The AV referendum

For those of you who are interested, here's a little interactive poll predictor you can play with

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll.html

To make it realistic, use one of the many poll tracker sites to see what the predicted share of the vote would be if there were to be an election tomorrow. Here's a good one:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

35% support for both Labour and the Conservatives and 20% for the Lib Dems (no swing parameters inserted) reveals the following:

Conservatives: 258 seats

Labour: 303 seats

Lib Dems: 65 seats

First thoughts.... If they are to implement AV then the constituencies should also be re-aligned to ensure that they are all proportional to each other. In an ideal world surely equal vote quantities for each party should reflect in an equal number of seats.

Vote for more than one candidate and your second, third or fourth choice could knock out your first. If it comes in I will only put a 1 against the candidate I want. I will not be grading my vote and damaging my first choice.

No to AV for me

no for me...one person, one vote...that is how is should be

35% support for both Labour and the Conservatives and 20% for the Lib Dems (no swing parameters inserted) reveals the following:

 

Conservatives: 258 seats

Labour: 303 seats

Lib Dems: 65 seats

 

First thoughts.... If they are to implement AV then the constituencies should also be re-aligned to ensure that they are all proportional to each other. In an ideal world surely equal vote quantities for each party should reflect in an equal number of seats.

I can see practical problems with equal sized constituencies (equal number of voters, that is). A rural constituency for, say, 100,000 people would be far larger in geographic size than an urban area with the same number of voters. That could make it quite difficult for a rural MP to truly represent the electorate and for the electorate to get to constituency surgeries.

However, to have a contituency based on geographic area would result in a larger number of rural constituencies which would inevitably mean a larger number of Conservative areas proportionate to the number of electors.

Vote for more than one candidate and your second, third or fourth choice could knock out your first. If it comes in I will only put a 1 against the candidate I want. I will not be grading my vote and damaging my first choice.

 

No to AV for me

It's a No for me too. Much as it pains me to say it () I see the merit in DC's argument that some people's vote may be counted 2, 3, or even 4 times whereas other people's votes may only be counted once.

No. Just to ****** Clegg off.

Will be a no from me too.

I can see practical problems with equal sized constituencies (equal number of voters, that is). A rural constituency for, say, 100,000 people would be far larger in geographic size than an urban area with the same number of voters. That could make it quite difficult for a rural MP to truly represent the electorate and for the electorate to get to constituency surgeries.

 

However, to have a contituency based on geographic area would result in a larger number of rural constituencies which would inevitably mean a larger number of Conservative areas proportionate to the number of electors.

Surely equally sized constituencies is the fairest way otherwise you are saying that the conservative vote carries less weight.

Trouble with AV is, is that it is complicated. The current system is simple if nothing else - he who gets the most votes wins. If we want a more engaged population when it comes to voting the complicating the issue won't help. Even Nick Clegg thinks AV is "a miserable little compromise" and he's the one championing it.

I am thinking that a 'yes' is necessary, not because I want AV - I think we should go for STV, but because a NO vote now will shut the door on any future consideration of a proportional system. If there is a YES result then I think that it is the first step to a truly proportional system, where the parties actually have to learn to work together in a professional manner for the benefit of the country. If we get a NO then we are stuck with a system where less than 30% of the electorate will continue to produce unstoppable majorities and the Red-Blue pendulum will keep swinging.

Surely equally sized constituencies is the fairest way otherwise you are saying that the conservative vote carries less weight.

Depends what you mean by 'equal size'. That could mean equal geographic size (square miles) or equal number of voters. There are problems with both.

Surely equally sized constituencies is the fairest way otherwise you are saying that the conservative vote carries less weight.

The problem is where to draw the boundaries. Do you try to ensure that there is a balance between the numbers of 'traditional' Labour and Conservative wards, or produce a proportion of 'safe' seats, if so how many ? What happens if in a particular area somebody builds 4000 new homes and the demographic changes; you would have to continually redraw the boundaries to accommodate small changes in the numbers on the electoral roll.

