The AV referendum

I would like to add, I am not against devolution in any way, what I'm against is devolution for some and not others. I would like the Countries of the UK to raise their own revenues, setting their own tax rates ect, and then spending the money as they seem fit. I think it would make the union stronger and more united, with the population of each nation being governed by the will of their own people.

So under your proposals, would Westminster have control over foreign policy and defence only?

So under your proposals, would Westminster have control over foreign policy and defence only?

In the main yes. There are things that a UK wide Govt would have to do, but other than that I would leave it up to the Countries. It goes without saying that the Federal Govt would need to be smaller than it is now, but there is no reason why Scottish, Welsh, English and NI MP's couldn't sit in Westminster and their own Parliaments.

In the main yes. There are things that a UK wide Govt would have to do, but other than that I would leave it up to the Countries. It goes without saying that the Federal Govt would need to be smaller than it is now, but there is no reason why Scottish, Welsh, English and NI MP's couldn't sit in Westminster and their own Parliaments.

England is too large and dominant in my opinion for this to work properly. You would need a slice up of England as well in my opinion for it to work sustainably.

England is too large and dominant in my opinion for this to work properly. You would need a slice up of England as well in my opinion for it to work sustainably.

Maybe, but this was the problem once Labour set devolution in motion. One day the Englsih are going to wake up and realise they've been short changed. The next few challanging years are going to open up wounds, particulary with a Tory Govt cutting the state back. A higher % of state workers live in traditional Labour areas, and although I fully believe that the private sector will grow to fill the gaps, the jobs will be in differant areas from the losses. I think we'll end up with public sector job losses in Scotland, North East, NI ect and Private job increases in the South East and Midlands.This will play into the SNP's hands, and they'll demand more autonomy from the next labour Govt. More autonomy for the Scots will highten English injustice, particulary if the Tories carry a majority in England.

The first thing that must happen is Scottish and Welsh MP's stop voting on matters in England that are devolved in Scotland and Wales.

And your solution is?

 

1) Reverse devolution? (Pretty much unthinkable)

2) New layer of English parliament bureaucracy? (Because you'd love to see another tier of government wouldn't you?)

3) Full independence?

Surely the easiest and cheapest solution is to simply bar Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from voting in matters at Westminster that have been devolved to their own assembly.

The first thing that must happen is Scottish and Welsh MP's stop voting on matters in England that are devolved in Scotland and Wales.

Surely the easiest and cheapest solution is to simply bar Scottish' date=' Welsh and Northern Irish MPs from voting in matters at Westminster that have been devolved to their own assembly. [/quote']

 

Agree entirely. It needs to be done sooner rather than later. But as I said earlier, what an opportunity was missed when it could have been a pre-condition of the referendum on whether to change the voting system, that simultaneously the West Lothian question was to be addressed. Had the two been linked, I doubt whether there would have been the will to proceed with the referendum to change the voting system, as the influence that Labour and the Lib Dems have in Parliament as a result of the number of their MPs in Scotland and Wales is not something they would wish to lose.

We seem to have been side tracked into a discussion about devolution. Can I bring this back on topic.

I am considering voting Yes, but I am really open to listen to the reasons to vote no. Please can the “no” supporters outline to me why FPTP would be of more benefit to me than AV.

These are my circumstances:

I live in a constituency where my first choice is perceived to have no chance of winning. Therefore historically I (and probably 10-20% of all voters) have decided to vote "tactically". Voting for my first choice would have increased the likelihood of a party I very much disagree with being elected. (See Deppo’s Parma Violets/Smarties/dog muck analogy posted earlier).

However in the most recent election, the party I felt forced to support decided to form a coalition, where they were used as a crutch to support a party that had failed to win a majority of the electorate’s support on their own. Due to this fact I have become pretty disillusioned with the entire political system and have considered not bothering to vote in the future.

With AV, I feel that I will at least get my say, and perhaps over several years the party I support’s share of the vote will increase, as many other like me can finally express their true views. Something that is unlikely under FPTP in a constituency where many people think there are only two possible winners.

Under AV I can register my first choice (and perhaps a second that also may also have had no chance to actually win), before my tactical vote. It will make me feel like my vote actually means something for the first time ever.

I am genuinely interested in reasons that people can give as to why FPTP is a better option for me.

We seem to have been side tracked into a discussion about devolution. Can I bring this back on topic.

