn't know where to start with that.
VFTS, that was my point: they do count every ballot paper again in each iteration. Even the small piles of ballot papers saying "BNP 1" of "UKIP 1" which are not redistributed are counted again.
My suggestions aren't myths. They're the findings of analysis by the Electoral Reform Society (which incidentally used to be dead against AV, but strangely deleted most of the anti-AV arguments from their website after the referendum was announced).
You're right that FPTP is currently stacked against the Conservatives. But this is precisely what makes AV worse. There are many safe Labour seats (50%+ of the vote can usually be relied upon) that will be unaffected by AV. There are fewer safe Tory seats, which will be affected. My major concern isn't with who wins and who loses, however, but with the long-term effect of having a voting system that institutionally favours the centre-left. As I said, it isn't healthy.
Incidentally, there's no contradiction between saying that AV increases the influence of supporters of extreme parties (because their second preference gets counted) while making it more likely that the blandest candidate ultimately gets elected. It's a paradox, not a contradiction.
H, they are myths. Nobody knows what people's second votes would have been.
And FPTP does not 'institutionally' favour the centre-left, that's just the way that voters are distributed. In other countries with smaller urban populations, FPTP might favour 'centre right' parties.
Further, I agree that it is possibly the constituency system which is stacked against Tories (rather than FPTP or AV, although AV would be slightly better for them).
In which case, the Tories should have had a referendum on shifting to "Multi-Member Constituencies" instead, which is my preferred option anyway (better than FPTP, AV, AV+, full PR etc).
If MMC's happen to benefit the Tories, then so be it. It's the system that matters, not the outcome.
I want Electoral Reform. I want a fairer voting system. And for those reasons I oppose Alternative Vote because I don't want to replace a bad system with one even worse.
I was going to spoil my ballot by writing English Parliament Now on it, but I can't take the risk, I shall have to vote NO.
Consider the following. There are 4 candidates. In the first round:
A gets 33%
B gets 32%
C gets 31%
D gets 4%
Candidate B is well liked. So much so that all of A and C's second vote transfers are for B, meaning B has 96% of the first and second preferences.
But the extremist candidate D is eliminated first. Knowing this will happen and his own weak position, C has pandered to the extremist and thus gained his second preferences.
So we know have:
Candidate A: 33%
Candidate B: 32%
Candidate C: 35%
and Candidate B is eliminated.
The lesson from this is that it pays to pander to extremists because they're the first to be eliminated. And the most broadly acceptable candidate loses because the second preferences of the majority of the votes cast are never counted.
Like I said, it's a stupid system.
It could be fixed by counting all the second preferences together, and so on. But that is not what is proposed. Instead we get possibly the only system of voting that is even worse than First-past-the-Post.
WG, we can all invent contrived scenarios to prove a point and yours doesn't 'prove' anything.
There is no reason to assume that A still wouldn't win this election, assuming some people voted "B 1, A 2" in which case the AV result would be the same as the FPTP result (which will happen in the majority of seats).
"It's the system that matters, not the outcome".
Do you really think that? I don't. Nor does anyone else, really, though I can see why most people would claim to. A system is only as good as the outcome it produces.
For what it's worth, I think AV will ultimately produce something along Australian lines, with the Lib Dems in almost permanent alliance with the Tories. This is because, with Labour winning regular landslides, on occasions when they don't manage a majority it would be very difficult for the Lib Dems to prop them up without appearing to defy the will of the electorate.
H: "Do you really think that? I don't"
Of course I believe it! We could have a system whereby Tory and Labour simply draw lots every five years for who gets to govern for the next five. The outcome wouldn't be much different to FPTP but the system would be appalling.
If you think that the only good system is one which favours the Tories then your opinion on the respective merits of different voting systems is in fact irrelevant.
And as I said, I personally prefer MMCs (if the price of this is more Tory MPs, then so be it, I am a democrat).
And, they expect Fred Bloggs, ex docker, and ferret breeder to understand all this at the poll booth, do they?
3 is not important at all. Fairness is.