I am thinking that a 'yes' is necessary, not because I want AV - I think we should go for STV, but because a NO vote now will shut the door on any future consideration of a proportional system. If there is a YES result then I think that it is the first step to a truly proportional system, where the parties actually have to learn to work together in a professional manner for the benefit of the country. If we get a NO then we are stuck with a system where less than 30% of the electorate will continue to produce unstoppable majorities and the Red-Blue pendulum will keep swinging.

Although it's stopped swinging at the moment I think

My other concern is the unnatural influence a minority party might have. If, say, we get a result with a 45% vote for each of Labour and Conservative and therefore a 10% for the others, the others will prostitute themselves to the highest bidder to form a sort of coalition, thereby having a disproportionate amount of influence relevant to their share of the vote.

Although I will concede that that's what's happened now. It'll perhaps be more likely with AV, however.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no way

The problem is where to draw the boundaries. Do you try to ensure that there is a balance between the numbers of 'traditional' Labour and Conservative wards, or produce a proportion of 'safe' seats, if so how many ? What happens if in a particular area somebody builds 4000 new homes and the demographic changes; you would have to continually redraw the boundaries to accommodate small changes in the numbers on the electoral roll.

Isn't this what Dame Shirley Porter tried to do at Westminster Council by shipping out council tenants and offering the council housing for sale (at very high prices)?

Depends what you mean by 'equal size'. That could mean equal geographic size (square miles) or equal number of voters. There are problems with both.

Equal sized in number of voters. There is only a problem if your colours are blue. With the same vote as the Tories labour would have won a landslide in the last election.

Although it's stopped swinging at the moment I think

 

My other concern is the unnatural influence a minority party might have. If, say, we get a result with a 45% vote for each of Labour and Conservative and therefore a 10% for the others, the others will prostitute themselves to the highest bidder to form a sort of coalition, thereby having a disproportionate amount of influence relevant to their share of the vote.

 

Although I will concede that that's what's happened now. It'll perhaps be more likely with AV, however.

I know you will disagree but actually we really do have a good compromise now. The Lib Dems can keep a check on the more zealous Tory cuts.

Equal sized in number of voters. There is only a problem if your colours are blue. With the same vote as the Tories labour would have won a landslide in the last election.

Go on then how large would this landslide have been....

I agree with the sensible element of the Labour Party

Go on then how large would this landslide have been....

In 2005 they had 35% of the vote and won 60 seats majority I think

I know you will disagree but actually we really do have a good compromise now. The Lib Dems can keep a check on the more zealous Tory cuts.

I'm not so sure and that's not because the current coalition is between the Conservatives and the LibDems. I've always been in favour of a STRONG government, even if it's a Tory one.

The current government is doing far too many U-turns and flip flops and is not strong at all. And that doesn't breed confidence internationally.

...

I'm not so sure and that's not because the current coalition is between the Conservatives and the LibDems. I've always been in favour of a STRONG government, even if it's a Tory one.

 

The current government is doing far to many U-turns and flip flops and is not strong at all. And that doesn't breed confidence internationally.

All the flip flopping at the moment appears to be tories ministers getting it wrong and I don't think that they are in a coalition has much to do with it.

no for me...one person, one vote...that is how is should be

It is one person one vote. It used to be called instant run off voting. It is just a way of running the election as if the bottom ranked candidates didn't run so as to see which candidates is preferred by most people with in a constituency. It actually gives every MP a majority and so a mandate to actually do what they wish as opposed to a plurality which is dogey at best when deciding who has absolute power. If you go to a shop and someone had asked you get me a mars bar, but if not get me a galaxy, you still at the end of it only get one chocolate bar.

Anyone who votes no because Nick Clegg is voting yes is a total moron.

Anyone who votes no because Nick Clegg is voting yes is a total moron.

ditto anyone voting no because AV is not STV.

