That AV Vote

[Dandyman]

On 05 May 2011 the British public will have the chance to determine if they want Nick Clegg to decide who will form the future governments of the United Kingdom. The question is how will the boys and girls of NSC be voting ?

To nail my own colours to the mast, I am in the No to AV, yes to PR camp:

NO to AV, YES to PR | Demand real reform, not a


Unfortunately the official No to AV campaign was handed over to a gang of right-wing fruitcakes but that should not, IMO, distract people from the strong reasons for concluding that AV is a con which will be a block to real PR and the chance to mend our broken electoral sustem.

So, how will you vote and why ?

 

[sten_super]

The major problem with PR is the loss of direct representation. I like the idea of having a parliament that is truly representative of the will of the people, I'm just wary of the public losing their one link to parliament. For that reason I will probably be voting Yes to AV.

 

[Superphil]

Is PR one of the options in the referendum/vote?

 

[Simster]

I would prefer PR, but that is not what is on the table and is never likely to be unless we have another hung parliament with a better politician than Clegg running the party holding the balance of power. The man is a twat as he's waived away a real chance for electoral reform for a whiff of power.

So now, in my opinion it is a straight yes or no to AV. Clearly I am in favour of AV, as I am sick to death of the status quo where your vote is utterly meaningless in something like 75% of constituencies. And it really is time to usher in a new dawn of concensus politics.

 

[Bob!]

Is PR one of the options in the referendum?

No.

 

[Superphil]

So no point it being in this poll then really, the OP asks "So, how will you vote and why ? "

I will vote no to AV because when I vote for candidate 'A' that is because I want the candidate to win, at the exlcusion of all others. I would be sick to the pit of my stomach if I thought that my vote was being given away to someone for whom I didn't vote. AV to me seems like a dilution of democracy, for the benefit of those in power, or those less popular than they would like to be. I predict it will be a resounding 'no'.

 

[Simster]

So no point it being in this poll then really, the OP asks "So, how will you vote and why ? "

I will vote no to AV because when I vote for candidate 'A' that is because I want the candidate to win, at the exlcusion of all others. I would be sick to the pit of my stomach if I thought that my vote was being given away to someone for whom I didn't vote. AV to me seems like a dilution of democracy, for the benefit of those in power, or those less popular than they would like to be. I predict it will be a resounding 'no'.

But presumably you could fill out your form with just one vote? i.e. surely the preference vote is optional? The other thing is that whilst some people vote FOR a particular party, others vote for ANYONE BUT a particular party, and at the moment the wishes of those people are being ignored. To me, this is the key advantage of AV that even PR fails to address.

And what about the fact that the current set up simply promotes minority government? When was the last time this country was run with a proper mandate of over 50% of votes counted?

 

[Dandyman]

So no point it being in this poll then really, the OP asks "So, how will you vote and why ? "

I will vote no to AV because when I vote for candidate 'A' that is because I want the candidate to win, at the exlcusion of all others. I would be sick to the pit of my stomach if I thought that my vote was being given away to someone for whom I didn't vote. AV to me seems like a dilution of democracy, for the benefit of those in power, or those less popular than they would like to be. I predict it will be a resounding 'no'.

The reason for the two no options is that there are both reactionary and progressive camps that will vote no and I don't think it is representative to confuse the two. You are right, however, that the actual vote on 05 May is a straight Yes or No despite Caroline Lucas' attempt to offer us a real choice:

Caroline Lucas: Give the voters real choice
AV may have some advantages over first past the post, but it is unlikely to shake up politics


This week will see the UK Parliament debate a bill to give the voters a referendum on electoral reform. It's 35 years since Britain last had a national referendum, and the one proposed for next May clearly hasn't had the most auspicious beginnings. In fact anyone expecting to have a real say in how the country is run is likely to be disappointed. The politicians are planning to offer us two flavours of vanilla: genuine reform is not on the menu.

At the moment, the UK uses four different voting systems in national elections: first past the post for Westminster; AMS (Additional Member System) for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly; regional party lists for the European Elections; and STV (Single Transferable Vote) in Northern Ireland.