I am considering voting Yes, but I am really open to listen to the reasons to vote no. Please can the “no” supporters outline to me why FPTP would be of more benefit to me than AV.

These are my circumstances:

I live in a constituency where my first choice is perceived to have no chance of winning. Therefore historically I (and probably 10-20% of all voters) have decided to vote "tactically". Voting for my first choice would have increased the likelihood of a party I very much disagree with being elected. (See Deppo’s Parma Violets/Smarties/dog muck analogy posted earlier).

However in the most recent election, the party I felt forced to support decided to form a coalition, where they were used as a crutch to support a party that had failed to win a majority of the electorate’s support on their own. Due to this fact I have become pretty disillusioned with the entire political system and have considered not bothering to vote in the future.

With AV, I feel that I will at least get my say, and perhaps over several years the party I support’s share of the vote will increase, as many other like me can finally express their true views. Something that is unlikely under FPTP in a constituency where many people think there are only two possible winners.

Under AV I can register my first choice (and perhaps a second that also may also have had no chance to actually win), before my tactical vote. It will make me feel like my vote actually means something for the first time ever.

I am genuinely interested in reasons that people can give as to why FPTP is a better option for me.

I know I'm side-stepping your question but the simple way to get 'your' party a greater share of power is to help make them more popular in the first place so that more people vote for them.

That's the 'beauty' of the FPTP system, in that it doesn't give the less popular parties a sniff of power (most of the time).

To answer your question though, I don't think there is a reason for you, personally, to vote 'no' as it isn't 'small party' friendly. Instead, I think you should follow Nick Clegg's lead and vote for a "miserable little compromise".... ;-)

I know I'm side-stepping your question but the simple way to get 'your' party a greater share of power is to help make them more popular in the first place so that more people vote for them.

 

That's the 'beauty' of the FPTP system, in that it doesn't give the less popular parties a sniff of power (most of the time).

 

To answer your question though, I don't think there is a reason for you, personally, to vote 'no' as it isn't 'small party' friendly. Instead, I think you should follow Nick Clegg's lead and vote for a "miserable little compromise".... ;-)

The problem with your solution to "Make your party more popular" is that this requires two things, first money and the big donors have vested interests in the 2 big parties so both give more consideration to their donors aspirations than to ordinary voters, the second is activists and building support without money is nigh impossible. Its a catch 22, politics is not about the best policies it is about vested interest and money hence the no campaign being supported by an unholy alliance championing the status quo which satisfies the big donors aspirations.

We seem to have been side tracked into a discussion about devolution. Can I bring this back on topic.

I am considering voting Yes, but I am really open to listen to the reasons to vote no. Please can the “no” supporters outline to me why FPTP would be of more benefit to me than AV.

These are my circumstances:

I live in a constituency where my first choice is perceived to have no chance of winning. Therefore historically I (and probably 10-20% of all voters) have decided to vote "tactically". Voting for my first choice would have increased the likelihood of a party I very much disagree with being elected. (See Deppo’s Parma Violets/Smarties/dog muck analogy posted earlier).

However in the most recent election, the party I felt forced to support decided to form a coalition, where they were used as a crutch to support a party that had failed to win a majority of the electorate’s support on their own. Due to this fact I have become pretty disillusioned with the entire political system and have considered not bothering to vote in the future.

With AV, I feel that I will at least get my say, and perhaps over several years the party I support’s share of the vote will increase, as many other like me can finally express their true views. Something that is unlikely under FPTP in a constituency where many people think there are only two possible winners.

Under AV I can register my first choice (and perhaps a second that also may also have had no chance to actually win), before my tactical vote. It will make me feel like my vote actually means something for the first time ever.

I am genuinely interested in reasons that people can give as to why FPTP is a better option for me.

I fail to see how the adoption of the AV ststem will change the circumstances in your constituency. At the moment you voted tactically for one party in an effort to stop another party being elected. You are being led to believe that just because you vote for the party that you want to succeed, somehow things will be different. But when your candidate is eliminated with the lowest number of votes and your second choice vote is counted, it will effectively be the same as the tactical vote. You say that over several years your preferred party's share of the vote will increase, but this is what often happens anyway. People get fed up with the two main parties and vote for a third party for a change. But that requires that party to have policies that make it electable in the first place. And all this talk of tactical voting, or thinking about not voting at all is very defeatist. If everybody who took that view did the same, then what chance does your preferred candidate have anyway? If everybody voted for the party they preferred, then they would move up the polls to become a more realistic proposition.

