tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post7470224440365301766..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: The Pros & Cons of the Alternative VoteIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-7190458000802300332010-05-25T21:41:04.958+01:002010-05-25T21:41:04.958+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.AJUKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15900087946461840625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75622342382961697162010-05-25T21:41:04.957+01:002010-05-25T21:41:04.957+01:00You have to remember that it maybe the second choi...You have to remember that it maybe the second choice because they wanted someone else to win who didn't have enough support to win it, and if that person hadn't been running their second choice would have been there second choice. And remember the reason the vote get transferred is because their first choice is out of it they're gone, can't win.AJUKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15900087946461840625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22241637085119319522008-04-04T16:39:00.000+01:002008-04-04T16:39:00.000+01:00Newmania: "The problem with PR is that it hands po...Newmania: "The problem with PR is that it hands power to tiny groups at the centre and removes the direct accountability of the MP." How unlike the home life of our own whipped democracy! <BR/><BR/>Tristan: "Closed list systems ... should never be supported by anyone who believes in democracy. They may be proportional, but they give control to the party hierarchy." FPTP offers a closed list of one for each party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-91824179909066694862008-03-31T19:12:00.000+01:002008-03-31T19:12:00.000+01:00"Ultimately all they seem to know is that they wer..."Ultimately all they seem to know is that they were elected under FPTP and they are jolly well going to hang onto that system at all costs" (Buckley)<BR/><BR/>Indeed, but there is a more specific problem about achieving STV. It is that STV takes power away from the party machine and places it where it belongs, in the hands of the voter.<BR/><BR/>With FPTP or AV, or list systems of PR, the party decides who can stand. STV allows the voter to choose both between parties and/or between different candidates of the same party, giving the voter the final say. And if all the parties put up candidates the voters don't like, STV also makes it easier than with other systems for an independent with wide popular support to win a seat (this sometimes happens in Ireland). In practice, this encourages parties to present a diverse slate of candidates in each multi-member seat.<BR/><BR/>STV can therefore be perceived as to some degree an "Anti-party system", which is why the parties will probably never agree to adopt it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-19119796097147846272008-03-31T15:27:00.000+01:002008-03-31T15:27:00.000+01:00"peezedtee "Unfortunately most people who pontific..."peezedtee<BR/> <BR/>"Unfortunately most people who pontificate about election systems don't actually understand much about them, and that includes nearly all politicians"<BR/> <BR/>Dead right. Not so long ago I had an e-mail exchange with a very well known politician who is no longer a minister or MP (to spare his blushes I won't name him) who said he did not support STV since he abhorred list systems. He did not seem to know that STV is a quota system not a list system. His favourite system was AV! Here again he did not seem to realise that AV is in fact STV in single-member constituencies - or to put it the other way round, STV is AV in multi-member constituencies.<BR/> <BR/>And that is not the only example of complete ignorance on the part of MP's that I have come across. Ultimately all they seem to know is that they were elected under FPTP and they are jolly well going to hang onto that system at all costs.Buckleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05377531679489149249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-89583765333803280382008-03-30T12:35:00.000+01:002008-03-30T12:35:00.000+01:00"On the face of it the AV system maintains the con..."On the face of it the AV system maintains the constituency link, which very few other forms of PR do" (Iain Dale)<BR/><BR/>Oh dear. <BR/>(1) AV is not a proportional system. <BR/>(2) The system that IS proportional and DOES maintain the constituency link is STV (the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies), which (in a somewhat corrupted version) is used in Ireland.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately most people who pontificate about election systems don't actually understand much about them, and that includes nearly all politicians. (I declare an interest as a former member of the Council of the Electoral Reform Society.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12602953471248483592008-03-28T11:55:00.000+00:002008-03-28T11:55:00.000+00:00I see the usual sophistry from the defenders of FP...I see the usual sophistry from the defenders of FPTP - in particular Italy is dragged up again and we constantly see reference to firm, stable government. . <BR/><BR/>AV seems to be the only "semi-reform" on the horizon and the only reason that it should be supported is that it could possibly keep Labour in power with at least the possibility that a Labour government may be persuaded to progress from AV (STV in single-member constituencies) to STV in multi-member consituencies. If the Tories get back in power we could say goodbye to reform of any kind indefinitely.