The preferential voting system does not give the 3rd party power. It turns it into a two horse contest, e.g. in Australia.
The 3rd party then becomes the arbiter, just as it does in FPTP at this moment. It all comes down to percentages who vote for which party.
FT: "And, they expect Fred Bloggs, ex docker, and ferret breeder to understand all this at the poll booth, do they?"
Do you mean "Is Fred bright enough to say 'I like Labour best so I'll give them a 1, and the Green candidate is my mate from the parent-teacher association so I'll give him a 2 and I can't be bothered with the others.'"?
Or do you mean "Is the FPTP'ers wall of propaganda and lies sufficient to confuse Fred into voting "No" in the AV referendum"?
I'd like to see something different...
Heinlein had some wonderful ideas in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - perhaps we should have a petition-like system (~60m people in the UK, ~600 MPs, so each MP needs to get 100k signatures and then directly represents those 100k people - if they have 200k then they get 2 votes in the house, etc), or one with a stronger second house whose sole purpose is to repeal legislation (laws can be passed by 50% of the Commons but are then referred to the Lords, and if at least 33% vote against it, it's thrown out - after all, if 1/3 of people would be against something, is it really a good idea?) or somesuch.
Sticking to something nearer to what we have now, I've always been a little uneasy about the "looking after constituents" part of the MPs role. There's normally very little that an MP can do other than raise public awareness of a thing that's happening, and yet this is meant to be a big part of their job? They have a lot of other responsibilities, what with sitting on select committees and the like. Given that this is something that people want, I'd propose a combination of FPTP and PR - with ~300 MPs placed by FPTP as they are now (so constituencies would be about doubled in size) then the other ~300 seats would be allocated by looking at the results under PR. For example, if the tories got 40% of the votes and 100 seats in the first part of the elections, they'd get another 140 from the PR bit (as 40% of 600 is 240). The MPs with constituencies would deal with their constituents, and those without would be preferred for committees/ministerships/etc. Party lists would be a potential problem - not sure how best to deal with them other than to mandate that the party lists be drawn up and ordered by ballot of all party members.
Of course none of that's going to happen any time soon - my vote in the upcoming referendum is for AV - it may not be perfect, but if we vote for FPTP now, I fear we'll never get another chance to change it.
XX
Do you mean "Is Fred bright enough to say 'I like Labour best so I'll give them a 1, and the Green candidate is my mate from the parent-teacher association so I'll give him a 2 and I can't be bothered with the others.'"?
Or do you mean "Is the FPTP'ers wall of propaganda and lies sufficient to confuse Fred into voting "No" in the AV referendum"? XX
A bit of both.
I was reading through the comments here, and the arguments "for and against" had me confussed, who is used to sorting out the "P.R" shite voting we have here.
If people do not understand the system, they will just not bother to vote.
Whatever the system, I still think there should be a "cut off point" whereby if the turn out is less than 55%, then the election is declared null and void.
I would also take the number of "spoiled ballots" (In which, I include "non of the above"), AWAY from the total of the winner.
It would concentrate their minds, as to what people REALLY want wonderfully.
It would also mean, that it would be WORTH going to vote, because even spoiling the ballot paper would make a difference to the result.
"Whatever the system, I still think there should be a "cut off point" whereby if the turn out is less than 55%, then the election is declared null and void."
I'd go further. Have a "none of the above" option on the forms, and if that gets more votes than anyone standing, the election is null and void (and possibly those standing are not permitted to stand again?).
RA, that's called "First past the post with top up seats" and is also quite a good system (but IMHO not as good as MMCs, having examined the pro's and con's and debated it on this here 'blog).
FT, splendid idea. Why don't you write to the Electoral Commission and suggest it?
@Wildgoose
"and Candidate B is eliminated."
Exactly as candidate B should be, since candidate's A and C had more support from first choices. The key point "first choices".
Why should candidate B as second choice of the extremists get to stay in?
If candidate B is so "well liked" then why didn't the A and C voters but him as first choice? Perhaps because he wasn't as "well liked" as you say.
