The AV referendum

[Joensuu]

What breathtaking arrogance! It is not transparent at all that the argument for FPTP simply doesn't stack up vs AV. It might be in your mind, but I'm sure that there are very many who hold different opinions to yours, although you will smite their intelligence for having a different viewpoint to you. It is just such a position which calls into question your intellectual capacity.

 

And you are not entitled to conclude that the "no" campaigners do so out of self-interest, any more than it would be true the other way around, that those who favour AV do so out of self-interest themselves. Also, I argue the constant allegation put out by the Yes lobby that the referendum is to vote for a fairer voting system, as this tacitly implies that the current system is unfair, which is again only a matter of opinion. I see nothing unfair with the proposition that in a constituency election, the person with the most votes wins.

 

 

Wes,

 

obviously I must have overlooked something. I'm not sure what, but obviously their must be some benefit that FPTP has over AV. Althought, I can't for the life of me think what it might be.

 

FPTP

 

Pros: Strong link between MP and constituency.

 

Cons: No absolute link between the number of votes cast for a party and how many seats it gets in Parliament. Parties can rule on a minority of the country's votes. Massively biased results for minor parties. Not as proportial as PR

 

AV

 

Pros: Strong link between MP and constituency. Majority support at the local level, not just nationally.

 

Cons: Not as proportial as PR. Tiny increased chance of hung parliaments (however, AV wouldn't have changed any election results in the past 30 years).

 

Have I missed something? Or is it indeed transparent that (putting party politics to one side) AV is overall a far better system than FPTP? I certainly see no evidence to the contrary.

 

Leave things as they are, a system that has served our democracy well for centuries

 

The current system has been barely acceptable. It is biased to the large parties, and I would argue has caused the constant swings from left to right which have crippled our country as successive governments reverse the policies of their predecessors. IMO, FPTP has NOT served our democracy well, it has made a mockery of it.

 

Change it to a system popular in only a handful of other Countries, a complicated, expensive system, likely to produce weak Governments where minority Parties hold the balance of power.

 

Some nice myths here to bust.

 

1) Yes AV is only used in a handful of countries - almost all of the sensible countries have looked at FPTP seen it's massive flaws, looked at AV realised that it is a better system, but not much better than FPTP, so opted for PR instead. This 'handful' countries nonsense is a non-argument; aside from Canada, South Korea and India, take a look at the other countries stuck with the antiquated FPTP system (hardly leading lights of democracy are they?):

 

Antigua and Barbuda

Azerbaijan

Bahamas

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belize

Bhutan

Botswana

Canada

Dominica

Ethiopia

The Gambia

Ghana

Grenada

India (Proportional representation in upper house)

Iran

Jamaica

Kenya

Kuwait

Lebanon

Malawi

Malaysia

Mexico

Federated States of Micronesia

Morocco

Nepal

Nigeria

Pakistan

Palau

Papua New Guinea

Philippines

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

Singapore

Solomon Islands

South Korea

Swaziland

Tanzania

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tuvalu

Uganda

United Kingdom

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

(where might you ask are all the other leading democracies? Are they not FPTP too? No, they've mostly opted to leapfrog AV and go straight for the much fairer PR option, well certainly that's the case for: Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portungal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland)

 

2) Complicated. - Yes AV is a slightly more complicated system. This is a minor thing.

 

3) Expensive - No. This is an argument based on the Austrialian system, which doesn't take into account the vast cost of holding any elections across such a large country. Were Australia to have a FPTP or a PR system, they would also cost 3 times as much as the same system would cost to run in the UK. This is a negative argument, used to scaremonger.#

 

4) Weak governments - No. AV is only fractionally more likely to produce hung parliaments than FPTP. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of any UK general election in the last 30 years. And that's before considering whether hung governments are weaker - they work well in many countries, and generally have helped to remove the damaging swings from left to right to left.

Edited 21 April, 2011 by Joensuu

[Wade Garrett]

Currently the system favours Labour. Needless to say i'm all for changes to make the next general election more democratic. It's because of these changes, and my belief that in 2015 people will see that the Conservatives have done what is best for the country, that the next election isn't a foregone victory for Labour as Verbal states.

 

You're all for changes that give the Tories a helping hand. If you're that confident about the next election it wouldn't bother you either way.

 

I don't think the next election is a foregone conclusion either way. Ed M has yet to convince me that he would be a good leader, the Tories are ****ing people off left, right and centre, and the Lib Dems are being shown up for the unprincipled opportunists they've always been.

[Wes Tender]

1) Yes AV is only used in a handful of countries - almost all of the sensible countries have looked at FPTP seen it's massive flaws, looked at AV realised that it is a better system, but not much better than FPTP, so opted for PR instead. This 'handful' countries nonsense is a non-argument; aside from Canada, South Korea and India, take a look at the other countries stuck with the antiquated FPTP system (hardly leading lights of democracy are they?):

 

Antigua and Barbuda

Azerbaijan

Bahamas

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belize

Bhutan

Botswana

Canada

Dominica

Ethiopia

The Gambia

Ghana

Grenada

India (Proportional representation in upper house)

Iran

Jamaica

Kenya

Kuwait

Lebanon

Malawi

Malaysia

Mexico

Federated States of Micronesia

Morocco

Nepal

Nigeria

Pakistan

Palau

Papua New Guinea

Philippines

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

Singapore

Solomon Islands

South Korea

Swaziland

Tanzania

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tuvalu

Uganda

United Kingdom

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

(where might you ask are all the other leading democracies? Are they not FPTP too? No, they've mostly opted to leapfrog AV and go straight for the much fairer PR option, well certainly that's the case for: Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portungal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland)

 

2) Complicated. - Yes AV is a slightly more complicated system. This is a minor thing.

