The Alternative Vote Report - AV in the UK? - A Politics Poll

there's probably some argument that AV could ensure a future of lab/ld coalitions, assuming the lds realign under their previous centrism once they're annihilated at the next election and clegg gets a 9mm to the temple

idk tho, i haven't rly been following the uk political clusterfuck so i don't know what martin kettle has to say yet

Scenario, AV wins, Govt go "oh that's interesting" and still refuse to implement it.

Scenario, AV wins, gets implemented, so, one type of thuggery for another, mostly.

ref for future thread historians: a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

FPTP is barbaric, disgusting, savage, anyway. PR > AV in theory but who knows in practice, both bring potential for lolz.

I'm tempted to vote Yes to AV, despite the fact that it'll make Nick Clegg happy.

because it will make Cameron un.

s0 ironic that we are forced to use FPTP to vote in this pressing poll

I don't think FPTP is a good system and AV seems a little better.

As to what I'd vote in a referendum I've no idea, as I fully expect the Tories to tie it to something I won't want to vote "yes" to. (And also the Nick Clegg thing.)

anyway voting yes, not specifically because "hopefully it'll lead to further reform" (would that this were plausible but not getting hopes up), more because it's better than FPTP

I fully expect the Tories to tie it to something I won't want to vote "yes" to.

Yeah, this is my worry, too. Or even if they don't actually attach anything else to it during the vote, if it wins then they'll use the public's desire for reform to gerrymander the fuck out of the constituencies.

the gerrymandering was part of the bill that set up the referendum. It will happen wether you vote yes or no.

Ah, so the gerrymandering is already set in stone? I did not know that.

Hmf.

My one hope is that AV will make gerrymandering less easy to achieve, or at least throw up enough unintended consequences to mitigate the effect.

O shit. Yeah, for some reason I thought this was still in the Tory proposal stage. Uh, I guess I'll vote yes then.

have a feeling i'm going to be ill on polling day, shame

I think the French model of two rounds of voting makes sense myself.

I think the French model of two rounds of voting guillotining their leaders heads makes sense myself.

The French model of 2 rounds is only for president, isn't it. Do they have 2 rounds for all their MP's? that would be crazy.

They have two rounds for MPs, because they have money to burn and love having two elections when one (with AV) would do.

I think in France, for parliamentary elections, any candidate who gets over a threshold of something like 12% in the first round MAY go through to the second, so you can still end up with wacky UK-style undemocratic outcomes.

the gerrymandering was part of the bill that set up the referendum. It will happen wether you vote yes or no.

this is the gerrymandering to make all constituencies contain roughly similar number of electors, unlike the existing situation?

AV seems to my eyes just as bad as FPTP, the only difference being that it'll mean the lib Dems stay in sort-of-power for eternity. Change it to PR or don't go messing imo.

AV seems to my eyes just as bad as FPTP, the only difference being that it'll mean the lib Dems stay in sort-of-power for eternity

Dunno how this follows. Probably means a few more votes for the Greens and UKIP and whoever at first followed by a big two-party squeeze.

AV is really not much of an improvement. Probably not enough for me to vote for it anyway. Clegg was right, it's the worst of both worlds.

... and shouldn't there be a Not Voting option above?

xp I think that is yet to be demonstrated; either way I feel compelled to vote for it because the alternative is "oh look, no appetite for vote reform, FPTP 4 LYFE, BITCHES"

I think it's been demonstrated, or at least extrapolated, that it doesn't prevent large unrepresentative majorities like Blair's, in fact Blair's majority (whatever the the ridiculously large one was) would have been even bigger with AV... and the Liberals wouldn't have won many more seats in the last election... tho, of course, people's voting patterns would probably change so extrapolation of past results might be misleading

Also, I don't agree that AV failing means FPTP 4 LYFE, BITCHES

... tho obv it does if the Tories have anything to do with ti

If the AV vote is lost, especially with low turnout, there'll be zero appetite from any government for holding another referendum for a long time.

http://i.imgur.com/xc7oK.jpg

^^ Can't be real, surely?

I can't see it, what is it?

Advert, Baby w/line in, incubator, slogan "We can't afford AV while she needs an incubator more"

sorry, "Cardiac Facility more"

as per: AV will cost £250M

That's about it.

Yeah, I was thinking I'd probably end up not voting as I'd much prefer PR, but I think I'll vote just to spite whatever disgusting fuckheads came up with that.

still unsure if this is a good thing or not. my heart says YES purely because the tories want NO. nauseating article by cameron in the mail the other week which opened with him painting a vision of usain bolt coming first in a race at the olympics but gettin bronze when it comes to handing out medals, then went on to evoke a misty-eyed vision of churchill. the revolting shameless cunt.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voting-reform-will-not-cause-more-cuts-treasury-insists-2226784.html

Ridiculous Newsnight about this the other week, Paxman hitting the pro-av representatives with bollocks like "is it fair that under this system, someone who puts the BNP down as their first choice will effectively get themselves a second or even third vote?".

Quite like a lot of the stuff on this (pro) site too. But tbf, lol at this particular article: http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/why-the-oscars-have-said-yes-to-fairer-votes/

http://www.contrastingsounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/no2av.jpg

http://www.contrastingsounds.com/2011/02/17/vote-for-av-and-kill-a-solider/

christ the No campaign is shit

can't remember why labour is behind AV, but it shouldn't be

im not really sure what the yes campaign comprises

how do ye view our system?

well, yall are obviously doing something right

do soldiers actually wear "bullet proof vests"

one is probably enough

shit is heavy

but yeah they are supposed to wear some kind of body armour but they don't always via the uk writing liberal interventionist cheques its debt-laded arse can't cash

yah, they wear armour. "bullet proof vest" is from dirty harry or something.