In short, you've made up some random example where people wanted one thing, but voted for another. Well I'm afraid I have no sympathy.
Additionally: how would FPTP have produced a result any different from this "stupid" outcome you describe?
Do you really think that? I don't. Nor does anyone else, really, though I can see why most people would claim to. A system is only as good as the outcome it produces.
So you're well up for dictatorship then, if it produces the outcome you like?!? What is wrong with you people?
That's why the *system* matters, so that you have confidence that the outcome correlates with the collective will of the people, whether you *personally* agree with it or not. That's what democracy means! If you don't want democracy, just say that, so we can debate that instead...
It could be fixed by counting all the second preferences together
Ironically, that really would be counting some people's vote twice!
Consider the following. There are 4 candidates. In the first round:....blah...blah...blah
First, you imply that B is the rightful winner, yet he wouldn't win the FPTP election (A will).
Second, while there are edge cases mathematically where strange things can happen, exploting them requires an accuracy of foreknowledge that simply doesn't exist.
Let me give an outcome more based on reality. C's pandering to the extremists alienates the current C support, who switch their 1st vote to B sufficiently so that:
A = 33%
B = 34%
C = 29% (a 2% switch)
D = 4%
B now wins the election.
You can argue that AV is not the best system, but I really fail to see how it could be worse than FPTP which is the referendum question.
My suggestions aren't myths. They're the findings of analysis by the Electoral Reform Society
They're still guesses. The information that's needed to properly create that analysis gets thrown away in an FPTP election by definition. It's not meaningful to take FPTP results and try to transpose them into an AV environment.
Of course none of that's going to happen any time soon - my vote in the upcoming referendum is for AV - it may not be perfect, but if we vote for FPTP now, I fear we'll never get another chance to change it.
That really is the situ when it comes down to it.
"H, they are myths. Nobody knows what people's second votes would have been."
Actually, it's even more mythical than that. Nobody knows what people's first voties would have been under AV.
F, ta for back up.
PHD, good point.
The No campaign have refuswed to enter a broadcast debate on the subject.
Cameron complains that people aren't hearing the arguments.
Honest little shit isn't he?
There are lots of things that are broke about our society, but the voting system ain't one of them. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
It this guff about AV being "fairer" or that it'll make our MPs work harder is purely conjecture. All we're doing is swapping one majoritarian system for another; a futile task.
It'll also ruin election night, for that reason alone we should leave it to the ozzy's.
MMCs and the voting system aren't the same though. You could have FPTP or AV (=STV) for MMCs.
Personally I think we should have MMCs with FPTP but where each voter can cast multiple ballots (this need not be equal to the number of reps to be elected).
NC, ta.
CD, don't be a spoilsport :-(
@ The H. As to this 'major parties will pander to extremists' myth, that's a complete lie as well:
Consider this, let's assume that 'Being enti-EU' is seen as an extremist position by Our Political Classes.
Under FPTP, the Tories have to sound rather EU-sceptic to ensure they get the first vote of wavering UKIP voters.
Under AV, they know that they are pretty assured of the second votes of most people who put UKIP first, so the degree of EU-sceptiscism which Try candidates will have to espouse is a lot less, provided it is a teeny tiny bit more EU-sceptic than e.g. Labour.
Interestingly, the Tories in power are far more EU-compliant than Labour. Strange but true. So what they say on the campaign trail is irrelevant anyway, once they're in power they don't give a shit.
Anon, MMC's work perfectly well with one-man-one-vote, that's nice and simple. I sketched out how it could work a while back here although that suggestion can still be tweaked a bit before going final (there is no overriding need to allow people to vote for 'the party' rather than a named candidate, but it seemed a nice touch).
"Like I said, it's a stupid system."
If you have to offer someone a choice, but you want them to pick one of the things on offer, you are not going to offer an alternative that is better than the one you want them to pick, are you? Also, just in case they do pick the alternative, you want it to be as similar as possible to the one that you like.
