[Archived] Alternative Vote

[roverwhelmed]

The Tories are largely against AV and the Daily Mail is against it so there are two good reasons why my vote will be a resounding Yes.

Seriously, there have been plenty of debates in the press and TV for people to form their own opinions and make a judgment.

Some of hysteria and lies from the No campaign led by Cameron have been disgraceful. Sadly those lies seem to have influenced the public according to voting intentions in the latest polls.

This rhetoric really, really annoys me. I have a few pals who are anti-Cameron/Tories and they are purely voting yes to AV because it is the opposite of what he would want - which is, in my mind, ridiculous.

[tony gale's mic]

This rhetoric really, really annoys me. I have a few pals who are anti-Cameron/Tories and they are purely voting yes to AV because it is the opposite of what he would want - which is, in my mind, ridiculous.

It's not really ridiculous at all.

The reason why the Tories are so anti-AV is because it would be a massive blow to the chances of them getting elected again. This is because this country is fundamentally centre left-wing at heart if we take into account the majority. You only need to look at the way that public services like the NHS are so staunchly defended by all parties, the massive failure of far right parties here compared to other places even in Europe, the widely supported public demonstrations against the cuts. Over 50% of the population voted for parties which were AGAINST such massive cuts in their manifesto (Labour and pre-coalition Lib Dems), yet the massive cuts are what we're getting.

Under AV the Tories would be disadvantaged in a major way, as there's a lot more crossover between Labour supporters who'd vote Lib Dems as a second choice and vice versa than there is with either parties and the Tories. The Tories would get a fairly sizeable first choice vote but would suffer greatly on the second choice vote. Even at the last election, with the wave of anti-Labour feeling the Tories still couldnt get the majority. Labour and the Lib Dems are splitting the left wing vote in this country currently (although some Lib Dem voters are more centrist) whereas the Tories get most of the votes of the section of society they represent (since UKIP etc are so small).

Under AV this would be accounted for at least in part a lot more and so would be very bad for the Tories. So it's not ridiculous for someone to be opposed to something which would give the party they dislike the most the least chance of getting into power.

[roverwhelmed]

It's not really ridiculous at all.

The reason why the Tories are so anti-AV is because it would be a massive blow to the chances of them getting elected again. This is because this country is fundamentally centre left-wing at heart if we take into account the majority. You only need to look at the way that public services like the NHS are so staunchly defended by all parties, the massive failure of far right parties here compared to other places even in Europe, the widely supported public demonstrations against the cuts. Over 50% of the population voted for parties which were AGAINST such massive cuts in their manifesto (Labour and pre-coalition Lib Dems), yet the massive cuts are what we're getting.

Under AV the Tories would be disadvantaged in a major way, as there's a lot more crossover between Labour supporters who'd vote Lib Dems as a second choice and vice versa than there is with either parties and the Tories. The Tories would get a fairly sizeable first choice vote but would suffer greatly on the second choice vote. Even at the last election, with the wave of anti-Labour feeling the Tories still couldnt get the majority. Labour and the Lib Dems are splitting the left wing vote in this country currently (although some Lib Dem voters are more centrist) whereas the Tories get most of the votes of the section of society they represent (since UKIP etc are so small).

Under AV this would be accounted for at least in part a lot more and so would be very bad for the Tories. So it's not ridiculous for someone to be opposed to something which would give the party they dislike the most the least chance of getting into power.

I don't think strategically voting for AV to keep the tories out is ridiculous, if a person wants to use their vote in that way - that is up to them.

I do think it is ridiculous when people don't consider the implications of AV, don't look at the literature/arguments, don't understand why it would even keep the tories out and solely base it on 'Cameron wants to say no, so I'm going to say yes' - and those are the people I am referring to in my 'it is ridiculous' comment. These are views of some people I have come across, and even some of my friends. I guess it is a symptom of the political apathy.

For the record, I'm not referring to Jim Mk2 in that category, although it may have seemed so from my quote.

[tony gale's mic]

I don't think strategically voting for AV to keep the tories out is ridiculous, if a person wants to use their vote in that way - that is up to them.