But the proposed referendum question is merely a choice between first past the post and Additional Vote (AV): in other words, a system unfamiliar to UK voters and which, until the last few months, has had few supporters. The last major review of voting systems, the Jenkins Commission, proposed another system: AV Plus. The Electoral Reform Society campaigns for STV, which is the system to which the Lib Dems were committed in this year's general election.

So we have a situation in which the two coalition parties – neither of whom included AV in their manifestos – are supporting a referendum for one system, while Labour, which made a belated conversion to AV before the election, is against it.

How has this come about? Sadly, the only explanation is old-style politics. The Conservatives don't want to change the current system, and are allowing the referendum to shore up the coalition in the hope that the country will vote No. To them, AV is more acceptable than a genuinely proportional system because it minimises the risk of Ukip winning any seats at their expense. The Liberal Democrats have dropped STV, comforted by the fact that AV will benefit them more than anyone else. And Labour can drop its commitment to reform while blaming the government.

My own party, the Greens, supports the Additional Member System – a system which is more proportional but which maintains a constituency link. We'll be deciding our position on AV at our forthcoming conference. But I believe that the most important priority is to give the public a real choice. Otherwise, people will remain cynical and disengaged. That is why I will be tabling an amendment in Parliament to rewrite the question to allow people to choose between AV, AMS, STV and the party list system, or to stick with first past the post.

I hope MPs of all parties who support reform will back this amendment. And in particular, as the Labour leadership battle narrows in favour of the Miliband brothers, I challenge them to support my amendment, to demonstrate their commitment to both pluralism and democracy. AV may have some advantages over first past the post, but it is unlikely to shake up politics and in some circumstances can be even less proportional than the current system. Analysis by the House of Commons library suggests that if the 1997 election, for example, had been fought under AV, it would have given Labour an even more massive majority.

May 2011 is not only the planned date of the referendum: it will also be two years since the MPs expenses scandal first broke. Parliament has come to be seen with contempt by many people because it acted in its own interests, not those of the people it is supposed to serve. A stitched-up referendum that denies people a real choice stinks of the old politics. All MPs, including those who support first past the post, should see that unless the public has a real choice, a chance to restore trust in politics will have been lost. But if politicians put aside their own instincts and interests and trust the people, Parliament could win back some of that lost trust.

The writer is leader of the Green Party and MP for Brighton Pavilion

 

[Dandyman]

But presumably you could fill out your form with just one vote? i.e. surely the preference vote is optional? The other thing is that whilst some people vote FOR a particular party, others vote for ANYONE BUT a particular party, and at the moment the wishes of those people are being ignored. To me, this is the key advantage of AV that even PR fails to address.

And what about the fact that the current set up simply promotes minority government? When was the last time this country was run with a proper mandate of over 50% of votes counted?

One of the many problems with AV IMO is that it is not a real PR system, it simply redistributes the votes of minority parties to bigger ones to produce a false legitimacy for the eventual winner. It also encourages cheap populism over real politics and allows minority parties to engage in behind the scenes horse trading without any real mandate.

 

[Superphil]

But presumably you could fill out your form with just one vote? i.e. surely the preference vote is optional?

I wasn't thinking about it like that, and if that is the case, then it doesn't bother me either way. If AV is voted in, is it then obligatory to cast your AVs? If it is, then I don't want it, if it isn't, then what's the point in the first place?

 

[Brovion]

Yes to AV. I'm not a particular fan of PR if it uses the 'list' system whereby seats are divvied up depending on the number of votes cast and an 'unelected' group of people become MPS. I say 'unelected' because we as individual voters have had no say in whether Person X becomes an MP or not - a bit like life peers.

However I'll admit even PR is better than first-past-the-post. And the current coalition has killed the of-quoted anti-PR chestnut that coalition governments are inherrently weak and unstable as the partners are always rowing.

 

[Chicken Run]

I will vote for first past the post.