Hence we are being offered AV, a system that will produce a result almost the same as the system we now have and is more complicated. The only things that are important about this referendum are firstly that we are being offered a referendum for the first time since 1976 and secondly that we are being offered a chance to change the voting system for the first time since God knows when. A "no" vote will not be a vote against AV, it will be a vote against electoral reform of any kind.
B, it's not more complicated, it's simpler, as under AV yer voter is no longer torn between "What I really want" and "What I'll settle for" and "The least-bad candidate" etc, he just enters 1, 2, 3 and 4.
And IIRC, the last referendum was in 1975.
It's funny Mark, I went along to the local university's open debate about this the other evening, and although the crowd were lefties and 100% in favour of AV (there was nobody to argue for FPTP) by the end I think they'd convinced themselves that AV had some serious flaws.
1) It's another exotic (complicated) voting system, we spent about ten mitutes working out the EU's voting system, N.Ireland's voting system (STV), The Scottish voting system, the local voting system and now this! It's exhausting.
2) Labour use it and it gave them Ed Miliband instead of Dave.
3) Even under AV we'd have the same 4 gov'ts (they're argument, not mine) so somebody rightly said "why bother"?
4) It's biased against smaller parties (again their argument, not mine) so we end up with even less competition.
Tbh I won't be that bothered if the Yes's win because the results produced will be almost identical, I just think it's slightly worse than FPTP.
Mark, I think you are being rather too kind to yer average voter. Most don't think at all, let alone be torn about anything, they just look for the candidate with "Labour" or "Conservative" against their name and put their X there. With AV once they've put Labour first and Conservative last, or vice versa, they are going to have to think who to put in the middle, which will be unaccustomed mental exercise for them.
The beauty of MMCs is that these voters will still not be required to think.
CD,
1) It's not complicated.
2) Tories use it, it gave them Dave instead of David, so what?
3) Yes, nobody pretends that results would be dramatically different under AV, but so what? It's hardly an argument for FPTP that the results will be the same as under FPTP - it's how we get there that matters.
4) No it isn't. It's the constituency system that's biased against small parties and not FPTP or AV (see also - multi-member constituencies and why they'd benefit the Tories) and on balance, AV is better for small parties (take it from me, I belong to one).
B, that's another pro-FPTP myth that you have to use all your votes (as in Australia). You will not have to!
You can just tick your first choice and leave it at that!!!
Yes, MMCs would be better (for small parties and, bizarrely for the Tories, but daft bastards that they are, they didn't choose this for the referendum).
I used to be in favour of AV because it favours the Centre Left,which somebody upstairs complains about.Would be fine by me
but the Centre Left in the UK includes the Lib Dems who go peculiar once in a coalition ,having mutated into hard right collaborationists recently. Am now in favour of anything that keeps Lib Dems away from any kind of power.
"B, that's another pro-FPTP myth that you have to use all your votes (as in Australia). You will not have to!"
Mark, you know that and I know that, but does yer average non-thinking safe seat voter know that?
Arguments about whether FPTP is better than AV or not may be difficult for the average voter to understand but the systems themselves are not. The general public is quite happy when asked to rank the top 10 singers, films, or hamburgers of all time. So I'm sure it can probably manage to rank the candidates in its local constituency.
"H, those statements are just myths. Nobody knows how people would have voted had we had AV in those elections. "
Whereas it's dead simple to work out what would have happened if we had had MMCs (assuming no party would have split the vote by fielding two candidates).
DBC, on the facts, AV does not favour any political grouping, it just adds to the fun. Anyways, precise details are up to my Electoral Reform Minister (who happens to be avowedly centre-left, if that's relevant).
B, we are back in the territory of outright FPTP-camp lies here. You will not have to rank all candidates and you can just cast your first vote if you so wish. Nobody is forced to cast their last vote for BNP or UKIP (or whatever they find most odious).
D, thanks.
B, good point. Although again it is possible that some people would have cast their vote differently under an MMC OMOV system.
Mark, AV is the voting system that nobody really wants. The Tories don't want it, UKIP are saying Yes but they're holding their noses, it's only Labour and the Lib Dems that are sort of for it but, let's face it, they're wrong about everything.