<BR/><BR/>In the latter regard perhaps we should remind ourselves of the sheer hypocrisy that reigns in Westminster in the matter of the electoral system. Here are a couple of extracts from a pamphlet issued in the early seventies by a Tory government to the citizens of Northern Ireland regarding the reintroduction of STV for Stormont :-<BR/><BR/>"What is PR (in this case STV) ? It is an electoral system designed to make sure that the candidates elected represent accurately the opinions of the voters ie that the strength of each party is in proportion to its support among the people."<BR/><BR/>"Why multi-member constituencies? In a single-member constituency, all the votes not cast for the winng candidate are wasted since they have not been able to elect anyone. And so are all the votes in excess of a bare majority cast for the winner, in the sense that they have had no effect on the result" <BR/><BR/>We can hear Tory (and Labour) MP’s saying "STV is splendid for the provinces - but we are going to hang onto FPTP because that’s the system under which WE were elected"Buckleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05377531679489149249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42642180353681220922008-03-28T01:37:00.000+00:002008-03-28T01:37:00.000+00:00I'm a Labour supporter, but I couldn't care less w...I'm a Labour supporter, but I couldn't care less which parties are running the country, as long as the government more closely represents the majority's wishes (the more people that are represented, the more likely minorities will be respected, because everyone of us is in a minority in some aspect or other).<BR/><BR/>The Tories certainly didn't represent the majority's wishes in the 80s and 90s and Labour hasn't managed it either over the last ten years. <BR/><BR/>The reason for this is simple. They were not elected by the majority - but by a small minority - 42% of actual voters and 33% of eligible voters in the Tories case. And this last Labour administration, got 55% of the seats with just 35% of the vote and barely 22% of eligible voters (and this is before we get on to the geographic acrobatics of FPTP).<BR/><BR/>Contrary to what <I>archroy</I> said, FPTP does not make it easier to 'kick them out'. As long as a party can keep it's 22% or so happy and split the opposition vote, they can stay in power forever - whatever the majority think about it. <BR/><BR/>It took opposition to the Tories to reach nearly 70% of voters and 85% of the electorate before they were finally 'kicked out' last time.<BR/><BR/>While not perfect, PR would improve this situation considerably. It would at least mean a government that is voted for by a majority of the vote. But more than this, it would mean more diverse views, more women and more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds(including ethnic minorities) in parliament.<BR/><BR/>Democracy would be healthier and Iraq Wars and Poll Taxes would be much less likely to occur. Here is an example of what I mean;<BR/><BR/>PARTY A, to cut taxes by 10%; invade Iran; ban abortion.<BR/>PARTY B, to increase taxes by 5%; against invasion; abortion cut to 22 weeks.<BR/>PARTY C, to increase taxes by 10%; against invasion; abortion left at 24 weeks.<BR/><BR/>PARTY A, 40% of the vote<BR/>PARTY B, 25% of the vote<BR/>PARTY C, 35% of the vote<BR/><BR/>Under FPTP, Party A wins the election, cuts taxes by 10%, invades Iran and bans abortion, despite 60% of the electorate voting against all these policies. How can this be justified?<BR/><BR/>Under PR, parties B and C forms coalition, negotiates tax increase between 5% and 10%, compromises at 23 weeks on abortion, and doesn't invade Iran. This is much much closer to what the majority wanted.<BR/>Try the model yourself changing th policies and percentages - PR always comes out best.<BR/><BR/>To those who rubbish the efficiency of PR government, I refer them to German, Scandanavian and even Italian, levels of post-war economic growth, lower inequality and better public services. <BR/><BR/>Overall PR government beats us hands down on all these factors and also delivers higher political engagement and environemntal protection. Germany and Scandanavia have also had less post-war elections and leaders, compare that to the instability that FPTP has brought to Canada.<BR/><BR/>Long term decisions are just easier to make when the parties have to work together and when the best of all parties come together, it is little surprise that better decisions are made. <BR/><BR/>Coalitions under FPTP usually are weak and indecisive, because firstly, the parties are not used to working together and secondly, FPTP produces coalitions that do not reflect what the voters voted for. <BR/><BR/>Which brings me on to which system of PR is best. First of all it needs to be said that AV is not PR and the government are actually only proposing SV (a second preference option added to FPTP), which is not even as good as AV. Saying that, at least it has prompted a debate about electoral reform on Tory websites.<BR/><BR/>Whatever the government's motives, this is a welcome debate and I think that any move that gives more choice to voters should be welcomed even if it doesn't give proportionality. We shouldn't make 'the best' the enemy of improvement.<BR/><BR/>Personally I like open-list PR best, but the system used in Baden-Wurtemberg in Germany would be an ideal transition for Westminster. You vote exactly the same as FPTP, putting an X against your candidate in your constituency. All these winning constituency candidates are elected, but then your vote is counted again towards the party you voted for and their best placed candidates not already elected are also elected to make the result proportional. This way the electorate decide everyone who is elected. This was the system proposed for Westmister by the Hansard society in 1976. I think this system combines the proportionality of PR and the 'constituency link' of FPTP in a simple and fair way.