Yeah I dunno, you'd expect the average person to look at that advert and go "if we're that short of cash get them the fuck out of Afghanistan", seeing as most people don't know what we're doing there or where it ends, they just know that people are getting killed.

The No campaign know exactly what they're doing. They know that most people in this country don't care about voting systems and won't bother to vote. If they can convince the stupid proportion of the country that there'll be a disaster if it goes through, THEN they'll bother to come out and vote No.

you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to think £250m amounts to a hill of beans anyway

but honestly see no point in changing the system + want clegg to be humiliated

ok, some tories will be upset if it goes through and that'd be nice

but this was what clegg got in return for bending over so it'd be funnier to see him lose for that reason

where is the 250m number from?

AV will probably come in more useful when we're lumbered with a shit Labour government and want to vote for someone else without that effectively being a vote for the Tories.

where is the 250m number from?

― caek, Wednesday, March 2, 2011 10:30 AM (44 seconds ago) Bookmark

the no campaign. apparently it's bullshit anyway.

it includes the £90m cost of the referendum, which obviously takes place no matter what.

lol "The change to AV will cost up to an additional £250 million"

If the AV vote is lost, especially with low turnout, there'll be zero appetite from any government for holding another referendum for a long time.

my feeling is that the Liberal Democrats should have required the introdution of AV withuot a referendum as the price for entering government. What's the point of an unwritten mickey mouse constitution if you don't take advantage of it?

but honestly see no point in changing the system

Under FPTP, If you vote for the losing candidate, your vote means nothing, you might as well have stayed at home. But democracy shouldn't be about winning and losing, it should be about representation. PR ensures that everyone is represented; AV doesn't but it does mean that your vote is less likely to be completely worthless.

'win every moment' imo

i think the real problem is low turnout, and i don't think AV would change that. don't like PR because it gets rid of the admittedly semi-fictional notion of the constituency afaict. national government isn't about representation. one party loses, one wins, and that's who ends up governing. the alternative is coalition government, and what could be worse than that?

oh gee let me think

What will your vote "mean" if you vote for a super-minority party in an AV government that is incapable of/unwilling to enter a coalition?

If you have an MP, that's still a form of representation. Obv perfection is unattainable, it's the old 'least bad of all systems' we're after here. FTP makes me sick to my stomach tho.

File Transfer Protocol, ugh. *vomits*

No to Telnet

where is the 250m number from?

£130m of it is the cost of counting machines. Which we're not actually buying, whatever happens.

The other £120m is the cost of the next general election. Which we're spending whether we switch to AV or not.

ie it's just plain bullshit.

the alternative is coalition government, and what could be worse than that?

eh, what's so bad about coalition government? Or are you saying that because you do not like the current coalition government you hate all coalition government? Or are you doing the usual anti-PR thing people do of saying "If we have PR the country will turn into Italy"?

He might be saying that coalition government gives disproportionate power to relatively small parties, or that coalitions tend to favour the status quo at the expense of radical changes to the economic or social organisation of a country. One might argue that representative democracies in general are designed to do this. One might argue that was a good thing, I think it would depend whether one were a net beneficiary or not.

One might argue that consensus politics was just a somewhat more inert form of government by technobureaucracy than the FPtP it seeks to replace.

One might wonder whether under AV, those voters who have one strong dislike rather than one strong preference will have more power, since you can vote at least 2 ways against a party but only 1 way in favour.

So we cd have a voting system which is even more tilted than it is already to "choose the least worst shit you can imagine".

Guys, you are missing out on how much fun preferential voting is. The agonies of deciding which no-hoper candidates you prefer against each other, I wuv it.

ah well, as long as you're supporting AV on grounds of comedy drama and not cos it represents a genuine improvement in the way the country's governed

voters who have one strong dislike rather than one strong preference will have more power, since you can vote at least 2 ways against a party but only 1 way in favour.

sounds kinda specious to me. it's not like anyone's vote is counted more than anyone else's.

If I vote, in descending order, for anybody but the Conservative Party, then my vote will effectively have more strength than somebody who votes for the Conservative Party and nobody else.

And the point of AV is that some people's votes are counted more than others, two or three times depending on outcomes.

Coalition government is bollocks. The idea of the third or fourth most popular party getting more power* than the second because their leader happens to disagree less with the first is neither representative nor democratic.

*FSVO power

A genuinely proportional UK government would force the Tories to govern with Labour rather than with the LibDems. It would be kinda lol and also kinda unworkable but it would be fairer, more proportional and more democratic.

but the fantasy is that the Lib Dems represent some kind of centre political ground that can align itself leftwards or rightwards, whereas NuOldLab and the Tories are polar opposites. Of course that's not any kind of true but yay for outdated paradigms.

And the point of AV is that some people's votes are counted more than others, two or three times depending on outcomes.

not true - if i vote for the winning candidate my vote is counted each time as a vote for the winning candidate; if you vote for a loser then your vote is counted each time depending on your other prefs and who has been eliminated.

this is a gnat's hair from a semantic argument tho.

i don't see what problem is going to be solved by AV... or even PR tbh

And the point of AV is that some people's votes are counted more than others, two or three times depending on outcomes.