 

3) Expensive - No. This is an argument based on the Austrialian system, which doesn't take into account the vast cost of holding any elections across such a large country. Were Australia to have a FPTP or a PR system, they would also cost 3 times as much as the same system would cost to run in the UK. This is a negative argument, used to scaremonger.#

 

4) Weak governments - No. AV is only fractionally more likely to produce hung parliaments than FPTP. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of any UK general election in the last 30 years. And that's before considering whether hung governments are weaker - they work well in many countries, and generally have helped to remove the damaging swings from left to right to left.

 

See, there you go again. All those who oppose FPTP are sensible, whereas those who oppose it are presumably idiots. And because a system has been in place for centuries, it is antiquated, rather than tried and tested and presumably many who retain it do so because they feel it doesn't need changing. Many of those countries with FPTP are former British colonies, so not altogether surprising that they have inherited the system of Parliamentary democracy from us and consider it to be plenty good enough, as we have been a beacon of democracy in World political history.

 

And you have wasted a considerable amount of your time arguing for PR, whereas in case it had escaped your notice, this debate is about the referendum between the existing FPTP, or the alternative AV, rendering any argument for PR irellevant.

 

And furthermore, how is anybody able to forecast how previous elections might have turned out had AV been the system used then? How can anybody predict how the electorate might have voted with their alternative votes? Pure speculative bunk.

[Wes Tender]

Wes,

 

obviously I must have overlooked something. I'm not sure what, but obviously their must be some benefit that FPTP has over AV. Althought, I can't for the life of me think what it might be.

 

FPTP

 

Pros: Strong link between MP and constituency.

 

Cons: No absolute link between the number of votes cast for a party and how many seats it gets in Parliament. Parties can rule on a minority of the country's votes. Massively biased results for minor parties. Not as proportial as PR

 

 

This has more to do with the disparity in the sizes of constituency and also the fact that disproportionate numbers of MPs elected in Scotland and Wales are represented in the English Parliament, although they have their own Parliaments/Assemblies.

 

If you're so keen on democracy and fairness, then you'd acknowledge that these two factors need to be addressed. It is patently unfair that some constituencies need twice as many voters as others to elect an MP, whilst it is an outrage that Scotland and Wales with their own Assemblies have power to vote over English matters, whereas we have no say in theirs.

[Joensuu]

See, there you go again. All those who oppose FPTP are sensible, whereas those who oppose it are presumably idiots.

 

Wes, are you still trying to avoid tackling the issue head on? Come on, stop avoiding the subject. On what possible grounds is FPTP better than AV?

 

Anyhow, I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. I think that if you evaluate the pros and cons for the two systems from a neutral perspective, it is very hard to come to the conclusion that FPTP is the better system. However, if you allow personal party politics to bias your conclusion, then I can fully understand why you might conclude that FPTP helps your chosen party gain more seats than would be a representative share of the votes case, and as such, have a personal reason for chosing FPTP.

 

And because a system has been in place for centuries, it is antiquated, rather than tried and tested and presumably many who retain it do so because they feel it doesn't need changing.

 

I feel antiquated is a correct word to use. This is not just because it is old, but moreso because it is loosing popularity. In recent decades, how many countries have switched to FPTP? How many countries have switched away from FPTP? I'm sure you will agree, that this is an indication that the system is old-fashioned, or antiquated , and not merely 'old'.

 

Having looked at the list of countries who still retain FPRP, I'm sure that many retain it simply because they haven't got around to fixing it: probably because the parties who are currently elected by their FPTP systems benefit from having the results skewed in their favour. Power corrupts.

 

Many of those countries with FPTP are former British colonies, so not altogether surprising that they have inherited the system of Parliamentary democracy from us and consider it to be plenty good enough, as we have been a beacon of democracy in World political history.

 

Agreed. FPTP is a largely British system, which was adopted around our former colonies. Many of these countries still have bigger problems than voting reform to tackle. Many politicians in these countries like the bias that the FPTP system grants their party. Many of the more stable former Bristish colonies have moved away from FPTP, because they have become stable enough to consider what is best for their own democracies and recognised that FPTP is not a fair method of running an election (cf. New Zealand, South Africa etc).

 

I also agree that 'we have been a beacon of democracy in World political history' - with an emphasis on 'have' and 'history'. Unfortunately, these days are long past.

 

And you have wasted a considerable amount of your time arguing for PR, whereas in case it had escaped your notice, this debate is about the referendum between the existing FPTP, or the alternative AV, rendering any argument for PR irellevant.

 

Let's get this straight. I'm arguing for an improved electoral system. If this is AV, great, if this PR, perfect. Currently I'm not discussing PR, I only want to evaluate the relative merits or AV and FPTP.

 

And furthermore, how is anybody able to forecast how previous elections might have turned out had AV been the system used then? How can anybody predict how the electorate might have voted with their alternative votes? Pure speculative bunk.

 

Partially agreed, because with AV voting patterns would be allowed to change - voters won't be handcuffed into deciding between voting for Labour/Tories or chosing to waste their vote on a no-hoper. With AV, the smaller parties won't be a wasted vote - and as such, voters will be able to (for the first time) vote for the real party of their choice, without wasting their vote.

Edited 21 April, 2011 by Joensuu

[Joensuu]

This has more to do with the disparity in the sizes of constituency and also the fact that disproportionate numbers of MPs elected in Scotland and Wales are represented in the English Parliament, although they have their own Parliaments/Assemblies.