I do think it is ridiculous when people don't consider the implications of AV, don't look at the literature/arguments, don't understand why it would even keep the tories out and solely base it on 'Cameron wants to say no, so I'm going to say yes' - and those are the people I am referring to in my 'it is ridiculous' comment. These are views of some people I have come across, and even some of my friends. I guess it is a symptom of the political apathy.

For the record, I'm not referring to Jim Mk2 in that category, although it may have seemed so from my quote.

I would have thought though people would realise why Cameron would want to say no to AV would be because of the political implications for his party. They wouldn't need to read any literature etc to realise that. Mind you, that's also the main driving force behind Labour and Lib Dem's support of it too.

Still, I do think people should be more informed about what theyre voting for in general, but sadly we live in a country where people would rather spend half an hour watching X Factor before casting a vote rather than spending half an hour reading about policies before casting a vote.

[Mattyblue]

This country is not fundamentaly left wing at all.

A lot of the Labour vote is now just entrenched, ask Labour voters across the country on their views on the EU, immigration, taxation etc and for millions of them it isn't 'left wing' in the slightest.

However, on public services benig free at the point of use- very much so. We are not American in our anti govenrment fevour but as Europeans we most certainly are.

[Alan75]

Do we get an alternate vote in the alternate vote refurendum.

[tony gale's mic]

This country is not fundamentaly left wing at all.

A lot of the Labour vote is now just entrenched, ask Labour voters across the country on their views on the EU, immigration, taxation etc and for millions of them it isn't 'left wing' in the slightest.

However, on public services benig free at the point of use- very much so. We are not American in our anti govenrment fevour but as Europeans we most certainly are.

And you'll find plenty of people who voted Tory in the last election are in favour of taxing the rich more, supporting public services, having tougher restrictions on the City etc etc. Voters won't always agree with everything a party agrees with, but they'll agree with a broad set of principles. Pre-coalition Lib Dems were in many respects at least as left wing as Labour if not more in their manifesto.

You have two types of voters broadly speaking, although it does operate on a scale. There's floating voters, and the "entrenched" voters as you call them.

Last election the Tories picked up a great deal of these floating voters, the Lib Dems got a few but the fact their popular vote was only 1% more than usual shows they didn't get that many.

However even then Labour and Lib Dems combined polled 52%, and that's in a year when Labour did particularly badly and lost most of their floating voters.

There's no one splitting the right wing vote in this country, apart from a relatively negligible amount voting UKIP. BNP and Tory voters don't really have much crossover.

[thenodrog]

And you'll find plenty of people who voted Tory in the last election are in favour of taxing the rich more, supporting public services, having tougher restrictions on the City etc etc. Voters won't always agree with everything a party agrees with, but they'll agree with a broad set of principles. Pre-coalition Lib Dems were in many respects at least as left wing as Labour if not more in their manifesto.

You have two types of voters broadly speaking, although it does operate on a scale. There's floating voters, and the "entrenched" voters as you call them.

Last election the Tories picked up a great deal of these floating voters, the Lib Dems got a few but the fact their popular vote was only 1% more than usual shows they didn't get that many.

However even then Labour and Lib Dems combined polled 52%, and that's in a year when Labour did particularly badly and lost most of their floating voters.

There's no one splitting the right wing vote in this country, apart from a relatively negligible amount voting UKIP. BNP and Tory voters don't really have much crossover.

imo most of the people who vote BNP in and around these parts are disenfranchised Labour voters who feel that Labour has let them down. Viewing Blackburn now and 40 years ago it's easy to see why.

btw TGM

1. How do you define "rich"?

2. 'Public services' is a broad brush stroke. If a job/service gets done satisfactorily does it matter whether it's been done by the public or private sector as long as the best value for taxpayers money is achieved?

3. The City is a problem. It's a huge earner for the nation. We need it and it could be re-located overseas if we decide to penalise them for the error of their ways. Hammering them too much could easily prove to be a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[steve42]

I don't really have a view on AV one way or the other. I don't think in itself it would have much affect and certainly the boundary changes that will come into effect before the next general election will have a much greater impact on a result.