<BR/><BR/>We still have a problem electing disadvantaged groups under this system, but at least it is easy to understand (vote in and count) and avoids party lists.<BR/><BR/>I am a bit of an anorak, as the above post probably demonstrates. I am always interested in electoral system ideas. I looked at the PR squared idea and wasn't impressed - it was more like FPTP squared - there was no proportionality! Anyway, hope I have made some of you die-hard Tories think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-42816207737982080152008-03-27T11:23:00.000+00:002008-03-27T11:23:00.000+00:00PR does strengthen the individual MP because it ma...PR does strengthen the individual MP because it makes it possible for them to stand as an independent & win. Under FPTP the best, or worst, a deselected MP can do is to split the vote & let the other side in.<BR/><BR/>This is not theory - in Scotland Margo MacDonald was effectively deselested for asking akward questions, stood as herself, won & is in a very strong position. She is also one of the best MSPs, pushing a number of politically incorrect causes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-538085262395029322008-03-27T08:03:00.000+00:002008-03-27T08:03:00.000+00:00Wow! What a lot of panic over the mere suggestion...Wow! What a lot of panic over the mere suggestion that our glorious poilitical parties might not be totally free to impose their fetid wills upon the British people.<BR/><BR/>Look on the bright side chaps. This country is falling to pieces. Likelyhood is that the civil war will relieve all you hacks of these scary thoughts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-70740981978934338652008-03-26T22:05:00.000+00:002008-03-26T22:05:00.000+00:00Well done Mr Strapworld for being the only one to ...Well done Mr Strapworld for being the only one to notice that if you change the electoral rules you also change the electoral ecology.<BR/>Of course the numbers come out like that if you only look at three English parties. But that isn't the world that people would be voting in. They'd be voting in a world where a vote for one of the smaller parties wasn't a waste of time. How many of the missing millions who abstained last time might be enticed down to the Polling Station with the choice of parties actually representing their views?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-70843240368938653732008-03-26T21:43:00.000+00:002008-03-26T21:43:00.000+00:00The only change that needs to be made for general ...The only change that needs to be made for general elections is a separate vote for Prime Minister. Why should independents be banned from running the country? Why must we be forced to have the leader of a party as Prime Minister? We don't have elections for the head of state (I'm quite happy with that arrangement) so we should have elections for the head of the government.wonkotsanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04896256040598397497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-59092279549318837232008-03-26T20:46:00.000+00:002008-03-26T20:46:00.000+00:00Although without a proportional system the Tories ...Although without a proportional system the Tories would be nowhere in Scotland or Wales. Is that what you want? <BR/>I cannot think of a fairer, more democratic system than one based on proportion of votes. PR works extremely well in many countries but "England" always has the attitude that it needs a different solution. That difference creates inequality, political isolation and an electorate rightly believing that their vote counts for nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-64351023254883984562008-03-26T19:31:00.000+00:002008-03-26T19:31:00.000+00:00I'm a Lib Dem and I think you need to distinguish ...I'm a Lib Dem and I think you need to distinguish between LD activists (a small majority of which would certainly favour Labour over the Tories) with the party and then its millions of voters at large. Anecdotally, once you zoom out from the activists, the party would incline generally to the Tories.<BR/><BR/>I don't think you can predict how the last election would have looked under AV though because the results that any predication is being based on are skewed by tactical voting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-72023478871746534682008-03-26T19:30:00.000+00:002008-03-26T19:30:00.000+00:00"... do we really want to be governed by a whole r..."... do we really want to be governed by a whole raft of politicians who are the second choice of most but the first choice of few?"<BR/><BR/>Could it be any worse than the last few results?