This is nonsense though, because if my first and second choice votes get thrown out and my third choice ends up being the one that is used, that's my one vote. If I go to a shop to buy a pork pie but they don't have any pork pies so I use my second choice and get a steak pie instead, I don't go home with both pies.

Votes counting (towards the end result) and being counted (ie physically getting counted) aren't the same thing.

(xxp)

Full PR to lead to a Tory-DUP-UKIP or even Tory-DUP-UKIP-BNP coalition at some point down the road, as well as a lot of Lib/Lab and Con/Dem coalitions, the occasional overall majority and an attempt at some Labour+Green+Plaid+Alliance+Independents monstrosity.

Would make life more fun, but I don't see it happening - I'll be surprised if the AV referendum passes and that's hardly a large change.

Full PR would lead, obv.

on the 'your vote won't count if...' score -- indeed not. i do see it as a bit of a zero-sum game. as matt says, the logic of representation would be a labour-tory coalition.

This is nonsense though, because if my first and second choice votes get thrown out and my third choice ends up being the one that is used, that's my one vote. If I go to a shop to buy a pork pie but they don't have any pork pies so I use my second choice and get a steak pie instead, I don't go home with both pies.

Votes counting (towards the end result) and being counted (ie physically getting counted) aren't the same thing.

(xxp)

― JimD, Wednesday, March 2, 2011 4:07 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

doesn't this mean that the third choice counts as much as the first?

im not good at this stuff, but that's how it looks

Well in that scenario the first ends up not counting at all. So it's not that the third counts *as much as* the first, it's that the third counts, the first doesn't.

You do get to hedge a bit and there are asymmetries; as I understand it, if you vote #1 for a lolCandidate and that candidate is eliminated *and nobody has won yet* then you get a second go with your #2 for say the Labour candidate. But if the Tory candidate has already won by the time your lolCandidate is eliminated, then you're worse off compared to voting Labour #1.

Exactly. People who give placed votes obviously only end up making one vote, but they get more than one shot at it. That still looks like it favours voting against rather than voting positively, to me.

That still looks like it favours voting against rather than voting positively, to me.

FPTP does that as well though, Exhibit A being New Labour trading off "we are not the Tories" for over a decade.

FPTP ends up there, but AV favours tactical voting - it offers more permutations. I'm not defending one at the expense of the other here, I'm saying that AV is probably a wafer worse than the pantomime we already have.

am still tempted to vote Yes just for the lulz tho

so that's my "Insert reason"

FPTP ends up there, but AV favours tactical voting - it offers more permutations.

iy???

FPTP is the one that favours tactical voting, because you have to think about how other people are going to vote when you cast your own ballot. With AV you can just vote according to your actual preferences, knowing that if your first preference is eliminated your vote will transfer to a stronger candidate.

The tactical element comes in because the winner can reach the quota before your #1 gets eliminated, so you do have to consider how everyone else will vote. But I agree that "more permutations" is in fact a good thing.

You do get to hedge a bit and there are asymmetries; as I understand it, if you vote #1 for a lolCandidate and that candidate is eliminated *and nobody has won yet* then you get a second go with your #2 for say the Labour candidate. But if the Tory candidate has already won by the time your lolCandidate is eliminated, then you're worse off compared to voting Labour #1.

Why are you worse off? If the Tory candidate has already won it's because (s)he got more than 50% of the vote. Whether you'd voted Labour or Lolcat as your number one choice wouldn't change anything.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

rmde

Hurrah! As ILE goes, so goes the nation.

In response to NB&S two weeks ago: I think you're right, my argument doesn't work under AV. I was thinking with my Irish PR-STV hat on, whereby the order of eliminations plays an important role in determining the winners.

don't sweat it mayne, I'm counting on the "Clegg can eat a dick" factor to play better with the real electorate

^^^ how i voted iirc

I still can't make up my mind on this, obv. the 'Clegg can eat a dick' factor looms large but catching sight of Cameron on telly leering and smecking and then going into it gives me cause to reflect. Both systems are shite, if you support FPTP you may as well dress in breeches and shove 8 year olds up chimbleys, and the only thing AV has going for it is it's not FPTP. The idea that a no vote might destroy the Liberal Democrats for all time and blow up the Coalition is seductive but I'm not sure I buy it. Not voting.

Voting no. The Yes campaign is pure mendacious shite which effectively tells you what bad faith the thing's being run in. Whether or not you believe in PR, this isn't it.

I don't think I've even had any leaflets from the Yes campaign. Had various ones from the no-ers, including a charming one harping on the "Clegg can eat a dick" factor which I had to lol at a little because it seemed highly likely to be put out by someone at least financially related to the Tories and we're all in this together, etc. (Also by someone who never gave a fuck about any of the promises Clegg went back on, obv.)

Dunno what I'll vote. Dunno if I'm registered to vote. Eh.

Both campaigns are mendacious shite as far as I can see. AV won't make MPs work harder and who gives a fuck what Winston Churchill said about AV in 1875?

"No" camp is full of the most appalling twats imaginable

well yeah but both camps

the only urge i have to vote Yes is the possibility that AV would squeeze the LDs further out of existence, but I noticed there was a Grauniad poll yesterday that put the No vote at 58 percent, so "choose AV and we will live in a Utopian paradise with no bent MPs ever" obv isn't cutting it as a message

The whinging of the Lib Diddums is music to my ears though

Most Tories would vote LibDem as a second pref at this point surely?