 

[Simster]

One of the many problems with AV IMO is that it is not a real PR system, it simply redistributes the votes of minority parties to bigger ones to produce a false legitimacy for the eventual winner. It also encourages cheap populism over real politics and allows minority parties to engage in behind the scenes horse trading without any real mandate.

I take your first point, but I'm not sure that's how it would play out. Lets say the Greens or BNP or UKIP worked tirelessly for votes, at the moment they will see no reward for their efforts, but under AV people might vote for their usual party and then remember they were also impressed with the politics on the doorstep of the minority party and give them a high preference vote. Your second point is absolute nonsense considering it is coming from someone in favour of PR. Any system that encourages a consensus government will involve backroom horsetrading and that is a fact.

I wasn't thinking about it like that, and if that is the case, then it doesn't bother me either way. If AV is voted in, is it then obligatory to cast your AVs? If it is, then I don't want it, if it isn't, then what's the point in the first place?

As I said, the point is that there are people who vote against a party rather than for a party. These people are not being catered for under first past the post.

 

[Brovion]

I wasn't thinking about it like that, and if that is the case, then it doesn't bother me either way. If AV is voted in, is it then obligatory to cast your AVs? If it is, then I don't want it, if it isn't, then what's the point in the first place?

Because it gives you choice. You can say "I really want this guy, but I won't be too upset if this other guy gets in instead." Hopefully it will kill off tactical voting whereby people vote for a candidate they DON'T want in order to keep out a candidate they REALLY don't want.

 

[ROSM]

I am undecided on this. I've never been a fan of AV as it's neither one thing nor the other but something in between (which would be a great phrase to describe the current Lib Dem leadership). I would choose single transferable vote (multiple representated constituencies) or first past the post (single represented constituency) in preference.

However I fear that a no vote for this will mean we will not get a chance to vote for a multi rep STV (which doesn't use closed party lists so retains a link between voters and their reps) in my lifetime.

But the chances of a yes vote have been severely hampered by a split labour party (who at least are showing proper debating principles on this) and the public views of Lib Dems who've sold their Granny for a shot at power. The only hope is more utterances from the frankly bonkers Baroness Warsi like those we've heard this week. She's never won an election in her lifetime and has the grasp of facts and history only matched by leon Knight's agent. She almost convinced me to vote Yes just by reading her thoughts on this.

 

[beorhthelm]

the problem with PR is it places even more emphasis on the party. pick a colour. i know theres alot of that now anyway, but at least we can have a pretense of voting for our representitive, rather than having one imposed from central party office. there are cases where a seat will go against the expected and vote for a local who supports local issues (Simon Hughes springs to mind).

but at least PR serves a purpose and has an idealogical basis to fully represent the collective vote results.

the problem with AV its just a dogs dinner compromise that serves no ones interest except to change from FPTP. politics will be diluted as each party tries to woo the 2/3rd prefernece votes. some think thats good, personally i would like a bit more ideology from the political elite, rather than being governed by focus groups and polling.

eitherway, the issue is turning into a damp squib, no body really cares. on past results, the current coalition would still be in place and the last few Labour governments would have had slightly smaller majorities.

 

[keaton]

I wasn't thinking about it like that, and if that is the case, then it doesn't bother me either way. If AV is voted in, is it then obligatory to cast your AVs? If it is, then I don't want it, if it isn't, then what's the point in the first place?

So people who do want to have a second choice can. It should stop the anamoly (for example) were 60-70% of voters can vote for left of centre parties but a right of centre party wins

 

[JJ McClure]

Should people be allowed to vote more than once?
NO

I'm voting against AV. Quite frankly a bloody stupid idea.

 

[Superphil]

So people who do want to have a second choice can. It should stop the anamoly (for example) were 60-70% of voters can vote for left of centre parties but a right of centre party wins

So are you saying catergorically it is not obligatory to make AVs if you don't want to?

If that is the that case, I'll not waste any time at all even going to the polling station, a pointless exercise, IMO.

 

[BensGrandad]

As I see it if eg 10,000 people vote 5, 000 for A, 5000 for B but all 10000 for C as the 2nd choice, we would finish up with C as the MP who nobody wanted as first choice.