The right won't win anything under AV, the best UKIP can hope for is to pinch a seat or two from the Tories. But there's no net gain from this. What it will do is consolidate the left; Tory seats will become more difficult to defend under AV because Labour and Lib Dems are much more likely to vote for each other as 2nd preferences. All the Tories have is UKIP and we're hardly a force to be reckoned with.
So yes I can see why some UKIPers are for this, but the bigger picture doesn't look quite so pretty. The state have bought off most of the population one way or another, and AV is going to turn these people into one great big voting bloc.
So yes I can see why some UKIPers are for this, but the bigger picture doesn't look quite so pretty. The state have bought off most of the population one way or another, and AV is going to turn these people into one great big voting bloc.
Call me radical, but I think what this country needs is to get exactly what it asks for.
Call me radical, but I think what this country needs is to get exactly what it asks for.
It's not exactly a level playing field though, with the BBC and the leftist state education system churning out "progressives" in their millions.
PR would be fairer, the EU's electoral system does quite a good job of ensuring minority party representation; AV is change for the sake of it. Even it's supporters admit that.
"PR would be fairer, the EU's electoral system does quite a good job of ensuring minority party representation; AV is change for the sake of it. Even it's supporters admit that."
Yes, PR would (in my opinion) be better, but the current government aren't giving us that option. If people vote to keep FPTP then you can guarantee that anyone raising the spectre of electoral reform for the next couple of decades will simply be told that the public has spoken and FPTP is staying, and that's the main reason I'll be voting for AV. Not because I think AV is the one true way, but because I think FPTP isn't.
If AV does n't favour the Centre Left I cannot see the point of it.If it favours anyone else in the middle like the Centre Right then I predict the following (my predictions are 100% guaranteed):Tory unspeakables get in with UKIP support based on a promise of a referendum on Europe; UKIP naifs believe them and wave through all kinds of right-wing anti-mixed-economy experimentalism;
they lose the referendum (which will have a very odd wording) settling the Europe issue "for a generation".
RA: "Yes, PR would (in my opinion) be better, but the current government aren't giving us that option. If people vote to keep FPTP then you can guarantee that anyone raising the spectre of electoral reform for the next couple of decades will simply be told that the public has spoken and FPTP is staying, and that's the main reason I'll be voting for AV. Not because I think AV is the one true way, but because I think FPTP isn't."
Precisely the reason I shall be siding with the yes camp. If the principle of change can be agreed, the actual system we want can continue to be debated. A NO vote will be used to fob off campaigners for decades. Look at the EU for gods sake, coming up 40 years in which nobody has had a say via referendum?
CD, I think it would benefit UKIP, but more to the point, it benefits smaller parties generally. If that includes the SWP, the Greens and the BNP (who are against, for some reason), then so be it.
F, problem is, people believe most of what politicians say, so what they ask for and get is not what they really need.
RA, SW, exactly.
DBC, what is this 'fear of the unknown' nonsense? People like H are Tories and say they don't like AV because it favours centre-left; you say you don't like AV because it would favour centre-right.
Chances are it will favour neither or both, but that is simply not the point. I'm a democrat. Jorg Haider may have been a borderline Nazi but he was democratically elected; Ken L may be a borderline Commie but he was democratically elected, and I had no problem with either.
chefdave,
The right won't win anything under AV, the best UKIP can hope for is to pinch a seat or two from the Tories. But there's no net gain from this. What it will do is consolidate the left; Tory seats will become more difficult to defend under AV because Labour and Lib Dems are much more likely to vote for each other as 2nd preferences. All the Tories have is UKIP and we're hardly a force to be reckoned with.
So yes I can see why some UKIPers are for this, but the bigger picture doesn't look quite so pretty. The state have bought off most of the population one way or another, and AV is going to turn these people into one great big voting bloc.
We just don't know any of this, because FPTP twists how people vote and what parties gain power.
It's very, very hard to get a new party into power because under FPTP, people gravitate towards either the current party or the challenger. Look at Redditch. Despite buying porn and lying about her housing expenses, Jacqui Smith still came 2nd, and thats simply because people see the options as Labour or Conservative, that if they vote LD or Green, then they just let the Tories in.