Both campaigns are shite, still voting Yes. Kind of surprised that referendum literature doesn't apparently have to follow any kind of advertising standards.

I would have thought it would have to follow the same rules that got Phil Woolas in trouble?

mendacious yes campaign:

http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ

as to the 'eat a dick' factor, would much rather cunt off the cunting tory cunts.

dude if u really think "VOTE AV TO FUCK OVER BENT EXPENSES MPS BEING BENT" is a serious argument

would much rather cunt off the cunting tory cunts

So would I, but the Tories are made of sterner stuff they are unlikely to crumple and cry and kvetch as amusingly as the Libbly Wibbly Dems

majority of labour mps are against it too iirc oh hang i've changed my mind

Ah come on, both campaigns are shite because both campaigns are being fronted by politicians and a) politicians are the last people who should have a say in how politicians are elected, b) politicians have mostly just chosen sides based on which one they're guessing is most likely to keep them in power.

But if you're going to make a decision on this based on which campaign you prefer or which party you want to take sides with, rather than which voting system you think is honestly better, then you're doing it wrong.

Personally I just think AV is better because if I lived in a constituency with ten candidates, and 8 of them got 10% of the vote, one got 9%, and one got 11%, I'd prefer not to have a system which said "right, the 11% team wins", but one that said "hmm, that's not really conclusive is it? Let's make use of a bit more info here and try to come up with something that displeases less than 89% of the voters". I mean the irl constituencies might never be as extreme as that, but that's still basically the essence of what happens at the moment.

Neither side is putting forward any serious arguments as far as I can see. I'm a "Yes" supporter, but I never thought the referendum would have much chance of passing; unless you can convince people that voting reform is an important issue in the first place they will stick to the status quo and I don't think many people really care.

i wd prefer to have a system where some cunt didn't get voted in cos they were a lot of idiots' 4th favourite

also voting reform/PR does not equal this bollocks

i wd prefer to have a system where some cunt Liberal Democrat didn't get voted in cos they were a lot of idiots' 4th favourite

... uh, that was pointless, they're the same thing

EXACKLY [/westwood]

i do like the "nobody is putting forward a case for this so i'm voting yes" approach tho

Personally I just think AV is better because if I lived in a constituency with ten candidates, and 8 of them got 10% of the vote, one got 9%, and one got 11%, I'd prefer not to have a system which said "right, the 11% team wins", but one that said "hmm, that's not really conclusive is it? Let's make use of a bit more info here and try to come up with something that displeases less than 89% of the voters".

i prefer this, imperfect though it may be, to the dubious recourse to 'second preferences' or even third ones. creates a legitimacy problem imho. and speaking of which, if this does get through with a low turnout, that'd suck.

not sure if AV would make 'that much of a difference' to the result of the next general election, but the prospect of pleasing all those lib dems appalls me. id move to europe but they all seem to have pretty rum systems too.

i wd prefer to have a system where some cunt didn't get voted in cos they were a lot of idiots' 4th favourite

Right, yep, I'm sure we'd all prefer a system where the one I want to win does better than the one most other people want to win because most other people are idiots. Trouble with this democracy bullshit is that that's not one of the options on the table, sry.

trouble with this democracy bullshit at the moment is you only get one bite at the cherry, not 5

and if people can find 3 or 4 candidates they'd consider throwing a vote at on most ballot papers then they can get tae fuck tbh

Was watching some of the Irish election and their system looked quite entertaining

Again, this "people are twats" argument is a really strong one.

xp

oh i'm all for extra drama now that any hope of a government not being tory cunts has long gone, don't get me wrong

fond memories of there being a vaguely left of centre party that you could vote for tho

people being twats aside, AV is a "who is your least worst favourite?" option and hi dere late capitalist fuckocracy

pretty sure even most of the non-parliamentary orange tories are like "wtf is that twat playing at?"

The main reason I'm voting Y is that AV allows people to vote for their favourite candidate rather than forcing them to vote for one of the two/three big parties that have a chance in their constituency. It's far from full PR but it's preferable imo.

Not sure about hm's "legitimacy problem" - AV ensures that the winner is backed to some degree by over 50% of the voters, while the winner in FPTP might have the recorded backing of just a third of voters. Arguably both systems have built-in "legitimacy problems", take your pick which you prefer.

The main reason I'm voting Y is that AV allows people to vote for their favourite candidate rather than forcing them to vote for one of the two/three big parties that have a chance in their constituency.

Before this gets jumped on: obviously what I mean is that you can vote for your favourite candidate without feeling you're "throwing your vote away".

surely throwing your vote away is part of the democratic system?

looking forward to the massive changes wrought by a "everybody's 3rd favourite party" parliament tho. except obv this isn't gonna happen

xp - As in they're all a shower of crooks/incompetents and whoever wins, you lose? I guess so...but then there's not really much point arguing about how to vote?

AV ensures that the winner is backed to some degree by over 50% of the voters

xp no, as in voting for something you sort of believe in is better than voting against something you don't

As a big Australian know-it-all, I am (finally) here to tell you that AV is "adequate" and "not really that great" but "a million fucking times better than FPTP".

