'Is AV really so complex? Or is it just confusion marketing?' blog discussion

tomwakefield

EdgEy wrote: »

The problem with the argument that PR could result in the BNP having seats is that if our democracy was fair, the BNP would have seats.

If 5% of the populace vote for a party, that 5% should have their views represented. Denying that fact is denying democracy - it is a belief in the tyranny of the majority.

While PR is a good idea in theory, how would it work in practise, in terms of allocating MPs to constituencies? Or would the system of a local MP be abolished altogether?

e.g. BNP got 1.9% of the votes so, under PR, would be entitled to 12 seats, rather than 0. Given that no consituency voted for a BNP MP, how would it be decided which seats the BNP gets?

rhyski

tomwakefield wrote: »

While PR is a good idea in theory, how would it work in practise, in terms of allocating MPs to constituencies? Or would the system of a local MP be abolished altogether?

e.g. BNP got 1.9% of the votes so, under PR, would be entitled to 12 seats, rather than 0. Given that no consituency voted for a BNP MP, how would it be decided which seats the BNP gets?

let's be clear though - PR (Proportional Representation) is not an option in this referendum. The referendum is on whether we switch to AV from FPTP...

There are many variations of PR which *could* be offered in the future, but for the time being, the choice is between FPTP and AV

ndall

tomwakefield wrote: »

While PR is a good idea in theory, how would it work in practise, in terms of allocating MPs to constituencies? Or would the system of a local MP be abolished altogether?

e.g. BNP got 1.9% of the votes so, under PR, would be entitled to 12 seats, rather than 0. Given that no consituency voted for a BNP MP, how would it be decided which seats the BNP gets?

You normally have larger constituencies with a few MPs each that are allocated proportionally to the support for each party in that area. Minority parties with very low levels of support still suffer under such a system, but most vaguely mainstream parties get better fairer representation so the system is more, if not perfectly, proportional. The European Elections work like this in the UK with constituency sizes between 3 (Northern Ireland) and 8 (London) MEPs. Britain only elects 72 MEPs so these constituencies have to be quite large. Probably not ideal. Two BNP candidates were elected under this system in 2009 in the North West and Yorkshire.

Other systems have normal one-member constituencies and then national party lists of candidates to "top up" the MPs for a party if necessary. I don't like that system as it means voters can't choose specific people from that list - parties pick who goes on the list in what order which is a bit open to cronyism. Some people complain it creates two different type of MP, those with local constituencies and those without. Personally I don't see why that's really a problem. It would also give the BNP representation in proportion to their vote. That's obviously bad, but on the other hand should you really be choosing a system to suppress certain opinions, however much you dislike them?

When you think about constituencies, it's only by convenience that we divide the electorate up by geography. In theory you could just as easily divide the country into age groups of equal size, or what sort of industry people work in, or how much money they have, or even completely at random. Different systems would have different effects on the sort of politics you would get. The only reason we've got our system is because historically it made it possible for people to get in touch with their MP and vice-versa without too much trouble. With modern technology that is actually less important, and it doesn't seem clear to me why it's better to have an MP that knows a local town really well instead of one that knows a particular industry really well or the issues faced by pensioners really well. You might say it's good for MPs to deal with a broad range of issues rather than just one interest group. But we currently have rural MPs and urban MPs, MPs for affluent areas and MPs for deprived areas. Age-based constituencies that might encourage the old to argue against the young, for example. On the other hand with our current system you could say that the voice of the young is crowded out because the baby-boomer generation are the most influential age group in almost every constituency by shear weight of numbers.

I'm not really saying we should change. I'm just pointing out that we take geographical constituencies for granted without even thinking about what they do to politics, and the possible alternatives. Democracy is complicated even under "simple" systems like AV and FPTP, and the way the system is set up changes the form that political debates take, and what sorts of policies politicians are encouraged to adopt.

Derivative

I really don't think that giving the BNP seats is "obviously bad".
Yes, it is a popular opinion, that doesn't make it correct.

Democracy means respecting the opinions of those you don't necessarily agree with.

I don't like the Greens because I think that while they have admirable views, they don't live in the real world. Should we kick Caroline Lucas out of Parliament? Or engineer the voting system so that she could have never won?