What bothers me more is whether the system we have of voting for a government is fit for the purpose of what it purports to do. Sorry if this is slightly off topic. On the face of it we get a vote every 4 or 5 years to elect someone to be the local MP. By and large however we are voting for a party. OK a candidate who is locally respected might get a few votes more but I very much doubt if this amounts to more than the odd hundred with even the most respected candidate. Also in recent years the perceived view of the party leaders seems to be of importance in the way people vote. I'm sure in 1995 when Labour came to power there was a positive "Blair Effect" on the labour vote as he was seen as a dynamic leader at the time, whilst the "Brown effect" had the opposite outcome in 2010.

So what we do in a general election, whilst supposedly electing an MP, is really to elect someone into an electoral college which will decide who the next Prime Minister will be. Usually this has been done by acclamation as there has been an absolute majority but this time after some back room wheeling and dealing a result has been stitched together. After the PM gets the nod he or she gets to appoint the actual government ministers and so on - usually but not always from his or hers party's MPs. I think that around about 80 or so of the ruling party (or coalition) get jobs in the government to do particular things but that leaves 500 odd with not a lot to do. OK I'm sure that most get involved with select committees and so on but really they are just lobby fodder for voting yea or nay.

What we seem to have evolved is a presidential style system where really who we vote for at a general election is determined by the party and the personality of the party leader - which seems to me to devalue the role of who we are allegedly voting for - the local MP.

It does seem to me that we should recognise that and split the two roles. Firstly a vote for the "president" - on party and personal appeal - who would form the government - home secretary, chancellor, etc - where he or she gets them from doesn't matter. Personally I think an AV type vote would be appropriate here. And then another vote for one's MP - it doesn't have to be at the same time. I'd like the opportunity to vote for a "president" to allow me and the rest of the electorate to have a say in the general direction I'd like the country to go - but also to vote for an MP as a separate issue. If I lived in say, somewhere with engineering, or farming, or tourist interests I might be inclined to vote for someone with a good track record in that field as much as their party backing. I'm sure this would actually get a much batter class of MP!

Well - sorry this isn't what the AV/FPTP vote is about - but I though I'd say it anyway.

[Steve Moss]

^ I think you are very sensible.

[steve42]

^ I think you are very sensible.

thank you - will do my analysis on energy efficint light bulbs next!¬

[Glenn]

I'll be voting No.

First past the post always delivers a strong government with little chance of weak coalitions. I really think it should be kept that way as, whether you're a Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem voter, it feels like there is no government right now, just some sort of bizarre and disharmonious administration effort. Surely it's in nobody's interests to have that happen more often.

AV doesn't lead to hung parliaments, the shift away from two party politics does that regardless of the voting system (we are indeed under a coalition government even with FPTP).

There is a great blog post explaining why (with fairly decent mathematical analysis) at http://thoughtundermined.com/?p=1354

Talking of maths, a maths blog looks at previous UK voting stats to explain why FPTP is nuts) https://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Oh and on a much more whimsical note, it could be worse (contains a naughty word or two) - http://www.b3tards.com/u/c62383b2fb0dc7237700/voting.jpg

[thenodrog]

AV doesn't lead to hung parliaments, the shift away from two party politics does that regardless of the voting system (we are indeed under a coalition government even with FPTP).

There is a great blog post explaining why (with fairly decent mathematical analysis) at http://thoughtundermined.com/?p=1354

Talking of maths, a maths blog looks at previous UK voting stats to explain why FPTP is nuts) https://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Oh and on a much more whimsical note, it could be worse (contains a naughty word or two) - http://www.b3tards.com/u/c62383b2fb0dc7237700/voting.jpg

I wonder how many will bother to visit those sites to actually find out stuff Glenn?... And how many can't be arsed.

[colin]

I wonder how many will bother to visit those sites to actually find out stuff Glenn?... And how many can't be arsed.

What makes you think that?