I live in a constituency where the sitting MP, a certain Chris Huhne, illustrates to the electorate with bar charts that Labour cannot win here, it's a two horse race between them and the Conservatives and a vote for Labour is a wasted vote. Funny thing though, that when there is a by-election elsewhere, the Lib Dems have managed to overturn much bigger deficits to win the seat. What would they think about literature from the other parties stating that they had no chance there?

What has also been said about monied vested interests supporting the two main parties will not go away just because the system changes. And there is nothing to stop the Lib Dems or any other party from adopting policies that make them electable, that are also attractive to people who might be prepared to help finance their campaigns. It seems to me that the parties who most want change, are those who have the most to benefit from it and somehow don't have the drive or the initiative to do it by other means.

The problem with your solution to "Make your party more popular" is that this requires two things, first money and the big donors have vested interests in the 2 big parties so both give more consideration to their donors aspirations than to ordinary voters, the second is activists and building support without money is nigh impossible. Its a catch 22, politics is not about the best policies it is about vested interest and money hence the no campaign being supported by an unholy alliance championing the status quo which satisfies the big donors aspirations.

Or maybe the reason that the Lib Dems never muster much more than 15% is that their policies aren't very popular? Are the general public really that gullible to be swayed by s****y marketing over policies...? (that's a rhetorical question btw)

;-)

*s w a n k y

(FFS)

Or maybe the reason that the Lib Dems never muster much more than 15% is that their policies aren't very popular? Are the general public really that gullible to be swayed by s****y marketing over policies...? (that's a rhetorical question btw)

 

;-)

I think the problem that the LibDems have is that no-one is ever REALLY sure what their policies are. They seem to change to fit the circumstances (bandwagoning).

Decades ago, I was very involved in Eastleigh politics (is that an oxymoron?) when the Liberals started to make inroads into the longstanding Labour support. The Liberals really did fence-sit on virtually every local issue and I don't think things have changed much.

I used to call them political eunuchs, castrated from sitting on too many fences.

Sorry to undermine your lovely and witty little piece of satire, but I'm afraid that it is based on a false premise.

http://nortonview.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/conservative-leaders-are-not-elected-by-a-form-of-av/

As Norton is reputed to be the foremost expert on the British Constitution, I'm assuming that he knows what he is talking about.

You're not Paddy pants down are you?

I am the foremost expert on the British Constitution, I'll thank you very much.

Sorry to undermine your lovely and witty little piece of satire, but I'm afraid that it is based on a false premise.

 

http://nortonview.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/conservative-leaders-are-not-elected-by-a-form-of-av/

 

As Norton is reputed to be the foremost expert on the British Constitution, I'm assuming that he knows what he is talking about

FFS. I wish people would stop this flagrant under-mining of the lazy myths being bandied around by the pro-AV brigade...

I am the foremost expert on the British Constitution, I'll thank you very much.

You're Lord Norton? I'm confused. Why would you get it so wrong then?

FFS. I wish people would stop this flagrant under-mining of the lazy myths being bandied around by the pro-AV brigade...

Let them resort to their dirty tricks campaign. They are going to lose the vote anyway.

Interesting article in the Telegraph..

The views of Labour supporters will be decisive, but their party is badly divided on the issue. Ed Miliband supports AV but has done little to fight for it. He knows that more than half of his own MPs and many of the party’s biggest beasts, including John Prescott, want to keep FPTP.

They’ve studied recent polls which suggest Labour would do worse under AV.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8456426/A-voters-guide-to-the-alternative-vote.html

If the Tory leader system was done under First Past the Post, David Davis would be leader right now. This can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005.

But no, the bottom candidate in each round was elimated and then effectively those who voted for Ken Clarke revoted as others probably kept their votes with the same people.

So they use a system whereby the bottom candidate is eliminated, then everyone replaces their votes(as effectively happens in AV).

Sounds VERY similar to me, with of course slight differences that you can change your first preference between rounds!

Yep. AV is a run-off with the farting about eliminated.

I do also find the "minority party vote being counted several times" argument amusing. All available votes are included in the count on each round.

What I don't understand is why the Tories are so opposed to AV.

