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

jamesd

hermante wrote: »

That's rubbish, what you may not realise is that the "Coalition" in Australia is a formal agreement, and thus more like a single party. If you vote Liberal then you are basically voting for a Lib/Nat government and the same is true if you vote National. They don't contest each other usually and the so-called coalition is one that lasts even when they are in opposition, not one that is agreed after the results of an election.

I'm aware of it, wrote it and linked to a description of the coalition earlier:

jamesd wrote: »

At least 23 of 35 governments since AV was introduced in 1922! Including the current one, a coalition of Labour with three independents and one green member. It's so ingrained there that the most common pairing is even known as the Coalition.

I suggest that anyone who's curious has a read of how the coalition agreements have been made and broken over the years since the AV system was introduced there. It's a bit like the Lib-Lab pact that existed in the UK at various times, but made more stable because of the AV system that means that each party is going to get enough seats, but not enough to rule, so they are stuck with each other much of the time and now often make pre-election instead of post-election agreements. After ninety years of the situation they have even merged sometimes in some parts of Australia. In other places they don't have an agreement and fight each other sometimes.

We might end up with a similar situation here if AV happens - though personally I think that the Liberal Democrats will prefer to play kingmaker and try to extort the maximum they can extort out of Labour and Conservatives before deciding which one to go with most of the time.

Maybe you don't consider a coalition where some independents and a green are involved a coalition but I do and it's even worse than one where a party with more seats is involved, because an even smaller minority of voters voted for the person(s) who get to decide the government and extort whatever they can get as their price.

However you want to define or redefine the words part of the problem is the same: minority parties, even down to just one MP, can decide who governs and have their power magnified as a result.

hermante wrote: »

In the most recent election in 2010, the Coalition won 72 seats and Labor won 72 seats. Out of the 6 remaining MPs 4 decided to support Labor. I wouldn't call that a coalition

I would. The government couldn't have been formed without an agreement between one of the major parties and one or more less popular parties and MPs. So you get the usual smaller party extorting whatever they can get situation that coalitions produce.

The Australian system is a good example of how AV produces more coalition governments, by making it much harder to avoid them, so the parties have recognised that they are stuck with it.

I'm opposed to it because I don't want backroom deals between parties to circumvent voters.

irnbru_2

jamesd wrote: »

I'm opposed to it because I don't want backroom deals between parties to circumvent voters.

... and by that logic you're against FPTP?

Further you're against representative democracy - your not willing to accede power to an elected representative to negotiate and act on your behalf.

:think:

JimmyTheWig

jeanmd wrote: »

jeanmd's daugher here
...
First, I would like to point out that your first point that "The AV voting... does not continue on up to which parties and who gets to rule the country" is surely not a case against AV. Put it this way; if AV isn't what decides who is in power, how does it make a coalition government more or less likely? What I'm saying here is that you make no sense by saying that the AV voting systems doesn't affect it, and yet going on to say...


If AV "does not continue on up to... who gets to rule the country", as you say, it cannot possibly have the direct affect you seem to be saying it will later in your post. No?

Hello jeanmd's daughter.

I think I can clear this up.

The referendum will decide how we elect each of our 650-odd MPs. It won't (directly, at least) determine how governments are formed.
So regardless of how the referendum goes, if one party get more than half the seats in parliament they form the government. If not, a coalition is needed.

So I'm basically agreeing with jamesd here.

But, to answer your question, why then does AV result in more coalition governments? Well, it doesn't have to.
But in the UK it will.
AV favours the centre over the extremes. In the UK, then, it will favour the Lib Dems. Because the Lib Dems are the third party in the UK it will result in a more equal three-way split of MPs. Which will make it more unlikely for one party to get over half the MPs. Which will mean a hung parliament. Which will mean a coalition.

It's not _really_ AV that gives more coalitions, it's more to do with the spread of the parties in the UK meaning AV will give the third party more seats.

dggar

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

...................................................
The referendum will decide how we elect each of our 650-odd MPs................ .

I'm slightly off topic here but linked in with the legislation that enabled the referendum is the subject of boundry changes. This will reduce the number of MPs to around 600.

