Alternative vote - yes or no?

[Andy McGregor]

That argument was used to try and deny the working man the vote, and then against votes for women. The voters needed educating, and that is one of the reasons for the fear and vehemence against of the campaign against reform. A lot of vested interests do not want a more educated electorate with more power.

This argument is spurious. We have equality.

Thinking along this line, AV may introduce inequality. If you have not been given equal information about each candidate you will not have enough information to make a reasoned choice when producing your ranking.

[meghann]

I'm voting no for the simple reason that I think that electing the person/party who the most people like the most, rather than the one who the most people dislike the least, is a better way to do things.


On another note, I may have got the wrong end of the stick here, but I think it's somewhat disingenuous to have this referendum about how we vote for inidividual candidates right now, when the furore after the last general election was about how to decide which party leads the government.

[David Bailey]

So, if it ain't broke .... ?

It is broke.

FPTP worked fine in the 1950s when 98% of people voted either Tory or Labour. In a two-horse race, FPTP is completely reasonable.

FPTP does not work in the 2010s when only 65% of people do so. It disenfranchises a larger percentage of people, and the results have far less legitimacy because of that.

AV will ensure that the winning candidate is always at least acceptable to the majority of the constituents.

In addition, I'd vote Yes anyway, because I'm disgusted by the No campaign's tactics. They've put up scare stories saying that - effectively - voting Yes will kill babies (less money for the NHS) and put UK soldiers' lives at risk (less money for combat operations). That alone would convince me to vote Yes.

It's also amazing that the No campaign paint AV as too complex, but they're happy to have far more complex systems in place for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and, hah, the Tory Leadership elections.

[David Bailey]

In my experience, as someone who has interviewed hundreds of people regarding their voting choice, I think most people vote for the same party most of the time. They don't know usually know what their particular candidate stands for.

Yep.

In my experience, voters know what they don't like about a party much more than what they do like about a party. This often drives them into the polling station to vote against the party they don't like by voting for the party that opposes or says they oppose the views of the 'don't like' party. This is why it's much harder to re-elected and why a re-elected government usually has a smaller majority the second/third time around.

Hmmm.... not sure about that. That argument ignores the historical reality - at least over the past 30 years - that the incumbent party does tend to get re-elected. We've had 17 continuous years of a Tory government, then 13 continuous years of a Labour one.

Expecting a voter to provide a ranked table of parties is asking far too much of the majority of voters.

Perhaps the voters are not totally stupid?

And we all already use such systems for other elections.

For example, in Scotland there are four different electoral systems used:

• FPTP: UK general elections.
• AMS (Additional Member System): Scottish Parliament.
• STV (Single Transferable Vote): local councils.
• Party List System: European Parliament

And yet Scottish voters somehow cope.

So the "complexity" argument is demonstrably rubbish.

And it will open the door to tactical voting - you will place that party you 'don't like' much lower simply because you think less of them than you do of a party where you know nothing about their policies, personalities, etc.

Well yes, of course. That's the point. We already have tactical voting, this simply makes it more effective and hopefully ensures that MPs are kept more on their toes.

Any MP who annoys 51% of the electorate cannot get re-elected under AV. But any MP who keeps a core 40% of electorate happy (and ignores the other 60%) can very easily get re-elected under FPTP.

[Andy McGregor]

In addition, I'd vote Yes anyway, because I'm disgusted by the No campaign's tactics. They've put up scare stories saying that - effectively - voting Yes will kill babies (less money for the NHS) and put UK soldiers' lives at risk (less money for combat operations). That alone would convince me to vote Yes.

It's also amazing that the No campaign paint AV as too complex, but they're happy to have far more complex systems in place for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and, hah, the Tory Leadership elections.

As I said further up, it's easy to vote against something. And it's easy to point out what's wrong with something. That's why negative campainging is so effective.

I agree that FPTP is most effective when there's two candidates. One candidate gets more than half of the votes. In theory you could have 10 candidates and one person could get elected with just over 10% of the vote. In practice this doesn't happen.