 

Not 'more to do with' - but what you say certainly has merit.

 

The biggest problem with FPTP is that the election is decided in c. 50-100 seats. If you live elsewhere your vote IS almost worthless. In the past I've voted in seats that have massive Labour and massive Conservative majorites - irrespective of who you chose to vote for, your vote is wasted in these seats.

 

FPTP massively benefits parties who get more than 30% of the vote, and massively penalises parties who get less. The biggest problem with FPTP is that the number of votes cast has no direct relationship with the number of MPs elected - and that is a crippling flaw.

 

BTW, I agree that equal sized constituencies, and a seperate English parliament would be good measures to help improve our democracy (I say seperate English parliament, but obviously you can't have a UK parliament without full UK representation, as such, either an additional English parliament would need to be established (with the associated additional costs an beuracracy), or full independance would need to be granted to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

If you're so keen on democracy and fairness, then you'd acknowledge that these two factors need to be addressed. It is patently unfair that some constituencies need twice as many voters as others to elect an MP, whilst it is an outrage that Scotland and Wales with their own Assemblies have power to vote over English matters, whereas we have no say in theirs.

 

Agreed, entirely. Lets improve the voting system (as this is what is currently on the table), then press for further reform asap.

[dune]

You're all for changes that give the Tories a helping hand.

 

 

In exactly the same way as Joensuu's stance all boils down to him wanting to give the Liberals a helping hand.

[solentstars]

As reforming the voting system to allow the number of votes cast to more accurately reflect the number of MPs elected is something that will reduce the number of MPs that both of the two 'big' parties get into the Commons, it is unlikely that there will be another opportunity to get a fairer voting system for a long time.

 

This is an example of 'power corrupting' - why would an average MP undermine their own gravy chain, by assisting a fairer electoral system?

 

I don't want to smite the intellect of 'no' campaigners (as it is transparent that the argument for FPTP simply doesn't stack up vs AV), therefore I must conclude that 'no' campaigners do so out of self interest - i.e. I assume that all 'no' campaigners must be putting their own party politics or self interest before improving our democracy.

 

As such, the decision facing voters is simple:

• Vote 'No' if you think that the Tory/Labour party winning is more important than having a (slightly) more representative democracy.
  
• Vote 'Yes' if you think a fairer democracy is more important than party politics.
  

 

good post and someone like me who is independent of sticking with the same party at every election believes av is a small stepping stone to pr and is more interested in the politics being more representative and open, than having our lazy mps keep their fptp so they form government be elected on small percentage of the electorate normaly 34 to 39% of the voteing public.

[scotty]

You're all for changes that give the Tories a helping hand. If you're that confident about the next election it wouldn't bother you either way.

 

I don't think the next election is a foregone conclusion either way. Ed M has yet to convince me that he would be a good leader, the Tories are ****ing people off left, right and centre, and the Lib Dems are being shown up for the unprincipled opportunists they've always been.

 

Ed M is irrelevant to the next election as he wont be Labour leader by that time unless the Labour powers that be have decided they cant win it. And the libdems did the decent thing for the country by forming a coalition government, clearly against their own narrow party interest.

[Lord Duckhunter]

This has more to do with the disparity in the sizes of constituency and also the fact that disproportionate numbers of MPs elected in Scotland and Wales are represented in the English Parliament, although they have their own Parliaments/Assemblies.

 

If you're so keen on democracy and fairness, then you'd acknowledge that these two factors need to be addressed. It is patently unfair that some constituencies need twice as many voters as others to elect an MP, whilst it is an outrage that Scotland and Wales with their own Assemblies have power to vote over English matters, whereas we have no say in theirs.

 

Spot on,

 

MP's from Scotland and Wales can vote on matters that do not effect their constituents. They can vote in Prescription charge increases in England knowing that it does not effect their voters. Had Maggie Thatcher devolved power to England and allowed English MP's to vote on Scottish measures,which did not effect England, the lefties now shouting about "fairness" would be rioting in the streets of Glasgow.Fairness in the UK should surely start with every Country having the same devolution settlement.

[Deppo]

I think a good rule of thumb in politics is: whatever dune is voting for, vote the opposite.

[Wes Tender]

Wes, are you still trying to avoid tackling the issue head on? Come on, stop avoiding the subject. On what possible grounds is FPTP better than AV?

 

I've already given you reasons. It's tried and tested, it's fairer, as the candidate in the constituency with the most votes is elected, it's less complicated, less likely to result in weak hung Parliaments.

 

Anyhow, I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. I think that if you evaluate the pros and cons for the two systems from a neutral perspective, it is very hard to come to the conclusion that FPTP is the better system. However, if you allow personal party politics to bias your conclusion, then I can fully understand why you might conclude that FPTP helps your chosen party gain more seats than would be a representative share of the votes case, and as such, have a personal reason for chosing FPTP.

 

What percentage of the population do you reckon are going to vote in this referendum from a neutral perspective? It is naive to imagine that many will. Anyway, I disagree that even if one is neutral that it is hard to conclude that the existing system that has served us well is not the better one. Many might consider those points I have just made as good enough reasons not to change. From a biased party perspective and from previous political debates, you are clearly a LD, so naturally you are yourself not unbiased, as the Lib Dems would undoubtedly benefit for AV.

 

I feel antiquated is a correct word to use. This is not just because it is old, but moreso because it is loosing popularity. In recent decades, how many countries have switched to FPTP? How many countries have switched away from FPTP? I'm sure you will agree, that this is an indication that the system is old-fashioned, or antiquated , and not merely 'old'.

