Putting the 'sub' into 'Standard'

From the Evening Standard:

AV, if adopted, would mean the end of the first-past-the-post system that has served this country well so far (1). First-past-the-post does have shortcomings: it allows votes to pile up in many seats without directly influencing the result, and it makes it harder for smaller parties to win (2). But first-past-the-post is clear and simple: anyone can understand it; there is no doubt about the winner.(3)

AV is far more complicated. (4) Voters may name candidates in order of preference. In constituencies where one candidate gets a majority of first-preference votes, the other preferences are ignored and the result is much the same as under the existing system. (5) Where they garner fewer than half of first preferences, then second, third and other preference votes are taken into account too. As Churchill said, AV thus means elections can "be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates". (6)

This can and will produce perverse results. In a close-run contest, it is quite possible that the candidate who comes second or even third on first-preference votes can end up winning, having mopped up second and third preferences.(7) AV thereby encourages the most Byzantine tactical voting (8) and political fixing. (9)

1) Says who? We've no idea how things would have turned out if we'd had AV all along.

2) Exactly. Those are the arguments for AV in a nutshell, there's not much more to it than that. The notions that MPs will work harder or be less corrupt are entirely secondary and not proven either way.

3) In that case you might as well argue for electing MPs by toss of a coin: cheap, simple, clear. There will be no doubt who is the winner under AV either, so what?

4) No it's not. People loyal to one party and one party only are free to vote for that party only; but most people are capable of casting a "conscience vote" and one or two "compromise votes". Or does the ES take all its readers for morons?

5) Exactly. I doubt it will change the results much.

6) So if the pro-FPTP crowd (mainly Conservatives) think that AV is such an awful idea, why didn't they give us a choice between FPTP and something better than AV, like AV+ or whatever? It's almost as if they have rigged it to ensure we stay with FPTP. And would that be the same Churchill who said this:

The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation."?

7) So what? Under FPTP it is no doubt the case that a lot of MPs are elected on the basis of people's "compromise votes" and not their "conscience votes", is that not 'perverse'?

8) This is complete shite. Under AV there will be much less "tactical voting", certainly with regards to the first preference, and to the extent that MPs only made it past the post on the basis of second and third "tactical" votes, well maybe they won't be so bloody uppity in future.

9) All politics is 'fixing', all parties are in fact coalitions with as many different views on as many different issues as it has members. So what?

Spotter's badge: Sibley's B'stard Child.