I have no idea how or why the Conservatives and Lib Dems agreed that there'd be a referendum on changing from FPTP to AV or which alternative voting system the Lib-Dems really wanted (which is not necessarily what they say they wanted, of course).
Nonetheless, we are to be offered a choice between FPTP and AV.
The No2AV crowd, which is basically the Conservatives and a few Labour MP dinosaurs who support FPTP, are now trying to discourage people from voting for AV on the basis that "only three other countries in the world use it" (which turns out not to be true either), and by implication that it isn't very good.
That is how devious the Conservatives are; to offer us a choice between something that is provably shit, like FPTP (which only a minority of countries use) and something which by their own admission isn't much better. So why didn't they give us a choice between FPTP and one of the other versions of Proportional Representation which is much better than AV*?
* I think multi-member constituencies is the best system, others may disagree. I'd have happily gone with whatever the Lib Dems wanted, seeing as they're in government and not me.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Pro-FPTP deviousness
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Under FPTP my constituency is among the top five safest Tory seats in the country; the sitting MP has almost 50% of the vote. So it's obvious why the Tories might want to keep such a system.
I do find it interesting though that something like 70% of votes in the 2005 election were 'wasted', and probably similar this time. I don't believe in 'wasted' votes; I'm proud to take part in my democracy (even if most of the people who vote in it happen to be tribalistic morons).
It is pretty unfair for those of us in small parties (like UKIP) to have such a situation where UKIP poll 920,000 votes nationally and get no seats while the DUP get 18% of that number and find themselves with eight seats too - and they have an Assembly too - we don't have a regional assembly in England (where, let's be honest, most of the UKIP-voting population live).
It stinks. It's a system that is designed to keep the smaller parties out. I'm not a electoral system geek like some of the people you find on election forums and the like and older people tend to like FPTP but it seems manifestly unfair at the minute.
"So why didn't they give us a choice between FPTP and one of the other versions of Proportional Representation which is much better than AV"
Which is what I have been 'banging on about' for some time now - especially from the point that if the voting system is to be changed, there is only one body who should decide and that is us the voters - but nobody seems to want to listen!
Now you're talking MW. I agree with WfW, which is why I'm either going to not bother on May 5th or perhaps vote no. Yes, FPTP needs replacing but AV really isn't the system to go with IMHO.
I'm really not convinced by the argument - which I've heard from a few yes proponents - that, yes, AV isn't great but it'll get us off FPTP and then we can change it later.
I just don't buy it.
WfW/Dick,
The only way you'll get any electoral reform is when you get a hung parliament which forces the other party to accept a referendum.
Here are your choices:-
1. Don't bother voting for AV (or vote against it because you think PR is better): AV collapses, there is no further referendum, and you have to wait for the next hung parliament to get another vote for reform.
2. Vote for AV. AV wins. No, it's not the best system, but what it does do is to break tactical voting permanently. It means that a party offering a better system can get in (if people want it) rather than everyone just opting for Lab or Con.
If you still want to vote against or abstein, then fine, but please tell me anything that you disagree with or need explaining about what I've said. I'd like to convince you guys that this is the only opportunity you'll see in a while to start chipping away at the political elite.
AV is a superficial answer to a deeply embedded problem; turnouts are dwindling as is political party membership, the public have disengaged and politicians feel helpless.
Instead of glossing over this with AV (which gives a veneer of legitimacy via a technical majority), we should keep the system exposed and ask why nobody gives a shit anymore.
We can't hide from the truth forever, no matter how weird and wonderful the electoral system gets.
JT: I believe thee and me have had this discussion on a previous occasion - and we could not agree then.....
I think that I can speak for DP when I say we both agree with the principle that if a change to the voting system is to be made then it is the voters who should decide to what that change should be.
By abstaining or voting no reinforces that principle. Whether AV is defeated or not, the politicos would only give us another go as and when they are ready - or need to in order to stay in power.
There is another option and that is they get removed - peacefully or not is their choice. The only difference between Cromwell's time and now is that Cromwell did not have the added advantage of lamp posts being available!
By abstaining or voting no reinforces that principle. Whether AV is defeated or not, the politicos would only give us another go as and when they are ready - or need to in order to stay in power.
And why don't "the politicos" give you a vote? Because "the politicos" are mostly from 2 parties who are the beneficiary of the current system.