On the issue of how to choose constituencies under PR - that's one that'd have to be worked out. I have no idea.

Ellabelle

Behemoth wrote: »

Well done to Martin Lewis for introducing a bit of sanity into this debate. The only people who oppose this change are the corrupt politicians who are afraid of being more answerable to the voting public.

I am not a politician, corrupt or otherwise. If I was to describe myself politically I would describe myself as slightly more 'left' than 'centre left'.

I am voting for no change in our voting system. If I was to be given the option of PR, I would vote for PR. I don't think our current voting system is fair but I think AV is worse.

I don't like AV as some people will get 1 vote and some people will get 2 or more votes depending on the order in which they place candidates. Those who only wish to make 1 vote will also have a vote that could be used less. I believe this undermines democracy. One person one vote, no matter your age, background, gender, property ownership etc. is democratic.

One person, one vote used proportionally across the country would be, in my opinion, the most democratic system of all. Unfortunately that is not an option here.

rhyski

Ellabelle wrote: »

I am not a politician, corrupt or otherwise. If I was to describe myself politically I would describe myself as slightly more 'left' than 'centre left'.

I am however voting for no change in our voting system. If I was to be given the option of PR, I would vote for PR. I don't think our current voting system is fair but I think AV is worse.

I don't like AV as some people will get 1 vote and some people will get 2 or more votes depending on the order in which they place candidates. Those who only wish to make 1 vote will also have a vote that could be used less. I believe this undermines democracy. One person one vote, no matter your age, background, gender, property ownership etc. is democratic.

One person, one vote used proportionally across the country would be, in my opinion, the most democratic system of all. Unfortunately that is not an option here.

AV would uphold the principle of “one person, one vote”. Every voter would still be treated equally; each vote would count only once in deciding who is elected in each constituency.

Under AV, if no candidate gets 50% support, the least popular candidate is eliminated, and every person's vote will be counted ONCE in each following rounds of voting, until someone gets 50% support.

Proportional representation is the most democtatic system in my opinion (and comes with it's own set of pros and cons), but - as you say - this is not on offer.

MrChips

I've heard a lot of people dismissing AV because it gives some people more votes than others - I don't buy that.

If you vote for a candidate who gets eliminated in the first round, you get a second vote in round 2 - but so does the person who backs the leading candidate. He or she also gets two votes, but gets to apply them to the same candidate twice.

ndall

Ellabelle wrote: »

I don't like AV as some people will get 1 vote and some people will get 2 or more votes depending on the order in which they place candidates. Those who only wish to make 1 vote will also have a vote that could be used less. I believe this undermines democracy. One person one vote, no matter your age, background, gender, property ownership etc. is democratic.

This seems to be part of the confusion marketing Martin was talking about. In America they call AV "Instant run-off", which makes it clearer. Imagine an election with three candidates. The one that comes last is knocked out and the remaining two go through to a second round. There is a run-off vote to decide between the two most popular candidates.

No voter gets more votes than anyone else. Each person gets to vote once in each round. If you're lucky enough that your first choice got through, you obviously vote for them again. You have voted for the same person in both rounds of voting.

If you're unlucky and your favourite candidate was knocked out, you don't have that luxury and you have to use your second vote to choose between the two candidates remaining. This is your second preference vote. Alternatively you might decide you like or dislike the two remaining candidates equally and can't be bothered to vote. You don't have a second preference, so you don't "turn out" for the second round. You are not being deprived of a vote, you're just choosing not to.

David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative party like this - David Davis got most votes in the first round but Cameron won the run-off.

AV does exactly this process but on one ballot paper. The two rounds of voting are performed at the counting stage, because people have expressed their preferences or lack of preferences in advance. Instant run-off. MPs used it to elect the Speaker of the House, and select committee chairs. They would not tolerate some MPs having more votes than others!

MrChips

At the end of the day it comes down to personal preference and some people will still want to retain FTPT. If so, that's obviously their choice and all they have to remember on referendum day as they cast their vote is "do I want to retain first past the post?", and if so vote yes.

JimmyTheWig

And now who's trying to confuse people, MrChips??