 

Not at all. The use of that adjective is purely because of your bias, in much the same way that you feel the need to describe the changes to be voted on as being a "fairer" system. Another way of looking at it, is "if it ain't broke, don't mend it." When people consider that proposition, then the "antiquated" tag is not considered so important.

 

Regarding the number of countries switching from one system to another, that is a total red-herring. You might as well add in how many countries have become dictatorships, or sham democracies, or totalitarian states.

 

Having looked at the list of countries who still retain FPRP, I'm sure that many retain it simply because they haven't got around to fixing it: probably because the parties who are currently elected by their FPTP systems benefit from having the results skewed in their favour. Power corrupts.

 

And absolute power corrupts absolutely. They haven't got around to fixing it? Or they are perfectly happy with it as it stands because they see it as the best system for democracy? Or as you imply, are they just plain thick for not realising that there are far fairer and better systems around? Or are they just lazy or corrupt?

 

Agreed. FPTP is a largely British system, which was adopted around our former colonies. Many of these countries still have bigger problems than voting reform to tackle. Many politicians in these countries like the bias that the FPTP system grants their party. Many of the more stable former Bristish colonies have moved away from FPTP, because they have become stable enough to consider what is best for their own democracies and recognised that FPTP is not a fair method of running an election (cf. New Zealand, South Africa etc).

 

I also agree that 'we have been a beacon of democracy in World political history' - with an emphasis on 'have' and 'history'. Unfortunately, these days are long past.

 

And people ignore the lessons of history at their peril.

 

Let's get this straight. I'm arguing for an improved electoral system. If this is AV, great, if this PR, perfect. Currently I'm not discussing PR, I only want to evaluate the relative merits or AV and FPTP.

 

And so am I arguing for an improved electoral system; that is the current system, but with the shortcomings of unequal constituency sizes and the West Lothian question being addressed.

 

Partially agreed, because with AV voting patterns would be allowed to change - voters won't be handcuffed into deciding between voting for Labour/Tories or chosing to waste their vote on a no-hoper. With AV, the smaller parties won't be a wasted vote - and as such, voters will be able to (for the first time) vote for the real party of their choice, without wasting their vote.

 

But their vote will be wasted if their candidate is elimiated for having the fewest votes. Under those circumstances, presumably they will have their votes counted towards their second or third choice. Of course, it could be argued that votes are not wasted now, as often there is tactical voting. The Electoral Reform Society says that tactical voting will be eliminated, but what is a second or third choice on the ballot paper other than a tactical vote if their first choice candidate has no chance of winning?

[Wes Tender]

Spot on,

 

MP's from Scotland and Wales can vote on matters that do not effect their constituents. They can vote in Prescription charge increases in England knowing that it does not effect their voters. Had Maggie Thatcher devolved power to England and allowed English MP's to vote on Scottish measures,which did not effect England, the lefties now shouting about "fairness" would be rioting in the streets of Glasgow.Fairness in the UK should surely start with every Country having the same devolution settlement.

 

Of course, there was a very simple solution to defuse the impetus towards granting the Lib Dems a referendum on voting reform as the price they exacted for their support of the coalition. All Cameron had to do, is to demand in return that simultaneously, the English electorate should to be allowed to vote on the West Lothian question. If the two reform proposals were irrevocably linked, I can't see it gaining the majority support in Parliament to go ahead, as all those Labour MPs and Lib Dems in Wales and Scotland would vote against it. As Joensuu says, people will vote in accordance with their vested interests and they are hardly likely to vote themselves off the Westminster gravy train. Power corrupts, eh?

[Deppo]

These "the liberals" sound awful. If I see one I'm going to give them a piece of my mind. How did they get so much power in this country? It seems that they are to blame for everything. Still, it shows how weak the current government are if they are still ruining it for all us decent folk.

[Wade Garrett]

Ed M is irrelevant to the next election as he wont be Labour leader by that time unless the Labour powers that be have decided they cant win it. And the libdems did the decent thing for the country by forming a coalition government, clearly against their own narrow party interest.

 

And clearly against their 'principles' judging by the decisions they have made on Government.

[Wade Garrett]

I think a good rule of thumb in politics is: whatever dune is voting for, vote the opposite.

 

You may have just persuaded me to vote yes to AV!

[Lord Duckhunter]

Of course, there was a very simple solution to defuse the impetus towards granting the Lib Dems a referendum on voting reform as the price they exacted for their support of the coalition. All Cameron had to do, is to demand in return that simultaneously, the English electorate should to be allowed to vote on the West Lothian question. If the two reform proposals were irrevocably linked, I can't see it gaining the majority support in Parliament to go ahead, as all those Labour MPs and Lib Dems in Wales and Scotland would vote against it. As Joensuu says, people will vote in accordance with their vested interests and they are hardly likely to vote themselves off the Westminster gravy train. Power corrupts, eh?

 

The West Lothian question is dead and burried, Labour just ploughed ahead regardless of the unfairness. They had to protect their seats from the SNP and New Labour had to have the continued support of Old Labour in Scotland to get elected.They made the correct judgement that the English were just not political enough to bother with protests and complaints. The Unions and lefties who tend to be vocal over political issues stayed silent because the devolution stich up favoured Labour. Had Thatcher devolved power to England and not Scotland, they would have soon started marching and getting on the BBC. The BBC would have a field day with special reports about how people in Scotland and Wales paid for their medicine and the English didn't, how the poor Jock students had to pay a premium for their education but the English didn't. Like happy ****ing idiots us English just sit there and take it. If the Scots and Wales want to govern themselves, let them. They can raise taxes and spend them how they want, let's have a federal constitutional monarchy. Because at the moment we have a half way house which benefits the smaller nations far more than us English.