Now, it should be that you could stand on an STV referendum ticket and win, and then have such a referendum, but the problem is that the system conspires against you. Even if people thought you were great, people wouldn't vote for you because they'd consider it a "wasted vote". That's why we have 1 MP out of 600-odd that comes from a party created since WW2.
The only reason you're getting any sort of vote now is because the electoral math led to a hung parliament. But if we pick AV, we have a system that then doesn't conspire against you. That allows a new party that actually represents the people to run the country. I'm not promising anything except that you won't get that with FPTP.
There is another option and that is they get removed - peacefully or not is their choice. The only difference between Cromwell's time and now is that Cromwell did not have the added advantage of lamp posts being available!
So, you'd rather wait until people get so poor and desperate that they're stringing politicians up? How's that better than reforming things now?
Paul, exactly.
WFW, well yeah, but that is not the choice we are being offered.
DP, OK, if you genuinely think that FPTP leads to better governments and more responsive politicians and gives small parties a chance, please feel free to vote "no".If you think that your non-vote will be registered as a protest vote for something a bit more PR than AV, then you are seriously wrong.
JT, agreed.
CD, see my reply to WFW above. Forget about the fact that there are voting systems that you think are better than AV, because that is not what's on offer. It is a simple question, do you prefer AV or FPTP? Remember that a non-vote is more or less the same as a vote for FPTP.
WFW, I second what JT says.
MW: That is exactly the point - why should we accept what the politicos deign to offer us? If everyone ignored it, that would present a far better message than actually voting for one or the other!
Whether any other system is on offer or not is neither here nor there - the politicos do not have the right to decide what is! There is a principle involved here, is there not?
JT: You are just like the fairground coconut, allowing yourself to be set up in order to be knocked off again! Oh well, one last try......
"And why don't "the politicos" give you a vote? Because "the politicos" are mostly from 2 parties who are the beneficiary of the current system" - which is exactly the point I was making!
"But if we pick AV, we have a system that then doesn't conspire against you" And if the majority vote as per FPTP (which they probably will do in cast iron, safe seats for either Lab or Con) then AV will conspire against us in exactly the same way
The reason I am prepared; and have; to wait is that as we are all 'middle-class' at the moment. I have to wait until we are, once again, peasants in order to rebel!
WfW,
"which is exactly the point I was making!"
So why the hell don't you want to change that?
Do you want this country to get richer, freer and better, or do you just enjoy sitting on the sidelines whining about "the politicos" and hoping for some scorched earth to come along?
AV is also used in Ireland to elect their President (and also for by-elections), Maltese by-elections and N.Ireland and Scotland in their local by-elections. Also in the USA for Mayor elections in many cities. It is also used by 14m people in England, many churches, friendly societies, voluntary groups, trade unions, student unions and indeed MPs use it to elect their leaders and select committees. A form of AV - SV is used in Mayor elections in London and elsewhere. So that's 8 countries then, and LPV is a form of AV, so it is arguable that Papua New Guinea do use it, plus France and many of their colonies use the 2 round system which is very similar to AV. So thats a few dozen countries - phew!
JT: Don't you ever learn when to give up?
"So why the hell don't you want to change that?
Do you want this country to get richer, freer and better, or do you just enjoy sitting on the sidelines whining about "the politicos" and hoping for some scorched earth to come along?"
Which is one reason why I intend to hang the bastards! Suggest you follow VColumn on Twitter - announcement due, I believe - or so I am told - in the months ahead!
WfW,
With 37 followers, I presume the announcement is something about meeting up in a pub in South London dressed in Guy Fawkes masks?
You could meet up with the Libertarian Party, maybe hire the function room between you.
JT: I presume you are familiar with the saying that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit? Oh, how wrong you are in that you suggest!
I was under the impression that our past attempts at debate were fruitless and you have just proved that to be true.
If that is the level of your debate - then this 'conversation' on MW's blog now ended - in view of the regard to which I hold MW, coupled with the wish not to abuse his hospitality!
The system doesn't much matter. The fundamental problem with the Parliamentary System is that it is a parliamentary system; that voting for a representative is also a vote for the executive. No separation of powers, etc.
YOu can't fix that by changing the electoral method.
The other problem is that the executive has absolute, monarchical power.
The other problem is that anyone has power. ONce somebody has power, you're in their grasp and, in the shit.
So really, this doesn't matter at all. We'd have been better off with kings and occasional coups d'etat, probably.
NH, that is an excellent list, thanks, so whichever way, the pro-FPTP lot are lying, lying, lying.