Really would prefer a MMP system (like New Zealand/Scotland), and I expect some of you would too.

i mean, i used to like the idea of PR cos i thought it wd mean no more huge tory majorities ever, but then the last election happened

would prefer a "hang all tories" system tbh

Also: AV won't change a fucking thing but there is great satisfaction in putting your least favourite local racist fuckwit conservative reactionary in last place.

dude i fear the opposite of that wd be more likely in our liberal multicuntural society

Really would prefer a MMP system (like New Zealand/Scotland),

Was talking to my mum about this, she only ever votes for one candidate. Also she hadn't heard of the AV Referendum!

Instant runoff voting is used to elect members of the Australian House of Representatives,[1] the President of Ireland,[2] the national parliament of Papua New Guinea, and the House of Representatives of Fiji.[3] It is also used in Irish by-elections and for electing hereditary peers for the British House of Lords.[4]

WINNAH

long for a Fiji-esque utopia

AV is a "who is your least worst favourite?" option

This really isn't true. It's a "who's your favourite? If you can't have them, who would you rather have instead?" option. But you're just trolling at this point nv.

(xps)

i am not trolling, this is a system that favours negative voting and people are clutching at it like its PR which it clearly is not

NV, what would you consider "negative voting" because my brain isn't working at full capacity atm and I don't quite get you what you mean by that.

i mean that AV actually favours voting against a particular candidate i.e. you can vote for everybody except the one you hate, but does nothing to enhance voting for 1 party

Neither system preculdes negative voting, if that's how people choose to vote. But FPTP encourages it more because you're more likely to think "which is the candidate with a chance of winning who most closely represents my views" rather than "which is the candidate who most closely represents my views". If anything AV makes it less obvious who has a chance of winning, which means people will be much more likely to just vote honestly.

so people say and yet AV gives u the option to vote for "anybody but X", don't really see this as encouraging some comedy 1st choice votes for the Vegan People Haters

i mean that AV actually favours voting against a particular candidate i.e. you can vote for everybody except the one you hate, but does nothing to enhance voting for 1 party

It does a fair bit for the person you vote in first. And it encourages more positive votes as well - eg the Greens may get more first-pref votes that would have otherwise gone straight to Labour out of fear of letting the Tories in.

I don't think it necessarily favours negative voting any more than FPTP really. Pretty sure that negative voting has been one of the bigger drivers in creating the climate for the joke of a situation we have now, and the joke of a centre-left party we have now. Labour and the Tories have been the main beneficiaries of negative votes for decades as it is.

I wonder whether AV would lead to policial parties actually bothering to differentiate themselves more as well, rather than endlessly competing for the same tiny bit of "centre ground" and ignoring everyone else.

Would be great if it did, but I'm not sure. The most important thing to me in any election is that the Tories don't win, but thankfully I've never been in the position of having to hold my nose and vote Liberal Democrat or SNP.

am not particularly defending first past the post, but i seriously believe that people thinking AV is an improvement are misguided. it'll be voted down for plenty of wrong-headed reasons no doubt, but i don't think it offers any improvement over the status quo

... I've held my nose and voted Labour instead boom-TSSSHH

the reasons that the Labour party is dead are historical imo and not much to do with the electoral system, don't think AV will make them break out the socialism or anything

In any case, when it gets voted down there'll be no more voting reform full stop, because the appetite for a referendum on PR or anything else will be virtually zero.

i think this is a test case for the appetite for PR, i don't think the no vote is much composed of "no halfway house" moaners like me

From my point of view, a FPTP system in Australia would encourage *me* to vote negatively.

In the last election, I voted 1 for Greens and 2 for Labor, which is what I was happy with as I through the former had some good policies and the latter had shitted me off a bit, but was a far less worse evil than the conservative opposition.

If we had a FPTP, I would be desperately voting Labor to ensure that conservative dickheads wouldn't take over the country - a result that I would be rather unhappy with because the major reason I would be voting Labor is a negative one, and that is to prevent a conservative government.

I must stress that AV is still a flawed voting system, through.

In any case, when it gets voted down there'll be no more voting reform full stop, because the appetite for a referendum on PR or anything else will be virtually zero.

I don't know, once the Labour dinosaurs have all died or been jailed there might be a chance of a Labour government looking at it again

my dad's vehement opposition to PR is mainly about the disconnection of MPs from constituencies and the strengthening of central party power for example, and i think those are valid concerns

xp but u just said "was a far less worse evil than the conservative opposition" Pates!

I'm on some medication at the moment so my theories are even less coherent than usual.

thanks u just reminded me i forgot to take my meds this morning

Didn't even notice!

Let's just say I'm very much demanding of the right to at least rank candidates. It also makes election coverage a little more fun imo.

my dad's vehement opposition to PR is mainly about the disconnection of MPs from constituencies and the strengthening of central party power for example, and i think those are valid concerns

This is less of a problem with multi-MP constituencies as in the Irish system than with MMP or a list system.

i think there are ways round the constituency thing yeah, but i don't think it's as easy to whittle down the power of central office?

In STV (the Irish system) a party may have multiple candidates in one constituency. You can have the same constituency-based selection procedure as under FPTP, just with more "winners".

http://www.psa.ac.uk/PSAPubs/TheAlternativeVoteBriefingPaper.pdf seems pretty great (I'm only halfway through it though).

@grantshapps the winner wins when they cross the line. 400 meters is never decided after 350 meters.