[only2garners]

At the moment I shall either vote "No" or abstain. Why? It is simple really, a proposal is being put to the country by someone - I'm really not at all sure who - to change our long established and relatively successful electoral system.

Firstly the current system is a lot newer than people think - the first general election under a straight FPTP with single member constituencies was in 1950 - before that there were a number of multi-member constituencies. Secondly how the current system which is almost guaranteed to bring about a result that a significant majority of the population didn't want can be regarded as relatively successful is beyond me. I've said above in other posts why AV is far from an ideal replacement but it will move us just a bit towards a fairer system. Remember if the No vote is successful there will be virtually no chance of any change for at least a generation.

[bazza]

I have had "No" vote leaflets through the door but no "Yes" vote ones. I haven't even had the official guide book on this referendum.

However, I want a change from FPTP because I think the people of this country need better representation in parliament.

I'm not happy with the AV system either. The choice is between a rock and a hard place.

Therefore I've concluded that, as usual, the powers that be are giving us a poor choice. There should be a choice of THREE boxes on the ballot paper

NO, YES, and SOMETHING ELSE.

I'd vote SOMETHING ELSE.

[den]

Bazza - is your sig, your best ever team?

[Alan75]

Bazza - is your sig, your best ever team?

You have three choices NO, YES, and SOMETHING ELSE.

sorry den, I couldnt resist after baz's previous post.

[LeChuck]

Therefore I've concluded that, as usual, the powers that be are giving us a poor choice. There should be a choice of THREE boxes on the ballot paper

NO, YES, and SOMETHING ELSE.

I'd vote SOMETHING ELSE.

I completely agree with that.

Under the circumstances though, a 'Yes' vote is as good as 'Something Else'. I don't think we'd keep AV that long as it does have flaws (still less than FPTP), but at least we'll have set the ball rolling to change the anachronistic system we have now.

I think a lot of people feel the same. The problem is that a lot of people in the 'Something Else' bracket seem to have decided not voting is the best way to convey this. We'll be stuck with FPTP for decades if this fails. I think we owe it future generations to set the ball rolling in the right direction at least, otherwise they'll be stuck with it too.

[bazza]

Bazza - is your sig, your best ever team?

No, Den. You have chosen a signature which is the best-ever team as voted for by members of this board.

My team is a response to yours not using any of your players. The second best Rovers team but some of my players should be in your team IMO.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Latest ComRes Poll has No at 66% and Yes at 34%:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/

[jim mk2]

Cameron gave a disgraceful backsliding performance under persistent questioning from John Humphries on Radio 4 today, refusing to condemn the wilder comments of the No campaign such as AV will cost the public purse £250m (not true) and divert funding from sick babies !

By and large the Tories have most to lose from AV. The vote should be a resounding Yes.

[dave birch]

Having voted under a similar system for years, I would say you have no worries about the effect of the change.

Think of it as having a multiple choice, starting with your first preference, then on to your next and so on until the one you do not want in.

The politicians that shout the loudest against the change most probably have the most to lose.

[Paul]

Given what I still perceive as an appalling lack of public information on this important topic I will not, for the first time in my adult life, be using my vote. As far as I can make out the AV referendum (rather than AV itself) is something cooked up by the Tories to placate the LibDems. Cameron will be able to state he provided the referendum Clegg demanded and when the country votes "No" (which it will) will be able to pat his deputy on the head and put him back in the cupboard.

As I'm unable to support something proposed by the Conservatives, which they have failed to adequately explain, and the LibDems have exposed their true colours (well Nick Clegg's true colours rather than the whole party) since the election I can't support the AV referendum. I feel change may be a good thing and will not therefore vote against change. It's the whole manner of the way this is being done I cannot support.

With a bit of luck the LibDems are going to get utterly slaughtered on Thursday which might just persuade them to ditch Clegg and return to the solid principles I thought LibDems stood for.

[Mattyblue]

What solid principles Paul? The Lib Dems have been caught out by actually ending up in government, something the rank and file at conference never envisaged when voting in unnaffordable policy pleges.