IB, stick to the choice we were given - AV or FPTP and then vote for the one you think is better. It's that simple. You can even rank them"1, 2" if you like. Would I prefer an in-out referendum on the EU? Yes. Would I prefer a choice between FPTP and MMCs? Yes. Does the whole system stink? Yes. So what?
JT: "So, you'd rather wait until people get so poor and desperate that they're stringing politicians up? How's that better than reforming things now?"
You're addressing the wrong person. I already think politicians have over-stepped the mark and are unfit for purpose. The only reform I'd like to see is their saying sorry, sorry, and sorry again.
Fiddling with electoral BS won't make them do that. In fact, a high turnout will just boost their ego further.
"DP, OK, if you genuinely think that FPTP leads to better governments and more responsive politicians and gives small parties a chance, please feel free to vote "no"."
I expected better of you than straw men, mate. Never have I said that, and never would I.
"If you think that your non-vote will be registered as a protest vote for something a bit more PR than AV, then you are seriously wrong."
Another straw man. I truly can't be arsed about the whole thing because it's a load of nonsense. The one referendum the country is crying out for we can't have (because they say that referenda are rubbish) yet we are given this pile of cock which no-one gives a toss about, and which is nothing more than a sop to Clegg's lot having been no doubt thrashed out behind closed doors in May last year.
There is nothing stunningly game changing in this and I reckon the public will feel the same way. Turnout will be boosted by local elections in some areas but will still be dead poor.
It's poppycock IMO, and our taking it even mildly seriously will just massage their egos even more than they already are.
I also don't appreciate professionally lefty dickheads knocking on my door early morning on a weekend (on top of the incessant e-mail spam) trying to tell me what to vote for. Kinda makes me think there's not much in it for me personally.
I respect your view absolutely, Mark, but I'm not playing this particular game. Sorry.
DP, I wasn't attacking a straw man. You said: "I'm either going to not bother on May 5th or perhaps vote no. Yes, FPTP needs replacing but AV really isn't the system to go with IMHO.".
Call me Dave's insistencethat AV isn't as good as full PR makes him, correctly, look both hypocritical and uninterested in the national interest since it was he and his cronies who refused to allow us a choice on hisbest option.
The logic of his position is that if we vote for AV he will immediately hold another referendum allowing us the 3 choices.
Ian B is right:
The system doesn't much matter. The fundamental problem with the Parliamentary System is that it is a parliamentary system; that voting for a representative is also a vote for the executive. No separation of powers, etc.
It's the issues behind that are important, not the electoral system.
Although there is a lot wrong with FPTP, we are not having a refendum on it because that's the case.
The fundamental problems with our 'democracy' are the political class with its attendent functionary class all living off entitlements, the EU, and the inequitable arrangement of constituencies. Essentially a fundamental lack of democratic accountability.
If the Lib Dems were at all interested in the country they would have put those issues at the top of the agenda. They aren't. they are self interested in their own pursuit of power, and I think (mistakenly) they believe that AV will give them the kingmaker power in all future parliaments. They hope that AV will give them access to private political deal making in smoke filled rooms. I do not believe that this will encourage accountability.
Personally I reckon open primaries are more important that FPTP/AV as it is likely to encourage less party animal candidates and if successful they remove power from the executive in parliament, and hence return it to us.
I am therefore extremely grumpy that this referendum has been set up at all. It's not at all important at this time and it is a sop to a bunch of proto authoritarian lefties ignorant of their own legacy who are too snobbish to join the labour party.
NC: "Dave's insistencethat AV isn't as good as full PR makes him, correctly, look both hypocritical and uninterested in the national interest"
Exactly - but are the sheeple bright enough to realise this? If Nick Clegg referred to AV as a compromise and Dave clearly doesn't like it either, clearly we are being stitched up - but the sheeple think,"Ah well, let's just stick with FPTP" then rather than realising what a couple of shits Dave and Nick are (quite who is the more guilty party is unclear to me).
Despite reason to be contemptuous of the Pseudoliberals in this case I think the power to decide and thus the blame mainly lies with Dave.
" They hope that AV will give them access to private political deal making in smoke filled rooms."
Don't you mean "smoke-free rooms"?
"The logic of his position is that if we vote for AV he will immediately hold another referendum allowing us the 3 choices."
AFAICS, that is the best reason for voting for AV: it's very little better or different from FPTP, none of the politicos want it and so the likelihood they will think up some excuse for changing it, possibly to something better, is correspondingly higher.
Post a Comment