And because people don't really vote for their MP, but for the party (or leader), they'll vote for a scumbag like Smith because then maybe she'll defeat the Conservatives, and then that will help the parliamentary math against the Conservatives.
Under AV, people can vote for someone a bit like Smith, but not Smith. Someone can stand as an anti-corruption Left" candidate, and people can put them as a 1st preference because they know they can put Labour down as a 2nd preference, so their vote isn't wasted.
I suspect that more than anything else, this is what the main 2 parties fear. Right now they have a duopoly on power at the left and right side of politics. Even if someone came along who was a breath of fresh air, with the money to spend on a campaign, they'd still not win because people gravitate towards the main parties. And in fact, they often won't do it because they know that all they'll result in doing is splitting the vote of someone a bit like them.
Under AV, the math would definitely be different. If you look at the recent Barnsley by-election, you see what happens when people vote with the knowledge that their vote won't affect the state of the government. Whatever the result of Barnsley, there was still going to be a Con/LD alliance, so people didn't have to vote tactically. They could just express their preference. Of the "right" vote, UKIP took 2/3rds of it, compared to less than 25% of the vote when people have to vote tactically.
Now, it's hard to tell much from one result, but it's a large enough shift that one could say that the Conservatives wouldn't lose a few seats to UKIP, but considerable numbers (unless they changed their policies).
@MW
I did n't say I fear the Centre Right (or the Unknown): I said I feared lop-sided coalitions where the junior partner (UKIP or Lib Dems)sells its soul for some referendum on Europe( UKIP) or Proportional Representation (Lib Dems) .Look what happened to Lib Dems : forever tarnished by taint of collaborationism in exchange for half measure referendum .(As Clegg made clear: they don 't really think AV is real PR ,quite rightly IMO).Likewise UKIP will be repaid with a half arsed referendum on Europe that does n't go far enough.
Or look what happened when Ramsay Mac went into coalition: they killed off the Land Value Tax Labour had just passed.(Its architect Snowdon was dying at the time).A lot gets scuppered in coalitions .
DBC, but seeing as all the existing parties are competing for the Home-Owner-Ist vote, if a Geo-Lib party could get all the votes of tenants, young people, productive businesses and welfare claimants etc. it would romp home.
" if a Geo-Lib party could get all the votes of tenants, young people, productive businesses and welfare claimants etc. it would romp home."
Well such a party better start now, for the next election. If you are thinking of UKIP, firstly it needs to be more Georgist and secondly it needs to find a name that doesn't have "single-issue party" written all over it.
B, it won't be UKIP.
I explained to the new policy guru that tax policy and planning policy are a straight battle of "Home-Owner-Ists/banks" versus "young people/productive economy", and I was firmly told that they'd rather go for the HO vote (although the new guy is 100% in favour of Citizen's Income).
Since the topic has has turned to new parties...
How about the "None of the Above" party? Candidates to be picked by a lottery from each constituency's eligible voters and nationally advertised as the independent local alternatives. They would be true constituency representatives rather than party delegates. Might appeal to those disillusioned by the antics of the mainstream parties over the last 40 years.
"I was firmly told that they'd rather go for the HO vote"
But why? Everyone else is after them, too. Why not go for a slice of the electorate ignored by the other parties? It's thinking like that that has given us the choice of three big-state centrist parties.
D, there'd be some merit in choosing every single MP by lottery (like jury service) and dispensing with elections, party system etc, they could hardly do worse than the current lot.
B, why? Because they lack imagination as well. Whether the maths of a non-HO party stacks up, there's only one way to find out.
My thoughts, exactly. I like the idea of doing it through a NOTA party coz there would be no need to get Parliament to agree to it first. Which notion causes the words "turkey" and "Christmas" to spring to mind for some reason...
@MW
We have discussed a non-HO party before.Under AV people voting for it first will just boost the winning chances of the main parties:if voting for it second ,it will never get 50%. I envisaged an anti HO party doing well under the Borda count which is really PR when conbineed with large multi-member constituencies.