They don't win any seats in Scotland, Wales, the North East or North West...

I live in the North East, I vote Conservative. Always have, always will. I would never consider voting tacticly in a LAB-LIB race even if I thought it would help Cammy and his hot Mrs...

I live in a seat with a 22,000 LAB Majority which has been LAB for the last 50 years. Theres no point going to The Polling Station.

My Dad in the same consituancy votes Labour cos my Grandad was a big Union Man and would turn in his grave if he voted anything else...

Theres no point him going to the Polling Station either - he knows LAB are gonna win.

You're Lord Norton? I'm confused. Why would you get it so wrong then?

I think what Deppo might be getting at is that your claim for Norton being 'THE foremost' (!) constitutional expert is a tiny bit funny. Even the Torygraph ranks him - a professor of government at the august University of Hull - no higher than 'the 59th most influential person on the right of British politics.'

I think what Deppo might be getting at is that your claim for Norton being 'THE foremost' (!) constitutional expert is a tiny bit funny. Even the Torygraph ranks him - a professor of government at the august University of Hull - no higher than 'the 59th most influential person on the right of British politics.'

Maybe he is only 59th but Roy Jenkins a Lib/Dem who spent his whole life campaigning for voting reform, was asked by the Labour Govt to look at electrol reform.

The Jenkins report was a result of a commission into the issue of electoral reform chaired by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Jenkins said "AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional than FPTP."

Maybe he is only 59th but Roy Jenkins a Lib/Dem who spent his whole life campaigning for voting reform, was asked by the Labour Govt to look at electrol reform.

 

The Jenkins report was a result of a commission into the issue of electoral reform chaired by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Jenkins said "AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional than FPTP."

No, you don't understand. Norton is 59th on the right. So he's starting from the huge intellectual disadvantage of being right-wing. I calculate that this means he's probably ranked about 5,890th among British constitutional experts. I'll PM Wes Tender suggesting he amend accordingly.

No, you don't understand. Norton is 59th on the right. So he's starting from the huge intellectual disadvantage of being right-wing. I calculate that this means he's probably ranked about 5,890th among British constitutional experts. I'll PM Wes Tender suggesting he amend accordingly.

And where would you rank Jonathon Ross?

I think what Deppo might be getting at is that your claim for Norton being 'THE foremost' (!) constitutional expert is a tiny bit funny. Even the Torygraph ranks him - a professor of government at the august University of Hull - no higher than 'the 59th most influential person on the right of British politics.'

There are two statements you refer to, which have little to do with each other and I'm surprised you don't see that. He has been described as the foremost authority on British Constitutional matters and also a World authority too. He was Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

Now pray tell me what that has to do with anything else? He has some influence on Politicians' thinking on voting systems purely because of his knowledge of the subject. The mention of his position in the hierarchy of influence on the right of British politics does not diminish his position as the foremost expert on the Constitution, does it?

No, you don't understand. Norton is 59th on the right. So he's starting from the huge intellectual disadvantage of being right-wing. I calculate that this means he's probably ranked about 5,890th among British constitutional experts. I'll PM Wes Tender suggesting he amend accordingly.

I've only just read your latest offering. Please read what I say above several times and try to comprehend a quite simple concept. His reputation as the foremost living expert on the British Constiution has NOTHING to do with the report in the Telegraph listing him as the 59th most influential person on the Right of British Politics.

When you talk about intellectual disadvantage, you illustrate your own shortcomings with your comments on this.

There are two statements you refer to, which have little to do with each other and I'm surprised you don't see that. He has been described as the foremost authority on British Constitutional matters and also a World authority too. He was Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

 

Now pray tell me what that has to do with anything else? He has some influence on Politicians' thinking on voting systems purely because of his knowledge of the subject. The mention of his position in the hierarchy of influence on the right of British politics does not diminish his position as the foremost expert on the Constitution, does it?

I am afraid that ion the eyes of comrade Verbal anybody on the right's opinion's are invalid. If you disagree with the Independent you you are an 'internet dwebe'. Yet The Telegraph is written off as the Torygraph.

Do give it a rest, Wes. If he has really been described as 'the foremost authority on the British constitution', at least try and find a reliable source. (You won't). I'll break the bad news to Vernon Bognador, who is far more eminent than Norton, and whose college (King's) only goes so far as to describe him as 'one of Britain's foremost' constitutional experts. Bogdanor is in another league to Norton - whose influence on the right has only, it seems, to do with the fact that so few academics would stoop to calling themselves 'right-wing'.

