The CF Referendum on Electoral Reform

[Digital Fanatic]

I have no interest in AV. I don't think the public has either.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Australia has been using AV for ages:

"Does the Alternative Vote Bring Tyranny to Australia?

Preferential voting in Australia

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So why only AV as a choice?

Because it is the *only* choice which the Tories would allow. Neither they nor Labour are in favour of actual PR for the House of Commons.

Originally Posted by Paul M

AV seems a bit complicated.

How is writing "1", "2", & "3" on your ballot paper complicated?

It may have a bit more to it than simply marking a single "X", but it's certainly less complicated than the proper Proportional Representation (PR) systems already used in other parts of the the UK. N. Ireland uses STV for local, European, and Assembly elections; Scotland uses STV for local elections; the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and Greater London Assembly use AMS.

Originally Posted by Paul M

Why change a system that seems to have worked for 100's years ?

Because AV is meant to be fairer. No more wasted votes. No more tactical voting. No more MPs elected with the support of less than 50% of their constituents.

Originally Posted by martyh

Who decided we needed a reform on the voting system anyway ?,it wouldn't have been the libdems would it because the way i see it AV is the only way they ever retain any power .
The real problem isn't the system we use it's the apathy of the voters .For the most part we see any party in power the same as the last one so don't see the point

The main Lib Dem requirement for entering into a Coalition was that there would be a referendum on electoral reform. The preferred system of the Lib Dems is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) (already used in N. Ireland & Scotland, as mentioned above), however this would never have been accepted by the Tories or Labour, so AV was given as a compromise. It is not as fair or proportional as STV, but it is still meant to be fairer than FPTP.

Labour was also in favour of electoral reform, and its 2010 General Election Manifesto promised a referendum on AV, just as we have ended up with with the Tory / Lib Dem Coalition.

So, if Labour had won last year, we would *still* be having a referendum, with its associated costs. [Costs which, btw, aren't at all as high as the No campaign claims: linky linky).

Originally Posted by techguyone

If the future is coalition after coalition with AV like the bunch we currently have in, you'll end up with even less people voting than now (and God knows that bad enough already)

Would the Alternative Vote have changed history?

If AV had been used in previous general elections would it have changed the result?

This graphic illustrates how the results of the last six general elections might have looked had the 'alternative vote' system been in place. The overall outcome of the contests would not have changed, but the Liberal Democrats would have gained the most seats and the scale of the Conservative defeat in 1997 would have been much greater, the research suggests.

Originally Posted by techguyone

See how well the Lib Dems do in the next few elections, I'll eat my hat if they're not 'punished' and lose significant ground they've made in recent years - as a direct result of forming the Coalition with the Conservatives./

I have no doubt of that. I fully expect the Lib Dems to get a complete pasting at the next elections.

[Cobbydaler]

I like the idea of the system referenced in the Independent link in the OP:

http://www.dprvoting.org/

[frogstamper]

FPTP has not given us a government voted for by the majority of the electorate since the war...how on earth is that democratic?
At least with AV we'll end up with MP's elected who have of a majority of their constituency vote, I know its not perfect but its a hell of a lot fairer than FPTP.
If we really wanted a fair electoral system we would adopt STV, but our politicians will vote for the system which they think most benefits their own party, not the most democratic.

[mertle]

Pointless exercise how would it work.

How the hell would the distrubute share of MP'S. Would there be case of MP given a set constituency which VOTERS voted for another party to maintain the stupid status quo of the share. If that happened surely it would be not constitutional to force people to an MP the do not wish to be there.

Some vote for the MP not the party too its seems a crazy idea.

Yes first past the post can have drawbacks.

I would argue the current incumberments is an illegal governement as the people had no say whether the coalition is wanted. We should been asked who should formed a coalition goverment by another poll.

Lab=Lib
Tory=Lib
Lab=Tory

Who won would been told to form a government whether they liked it or not the people demanded it.

Vote your coalition

The libs idea has more flaws than first past the post.

[Chrysalis]

I voted yes but in truth AV isnt that much better, we need either AV+, or STV. AV is just a diluted version of FPTP and will still have the safe seat problem.

A monumental waste of time. It isn't even a proportional system. All it will do is confuse a lot of people.

Give us a referendum on a properly proportional system such as STV or else leave well alone.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

FPTP has not given us a government voted for by the majority of the electorate since the war...how on earth is that democratic?
At least with AV we'll end up with MP's elected who have of a majority of their constituency vote, I know its not perfect but its a hell of a lot fairer than FPTP.
If we really wanted a fair electoral system we would adopt STV, but our politicians will vote for the system which they think most benefits their own party, not the most democratic.

I smile when people call FPTP democratic, I suspect most people havent looked into how it works.

---------- Post added at 15:16 ---------- Previous post was at 15:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So why only AV as a choice?Where has the discussion on ALL versions and flavours of changing how we vote gone?

So much for consultation if the only choice we are given is AV..

Frankly after the lie that was the referendum on joining the European Common market but was really a vote to join the EU, I am dubious about this referendum actually giving the electorate what they really want.

I'm wondering if spoiling the referendum paper will be noted as a protest.

I believe the lib dems wanted STV, but the tories wouldnt agree to allowing it on a referendum. I am 90% but not 100% certian on this. I just remember reading STV and then after they did their horse trading it was diluted down to AV

Both the tories and labour have a lot to lose on any kind of PR and they will fight till the end to not have it.