[Saintandy666]

The West Lothian question is dead and burried, Labour just ploughed ahead regardless of the unfairness. They had to protect their seats from the SNP and New Labour had to have the continued support of Old Labour in Scotland to get elected.They made the correct judgement that the English were just not political enough to bother with protests and complaints. The Unions and lefties who tend to be vocal over political issues stayed silent because the devolution stich up favoured Labour. Had Thatcher devolved power to England and not Scotland, they would have soon started marching and getting on the BBC. The BBC would have a field day with special reports about how people in Scotland and Wales paid for their medicine and the English didn't, how the poor Jock students had to pay a premium for their education but the English didn't. Like happy ****ing idiots us English just sit there and take it. If the Scots and Wales want to govern themselves, let them. They can raise taxes and spend them how they want, let's have a federal constitutional monarchy. Because at the moment we have a half way house which benefits the smaller nations far more than us English.

 

I don't think that's fair to say. England is a conservative/right wing country. Scotland and Wales are Labour/left wing country. Left wing governments have different priorities.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I don't think that's fair to say. England is a conservative/right wing country. Scotland and Wales are Labour/left wing country. Left wing governments have different priorities.

 

Sorry, I'm not with you. Are you saying that England should not have devolved powers because it has a right leaning majority?

[Joensuu]

 

In exactly the same way as Joensuu's stance all boils down to him wanting to give the Liberals a helping hand.

 

Nope - I won't be voting Clegg that's for sure. I honestly don't see anyone worth voting for who is standing in my constituency, which really is a sorry state of affairs, considering I actively want to vote, have strong opinions, but have no sensible options.

 

I'm a liberal, but not a Liberal Democrat, and am only debating this, because I honestly belive AV will help to improve the quality of our democracy.

[View From The Top]

The West Lothian question is dead and burried, Labour just ploughed ahead regardless of the unfairness. They had to protect their seats from the SNP and New Labour had to have the continued support of Old Labour in Scotland to get elected.They made the correct judgement that the English were just not political enough to bother with protests and complaints. The Unions and lefties who tend to be vocal over political issues stayed silent because the devolution stich up favoured Labour. Had Thatcher devolved power to England and not Scotland, they would have soon started marching and getting on the BBC. The BBC would have a field day with special reports about how people in Scotland and Wales paid for their medicine and the English didn't, how the poor Jock students had to pay a premium for their education but the English didn't. Like happy ****ing idiots us English just sit there and take it. If the Scots and Wales want to govern themselves, let them. They can raise taxes and spend them how they want, let's have a federal constitutional monarchy. Because at the moment we have a half way house which benefits the smaller nations far more than us English.

 

Are you saying us English lefties haven't dripped like a wet weekend about The West Lothian question?

 

If you are you are way off the mark. Like folk of all political colours we consider it a gross injustice.

[Joensuu]

I've already given you reasons. It's tried and tested, it's fairer, as the candidate in the constituency with the most votes is elected, it's less complicated, less likely to result in weak hung Parliaments.

Yes, it's tried and tested - we know that it causses 40% of the population to be disenfranchised, we know that it causes over-representation of the larger parties, and under-representation of the smaller parties, we know that it stifles diversity, we know that causes endless damaging swings from left to right, causing untold damage to our economy, we know that it is fundamentally not very democratic. It is most definately not 'fairer' under any stretch of your imagination.

 

Candidates under FPTP are frequently elected with only a minority of the local population supporting them. There are many consituencies where the incumbrent MP is actively disliked by the majority of the voters - but still FPTP allows the largest group to steamroller over the views of the others.

 

It is less complicated - agreed. Marginally so, and much to the detriment of the overall system.

 

It is also fractionally less likely to produce hung parliaments - although while hard to model, it is unlikely that any past results would have been altered. (Also I challenge the fundamental assumption you make that 'hung parliaments' are in any way weaker - in fact they are often far less erratic and extreme, and have countless examples of success in many countries).

 

What percentage of the population do you reckon are going to vote in this referendum from a neutral perspective? It is naive to imagine that many will.

 

 

I anticipate a very low turnout, especially in London. I'm not being naive here.

 

Anyway, I disagree that even if one is neutral that it is hard to conclude that the existing system that has served us well is not the better one. Many might consider those points I have just made as good enough reasons not to change. From a biased party perspective and from previous political debates, you are clearly a LD, so naturally you are yourself not unbiased, as the Lib Dems would undoubtedly benefit for AV.

 

I disagree with the you. I can't see how it can be possible for any neutral assessment of the merits of FPTP vs AV could find the former to be preferable. It simply isn't. AV isn't perfect, but it does elect a closer proportion of MPs to the number of votes cast. How can any distortion of the actual number of votes that have been cast be fair?

 

Not at all. The use of that adjective is purely because of your bias, in much the same way that you feel the need to describe the changes to be voted on as being a "fairer" system.

Wes, FPTP is an outdated system. Counties are moving away from it because it is fundamentally flawed. It is a long way from the democratic ideal of one-person, one-vote, FPTP is 'one-person, one-vote, but votes count for different things depending upon where you live, and a vote for anyone who isn't popular is a wasted vote - how dare you be different'. IMO 'Antiquainted' is perfectly acceptable term to use in this context.