Although it's stopped swinging at the moment I think

 

My other concern is the unnatural influence a minority party might have. If, say, we get a result with a 45% vote for each of Labour and Conservative and therefore a 10% for the others, the others will prostitute themselves to the highest bidder to form a sort of coalition, thereby having a disproportionate amount of influence relevant to their share of the vote.

 

Although I will concede that that's what's happened now. It'll perhaps be more likely with AV, however.

This is the one subject that you're distinctly unsound on, BTF. Your fear of the influence of minority parties is unfounded, I think, not least because the British electorate remains wedded to the basic shape of the two-party system. Yes, it gives minority parties a more representative influence in Parliament - but isn't that what 'representative democracy' is supposed to be about. The scaremongers against PR generally frequently cite two illusory spectres: the 'horror' of the absence of 'strong government' (which betrays an authoritarian weakness; after all plenty of 'weak' governments elsewhere, like the US, have been a damned sight better at presiding over successful economies than ours); and the ida that, say, neo-Nazi parties would gain influence (ignoring the distinct probability that voters, who have a habit of voting rationally, would adjust their voting behaviour accordingly to ensure that that did not happen).

If AV gets voted down, it would be a tragedy for the long-term health of British democracy. It's not by any means the best form of PR; but it's a badly needed start.

Anyone who votes no because Nick Clegg is voting yes is a total moron.

Yeah, write ficky me is.

ditto anyone voting no because AV is not STV.

Exactly, both points are beside the issue! Nick Clegg and STV are irrelevant.

The only argument that can be considered is:

Is AV better than FPTP? Personally, my answer is yes, slightly... though it is hardly a revolution but it is a good change. Therefore, I will be voting yes on may the 5th.

i am voting no just to cancel verbals yes vote

Yeah, write ficky me is.

By using your democratic right to vote to **** off Nick Clegg you are showing yourself to not have the capability to consider the issue and its effects upon the country as a whole. I mean at least the Dell Days said he is voting against it for an actual reason(though I believe that reason to be false and untrue) rather than '****IN' HATE **** CLEGG LULZ, LET'S VOTE NO TO **** HIM OFF INIT LULZ'

Edit: I meant Thedelldays original one person one vote post.

By using your democratic right to vote to **** off Nick Clegg you are showing yourself to not have the capability to consider the issue and its effects upon the country as a whole. I mean at least the Dell Days said he is voting against it for an actual reason(though I believe that reason to be false and untrue) rather than '****IN' HATE **** CLEGG LULZ, LET'S VOTE NO TO **** HIM OFF INIT LULZ'

 

Edit: I meant Thedelldays original one person one vote post.

as opposed to using your 2nd and 3rd vote to use anyone but a tory..?

I think the result, whatever it is, will lead to some interesting stress tests for the coalition.

If YES wins, the right wing of the Conservatives will give DC a hard time (they don't like him anyway).

If NO wins, Nick Clegg will lose what little credibility he has left and some of his MPs will revolt.

By using your democratic right to vote to **** off Nick Clegg you are showing yourself to not have the capability to consider the issue and its effects upon the country as a whole. I mean at least the Dell Days said he is voting against it for an actual reason(though I believe that reason to be false and untrue) rather than '****IN' HATE **** CLEGG LULZ, LET'S VOTE NO TO **** HIM OFF INIT LULZ'

 

Edit: I meant Thedelldays original one person one vote post.

itz me write 2 diss em. Iz nefer fink hard. Lolz blud.

I think the result, whatever it is, will lead to some interesting stress tests for the coalition.

 

If YES wins, the right wing of the Conservatives will give DC a hard time (they don't like him anyway).

 

If NO wins, Nick Clegg will lose what little credibility he has left and some of his MPs will revolt.

If he losses he losses the very reason he entered into coalition for.

He's a dead man walking as the Liberals will self destruct when the No vote wins, and it will.

However, the real winner will be apathy. I doubt if the turnout reaches 30%

If he losses he losses the very reason he entered into coalition for.

