That AV Vote

[keaton]

Agree...if you have AV...then you'll get a coalition government everytime,then bargaining politics,I'll give up A if you give up B

His example's wrong, under AV, C would get kicked out

 

[Dandyman]

and the latest opinion polls...

Voting reform: 'yes' camp reeling as support collapses | Politics |

The Labour leader Ed Miliband shared a platform with Lib Dem Vince Cable at a 'yes to AV' event in London yesterday. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
Support for a change to the way MPs are elected is collapsing, according to the latest Guardian/ICM poll, sending shockwaves through the yes campaign advocating reform of the voting system.

The figures give the no camp a 16-point lead, wiping out a two-point lead for the yes camp in the equivalent Guardian/ICM poll in February.

Among people who say they are likely to vote in the nationwide referendum on the alternative vote on 5 May and have made up their minds, the poll shows 58% saying no and 42% saying yes.

Among all respondents, 44% back no and 33% yes, with 23% saying they don't know.

The findings prompted soul-searching among the yes campaigners over their tactics in the runup to the referendum. Some pointed to the fact that they were being outspent by the no campaign and facing a battle against its supporters in the rightwing press. However, there were no initial signs of panic or calls for a change in strategy.

The Guardian/ICM poll came on the day David Cameron cast aside political allegiances to join the former Labour home secretary Lord Reid to claim a change from first past the post would be a backward step for Britain. The prime minister said it would damage the chain of political accountability by making coalitions more likely. He dismissed the system as "obscure, unfair and expensive".

At the same time the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, shared a platform with the Liberal Democrat business secretary, Vince Cable, to argue the referendum is coming down to a choice of hope over fear. Miliband is not going to share a platform with Nick Clegg throughout the campaign.

The Guardian poll suggests opinion is hardening against the alternative vote.

A Guardian/ICM poll in December put the yes vote six points ahead, before adjusting for likely turnout. In February the two camps were neck and neck on the same measure, and now – again, before turnout is taken into account – the no vote is 11 points ahead. The poll, showing a much larger lead for the no campaign than in other polls, is the first for two months to use a random sample by telephone, rather than an online panel, and the results have been adjusted to take account of turnout.

Uniquely, the latest poll also includes a sample of voters from Northern Ireland, which is included in the UK-wide referendum. ICM posed the same question that will be asked in the referendum: "At present, the UK uses the first-past-the-post system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the alternative vote system be used instead?"

Pro-AV campaigners had hoped that people who wanted change would be more likely to turn out on polling day. Instead, once people are asked how likely they are to vote, the lead for the no camp increases.

A senior Lib Dem minister acknowledged the tightening in the race, pointing to the increasing propaganda coming out of the Murdoch press. He added that the campaign faced a strategic dilemma over how to fight the no campaign's negative tactics. The minister said: "You could end up looking like the no campaign and people will think it is a just a bunch of politicians arguing with one another, when we are offering a different kind of politics. You cannot have Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter getting down and dirty with Eric Pickles and Sayeeda Warsi."

There was also a further illustration of the toll the campaign is taking on cabinet relations when Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, lashed out at the Tory-led no campaign, saying he was "shocked that coalition partners could stoop to this level, dredging up stuff they knew was a downright lie".

He added that he had not had the courtesy of a reply from Warsi, the Tory co-chair, after asking her to name one country that had introduced expensive voting machines as part of the alternative vote. He also defended his decision to accuse her of employing goebbels like lies.

Ben Bradshaw, chairman of the Labour yes campaign, said: "I always thought it was going to be tough because of the unpopularity of Nick Clegg, and referendums are just difficult to win because the presumption is to vote no.

"We were also always going to be outspent, but I am still confident that when people look at the issues, a new politics, a fairer voting system and a more accountable system, we will win. When people look at who is lined up on either side of this argument they will vote yes.

"We have come under a lot of pressure in the yes campaign to go negative, but I think the strength of our campaign is that it is positive.

"It is fair to point out that the no campaign is a Tory campaign, funded by Tory money, but we must keep making the positive argument. We just have to keep banging on because there are still large numbers of people undecided."

Other senior yes figures said uncertainty about turnout rendered opinion polls unreliable and claimed improved campaigning recently would get the yes vote out on the day.

The Guardian poll shows three-quarters of Conservatives planning to vote will opt for no, as will a small majority of Labour supporters. Only Lib Dem voters are firmly in favour, with more than two-thirds saying they will vote yes.

The yes camp could still turn things around by winning over the 23% who say they are unsure how they will vote – but this figure includes many who say they may not turn out at all.

The poll also shows young people are more than twice as likely to favour AV as pensioners. But pensioners are more than twice as likely to vote as the young.

Cameron said at his press conference on Monday he would accept the referendum result. If he lost he would not allow diehard no campaigners in his party to block the reform by delaying the constituency boundary changes that must precede a change to the voting system.

One Tory MP, Eleanor Laing, said the legitimacy of a yes vote would be questioned if there was a derisory turnout. Cameron also insisted he did not "condone any personal attacks" on Clegg and pointed out that his own Conservative Yes Campaign literature did not feature any.