 

AV is most definately fairer (and PR fairer still). I'm not really sure why you can see that.

 

Another way of looking at it, is "if it ain't broke, don't mend it." When people consider that proposition, then the "antiquated" tag is not considered so important.

 

 

But it is 'broke' - FPTP does not elect MPs in proportion to the number of votes that are cast - how, if we are all equal, can that possibly be considered to be fair?

 

Regarding the number of countries switching from one system to another, that is a total red-herring. You might as well add in how many countries have become dictatorships, or sham democracies, or totalitarian states.

Yes, I intoduced this red-herring to counter the 'No' campaigns even bigger red herring of 'which countries currently have AV' (which of course is an attempt to belittle the 'Yes' campaign, without having the address the fundamental flaws of FPTP - dirty politics IMO.

 

And absolute power corrupts absolutely. They haven't got around to fixing it? Or they are perfectly happy with it as it stands because they see it as the best system for democracy? Or as you imply, are they just plain thick for not realising that there are far fairer and better systems around? Or are they just lazy or corrupt?

 

Of course! All those potty tin-pot western democracys must have it wrong, while the fully trouble-free collection African countries who still have FPTP and have spent years assessing its merits must have it right.

 

I have to assume that countries who still have FPTP, only do so because it favours the parties who hold the power in those countries. Certainly, nobody (now) would chose it as a model to base a democrasy on.

 

And people ignore the lessons of history at their peril.

Yup. History shows winners and losers. Adopting FPTP now would be like adopting Communism - both are flawed relics. Lets not ignore the history.

 

 

And so am I arguing for an improved electoral system; that is the current system, but with the shortcomings of unequal constituency sizes and the West Lothian question being addressed.

 

Agreed. This also needs to be addressed. Addresssing this without a fairer voting system would however be disasterous for England, as the Tories would get at least a decade to do what they want without any opposition. We need to first make all votes equal, and count proportionally before we can consider West Lothian.

 

How can it be right that a vote in say New Forest East is worth a fraction of a vote in Eastleigh?

 

But their vote will be wasted if their candidate is elimiated for having the fewest votes. Under those circumstances, presumably they will have their votes counted towards their second or third choice. Of course, it could be argued that votes are not wasted now, as often there is tactical voting. The Electoral Reform Society says that tactical voting will be eliminated, but what is a second or third choice on the ballot paper other than a tactical vote if their first choice candidate has no chance of winning?

 

Yes, in the first election, this is probably how AV will work. But five years later, and you will see more people voting for the parties that they feel best represented by. Gone will be the feeling that you are wasting your vote if you don't cast it for red or blue - suddenly you can vote for the party that best represents you, without fear of chucking your ballot away. As such, far more votes will be cast for minority parties (left, right and centre) as such within a decade or so the range of parties who stand a chance of winning will diversify, the range of options provided to th electorate will increase, and all sees will end up electing a representative that the majority finds palatable. This is a marked improvement over the current.

 

How can it possibly be fair to have a system that elects MP's who have as little as 29.36% of the vote (c.f. Norwich South)? Who knows whether the other 70% of the constituency find this an acceptable or totally unpalatable choice?

[Joensuu]

Just to demonstrate my neutrality here.

 

FPTP gave Scottish Tories 1.69% of the seats - despite them receiving 16.7% of the vote. How in any possible way can that be a fair system?

 

Who knows whether AV would have increased the number of seats won by Scottish Tories - the chances are it would have, but not by too many seats (I'd guess c. 2-4 seats - certainly fairer, but not ideal).

 

(Whereas full PR would have given the Scottish Tories the 9 or 10 seats their percentage of the vote warrents).

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just to demonstrate my neutrality here.

 

FPTP gave Scottish Tories 1.69% of the seats - despite them receiving 16.7% of the vote. How in any possible way can that be a fair system?

 

Who knows whether AV would have increased the number of seats won by Scottish Tories - the chances are it would have, but not by too many seats (I'd guess c. 2-4 seats - certainly fairer, but not ideal).

 

(Whereas full PR would have given the Scottish Tories the 9 or 10 seats their percentage of the vote warrents).

 

 

That is the whole crux of the issue as far as I'm concerned. It is not proportional and in some cases is less so than FPTP (according to Roy Jenkins). Despite what the yes people say, you can win under AV with less than 50% of the vote. All in all it is a "miserable little compromise" that can be, but sometimes isn't , more proportional than FPTP.

 

If you want the Tories 16.7% of the Scottish vote to be represented in seats, then I assume you think that the BNP should have twice as many seats as the Greens, seeing they polled twice as many votes.

 

To my mind there are two arguements. One, all votes count and the % of MP's reflect those votes, or Two you have the winner of each single constituency sent to Westminster.If you are going to send representives from each part of the Country, then it should be the person who wins the most votes. How on earth can you have a situation where a person comes third,in everyones first preference, but wins the seat. It's not the Xfactor or Britains got Talent.

[trousers]

Keep it up humans. You're funny.

[Verbal]

This has more to do with the disparity in the sizes of constituency and also the fact that disproportionate numbers of MPs elected in Scotland and Wales are represented in the English Parliament, although they have their own Parliaments/Assemblies.

 

If you're so keen on democracy and fairness, then you'd acknowledge that these two factors need to be addressed. It is patently unfair that some constituencies need twice as many voters as others to elect an MP, whilst it is an outrage that Scotland and Wales with their own Assemblies have power to vote over English matters, whereas we have no say in theirs.