@grantshapps Simplistic nonsense. You're much more intelligent than that!

@grantshapps If you don't know what misleading rubbish that is then you shouldn't be an MP.

If current crop of MPs say No then I say Yes! Turkeys and Christmas folks

@grantshapps democracy isn't about finding a winner - its about electing politicians that reflect the will of the people

@grantshapps 'winner not winning' is unhelpful as an explanation - the point of an electoral system is to define who the 'winner' is!

@grantshapps Surely there's nothing fair about a Tory getting in when 60% of the electorate of a constituency voted for slower cuts..?

@grantshapps Remind me how the London Mayor is elected then?

@grantshapps any chance of an honest debate on AV or are #no2AV simply relying on misinformation and lies?

http://rdouglasjohnson.com/misc/av-dogshit.gif

that doesn't make any sense

i don't know what a parma violets is for starters

what?

voting yes because john reid says no.

fuck the plc!!!!!11!!1

voting no because nick clegg says yes

but a clegg yes means no, so vote yes

According to @grantshapps. the actors playing the schoolkids in this video at 02:00 in are not actors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8aiDsrZylw

parma violets are the english democrats of sweeties

or possibly the EDL

my dad's vehement opposition to PR is mainly about the disconnection of MPs from constituencies and the strengthening of central party power for example, and i think those are valid concerns

Oddly enough, in Ireland people moan that our particular version of PR leads to MPs having too much connnection to their constituencies.

I'm not so convinced by arguments about the badness of strengthening central party power - elections are about picking people who will form and sustain governments, not some kind of local beauty contest (whatever many of my compatriots might think), so strong parties should be a good thing.

AV is not PR, but as noted above many PR systems maintain some kind of constituency element - Ireland does with one electoral system, while lots of list PR places have regional rather than national lists, and then there are everybody's favourite mixed-member constituencies where they elect parliamentarians by PR and in single seat constituencies.

I'm guessing that support for AV will be stronger in NI, Wales and Scotland than in England, because of the difference in experience with our local parliaments?

also in Fiji

Decent post making the rounds: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

fwiw (very little in this context imo, but fyi) gowers is a fields medalist (and the author of a very short intro to maths)

Possibly the best thing I've read on this yet:

http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Same as above, but worth repeating.

It is a good writeup though, and comprehensible even for non-Fields medallists.

tl;dr

Summary: AV is better than FPTP.

Same as above, but worth repeating

^

elections are about picking people who will form and sustain governments, not some kind of local beauty contest

"when representatives turn to leaders" etc etc

somebody left a copy of The Times Ow My Head on the train yesterday and a guy on the letters page quoted a popular textbook on the British constitution which said that the fundamental purpose of elections is to create stable governments and whilst I can agree with that as a recognition of the world as it works I don't think it is entirely the myth of democracy which a lot of voters accept.

stable societies perhaps

Voting "yes". If the Tories are prepared to pay millions to persuade you to do something then don't do it. It's best I can come up with anyway.

Saw Mandy on the front of the Baby Indie saying vote Yes so I'm still in the No camp.

cool

I read a 'barking mad' issue of the MailOnSunday over the holiday period (Apparently, Google is the devil and will kill us all), and they were trying to persuade me by showing that had AV been in place before, MThatcher would never have been Prim Minister!

Not exactly selling me an anti-vote here...

voting yes

there's little to persuade me not to vote yes.

Please, everybody vote yes - the more 'debates' Cameron loses, the harder it will be for him to implement his policies.

nah it's like hunting antelope, first we take the runty bow-legged ones that can't keep up with the rest of the herd and have Nick Clegg's cud-chewing face on them

which DC would be pretty cool with

We have it in SF. It seems to work fine and it's nice not to have to go vote in runoffs or have the County pay for an additional voting day.

hey guys+gals who knows about this:

In social choice theory, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, the General Possibility Theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, states that, when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a certain set of criteria. These criteria are called unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. The theorem is often cited in discussions of election theory as it is further interpreted by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem.

guy i work with brought it up yesterday like 'it doesn't matter how you vote since all voting systems are provably unfair'

well voting systems are designed to protect the interests of those who already have power so yeah obv

ALL OF THEM????

really doesn't seem obvious to me!

decided to vote yes after all because it will stop MPs fiddling their expenses

there's little to persuade me not to vote yes.

Apart from Paddy Ashdown. Shut that cunt up before it's too late.

I know nothing about election theory, but the fact that "no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a certain set of criteria" doesn't rule out the proposition that some systems may be less incomplete and less intransitive than others while meeting the criteria, or that some complete/transitive systems may meet more of the criteria than others. So just because a perfect voting system doesn't exist, there's still a point in saying one system is better than another.

Yeah - the 'no system to is perfect' talk is in reference to edge cases like the 3-person case where each voter ranks the three candidates in a different order, so every system would inherently disadvantage some voters - the ideal counter to these arguments imo is just to ask them to even construct a case which FPTP gets "right" and AV gets "wrong" - FPTP is bad enough that it's basically impossible to do this.

Please, everybody vote yes - the more 'debates' Cameron loses, the harder it will be for him to implement his policies.

while I would be a Yes voter if I lived in the UK, I am against these arguments of "Vote Yes to annoy Cameron" or "Vote No to annoy Clegg". Electoral systems are important and people should not decide them on the basis of short-termist ideas about which current politicians would gain or lose.

feels like they always have tho

I didn't urge a Yes to 'annoy' any politician, DV. I want him to lose, so that he will suffer a perceived loss of authority. NOT THE SAME.