Oh, and academia is loaded to overstuffed with people whose work is is supposed to fit the claim: 'world authority'. Apart from blogging, what's he actually done that comes close to someone like Bogdanor (or a rather long list of others I could mention)? You used the hilarious claim that Norton is 'the foremost' etc., presumably because you thought you were playing some kind of trump card. It's a bit more like The Joker.

Here's Bogdanor's bio:

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/people/b/vernon-bogdanor

I am afraid that ion the eyes of comrade Verbal anybody on the right's opinion's are invalid. If you disagree with the Independent you you are an 'internet dwebe'. Yet The Telegraph is written off as the Torygraph.

Correct. Thank you comrade Sergei.

Correct. Thank you comrade Sergei.

Comrade? I am a White Russian thank you very much Verbal.

No, you don't understand. Norton is 59th on the right. So he's starting from the huge intellectual disadvantage of being right-wing. I calculate that this means he's probably ranked about 5,890th among British constitutional experts. I'll PM Wes Tender suggesting he amend accordingly.

So what about Woy Jenkins, he can hardly be called right wing, yet he conculded that AV "offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, it is even less proportional than FPTP."

Do give it a rest, Wes. If he has really been described as 'the foremost authority on the British constitution', at least try and find a reliable source. (You won't). I'll break the bad news to Vernon Bognador, who is far more eminent than Norton, and whose college (King's) only goes so far as to describe him as 'one of Britain's foremost' constitutional experts. Bogdanor is in another league to Norton - whose influence on the right has only, it seems, to do with the fact that so few academics would stoop to calling themselves 'right-wing'.

 

Oh, and academia is loaded to overstuffed with people whose work is is supposed to fit the claim: 'world authority'. Apart from blogging, what's he actually done that comes close to someone like Bogdanor (or a rather long list of others I could mention)? You used the hilarious claim that Norton is 'the foremost' etc., presumably because you thought you were playing some kind of trump card. It's a bit more like The Joker.

 

Here's Bogdanor's bio:

 

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/people/b/vernon-bogdanor

i think your wasting your time trying to convert the die hard bonehead right party loyalists who would vote for a bag of potatoes if it had a tory/bnp tag in elections.they have no interest of making the system slightly fairer.

Do give it a rest, Wes. If he has really been described as 'the foremost authority on the British constitution', at least try and find a reliable source. (You won't). I'll break the bad news to Vernon Bognador, who is far more eminent than Norton, and whose college (King's) only goes so far as to describe him as 'one of Britain's foremost' constitutional experts. Bogdanor is in another league to Norton - whose influence on the right has only, it seems, to do with the fact that so few academics would stoop to calling themselves 'right-wing'.

 

Oh, and academia is loaded to overstuffed with people whose work is is supposed to fit the claim: 'world authority'. Apart from blogging, what's he actually done that comes close to someone like Bogdanor (or a rather long list of others I could mention)? You used the hilarious claim that Norton is 'the foremost' etc., presumably because you thought you were playing some kind of trump card. It's a bit more like The Joker.

 

Here's Bogdanor's bio:

 

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/people/b/vernon-bogdanor

So he's your darling of the left. Perhaps you'll point me at the article in the Guardian informing me that he's the 59th most influential person on the left of British politics so that I can totally mis-comprehend your post in the same way that you did with mine.

Or maybe the reason that the Lib Dems never muster much more than 15% is that their policies aren't very popular? Are the general public really that gullible to be swayed by s****y marketing over policies...? (that's a rhetorical question btw)

 

;-)

15%...... they got 23% of votes last election and managed to recieve 8.8% of the seats

Although that is a tiny compared to labours stunning 35.2% of the votes in 2005, with which they managed to recieve 55.2% of the seats.

Yep FPTP is a completely democratic unflawed process alright.

i think your wasting your time trying to convert the die hard bonehead right party loyalists who would vote for a bag of potatoes if it had a tory/bnp tag in elections.they have no interest of making the system slightly fairer.

Equally of course, past verbal sparring has established you as one of the equally blinkered warriors of the left who would also only vote one way.

i think your wasting your time trying to convert the die hard bonehead right party loyalists who would vote for a bag of potatoes

Mushrooms....surely?