I also agree that the increase in the number of parties means there needs to be electoral reform. I just don't see AV as the answer. It's almost as if they chose a bad system on purpose so that it wasn't going to win public or political support.

We need to end up with a winner so that we've got someone to run the country. We were lucky this time that a coalition could be forged quickly between two parties. How would that happen if 5 or even 10 parties needed to be involved to form a majority government?

However, one of the bad things about the coalition is that part of their agreement was this referendum on electoral reform. It is obvious that the third placed party would want reform to get more power. But they didn't take into account that they actually have more power as part of the coalition

[geoff332]

We need to end up with a winner so that we've got someone to run the country. We were lucky this time that a coalition could be forged quickly between two parties. How would that happen if 5 or even 10 parties needed to be involved to form a majority government?

That is totally untrue. It's untrue statements like that from the 'no' campaign that I find despicable.

A large number of countries have genuinely proportional systems that are not expected to deliver a clear majority. Funnily enough, none of those countries shut down when there's an election. That implies that they keep running. So to suggest that you need a 'winner' to run the country is patently untrue. For a number of people repeating this, they know better - which would mean they are lying (I'm not talking about you, Andy: I'm talking about most of the Tory party).

When it takes time for a coalition to form, the old Government simply continues in a caretaker role. Their powers will be limited (in large part because they no longer command a parliamentary majority), but they are in a position to continue perfectly effectively.

Perhaps you mean that a new Government can't be quickly formed (a true statement, at the very least). The question then becomes, "so what?" A Government is required to define and enact policy changes. However, in a democracy, the Government is legitimated by popular mandate, as expressed through votes. If this mandate isn't clear (ie over half the country vote for a given candidate), then surely it's right to take some time to establish a legitimate Government? Or are you really suggesting that it's more important to put a new Government in than it is to ensure that the Government reflects the will of the population?

Finally, the "well, duh" award goes to Baroness Warsi for realising that AV will sometimes return a different result from FPTP.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the entire basis of her argument against it. Given that changing the winner so they are more reflective of the will of the voters is the entire point of changing the electoral system, I'm not sure what her point is.

[David Bailey]

I agree that FPTP is most effective when there's two candidates. One candidate gets more than half of the votes. In theory you could have 10 candidates and one person could get elected with just over 10% of the vote. In practice this doesn't happen.

No, in practice the winning strategy is to keep the base happy and ignore the rest. Which means that MPs only have an incentive to serve 40% of their constituency. Instead of 100%.

I also agree that the increase in the number of parties means there needs to be electoral reform.

Actually, it's not driven the increase in the number of parties. It's the decrease of the duopoly system and the desire of the electorate to have more choice. Which [I]leads/I] to the increase in the number of parties. Cause and effect.

I just don't see AV as the answer. It's almost as if they chose a bad system on purpose so that it wasn't going to win public or political support.

It's a baby step. Like all constitutional changes in the UK - look at devolution, it's only now that the devolved authorities are getting some real power.

Baby steps are better than no steps.

[Andy McGregor]

That is totally untrue. It's untrue statements like that from the 'no' campaign that I find despicable.

A large number of countries have genuinely proportional systems that are not expected to deliver a clear majority. Funnily enough, none of those countries shut down when there's an election. That implies that they keep running. So to suggest that you need a 'winner' to run the country is patently untrue. For a number of people repeating this, they know better - which would mean they are lying (I'm not talking about you, Andy: I'm talking about most of the Tory party).

What worries me is that a simple change to the way we elect our government is not enough of a change.

Any parliament that has been elected through AV will, almost certainly be a coalition of a number of parties. Our government isn't set up for this. It's set up for two parties, leadership and opposition. Even the architecture of our House of Parliament would need to change.

A simple change in the way we run our elections is not enough of a reform.

[geoff332]

What worries me is that a simple change to the way we elect our government is not enough of a change.

I fail to see how that is a good argument to vote 'no'. If the 'no' camp wins, then no change is likely to happen (the fact it won't introduce much change is, perhaps, good reason to vote against AV; that's a different argument).

Any parliament that has been elected through AV will, almost certainly be a coalition of a number of parties.

