AVvFPTP

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/reasons-av-referendum-lost

Some interesting comment here. I particularly agree that the campaign should have foucused on Cameron. I think you can say that generally about politics since the formation of the coalition. Cameron and Osborne should be being painted the same way that Thatcher was yet Clegg is serving as a hate-sponge for them. They must love him to pieces.

But PR is OPOV

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant FPTP.

What I'm saying is, additional member votes or AV or AV+ are all much of a muchness, really. It wouldn't agonise me too much if the national system did change from majoritarian FPTP to some other democratic voting system; no one can predict the kind of electoral results that it would produce in, say, 20 years time, after all. As long as every citizen over 18 and not in jail can fill in a ballot paper privately and without coercion or intimidation or surveillance on an agreed voting system, then fine with me.

So I certainly don't see an urgent need to change from the current system, but then I'm not a Lib Dem supporter or a nationalist, nor do I see it as an ideological or moral issue. I vote through two different systems already, and I slightly prefer FPTP. (I don't do statistics like Vimothy, so I can't wade too far into the thicket of technicalities.)

craner said:

Sorry, I meant FPTP.

What I'm saying is, additional member votes or AV or AV+ are all much of a muchness, really. It wouldn't agonise me too much if the national system did change from majoritarian FPTP to some other democratic voting system; no one can predict the kind of electoral results that it would produce in, say, 20 years time, after all. As long as every citizen over 18 and not in jail can fill in a ballot paper privately and without coercion or intimidation or surveillance on an agreed voting system, then fine with me.

So I certainly don't see an urgent need to change from the current system, but then I'm not a Lib Dem supporter or a nationalist, nor do I see it as an ideological or moral issue. I vote through two different systems already, and I slightly prefer FPTP. (I don't do statistics like Vimothy, so I can't wade too far into the thicket of technicalities.)

Click to expand...

I don't even know the difference between AV, AV+ and STV (no need to enlighten me - it's years before it'll be back on the agenda), but I'd definitely prefer one of those to PR. I'd even prefer FPTP to PR, since I think party lists are a horrible way to choose MPs and would further erode their parliamentary independence and sense of individual connection with voters. That said, the present system – whereby elections are largely decided by a couple of hundred thousand floating voters in swing seats – is cancerous.

The flipside to the list MPs-are-disconnected thing is that if you always act in the interest of an electorate you may be unwilling to do stuff that's of broader benefit to the country. It's all a bit theoretical maybe-it'll-be-like-this either way - the reality is more complicated and circumstantial.

I've been voting under MMP (and STV in local elections in a couple of countries) since '99 and don't see too many major dramas. In NZ I certainly haven't had any impression of the kind of precariousness of coalitions Mr Craner describes in Wales. Stymied legislature, etc. occurs from time to time under any system...

Of course smaller parties get to play kingmaker, etc. but the reality is they can't force through really crazy legislation, or have yet to do so here.

My mayor was voted in under STV and got a smaller number of first preference votes than the incumbent. The incumbent said some really ungracious stuff about how more people tried to vote for her and that the system beat her, not the candidate. I think that's just total bullshit. More voters said we'd prefer Wade-Brown (the mayor we got) to the incumbent, so Wade-Brown got in. Seems totally fair to me.