 

Your first paragraph is wrong. The biggest single reason that MPs of a particular party are elected disproportionately to the popular vote nationally is that political allegience is unevenly distributed. Changing 'disparities' by altering constituency boundaries would make little difference to this.

 

The so-called 'Lothian Question' is quite separate from this, and I don't know why you bring it up. Those for and against AV would mostly agree it's a bad thing - but it's simply not relevant to FPTP vs AV.

 

Ultimately, the reason to support AV is to improve upon a botched, iniquitous system that does little more than pay lip service to representative democracy. It's as important for democracy to ditch FPTP as it was to dispose of the equally 'tried and tested' rotten boroughs of the nineteenth century. When I hear people - including sensible ones like BTF - falling back on the 'it produces strong governments' argument I despair. The veneer of democracy can seem very thin at times, and a disturbing authoritarianism is often lurking beneath.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

The so-called 'Lothian Question' is quite separate from this, and I don't know why you bring it up. Those for and against AV would mostly agree it's a bad thing - but it's simply not relevant to FPTP vs AV.

 

 

Surely it's relevant to any discussion around "fairness".The yes to AV political supporters seem really keen on "fairness", yet most of them backed devoloution. There approach seems to be "fairness on my terms".

[View From The Top]

Surely it's relevant to any discussion around "fairness".The yes to AV political supporters seem really keen on "fairness", yet most of them backed devoloution. There approach seems to be "fairness on my terms".

 

That doesn't make sense at all.

[pap]

I just don't understand the no campaign. Few of the arguments hold any water. "Strong governments" essentially equate to an idealogical cabal whipping their members into voting for whatever hair-brained schemes they daydreamed up in opposition.

 

Does everyone in Britain fall into the Conservative or Labour Government viewpoints? They're the only two parties that'll get to form a Government.

 

The scare tactics shat out by the No Campaign about BNP votes being counted again and again are ridiculous. If you're on board with the idea of a run-off election, where voters go into the polling stations to vote again if no candidate reaches a majority, then you're on-board with AV. AV is essentially a turbo run off election. The only difference is that we voters don't have to repeatedly trudge down to the local primary school to cast our votes until there is a winner.

 

AV is not going to deliver true representation, and to be honest, it probably won't change much in terms of the Governments that get formed. Only PR can deliver that. If we say no to AV we are unlikely to another chance to change our voting system in our lifetime. It's 36 years since the last UK-wide referendum.

 

Personally, I want to see full PR. Everyone should have a voice, irrespective of whether you agree with their opinion. MPs having to work with each other for the good of the country, rather than engaging in internecine squabbles, might actually be a good thing. Certainly hasn't done Germany any harm.

[View From The Top]

AV is not going to deliver true representation

 

And therein lays the problem.

 

It's neither fish nor fowl.

[pap]

And therein lays the problem.

 

It's neither fish nor fowl.

 

It's a start, and it'll at least guarantee that candidates have a mandate from their constituents.

[Lord Duckhunter]

That doesn't make sense at all.

 

Recently I have heard Peter Hain, Neil Kinnock and Paddy Ashdown all complain about the "unfairness" of FPTP. They claim it is important that there is "fairness" in our electrol system. All 3 backed devolution, what happened to the "fairness" that is so important to them, when they voted for this unfair change?

 

They seem to judge "fairness" on the basis of political gain.

[Joensuu]

And therein lays the problem.

 

It's neither fish nor fowl.

 

VFTT - if the no campaign wins the AV vote, the chances of us getting PR in the short or medium term are greatly reduced. It's a step in the right direction, while not what we want, its an improvement over the current mess, and the only sensible way I can see us getting a genuinely representative PR-based system in my lifetime.

[Joensuu]

Recently I have heard Peter Hain, Neil Kinnock and Paddy Ashdown all complain about the "unfairness" of FPTP. They claim it is important that there is "fairness" in our electrol system. All 3 backed devolution, what happened to the "fairness" that is so important to them, when they voted for this unfair change?

 

They seem to judge "fairness" on the basis of political gain.

 

Nice tangent LD. Stick to the merits of FPTP vs AV please, and try not to sidetrack - I know it's not easy to make a case for FPTP without soundbytes and misdirection...

 

(NB, nothing unfair about devolution, I'd have granted full indepedence myself, but devolution is a step in the right direction).

[dune]

The bookies think a NO vote is nailed on.

 

5/1 ON - NO

100/30 - YES

 

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/british-politics/result-of-av-referendum

[View From The Top]

Recently I have heard Peter Hain, Neil Kinnock and Paddy Ashdown all complain about the "unfairness" of FPTP. They claim it is important that there is "fairness" in our electrol system. All 3 backed devolution, what happened to the "fairness" that is so important to them, when they voted for this unfair change?

 

They seem to judge "fairness" on the basis of political gain.

 

I see no logic at all in your connection of devolution and AV.

 

Your perception that is unfair is merely an opinon.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It's a start, and it'll at least guarantee that candidates have a mandate from their constituents.

 

Not true, you can win a seat without 50% of the vote.It is not "guaranteed".

 

According to experts a 4 out of 10 MP's will be elected with less than 50% of the vote.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/10/25/av-no-multi-party-preferences/

[View From The Top]

It's a start, and it'll at least guarantee that candidates have a mandate from their constituents.

 

If we were voting for STV I'd vote yes but a mish mash half way house cop out to keep the minor coalition party happy is not, to me, a step forward.

[Saintandy666]

Sorry, I'm not with you. Are you saying that England should not have devolved powers because it has a right leaning majority?

 

I was more talking about the last part of your post.