But Lord Reid seized on the inability of Clegg and Miliband to share a platform, claiming that it was the yes campaign's "biggest handicap".

The Guardian poll also shows Labour has regained a narrow poll lead over the Conservatives. The estimated national voting intentions put Labour on 37%, up one. The Conservatives are on 35%, down two, and the Lib Dems on 15%, down one, but still higher than in most online polls. Support for other parties was a combined 13%, a recent high in ICM polls.

ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,033 adults across the United Kingdom aged 18+ by telephone on 15-17 April 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Voting intention based on British sample of 1,003 people

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

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.

Always been my worry too

 

[DTES]

Always been my worry too

No. This absolutely could not happen.

If C has the least first choice votes then he/she is eliminated in the first round.

The person with the fewest first preference votes cannot win, so feel better about your worry...

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Thanks & Maybe so much the same as the current system then? i am no politician btw i'll look into a bit more.

 

[beorhthelm]

No. This absolutely could not happen.

If C has the least first choice votes then he/she is eliminated in the first round.

The person with the fewest first preference votes cannot win, so feel better about your worry...

ok, but take the example a little further, adding a couple more candidates with a few hundred each. widespread support of second or third placed candidate after the first vote count is possible. indeed, its usually cited as the very purpose and advantage of AV, keep that nasty party out by having lots of second preferences going to another (apparently) not so nasty party.

the pro AV camp keeping trumpeting this as an advantage, without considering people might not like it or consider it fair.

something im surprised at the Guardian piece, is the suggestion that people are going to go out expressly to vote No. i didnt expect that and find it quite interesting people want to activly vote for the status quo.

 

[PaoloRossiJohnson]

This might help, or be of interest...

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/PVSCBill_analysis2.html

I am firmly in the Yes to AV camp, mainly because I believe it will give a more accurate reflection of what people's political opinions actually are.

FPTP is anachronistic. It belongs to a time when there were generally only 2 parties to choose from. Things are different nowadays, believe it or not. There's usually at least 5 candidates in each constituency, often more.

We need to have a system that is more suitable for the times we now live in, and, given the choice in this forthcoming referendum between 'no change' and 'a change for the better', I'll be voting for AV.

PS. My household is split 50/50 on this: wife and son = FPTP; me and daughter = AV

 

[beorhthelm]

This might help, or be of interest...

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/PVSCBill_analysis2.html

well yes it is... shows how the big winners are the Liberals (no surprise they are so keen) with 20-50 more seats each of the elections since 1983. the Liberals will gain from large second preference votes by Labour and Conservatives.

it shows no election result would have changed except for 1992 would be hung and the last one much closer between Labour/Conservative. we might have therefore had a Labour/Lib coalition right now, with Brown still in power. notable how the Blair years would still have seen very large Labour majorities, which probably shows how Labour relies on large numbers of safe majority seats, which might not be the case after the seat count is reduced and constituencies rebalanced numerically.

 

[DTES]

ok, but take the example a little further, adding a couple more candidates with a few hundred each. widespread support of second or third placed candidate after the first vote count is possible. indeed, its usually cited as the very purpose and advantage of AV, keep that nasty party out by having lots of second preferences going to another (apparently) not so nasty party.

Yes, absolutely. My point was simply that if nobody puts someone as a first preference then they don't have a chance of winning.

The purpose and advantage, for me, is that this system guarantees that the winner will be preferred over the next best by a majority of voters. Under FPTP any sized majority (up to 2/3 if there are 3 candidates, 9/10 if there are 10 candidates etc) could look at the result and think "Really? I'd much rather the guy/girl that came second won" - and if a majority think that, then the result kind of defies the name "democracy".

 

[DTES]

well yes it is... shows how the big winners are the Liberals (no surprise they are so keen) with 20-50 more seats each of the elections since 1983. the Liberals will gain from large second preference votes by Labour and Conservatives.

Yes, this is true but is entirely based on them picking up the second preferences. Would they still get those now? Their current unpopularity might lead to people not putting them anywhere, and an election where people order the candidates such to put the Lib Dems below every other option would obviously be worse for them than FPTP, which is essentially the point.

There's also then other view - that an extra 20 or even 50 seats might not make them genuine "winners" in any sense at all - as even this increased number of seats wouldn't match their vote share. But then PR is another debate altogether...

 

[beorhthelm]

The purpose and advantage, for me, is that this system guarantees that the winner will be preferred over the next best by a majority of voters. Under FPTP any sized majority (up to 2/3 if there are 3 candidates, 9/10 if there are 10 candidates etc) could look at the result and think "Really? I'd much rather the guy/girl that came second won" - and if a majority think that, then the result kind of defies the name "democracy".

yes, so you keep saying. but one should consider that for some this is too different, or simply not how they think. some might not like the idea that someone with 48% of the vote ends up losing because the "others gang up on them". when you consider there hasnt been a widespread, popular clamour for a change to the vote (its the politians who've decided we want to ask this question), you have to wonder if people care much about these scenarios. whats wrong with, in a three way fight, the winner only gets 34%? i think the Yes camp are falling into a trap of assuming what others think is fair and not fair. that in itself might make some people minded to vote No.