---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 15:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Masque

The Lib Dems will be caned at a lot of local and national elections and to be honest I relish the thought.

Next election?

I think lib dems will get battered, gone against a lot of their manifesto and belief's for 4 years of power. If they got STV they would have gained out of it, but even if they get AV they will get battered.

Tories could well lose the next election, but they gambling on this brutal cost cutting program to yield them some kind of results by the next election, their saving grace could well be the fact that the new labour leader I feel wont be popular across middle britian and seen too much as left wing. Most of lib dem lost votes are likely go to labour or any other party non tory.

[ntluser]

The problem with both these systems of voting is that neither one compels voters to vote.

Nor does either system stop parties from forming coalitions if necessary.

The advantage of AV over FPTP is that you do have an idea what each voters second preference would be and gives parties a rough idea of what policies to concentrate on to best meet voters' requirements.

Maybe future elections would require parties to state in advance what common policies they would pursue in the event of a coalition with another party.

People object to some of the coalition policies because they do not match the manifesto or platform they stood on in the election but coalition policies are compromise policies and do not necessarily represent or accurately represent voter interests.

It would have been interesting to see what the policies would have been for Lab-Con & Lib-Lab coalitions.

Whichever system is chosen I hope they make voting compulsory and provide voters with a legal option not to vote for any party.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by mertle

Pointless exercise how would it work.

How the hell would the distrubute share of MP'S. Would there be case of MP given a set constituency which VOTERS voted for another party to maintain the stupid status quo of the share. If that happened surely it would be not constitutional to force people to an MP the do not wish to be there.

Some vote for the MP not the party too its seems a crazy idea.

Erm... Have a read of these from the first post:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595


Nothing happens to the constituencies, and there is no need to "distribute the share of MPs".

AV retains the current system of 1 MP for 1 constituency.

Originally Posted by mertle

Yes first past the post can have drawbacks.

I would argue the current incumberments is an illegal governement as the people had no say whether the coalition is wanted. We should been asked who should formed a coalition goverment by another poll.

Lab=Lib
Tory=Lib
Lab=Tory

Who won would been told to form a government whether they liked it or not the people demanded it.

Vote your coalition

The libs idea has more flaws than first past the post.

Well, your argument would be wrong, because that is simply not how it works in the UK.

Originally Posted by Chris

A monumental waste of time. It isn't even a proportional system. All it will do is confuse a lot of people.

Give us a referendum on a properly proportional system such as STV or else leave well alone.

We'll never have a referendum on STV or anything else that's actual proper PR. Labour let us down there, by ignoring Jenkins, & neither they nor the Tories would want to go that far.

Would it really be that confusing?

N. Ireland uses STV for local, European, and Assembly elections. Scotland uses STV for local elections. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and Greater London Assembly use AMS. Great Britain uses the Party List system for European elections. Those are all more complicated than FPTP.

How hard would it be to explain how to vote in an AV-based General Election? How complicated or confusing would it be?

You just rank the candidates in order of preference, until you have no preferences left. If you only want to rank one, you can. If you want to rank three, you can. If you want to rank them all, you can. Surely people can understand that?

OK, there's more to it than "Put an 'X' next to the candidate you want", but it's hardly complicated, though, and there'd be voter education if it went ahead.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I believe the lib dems wanted STV, but the tories wouldnt agree to allowing it on a referendum. I am 90% but not 100% certian on this. I just remember reading STV and then after they did their horse trading it was diluted down to AV

Both the tories and labour have a lot to lose on any kind of PR and they will fight till the end to not have it.

Correct. The favoured system of the Lib Dems is STV. On a side note, the Jenkins Commission (set up by - and later ignored by - New Labour) recommended AV+.

The Lib Dems wanted STV. The Tories & Labour would never allow it. A compromise was reached during the Coalition negotiations to offer a referendum on AV instead.

---------- Post added at 20:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------

Originally Posted by ntluser

It would have been interesting to see what the policies would have been for Lab-Con & Lib-Lab coalitions.

Now that would have been odd

Originally Posted by ntluser

Whichever system is chosen I hope they make voting compulsory and provide voters with a legal option not to vote for any party.

I agree with that.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

A monumental waste of time. It isn't even a proportional system. All it will do is confuse a lot of people.

Give us a referendum on a properly proportional system such as STV or else leave well alone.

Given the Labour/Tory resistance to changing the voting system I can't see it changing to a proportional system overnight. The main advantage of AV as I see it is that it will give the LibDems (and others) a slightly larger number of seats, thus allowing them to pursue more radical change. A yes vote in the referendum will show that people want change in the voting system. A no vote (even if it's because people feel the change isn't big enough) will add ammo to those with a vested interest in the present antiquated system. I see it as a first step that needs to be taken before going any further. Not taking that first step will rule out further steps. Sadly though, I won't be allowed to vote.

People's voting apathy has nothing to do wih the system of voting it is the people they are asked to vote for you can have them voted for anyway you want but if people cannot stand the candidates or get some person foisted on them they will not vote. After seeing how this coalition has worked the idea of a string of them makes me shudder so many back door deals done to get and keep support, time we don't have wasted on pleasing some agenda or demand from a minority that must have it's pound of flesh.

Keep the system till such time as you get the public re-engaged with politics and then see if they truly want a change to the system not what politicians want because it suits their agenda we have had enough of that in the UK for the last 20 odd years.

I started a new thread with a new poll this morning - please continue discussion over there.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20...not-to-av.html

This thread now closed