Equally of course, past verbal sparring has established you as one of the equally blinkered warriors of the left who would also only vote one way.

sorry i,ve always bee independant and voted for all 3 partys.its only die hard right wingers who label moderate people lefties

15%...... they got 23% of votes last election and managed to recieve 8.8% of the seats

 

Although that is a tiny compared to labours stunning 35.2% of the votes in 2005, with which they managed to recieve 55.2% of the seats.

 

Yep FPTP is a completely democratic unflawed process alright.

Looks like you're in favour of PR then. AV (in the words of Lib/Dem hero Jenkins) "offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, it is even less proportional than FPTP." Perhaps the 23% of Lib/Dems voters should be asking their leadership why they entered a coalition in return for a vote on a system that "offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, it is even less proportional than FPTP."

Mushrooms....surely?

ha ha nice one its lovely to see them quote the same old predicable party rubbish without engaging their brainsor mushrooms.

Looks like you're in favour of PR then. AV (in the words of Lib/Dem hero Jenkins) "offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, it is even less proportional than FPTP." Perhaps the 23% of Lib/Dems voters should be asking their leadership why they entered a coalition in return for a vote on a system that "offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, it is even less proportional than FPTP."

i think the present lib /tory partys together are the first majority government with over 50% of the public vote since i,ve been born in my lifetime but i suppose your happy when government of the past with a massive majority with only 38% of the vote which over ruled the remaining 62% ish in the country.

its not right and you know it.

Comrade? I am a White Russian thank you very much Verbal.

Then please stand over there by that wall.

So he's your darling of the left. Perhaps you'll point me at the article in the Guardian informing me that he's the 59th most influential person on the left of British politics so that I can totally mis-comprehend your post in the same way that you did with mine.

Bogdanor the darling of the Left? Are you KIDDING?!

Anyway, where's the link, Wes? I want to know who other than you thinks that Norton is 'THE foremost British constitutional expert'. I didn't 'miscomprehend' (sic) your claim - you made it as baldly and funnily as that.

i think the present lib /tory partys together are the first majority government with over 50% of the public vote since i,ve been born in my lifetime but i suppose your happy when government of the past with a massive majority with only 38% of the vote which over ruled the remaining 62% ish in the country.

its not right and you know it.

But AV will not change that. In some cases it is even less proportional than FPTP.In 1954 in Aussie, one of the only Country to use AV, The Labor Party won 50% of the national vote, but did not win enough seats to form the Govt.

But AV will not change that. In some cases it is even less proportional than FPTP.In 1954 in Aussie, one of the only Country to use AV, The Labor Party won 50% of the national vote, but did not win enough seats to form the Govt.

Yes, and FPTP can do this too. The point is AV is LESS likely to do that.

The only system that really stamps that out is a PR one like STV.

February 1974 election anyone????

Liberal Party 19.3% of the vote, 2.2% of the seats... fair? Last election, Lib Dems 23% of the vote, 8% of the seats, they gained votes but LOST seats.

And before you say I am just mentioning Liberal Democrat unfairness(which should be enough), how about Labour getting 35.2% of the votes in 2005, yet 55.2% of the seats?

Yes, AV will give strange results because it isn't proportional representation, but it'll do it less so than FPTP.

Yes, and FPTP can do this to. The point is AV is LESS likely to do that.

 

The only system that really stamps that out is a PR one like STV.

 

February 1974 election anyone????

 

Liberal Party 19.3% of the vote, 2.2% of the seats... fair? Last election, Lib Dems 23% of the vote, 8% of the seats, they gained votes but LOST seats.

 

And before you say I am just mentioning Liberal Democrat unfairness(which should be enough), how about Labour getting 35.2% of the votes in 2005, yet 55.2% of the seats?

 

Yes, AV will give strange results because it isn't proportional representation, but it'll do it less so than FPTP.

yep i think thats a fair summary how anyone can support fptp is beyond me but i suppose i think about things in a logical way and do not follow any party line.

Bogdanor the darling of the Left? Are you KIDDING?!

 

Anyway, where's the link, Wes? I want to know who other than you thinks that Norton is 'THE foremost British constitutional expert'. I didn't 'miscomprehend' (sic) your claim - you made it as baldly and funnily as that.

Baldly? (sic)