The fact that small parties get worked over in coalitions is aptly illustrated by the fact that we have got a referendum (which Lib Dems wanted) but on AV (which they did n't want).
I f you want to stand as a Bring Rents and House Prices Down candidate in a tight by-election in an area with much rented property I will stand you half of the deposit money (BTW How much is the deposit these days?)
DBC, deposit at GE or EU Parliament elections £500, local councils etc is free.
@MW
There you go then.And how many local signatures do you have to have on your form? It would be best to put you up somewhere in the most expensive, class-riven part of London so as to minimise travel.No need for any campaigning :the name of the party on the ballot paper will communicate all that is required.
DBC, you need ten signatures.
@Onus Probandy, sorry, but you misread my post.
Candidate B had more first choice preferences than Candidate C and yet Candidate C goes forward.
I am not arguing in favour of First-past-the-Post, I want to replace it with a fairer system. I just don't think that Alternative Vote is that system - we can see from Australia that it just reinforces 2-party politics. For example the Tory candidate will no longer worry about the threat UKIP poses because he will just assume he will automatically pick up their second preferences no matter what.
We can count everybody's preferences simultaneously by switching to Approval Voting whereby you vote for ALL of the candidates of whom you approve, with whoever gets the most votes winning the election. It's simple, and mathematically it has been proven that there is no fairer electoral system for returning a single candidate.
Bayard,
Why not go for a slice of the electorate ignored by the other parties? It's thinking like that that has given us the choice of three big-state centrist parties.
Because HO has a number of vested interests who spread a lot of propaganda, and the media that currently exists does nothing to counter it (because they have no confidence in economic/finance/money matters, so just go with the flow).
The rises in the mid-80s and early 00s have also created an entitled view, that making more excess wealth from your house than your work was quite normal, and that the fall in-between was an abberation, some sort of wrong that wasn't connected to house prices overheating.
It's funny really. People in the UK laugh at fundie Americans for being kooks, yet can't see that the belief in constantly rising house prices is a belief in fairy tales.
Wildgoose,
I am not arguing in favour of First-past-the-Post, I want to replace it with a fairer system. I just don't think that Alternative Vote is that system - we can see from Australia that it just reinforces 2-party politics. For example the Tory candidate will no longer worry about the threat UKIP poses because he will just assume he will automatically pick up their second preferences no matter what.
You're reading the results based on current votes.
What happens in an FPTP system is that lots of voters take the tactical option. They know that voting UKIP will do nothing to affect the Lab vs Con difference, and make a compromise vote of picking Con, because they think that's a better use than "wasting" their vote. It could be that most people in a seat would actually prefer UKIP than Con, but because the ballot is secret, they can't know that. So, they look at previous results, state of the parties in general size, and go Con.
This then creates a vicious cycle, where people vote for one of the 2 main parties because they assume that's the best they can get for their vote, and in the process, vote in such a way that signals to other voters at the next election that that's the way to go.
And once people see that a party is actually getting somewhere, this also then attracts support in terms of membership and finance, which isn't there now because people view their chances as hopeless.
Wildgoose,
Incidentally, if you read http://timrollpickering.blogspot.com/2011/04/extremists-and-av-australias-one-nation.html, you'll see an analysis of how the One Nation Party did under AV vs if their votes had been counted using FPTP (and this ignores the fact that most votes would have switched to the two main parties in FPTP). They received 11 seats because of 2nd preferences rather than 8 if you went by 1st preferences alone.
The One Nation Party was only formed a year earlier, yet took over 10% of the seats. You can't find an FPTP election where a party formed can so quickly achieve so many seats.
One Nation declined, but that was because the main Liberal and Nationalist Party adjusted their policies to get One Nation voters to vote for them. So, rather than getting two parties focussing on a narrow range of 100,000 floating voters, which is what we have now, parties will actually have to take some notice of what voters who are inclined to vote UKIP, BNP or Green vote for.
Post a Comment