AVvFPTP

[...]

I voted NO. (And Labour for Welsh AM.)

None of the Yes arguments really run very far. Far example, the idea that AV would stop tactical voting -- well, hello, the Green activists in Cardiff canvassed for our second vote specifically, not our first. Wales already lives with the AV nightmare -- 3 months to bang out the last Plaid-Labour coalition which has been ruining the Principality for the last few years with bad deals and/or inaction. (Let's not forget that the ultimate example of proportional representation is Israel, and the Knesset is a constant chaos of collapsing coaltions.)

One person, one vote -- it has clarity and, usually, a result, for good or ill.

 

[crackerjack]

(Let's not forget that the ultimate example of proportional representation is Israel, and the Knesset is a constant chaos of collapsing coaltions.)

One person, one vote -- it has clarity and, usually, a result, for good or ill.

AV isn't PR, and why is Israel the "ultimate example" rather than, say, Germany?

 

[...]

It's probably not, I was just trying to amuse Droid.

 

[...]

AV isn't PR

It basically is, though, isn't it? I mean to say, the real argument we're all having, or want to be having, or ought to be having, is PR vs OPOV.

 

[IdleRich]

"It basically is, though, isn't it? I mean to say, the real argument we're all having, or want to be having, or ought to be having, is PR vs OPOV."

The last bit might be true but AV is nothing like PR, it's more like FPTP. It's particularly galling that the "no" campaign have been saying that AV isn't much of a step away from PR when it was the only option the Tories were willing to allow in the referendum. If they hadn't have been so obstructive then there would have been a real choice.

"One person, one vote -- it has clarity and, usually, a result, for good or ill."

Well, if you're rejecting fairness as a criterion then there are loads of systems - why not just have a dictatorship, it's clear and has a result?

 

[baboon2004]

I voted yes for AV - it's a step in the right diretion, but it aint' gonna hange the world.

the real problem to be takled in my view is that so many people want to vote Tory. simple as that.

My ' ' key is broken. unts.

 

[IdleRich]

"the real problem to be takled in my view is that so many people want to vote Tory. simple as that."

But do they? They're hovering around 30% of the popular vote and winning lots of elections so it seems clear to me that if you're one of the two thirds of the population that would prefer anyone to the Tories then it should be straight forwardly obvious that you want to change the system. There are enough non-tory voters for the referendum to be won but due to poor campaigning from the "yes" guys and general apathy we're left with what looks like a classic case of turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

[...]

why not just have a dictatorship, it's clear and has a result?

Yeah, exactly! Why not, eh?

 

[IdleRich]

Because I think that there are other factors beyond clarity and a result (good or bad) and I suspect that you do too really.

 

[IdleRich]

Results are coming in now

http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvo...n/default.aspx

Apparently the winning side will need about ten million votes total.

 

[...]

I don't really think it makes that much difference -- I think universal suffrage is "fair" enough, the rest is griping, political calculation, or dubious idealism in the Chris Huhne style.

The way it works in Wales is by voting twice, for constituency and regional AMs, which is meant to balance the votes out and be "fairer" (i.e. PR + FPTP not AV+) -- all it means is that we've had one frustrating coalition ending a decent period of Labour minority rule. I mean, it annoys me because I despise nationalists and in Wales the system favours nationalists, but nobody is exhilirated or emancipated by the "fairness" of the Assembly voting system compared to the national system. In fact, the Welsh seem to hold the Assembly in even more contempt than Westminster depsite the fact they get to vote for it twice.

It's just numerical juggling, basically; I don't buy the argument that either PR or AV is more democratic than FPTP/OMOV, or that it's going to make MPs "work harder" (most MPs work very hard) or abolish safe seats and tactical voting (if anything, it will increase the latter).

 

[IdleRich]

"It's just numerical juggling, basically; I don't buy the argument that either PR or AV is more democratic than FPTP/OMOV, or that it's going to make MPs "work harder" (most MPs work very hard) or abolish safe seats and tactical voting (if anything, it will increase the latter)."

I don't think that it is just numerical juggling though, there's some good stuff on this link that Dan sent me

http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Notably this bit

1983 General Election..... The results of the election were as follows:

Conservatives, 42.4% of the vote, 397 seats

Labour, 27.6% of the vote, 209 seats

SDP/Liberal Alliance, 25.4% of the vote, 23 seats.

Let us note a couple of anomalies in this result. Most strikingly, the Alliance got almost as many votes as the Labour party but Labour got roughly nine times as many seats. Second most strikingly, the Conservative share of the vote went down slightly, but they now had a truly thumping majority, much higher than after the previous election.

Now I'm no SDP fan but you don't have to be to think that getting virtually the same number of the votes as Labour and only just over a tenth of their seats isn't right. I realise that no system is totally fair but I think that that is way too far along the spectrum of unfairness and I don't think it can just be dismissed as number juggling. I think that AV would be "more democratic" than that.
It's all academic now though I guess.

 

[...]

Yes, I see the people have voted for fascism!

 

[IdleRich]

Turkeys not voting for not Christmas.

 

[vimothy]

One key factor is the share of the vote (or in poli sci jargon, share of the "selectorate") needed to win the election. In a first past the post system, you can get away with about 25% of the vote at a minimum. In the US, you can control the House, Senate and Presidency with 19% of the vote, if you place the votes right. In PR systems, you potentially need even less than this--10%, say.

Now, the larger the group of people needed to form this winning coalition relative to the selectorate (eligible voters in a democracy), the higher the cost of targeting policy to bring private benefits to constituents (it is more costly to kick back goodies to your political backers). In other words, if you like public goods, you should pick an electoral system that maximises the share of the vote needed to win--according to this theory, at any rate.

Fsck knows where AV sits on this scale, though.

 

[hucks]

Turkeys not voting for not Christmas.

Christ that's a hammering, though. Cameron's a lot stronger than he was last night.

 

[Tentative Andy]

I voted for AV (lol that worked out well eh?), but I'll admit that I find the whole issue confusing and have changed my mind on it several times.

The 2-vote system in Scotland (which I believe works in the same way as what Cramer was describing in Wales) did still manage to return a governing majority for the SNP this time around, but I'm willing to accept that this is not a typical result.

 

[Tentative Andy]

On the point about number of MPs a party has in parliament not reflecting their overall share of the vote, I wonder if that wouldn't just be inevitable under any system that involves voting for MPs by constituency - i.e. where the question isn't just about the overall support for a party within the country, but about lots of cases of the confidence in that particular person in that particular place. (I'm phrasing this badly...).

 

[IdleRich]

"One key factor is the share of the vote (or in poli sci jargon, share of the "selectorate") needed to win the election. In a first past the post system, you can get away with about 25% of the vote at a minimum. In the US, you can control the House, Senate and Presidency with 19% of the vote, if you place the votes right. In PR systems, you potentially need even less than this--10%, say."

Luckily, one thing you can't do (as far as I know) is place the votes.

 

[crackerjack]

It basically is, though, isn't it? I mean to say, the real argument we're all having, or want to be having, or ought to be having, is PR vs OPOV.

But PR is OPOV.