 

And yes, I do think there is an argument for an English parliament, but I think England comprises too much of the UK for it to be sustainable with the union in the long term. The whole point of devolution is to stop the tyranny of the majority, but then you can easily come back and say is Scotland being devolved equal to the tyranny of the minority; short answer is no, because none of their laws affect us in England.

 

I think a real solution would be probably devolved institutions on a regional basis, so north east, south east etc etc

[dune]

(NB, nothing unfair about devolution, I'd have granted full indepedence myself, but devolution is a step in the right direction).

 

We, the English, are subsidising these devolved parts of the UK. I think it's a disgrace how the Welsh and the Scots get free prescriptions and in the case of Scotland free university places whilst us English get nothing. The way it's going it's about time us English had a referendum to decide whether we wanted the Welsh and the Scots to remain part of the UK or to throw them out and let them fend for themselves.

[Joensuu]

We, the English, are subsidising these devolved parts of the UK. I think it's a disgrace how the Welsh and the Scots get free prescriptions and in the case of Scotland free university places whilst us English get nothing. The way it's going it's about time us English had a referendum to decide whether we wanted the Welsh and the Scots to remain part of the UK or to throw them out and let them fend for themselves.

 

Quite right - so do you give them full independence from Whitehall, or do you add another layer of beuracracy and associated costs and form an English parliament (in addition the having a UK parliament?).

[Deppo]

I was more talking about the last part of your post.

 

And yes, I do think there is an argument for an English parliament, but I think England comprises too much of the UK for it to be sustainable with the union in the long term. The whole point of devolution is to stop the tyranny of the majority, but then you can easily come back and say is Scotland being devolved equal to the tyranny of the minority; short answer is no, because none of their laws affect us in England.

 

I think a real solution would be probably devolved institutions on a regional basis, so north east, south east etc etc

 

Yes! Like a big society or something.

[Joensuu]

Not true, you can win a seat without 50% of the vote.It is not "guaranteed".

 

According to experts a 4 out of 10 MP's will be elected with less than 50% of the vote.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/10/25/av-no-multi-party-preferences/

 

"You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public." - Scott Adams

[Lord Duckhunter]

We, the English, are subsidising these devolved parts of the UK. I think it's a disgrace how the Welsh and the Scots get free prescriptions and in the case of Scotland free university places whilst us English get nothing. The way it's going it's about time us English had a referendum to decide whether we wanted the Welsh and the Scots to remain part of the UK or to throw them out and let them fend for themselves.

 

I partly agree, but the free prescriptions and uni places come at a cost elsewhere ( I did read somewhere that Welsh school children have less spent on them than the average, because the Welsh Govt have allocated some of that money to pay for the free prescriptions). The decisions are down to the Welsh and Scots, and that's fair enough, they can vote the Govts out. My issue around the fairness is that Labour MP's in Scotland can vote for an increase in charges for England,and their voters are not affected by that decision. Peter Hain siad on QT that because the Welsh had a Labour Govt they got free prescriptions, and it was a great thing. When Alex Salmond asked him why he therefore voted for them in England, he squirmed and couldn't answer.That is the unfairness of the whole thing in a nutshell. Peter Hain votes for charges in England, but his voters wont be paying them.

[Joensuu]

I partly agree, but the free prescriptions and uni places come at a cost elsewhere ( I did read somewhere that Welsh school children have less spent on them than the average, because the Welsh Govt have allocated some of that money to pay for the free prescriptions). The decisions are down to the Welsh and Scots, and that's fair enough, they can vote the Govts out. My issue around the fairness is that Labour MP's in Scotland can vote for an increase in charges for England,and their voters are not affected by that decision. Peter Hain siad on QT that because the Welsh had a Labour Govt they got free prescriptions, and it was a great thing. When Alex Salmond asked him why he therefore voted for them in England, he squirmed and couldn't answer.That is the unfairness of the whole thing in a nutshell. Peter Hain votes for charges in England, but his voters wont be paying them.

 

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?

[Saintandy666]

We, the English, are subsidising these devolved parts of the UK. I think it's a disgrace how the Welsh and the Scots get free prescriptions and in the case of Scotland free university places whilst us English get nothing. The way it's going it's about time us English had a referendum to decide whether we wanted the Welsh and the Scots to remain part of the UK or to throw them out and let them fend for themselves.

 

It's not a disgrace. It's unfair, yes. But left-wing governments have different priorities and the governments in Wales and Scotland at the moment are left-wing.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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?

 

You cant put the Genie back in the bottle. Labour were warned that the West Lothian question wouldn't go away, but they carried on regardless. The solution in my opinion would be a Federal system (a republic would be my option, but that wont happen so one like the Aussies have would have to suffice). The issue will go away for a few years because we have the major English party leading the Country. The issue will reopen again once Scottish and Welsh MP's are propping up a Westminster Govt, and pushing laws through that apply to England and not their voters.I stand to be corrected, but I do believe that tuition fees were passed under the last Govt as a direct result of Scottish and Welsh MP's voting for them, despite it being an English only issue. Had Brown got back in, the issue may well have come to a head, but it will die down now.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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.

[pap]

Not true, you can win a seat without 50% of the vote.It is not "guaranteed".

 

According to experts a 4 out of 10 MP's will be elected with less than 50% of the vote.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/10/25/av-no-multi-party-preferences/

 

Fair point, but it's still a mandate. It's how we elect our MPs now, so we're no worse off.

 

People will have to engage in AV for it to work.

[Joensuu]

Lord D, have to say that I agree entirely with that.