There seems to me to be a lot of uncertainty with people I talk to as to whether the outcome of the referendum has any effect on the proposed boundry changes.

ie A yes vote will also bring in the boundry changes.
A no vote will not bring in the boundry changes.

My belief is that the boundry changes take place irrespective of the out come of the referendum.

Does anyone have a definitive answer?

kevanf1

I would like to take issue with Martin's comment in his blog. It is that the anti AV campaigners are deliberately confusing us, the voting public.

I quote:

"The tactics being used by the anti-AV campaign do remind me very much of the confusion marketing campaigns that are used in financial services. There the aim is to confuse in order to either gain extra profit via stealth charges or to prevent people switching elsewhere by making things more confusing – and it’s this second technique that is being used here."

Well, I happen to agree with those sentiments but I would add that the pro AV campaigners are doing exactly the same. I have seen such comments as 'AV will put an end to the sleaze and scandal that we have seen so much of in the past few years'. Rubbish!!! AV will not stop this as they are the same old politicians with the same old sleaze. In my view both sides are making this whole campaign confusing.

We still have not had the promised leaflet through our letterbox. so, I have had to research what AV is all about by asking people on other forums (had loads of biased opinions, sadly) and reading up on various websites (same again in some cases). But, I do now finally have a grasp of what it is about.

I feel that AV is a kludge. It is not proportional representation, which I would vote yes for in a shot. It is a sop to the voting public. I for one shall be voting against this because it is not progressive change it is just a sideways shift.

conar686

My main concern is that AV is attractive only to LibDems supporters and other minor political party politicians.

As it ensures them a role they would never usually get in a FPTP system.

There are a lot of people that will only vote for either the Conservatives or the Labour party they could never bring themselves to vote for the other party.

Therefore their second vote may possibly, by default fall to the only available major political party, the Liberal Democrats. Thus the LibDems stand most chance of coming from behind should there not be a clear winner.

This leaves that constituency with an MP whose manifesto is not the one they voted for first. There is a reason they were second choice usually its because the aims of the party are not those shared by the particular voter - Hardly proportional or reasonable IMHO

Old saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'

zagfles

dggar wrote: »

I'm slightly off topic here but linked in with the legislation that enabled the referendum is the subject of boundry changes. This will reduce the number of MPs to around 600.

There seems to me to be a lot of uncertainty with people I talk to as to whether the outcome of the referendum has any effect on the proposed boundry changes.

ie A yes vote will also bring in the boundry changes.
A no vote will not bring in the boundry changes.

My belief is that the boundry changes take place irrespective of the out come of the referendum.

Does anyone have a definitive answer?

Yes you're right - the boundary changes are going ahead regardless. If they depended on the referendum then you can bet Red Ed wouldn't be supporting the Yes campaign, as Labour would love to keep the big electoral advantage they have at the moment, of a smaller average population in Labour seats.

irnbru_2

kevanf1 wrote: »

It is not proportional representation, which I would vote yes for in a shot. It is a sop to the voting public. I for one shall be voting against this because it is not progressive change it is just a sideways shift.

Do you think a NO vote will enhance the chances of a referendum on PR?

irnbru_2

conar686 wrote: »

There are a lot of people that will only vote for either the Conservatives or the Labour party they could never bring themselves to vote for the other party.

Therefore their second vote may possibly, by default fall to the only available major political party, the Liberal Democrats. Thus the LibDems stand most chance of coming from behind should there not be a clear winner.

How do you account for the rise of UKIP then?

conar686 wrote: »

Old saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'

It is and we should.

dggar

zagfles wrote: »

Yes you're right - the boundary changes are going ahead regardless. If they depended on the referendum then you can bet Red Ed wouldn't be supporting the Yes campaign, as Labour would love to keep the big electoral advantage they have at the moment, of a smaller average population in Labour seats.

I'm not allowed to post attachments so add h t t p : // www. to this:

totalpolitics.com/blog/156447/the-secret-av-escape-clause.thtml

It's an intersting read