Probably not - at least, it doesn't happen in Australia. With genuine PR you get coalitions as the norm; with AV, it's much less common. So 'almost certainly' really means, 'sometimes'. Given that FPTP can deliver a coalition, I'm not sure this is a valid argument. Should the UK have an enforced two party state? Because that's the only way to prevent coalitions ever happening.

Our government isn't set up for this. It's set up for two parties, leadership and opposition.

You've confused parliament and Government. Prior to the last election, parliament consisted of a bunch of parties, with two being significantly larger than the others; government consisted of one party. I'm not pointing this out to be pedantic, but to because it's a pretty fundamental difference and it's important to know which you're talking about.

In terms of the actual argument: there is currently a coalition government and, at least procedurally, parliament is still functioning perfectly well. There may be details and procedural rules that have to be adjusted, but it's not likely to require major reform of the parliament. I suspect the parliamentary procedures and rules would support a variety of coalition and minority Government forms.

If you're talking about the process for deciding the Government, then yes there is plenty of room for improvement. But this mostly down to the parties themselves and how they communicate with the electorate. But that can happen with or without a change to the electorate.

Even the architecture of our House of Parliament would need to change.

How? There are more than two parties in parliament at the moment. I fail to see how this would need to change just because the balance of power could shift from the two currently dominant parties. It happened before: the liberals were the Tory's opposition before Labour emerged in the '20s. It's very likely to happen again.

When I previously mentioned scare mongering: these arguments are great examples of that. To break them down, they're pretty simple: changing the electoral system (may) require us to change the way we are governed. In general the scope of the changes are vastly, vastly over-stated.

Even if they do produce substantial a change, the appropriate response to that argument is, "yes, that's the whole point."

[meghann]

My opinion is in the process of being changed here...keep on debating!

[David Bailey]

What worries me is that a simple change to the way we elect our government is not enough of a change.

Any parliament that has been elected through AV will, almost certainly be a coalition of a number of parties.

Rubbish.

There's a slight increase in the probability of a coalition. Emphasis on slight. An analysis of the results of the last 8 elections (1 of which produced a hung parliament under FPTP) is that the 1992 result might have been another hung parliament.

So from 1 in 8, the chances become (at very most) 1 in 4.

And considering how unremittingly awful the 1992-1997 administration was, I can't see that a hung parliament there would have been such a disaster.

So, this "almost certain coalition" meme turns out, on examination, to be "slight increase in chances of a coalition".

In other words, it's a lie.

Our government isn't set up for this.

Really? May I refer you to our current administration?

Or, in fact, the administration in Northern Ireland, an area famous throughout the world for its spirit of tolerance, compromise and non-sectarianism? You're saying that Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness can work together, but that UK mainland politicians can't?

Huh.

[NZ Monkey]

My perspective on this may be somewhat different. In New Zealand, we went through the process in the '90s.

......snip rest of post......

That was the best summation of event's I think I've ever seen regarding those political change in NZ.

Any parliament that has been elected through AV will, almost certainly be a coalition of a number of parties. Our government isn't set up for this. It's set up for two parties, leadership and opposition. Even the architecture of our House of Parliament would need to change.

I don't know anything about AV, but our government wasn't set up for MMP either when we changed and the same argument was used against it then. Loudly. And often.

The reality though was that every learned how to work in an MMP environment within about a term, and goverment continued as effectively as a goverment ever does. The world didn't end, and we ended up with more proportional representation. My personal opinion is that NZ has much more stable policy thanks to the move away from FPTP, where every contentious bill passed by one government would be overturned by the next. Now government seems much more careful about providing balanced and publically acceptable policies.

MMP isn't perfect*, but it's a hell of a lot better than FPTP was IMO.

In partcular, where minority groups were practically ignored under FPTP, some tend to wield a disproportionately large amount of power after closely run elections - where they are effectively "kingmakers". I don't like that, but it's still better than FPTP.....and no system will be perfect.

[Franck]

I'm personally in favour of AV, and will be voting yes. I always feel that we (hardly anyone) get the government they wish for (or indeed vote for).