<BR/><BR/>How about making elections compulsory but adding a "None of the above" box. If "None of the above" gets more than 50% of the vote the election in that constituency is re-run with new candidates. A recipe for chaos perhaps but it would be a very interesting experiment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24293262045596000452008-03-26T18:31:00.000+00:002008-03-26T18:31:00.000+00:00FPTP is currently working against the conservative...FPTP is currently working against the conservatives. The Irish system of STV would retain a constituency link, and be roughly proportional. It would allow the voter to choose candidates within specific parties e.g a libertarian versus authoritarian conservative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-59351255550936120112008-03-26T17:33:00.000+00:002008-03-26T17:33:00.000+00:00This would be the last straw,would the last one ou...This would be the last straw,would the last one out please turn off the light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-78784862750959452082008-03-26T16:43:00.000+00:002008-03-26T16:43:00.000+00:00Changing the voting system fills me with horror to...Changing the voting system fills me with horror too. <BR/><BR/>I can see why the fantasy land LibDems want it. Hopefully Brown won't be tempted for short term reasons because it could end up harming Labour as much the Tories.<BR/><BR/>The LibDem Voice figures they look dodgy given that the Tories won more English votes last time than Labour.Baldwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03085192997584394739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-12552369674898280322008-03-26T16:37:00.000+00:002008-03-26T16:37:00.000+00:00PR is a solution to the wrong problem.Most people'...PR is a solution to the wrong problem.<BR/><BR/>Most people's problem with politics is not that the party balance in the Commons doesn't reflect the country's views fairly - which of course it doesn't. But the real thing most people hate is that individual MPs don't vote their conscience, or the views of their constituents, but just follow the whip.<BR/><BR/>PR makes that problem worse. MPs would be even less reliant on their constituents' support, and party discipline would need to be even higher when no party has a majority.<BR/><BR/>I see two plausible solutions. The first is letting the public directly elect a Prime Minister. that way, it wouldn't matter so much if the governing party lost a vote in the Commons, because it wouldn't bring the government down, and that might free up MPs to vote their consciences more.<BR/><BR/>The second is local primaries for MPs. That way, candidates would have to convince local areas that they would represent them better than other candidates from the same party. The electorate would, I'm sure, reward independence of thought and action.<BR/><BR/>And one final thought - two houses of parliament should definitely have two different electoral systems: so if you must have PR in one, then you must have straightforward FPTP (ideally with primaries) in the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-56038491092567568412008-03-26T16:35:00.000+00:002008-03-26T16:35:00.000+00:00Electoral reform for the Commons is being talked a...<I>Electoral reform for the Commons is being talked about now is actually less due to Labour's electoral predicament (though that is likely to be one factor), but the increasing consensus behind some form of PR for electing the Lords</I><BR/><BR/>What a load of rubbish. Electoral reform/vote rigging has cropped up every time the Labour Party have been in trouble going back to Blair, as has a Liberal Labour pact based on power sharing. The Liberal Party are not neutral they are only pretending to be in marginal seats where they face Conservatives so as to mislead voters. This makes a dogs breakfast of Neil Craigs musings in the clouds <BR/><BR/>They should fight these marginals on the basis they are going to conspire with Labour to prop up the Brown administration and disenfranchise the largest party in England while Scotland and Wales have their own Parliaments .This has been the plan from day one and there is nothing disinterested about it.Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-80300027482101547252008-03-26T16:16:00.000+00:002008-03-26T16:16:00.000+00:00You also get voting for second choice candidates i...You also get voting for second choice candidates in the FPTP system where people vote tactically.<BR/><BR/>At least with the AV system there would be a point to voting in a lot more than the 200 odd marginal constituencies. The pool of marginals would increase considerably as the Tory or Labour "donkey" candidate with a blue or red rosette would not be so certain of getting elected. The parties would have to work a lot harder as more constituencies mattered and this would benefit those parties that had genuine grass roots support.<BR/><BR/>I don't think numerical proportionality should be the "be all and end all" of the electoral system. What is far more important is that the voters feel they have a stake in the system. A system which is full of so called "safe seats" provides no incentive for voters to turn out as they know the parties will take them for granted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-15026463109722905992008-03-26T15:56:00.000+00:002008-03-26T15:56:00.000+00:00FPTP is simply an archaic, undemocratic and too bl...FPTP is simply an archaic, undemocratic and too blunt a system to be suitable for what are far more politically pluralistic and ideological neutral times. <BR/><BR/>I think as Tristan highlighted, AV+ or indeed a fully STV system would bring a far more accurate expression of the electorates will. Thousands and thousands of votes are wasted and simply irrelevant to the outcome- that includes Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and Nationalist votes. <BR/><BR/>I am sure we all agree that participatory democracy is on the wane, to the point where the government’s mandate is provided by fewer and fewer of the public they serve, and things need to be done. One of the biggest reasons for political apathy is that even the people who do vote feel their votes simply do not count. If we are to at least entice people back to vote, we need to at least offer them the ability to ‘make their vote count’. The general public are actually fed up of political squabbling over often non-existent differences, and would often WELCOME co-operation and compromise between parties.