On page 5 of their leaflet, the No to AV people claim that "AV is unpopular" because only three countries use it.
What they don't tell you of course is that "FPTP is [only] the second most widely used voting system in the world, after party lists. In crude terms, it is used in places that are, or once were, British colonies. Like America. The use of FPTP used to be even more widespread, but many countries that used to use it have since switched to something else."
So yes, FPTP has been "tried and tested" as the No to AVers say... and it has been found wanting. If we were going by "popularity" alone, we'd go for full PR and party lists, and there'd be no argument for going back to FPTP.
And maybe AV isn't the best voting system (although it's clearly much better than FPTP) but wasn't it the existing government that offered us the choice? If they think AV is so awful, why didn't they offer us a choice between FPTP and (say) FPTP-with-top-up-seats?
Labour news: Christmas bumper edition
8 hours ago
10 comments:
AV is the worst of both worlds, it's still majoritarian but it incentivises the major parties to converge to avoid alienating potential 2nd preferencers.
As it happens they're identical anyway, but that's not the point!
CD, that's what you keep saying, but any electoral system encourages parties to 'converge' (as you say, the big three are now identical) BUT with AV there is less tactical voting, so more people will cast their first votes for smaller parties.
AV will not change the outcome much compared to FPTP, but I can't wait to see the look on the Tory MPs' faces when they realise that a quarter or a third of their voters ticked "UKIP 1, Tory 2".
chefdave,
No, that's what FPTP does. You end up with (mostly) 2 parties in each seat and as a result, both parties take the "left" and the "right". They know that if you're hardcore right or left that you'll vote for them anyway because you're scared of the other party getting in.
What happened in Australia is that the Liberal party got a bit lazy about the public's views on immigration. Along came the One Nation Party and stood on a ticket that was a bit like the BNP, only milder. They won some seats, and as a result, the Liberals had to adapt to that.
FPTP doesn't give you those "new competitors". it takes decades for parties to get anywhere.
missed a bit off that...
the 2 parties take the "left" and "right" half, but are barely away from the centre. This then means they can maximise their coverage to around 50% of all voters.
This is also why you'll see MPs in marginal seats getting photographed far more in the sort of middle-income wards than the rich or poor ones. They don't go seeking votes in poor or rich areas because they know how the vast majority will vote in those areas, so they focus on the areas with floating voters.
JT, AV enhances the left right divide through consolidation.
Let's take the Tories for instance, although under FPTP people vote Tory just to keep Labour out every UKIP vote is one that got away. Well AV scoops these votes back up and hands them straight back, making life at Conservative HQ that little easier.
Instead of helping the guy AV is for the benefit of the big parties. That maybe something that you're for, but I don't trust these career politicans one little bit.
I liked the Electoral Commissions guidance leaflet describing how to vote in the AV referendum.
It uses an FPTP system!!! Of Yes or No. How *ukin ironic.
What if I want to vote No as my first choice and Yes as my second. No smart AV answer please. Its a joke.
CD, I don't believe that AV will enable smaller parties to make a big breakthrough - as JT explains, what AV does is enable smaller parties to make a small breakthrough, and once support is ebbing away from the larger parties, then they adapt their policies accordingly.
It's like tug boats and big ships.
Sure, for the first GE or two under AV, instead of UKIP getting 3% of the vote and no MPs they'll get 10% of the first votes and no MPs, but that sends one heck of a signal to Tories that they ought to be a bit more EU-sceptic.
RS, when there are only two choices, putting an "X" under FPTP is the same as voting "1" or "1, 2" under AV.
Mark,
CD, I don't believe that AV will enable smaller parties to make a big breakthrough - as JT explains, what AV does is enable smaller parties to make a small breakthrough, and once support is ebbing away from the larger parties, then they adapt their policies accordingly.
It can just be that they create an adjustment, yes. The One Nation Party didn't stay in business for long, because the Liberals had to adapt their policies to take a tougher line on immigration.
The other thing is that some people in some parts of the country have different ideas to others. The views of rural voters (in real rural areas like South Wilts and Somerset) are often quite different to towns. In Wilts, the UKIP people I've met are disproportionately from places like Devizes and Chippenham, rather than Swindon. It could be that UKIP could actually win in a few areas.
Forget the leaflets! This video explains it all in a cat-friendly manner!
Post a Comment