This is perfectly summed up by this image:

[Andy McGregor]

I'm personally in favour of AV, and will be voting yes. I always feel that we (hardly anyone) get the government they wish for (or indeed vote for).

This is perfectly summed up by this image:

But the majority of beer drinkers wouldn't be drinking in the pub of their choice. And that is where the flaw in Franck's argument lies. It's a misleading argument.

The sign-off line makes it sound like the choice was between beer and coffee. It was a choice between different pubs and coffee. If it was a choice between beer and coffee the beer would have won!

I would like to see electoral reform. But I'd like to see a system of voting where we lose candidates until someone gets a majority. In Franck's example we'd have dropped the green man, someone would change their vote, people would still want beer and we'd all end up going down the pub - and, in a larger vote, it might not have been the pub that got the most votes in the first round.

[geoff332]

I always feel that we (hardly anyone) get the government they wish for (or indeed vote for).

Perhaps we get the Government we deserve, rather than the one we want...

[geoff332]

in a larger vote, it might not have been the pub that got the most votes in the first round.

So?

This is another nonsense argument. Yes, AV means that the one that got the most votes in the first round may not win. That's what it does (this the same "well, duh" award that I gave Baroness Warsi earlier).

If you think that is wrong, then you really need to explain WHY it is wrong. Otherwise, you are not making any argument: merely restating how AV works.

And, to preempt one of your potential answers. If the coffee shop won, then seven of the 10 people may be going to a place they don't want to go. If you believe that is fair, then explain that as well.

[Franck]

But the majority of beer drinkers wouldn't be drinking in the pub of their choice. And that is where the flaw in Franck's argument lies. It's a misleading argument.

I think the image makes what happens very clear. If there are 3 different liberal parties (beer) and the vote is split across them, then a conservative government (coffee) wins in a FPTP system, even if only a minority of the population wanted conservative policies.

Whether AV is the perfect voting system is not an issue, as it would allow for a more representative system than what we have now, and possibly more involvement from currently disenfranchised voters.

Maybe we do have the government we deserve, but maybe with a more representative voting system, there would be less apathy and resignation.

[David Bailey]

But the majority of beer drinkers wouldn't be drinking in the pub of their choice.

But they'd still be drinking beer. Which presumably is better than drinking coffee.

The sign-off line makes it sound like the choice was between beer and coffee.

Erm, yes? From a certain point of view, at least.

[David Bailey]

Anyway, I suspect the No vote will win.

Which, I think, reflects a lack of engagement from the Yes camp - no-one's really enthusiastic about AV, and it shows.

Assuming that it is, indeed, a No, then I'd hope that the lesson learned from this with referenda is, go for broke. The next time, propose a real change, to a system with genuine and clear benefits, and engage the supporters. Get everyone on board, make the case passionately and consistently, and avoid splitting the Yes camp.

(Of course, this is different from our standard British tradition of incremental reform, but I think referenda should be for dramatic changes, otherwise what's the point?)

[Andy McGregor]

So?

This is another nonsense argument. Yes, AV means that the one that got the most votes in the first round may not win. That's what it does (this the same "well, duh" award that I gave Baroness Warsi earlier).

If you think that is wrong, then you really need to explain WHY it is wrong. Otherwise, you are not making any argument: merely restating how AV works.

I don't have a problem with rounds of elections. But that's not AV. My big problem with AV is that there is only one round and the winner, the clear leader in a vote, may not get elected - we are voting for a leader, someone to represent us. In AV there is a good chance that everybody's second choice gets the job - that's someone who nobody wanted to be their representative. That has got to be worse than putting in a winner who didn't get a majority.

And, to preempt one of your potential answers. If the coffee shop won, then seven of the 10 people may be going to a place they don't want to go. If you believe that is fair, then explain that as well.

Of course, the beer/coffee argument is a poor comparison. Everyone can choose to go where they like and drink what they like.

But taking that argument further and making it an AV argument. If people ranked their choices there is a good chance that nobody will drink in their first choice establishment. So nobody wins and everybody is a loser.

Now I think about it, AV is a charter for losers. You might lose the game, but you get the first prize because of the magic of ranking.