 

He's a dead man walking as the Liberals will self destruct when the No vote wins, and it will.

 

However, the real winner will be apathy. I doubt if the turnout reaches 30%

He entered into coalition for more than AV.

At the present it is perhaps more likely that the no vote will win, but it isn't over yet.

Scotland and Wales and N.I have national elections also remember which could bump turnout up.

as opposed to using your 2nd and 3rd vote to use anyone but a tory..?

Not 2nd and 3rd vote, 2nd or 3rd perference. There is no plural voting here, it is instant run-off as I already explained in an earlier post, you still only get one vote.

He entered into coalition for more than AV.

If you believe that then you're even more naive than I thought.

He entered into coalition for more than AV.

 

At the present it is perhaps more likely that the no vote will win, but it isn't over yet.

 

Scotland and Wales and N.I have national elections also remember which could bump turnout up.

And a lot of English voters have local council elections on the same day too. But I think the LibDems will get slaughtered in those also. DC is trying his best to use them as the whipping boys.

Not 2nd and 3rd vote, 2nd or 3rd perference. There is no plural voting here, it is instant run-off as I already explained in an earlier post, you still only get one vote.

there is....if the first choice comes last. I end up backing a different person.....one person. one vote that is it..end of

If you believe that then you're even more naive than I thought.

The Liberal Democrats have other priorities and have had many other policies that have gone through which are either purely Liberal Democrat or influenced by Liberal Democrat thought.

Voting reform was extremely important, but it was not the ONLY reason they entered into coalition. I totally accept your idea that a no vote COULD lead to the collapse of the coalition, but what use would that bring except a labour government?

there is....if the first choice comes last. I end up backing a different person.....one person. one vote that is it..end of

Watch this video.

I dont need to, my vote is no

Trouble with AV is, is that it is complicated. The current system is simple if nothing else - he who gets the most votes wins. If we want a more engaged population when it comes to voting the complicating the issue won't help. Even Nick Clegg thinks AV is "a miserable little compromise" and he's the one championing it.

trouble with the present system we get can governments with massive majority with 38% of the vote and the other 62% are just ignored. i think its typical brish trait that we don,t like change of any sort.

no for me...one person, one vote...that is how is should be

so you want pr then

This is the one subject that you're distinctly unsound on, BTF. Your fear of the influence of minority parties is unfounded, I think, not least because the British electorate remains wedded to the basic shape of the two-party system. Yes, it gives minority parties a more representative influence in Parliament - but isn't that what 'representative democracy' is supposed to be about. The scaremongers against PR generally frequently cite two illusory spectres: the 'horror' of the absence of 'strong government' (which betrays an authoritarian weakness; after all plenty of 'weak' governments elsewhere, like the US, have been a damned sight better at presiding over successful economies than ours); and the ida that, say, neo-Nazi parties would gain influence (ignoring the distinct probability that voters, who have a habit of voting rationally, would adjust their voting behaviour accordingly to ensure that that did not happen).

 

If AV gets voted down, it would be a tragedy for the long-term health of British democracy. It's not by any means the best form of PR; but it's a badly needed start.

good post but i fear the diehards of both major partys have scared off any chance of change with their scare tatics.

I'm not so sure and that's not because the current coalition is between the Conservatives and the LibDems. I've always been in favour of a STRONG government, even if it's a Tory one.

 

The current government is doing far too many U-turns and flip flops and is not strong at all. And that doesn't breed confidence internationally.

With a coalition government you will always get u-turns.

With a coalition government you will always get u-turns.

Both the last majority governments have had their fair share of U turns and as I said above the U turns the coalition government have made so far have all been down to dogmatic decisions by Tory ministers which cameron has realized are not going down well.

Both the last majority governments have had their fair share of U turns and as I said above the U turns the coalition government have made so far have all been down to dogmatic decisions by Tory ministers which cameron has realized are not going down well.

A little confused - what is wrong with that