Sure, but voting for a change in a voting system because you want a current politician to lose authority is probably a bad reason to vote for the change. Well, that's what I think anyway.

Go back and reread that: wanting an incumbent elected official to lose authority - perceived or actual - is the desired end result of a vote against them. Otherwise why have elections at all? ;-)

the whole fucking poll is a result of short-termist politics, so from the high horse dismount

we have it because the losing party in the election made it a condition of becoming part of the so-called coalition

I know nothing about election theory, but the fact that "no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting a certain set of criteria" doesn't rule out the proposition that some systems may be less incomplete and less intransitive than others while meeting the criteria, or that some complete/transitive systems may meet more of the criteria than others. So just because a perfect voting system doesn't exist, there's still a point in saying one system is better than another.

― Lidl Monsters (seandalai), Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:07 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

i know so little about election theory that i don't understand this post

Just because there is no perfect beer, doesn't mean you can't say one beer is better than the other.

ALL OF THEM????

I coulda word it a shade better but it doesn't seem controversial to me to say that electoral reforms, or reforms of polities in general, come about when a sufficiently important power bloc has the power to implement that change, and that historically this is almost always how that change takes place.

which might make the "Yes" vote here an insufficiently powerful bloc lol LDs

NV, is your line a bit circular? I mean of course something will only happen when someone has the power to make it happen.

i was under the impression that the theorem is about the non-existence of a voting system that is "fair" regardless of history + the process of reform (no idea what complicated definition of "fair" is being used)

i'm def voting yes but just interested

Sure, but the counter-argument is that some systems are less unfair than others, even if none reaches perfection.

I'm also against the black-eye approach to voting here; despite PR supporters' dreams, the result of the referendum will stand for decades and just because AV would disadvantage one party now doesn't necessarily mean it will continue to do so: party fortunes change and parties will adapt to any given voting system. That said, I do agree you can tell something about the yes and no positions by observing what kinds of people support either side.

Bah, I had a big long post written that would have persuaded everyone to my way of thinking, but I somehow have lost it.

To further clarify re: TPP's workmate - these are a list of qualities that a 'perfect' voting system would have. For instance, 'Independence of irrelevant alternatives' means that if one candidate (X) is on track to win the election, and A, B and C are set to lose it, and nobody changes their mind or beliefs, but a new alternative (Y) is added, only X or Y will win the election - A B and C can't suddenly win.

Anyway the guy is pointing out that if you make a list of all such desirable qualities of a perfect system, you can prove that no system fulfils it.

Which is true! But like, FPTP fails basically ALL OF THEM.

(TNDV I agree 100% btw fwiw)

I was struck by how that voting theorem guy was an economist - basically someone from one academic discipline sticking their oar into another. And it did seem like the point of his argument was kind of to say "all voting systems are non-ideal, so you might as well stick with something completely rubbish like Fuptup".

science sez AV wins

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/04/mathematicians-weigh-in-on-uk.html

ignore the last paragraph ;)

that's pretty cool. love the idea of introducing randomness to a voting system. nature's solution for optimisation!

Roughly along the lines the way the first king was elected

I had just convinced myself it was an idea to vote "yes" in the hope of sending a signal of active, considered unhappiness w/FPTP (yeah right) when I realised that I am not registered to vote and it's too late to do anything about it

(shrug)

Tory conviction that FPTP is the best system should have David Davis installed as PM immediately.

First Ballot: 18 October 2005
Candidate 	Votes 	%
David Davis 	62 	31.3
David Cameron 	56 	28.3
Liam Fox 	42 	21.2
Kenneth Clarke 	38 	19.2
Turnout 	198 	100
Kenneth Clarke eliminated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_%28UK%29_leadership_election,_2005

Liam Fox! LOL!

I dunno, that Turnout bloke seems popular!

Talked to kids at the school I work at and they were overwhelming against it - found that really surprising and dispiriting.

What reasons did they give?

Almost all of the ones I asked said that they thought FPTP was more fair?

I guess it made me realise that without the actual, crushing experience of having a vote that means *nothing whatsoever at all* FPTP seems as good a system as any?

Nah, it's antediluvian shit and the Tories and John Reid are for it

What age group, GP?

(I am not actually planning to change my vote as a result of talking to some children! I meant more - before I didn't know anyone who was voting no - now I do, even if they are 11 years old, this has been educational to me)

iow the no campaign's arguments about fairness appeal to those with the intellectual development of an 11 year old?

Missed a comma:

Not voting, no.

I guess it made me realise that without the actual, crushing experience of having a vote that means *nothing whatsoever at all* FPTP seems as good a system as any?

― Gravel Puzzleworth, Tuesday, May 3, 2011 1:47 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark

how is a vote under av 'more meaningful'?

voting for the losing party isn't 'wasting a vote', it's voting for the losing party

Deferred winning

when the parties have no ideological differences, it's only fair that they all get represented

heard nick clegg on the radio on a show called 'the jam generation takes power' or something equally terrible to think of, and nick clegg said we're all a lot more ideologically *flexible* these days. yes indeed.

Mama Weer All Toreez Now

The Jam Generation? WTF? Eton Rifles and all that?

voting for the losing party isn't 'wasting a vote', it's voting for the losing party

which achieves nothing, therefore wasted.