<BR/><BR/>Of course this whole debate is mired in the prism of party political sniping, is there ever a time for a government of the day to implement electoral reform without being accused of political opportunism? We can argue until we are blue in the face about motive, but its actions that count. I will support any government committed to offer a more democratic voting system- any colour or viewpoint. Indeed I am committed supporter to introducing STV in the Welsh Assembly Elections even though my own party of Labour will more than likely lose out by this change.<BR/><BR/>Why should be satisfied with a voting system that swings on a few thousand votes in a few ‘target’ seats, and the cynical microcosm of politics that fosters itself around that electoral reality. I do not blame parties for focusing their agenda on the target seat microcosm because they are there to attempt to get into government and enact their policies- but it is the reason so many people, particularly people who do not vote are so uninterested because their vote on the whole counts for nothing. Whether you vote Labour in Henley, or Conservative in my seat of Torfaen, you are essentially disenfranchised from the process.<BR/><BR/>As someone who is 24, I want to be able to have a politics that by the time I reach middle age isn’t derelict and irrelevant, our current political culture, which includes the outdated electoral system is make sure that nightmare will be realised.<BR/><BR/>www.southpawgrammarwales.blogspot.comSouthpaw Grammarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02195993493927781388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39010587597406253822008-03-26T15:30:00.000+00:002008-03-26T15:30:00.000+00:00If virtually all LibDem & Labour voters wanted a L...If virtually all LibDem & Labour voters wanted a Labour government in preference to the Tories it is not at all unreasonable that they (the clear majority) should get it. Personally, except as part of an electoral deal with a democratic electoral system on the table I very much doubt if labour could hope for such support. <BR/><BR/>Indeed because Labour promised a referendum on PR in 1997 & broke it, the Tories would actually be in a stronger position to make such a promise but if they decide to drive the Libs into Labour's arms whose fault would that be?<BR/><BR/>The idea that FPTP gives us all the smack of stable & firm government is wrong. It isn't stable because the only way of changing things is to entirely throw out the current rascals & put the new lot in, who are bound to have precisely opposite policies on many things - that is not stability.<BR/><BR/> Regarding strength, whatever the legal position, a governemnt which everybody knows represents an ever smaller minority of us can have little respect & severe practical limits on what it can do.<BR/><BR/>FPTP also tends to increase geographical differences (seats in the south of England being Tory & elsewhere Labour when the popular vote is much more even). It creates large parties where debate is stifled in the need to appear monolithic (eg Mr Flight & the general lack of debate about tax cuts).<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that FPTP gives voters a very limited choice & monopolistic power to owners of parties - that is neither democratic nor likely to allow wide political debate &/or progress & is, I think, a significant cause of our decline as a free & propserous nation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-38965519773760973932008-03-26T15:09:00.000+00:002008-03-26T15:09:00.000+00:00We are already "governed by a whole raft of politi...We are already "governed by a whole raft of politicians who are .. the first choice of few." Only 34% of MPs gained over half of the votes in their constituencies in 2005. <BR/><BR/>Iain is right that the assumptions that the LibDemVoice blogger used aren't accurate. Many commentators are acknowledging we are now back to somewhere near a 50:50 split of LibDems second preferences to Labour and the Tories. Perhaps the London Mayoral elections may tell us more whether that is indeed the case. But I think the days of AV massively favouring Labour are long gone. Indeed, increasing anti-Labour tactical voting (there is evidence for this from the 2006 and 2007 local elections) and AV’s anti-incumbency tendencies may in fact help the Tories. <BR/><BR/>Electoral reform for the Commons is being talked about now is actually less due to Labour's electoral predicament (though that is likely to be one factor), but the increasing consensus behind some form of PR for electing the Lords. The time could approach when the Lords will be able to argue with some justification that they are the more legitimate and representative House. A change away from First-Past-the-Post will be necessary to protect the primacy of the Commons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67926351910495251272008-03-26T15:03:00.000+00:002008-03-26T15:03:00.000+00:00Broon's Talking Bawgie there is a massive differen...Broon's Talking Bawgie there is a massive difference between a government with a 2 seat majority and a total majority. Imagine if Labour had a 2 seat majority how different that would be in todays Parliament with only 2 labour MPs needing to vote against the government.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06193310695375031597noreply@blogger.com