Yes, this is true but is entirely based on them picking up the second preferences. Would they still get those now? ...
There's also then other view - that an extra 20 or even 50 seats might not make them genuine "winners" in any sense at all - as even this increased number of seats wouldn't match their vote share.

one could analyse deeper and add lots of whatifs, for example how much of the Liberal vote is protest/tactical voting?

 

[DTES]

yes, so you keep saying. but one should consider that for some this is too different, or simply not how they think. some might not like the idea that someone with 48% of the vote ends up losing because the "others gang up on them". when you consider there hasnt been a widespread, popular clamour for a change to the vote (its the politians who've decided we want to ask this question), you have to wonder if people care much about these scenarios. whats wrong with, in a three way fight, the winner only gets 34%? i think the Yes camp are falling into a trap of assuming what others think is fair and not fair. that in itself might make some people minded to vote No.

Not really - I think it's more of the Yes camp making the case that this is fairer and hoping people agree. If people agree they'll vote yes, if they disagree they'll vote no, if they don't care they won't vote?

one could analyse deeper and add lots of whatifs, for example how much of the Liberal vote is protest/tactical voting?

Very true, and we don't know. Another big benefit of AV though is the elimination of tactical voting (maybe not completely, but in comparison to FPTP it'll be much reduced - people who want to vote for their first choice but don't because they'd rather just keep out Lab/Con can now happily accurately reflect their choices). I guess to a certain extent we'll find out how much was tactical?

 

[paddy]

Another lie that's consistently thrown about by the No2AV campaign.

UK - hung parliaments/coalitions under FPTP since 1900: 5
Canada - hung parliaments/coalitions under FPTP since 1900: 12

Australia - hung parliaments/coalitions under AV since 1900: 2

AV does not make coalitions more likely at all, let alone "everytime".

But your use of these figures is in itself misleading. You should not confuse hung parliaments and coalitions - they are two very different things. For instance, three of your hung parliaments/coalitions were in fact national governments formed during the first and second world wars - they had absolutely nothing to do with FPTP. Of the other two hung parliaments/coalitions you mention, one is clearly the current one (formed as a genuine result of a hung parliament), however, the other was a coalition formed in response to the great depression (again, nothing to do with the FPTP system itself). Therefore, FPTP as a voting system has produced one real coalition.

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

From todays Guardian

Do you want the alternative vote? Take the quiz | Politics | guardian.co.uk

I scored 80 out of a possible 85

With these comments...so Yes gets my vote on 5th May

You want electoral reform but your answers suggest that the alternative vote doesn't go far enough for you. Maybe proportional representation is what you really want. But that's not on offer. You've got to pick between the choices on offer.

 

[Simster]

55/85

"A tactical voter or frustrated voter perhaps? You appear to want a different electoral system, and maybe the alternative vote is the one for you."

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm really undecided on this. Whilst I support proper PR I'm not sure about AV.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

55/85

"A tactical voter or frustrated voter perhaps? You appear to want a different electoral system, and maybe the alternative vote is the one for you."

i got 61/85 and the same response.

 

[Simster]

I'm really undecided on this. Whilst I support proper PR I'm not sure about AV.

I'd be much happier with AV if the constituency sizes were standardised, but I broadly agree with you.

To me, it is totally wrong that the country is led by a government that is not elected by a majority of voters. That is the biggest issue. And whilst we're at it, get rid of unelected peers in the Lords too - that's another promise that Tony Blair broke.

 

[DTES]

But your use of these figures is in itself misleading. You should not confuse hung parliaments and coalitions - they are two very different things. For instance, three of your hung parliaments/coalitions were in fact national governments formed during the first and second world wars - they had absolutely nothing to do with FPTP. Of the other two hung parliaments/coalitions you mention, one is clearly the current one (formed as a genuine result of a hung parliament), however, the other was a coalition formed in response to the great depression (again, nothing to do with the FPTP system itself). Therefore, FPTP as a voting system has produced one real coalition.

There was no intent to mislead in the post you've quoted - apologies if you thought there was.

However, even if you replace the 5 with a 1, there's still absolutely no case for saying that AV would make coalitions "the norm" - as the current No2AV propaganda would have you believe ("AV would make President Clegg 'the Kingmaker'") . Australia has still only had 2 coalition governments since 1900...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'd be much happier with AV if the constituency sizes were standardised, but I broadly agree with you.

To me, it is totally wrong that the country is led by a government that is not elected by a majority of voters. That is the biggest issue. And whilst we're at it, get rid of unelected peers in the Lords too - that's another promise that Tony Blair broke.

AV is complicated and I can lead to votes being 'discarded'. From a ideological point of view I do not like this. Totally agree on unelected peers. I think I'll go AV on the grounds it's a step in the right direction. A shoe in the door.