Mama Weer All Toreez Now

Gudbuy T' Manifesto Commitments

"Eton Rifles" is one of Cameron's favourite records and he plays it every year to celebrate the start of the Oik shooting season

George Osborne being an "oik" to Cameron of course

Apparently there was a "bust-up" between Huhne and Cameron over AV in the Cabinet meeting today?

Also Paul weller is a tory.

which achieves nothing, therefore wasted.

woah hang on, are we setting a lower limit on the number of votes that deserve a voice in Parliament or are we just going straight for an Athenian-style direct democracy, only I can go and smash up a couple of plates now ready for the first ostrakismos

actually i'm probly gonna need to go out and get some more plates

yeah sure with a limited number of mps there'll always be some views unrepresented. JEEZ.

but then they will be wasted votes and this is a terrible terrible thing

also if you vote for the minority in a jury trial to what extent have u wasted your vote?

and with Eurovision approaching fast how can we stop everybody voting for Blue from wasting their votes? cos they'll be like 50p a pop or something

Anyone considering voting no on AV should also consider that they aren't getting a vote at all on the massive Tory Gerrymandering exercises that will take place before the next general election (assuming the coalition lasts)

and what better way to stop the coalition lasting than voting No?

True, True

"Eton Rifles" is one of Cameron's favourite records and he plays it every year to celebrate the start of the Oik shooting season

Just found out about this story and I can't believe what a complete idiot Cameron is. It's the most tin-eared politcal posturing I can remember in recent history; guaranteed to make him look out of touch and a feckless panderer.

Probably thinks they're singing about Eton Trifles, the cloth-eared cunt.

David Cameron has taken a slot in the Conservative-supporting Sun newspaper to focus on the AV referendum. Three-quarters of the page is devoted to a graphic with Cameron on the left, and a sombre looking Winston Churchill on the right, with "vote no to save our democracy" emblazoned above, and a standfirst that reads: "Do your duty today."

Cameron urges everyone to come out and vote, to avoid Britain being landed with AV.

Today is a big day for our country. The AV referendum is on and our democracy is on the line. Unless enough people get out and vote today, Britain is going to end up tomorrow with a new voting system that is unfair, unclear and unpopular around the world

He concludes:

I'll let the last word go to Winston Churchill. Many years ago he described AV as "the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal" voting system.

---

seriously fuck politics

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01304/SNN0510CAR---682_1304649a.jpg

paul mccartney

Think its open season on Clegg after this defeat by the way. Both Cameron and Miliband seem to be benefitting from his presence as the lightning conductor for all Gordon Brown-style lol headlines.

Is the defeat certain though? I know the polls say so, but I'm not sure how many Nosayers can actually be arsed to vote.

status quoers stay home

Which is why the No campaign have been trying to scare them to the ballot box.

This is just a hunch but I reckon there are lots of older Tory voters that are out in force for the 'no' vote.

Old shit-for-brains Clegg's idea of having the referendum on the same day as Council elections and the Scottish + Welsh elections looks like it could blow up in his face

Having said that though, you really want as many people as possible to vote in a referendum on the voting system

I think this AV process has had a toll on his health. Clegg is looking about 10 years older than when the ConDems took over.

He looks miserable as sin every PMQs, but I supposed having to sit next to Cameron and Osborne would do that to a person. Pretty sure the Coalition, but mostly the Lib Dems, didn't expect to be this unpopular this early + thought they could slide the AV Referendum in pretty early

Tories don't really give a shit if they're unpopular as long as they're in power. Clegg's a populist like Blair and he looks as haggard as Blair looked after 2003-04, except Clegg hasn't even had to take us into an illegal war or even do anything particularly difficult.

I'll let the last word go to Winston Churchill. Many years ago he described AV as "the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal" voting system.

- except all the others that have been tried"

I'll let the last word go to Winston Churchill.

New Politics in action

The tide, however, might be turning. One of Churchill's final acts as prime minister was to send British troops to Kenya in 1952 to crush the Mau Mau rebellion. According to thousands of colonial-era files released earlier this month, Mau Mau prisoners were subjected to arbitrary killings, castrations, sexual abuse, forced labour, starvation and violence at the hands of the colonial regime. Among the Kenyans said to have been tortured was Hussein Onyango Obama, paternal grandfather of the current US president.

Is it any wonder, then, that one of the newly elected president's first acts, in February 2009, was to order that the Oval Office bust of Churchill be packed up and formally handed back? Take that, Cameron!

has anyone pointed out to David Cameron that he wasn't the FPTP winner when he was elected Conservative leader?

Cameron wasn't even supposed to be involved in campaigning for this referendum (but then neither was Clegg I think)

It depends on how much respect you have for the individual voter.

If it's MPs from your own party, hell yeah.

If it's genpub voters, ....

I'll let the last word go to Winston Churchill. Many years ago he described AV as "the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal" voting system.

- except all the others that have been tried"

― sensual bathtub (group: 698) (schlump), Thursday, May 5, 2011 12:41 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

lol

i mean as in 'funny joke' not in a snarky way

supporters on both sides are reprehensible. Cameron's mob are straight-faced liars, no question. still don't believe AV advances the cause of economic democracy which is the only democracy worth a damn, so voting No.

supporters on both sides are reprehensible.

Dunno, people out canvassing for the Yes vote today seemed kinda sweet

finally going through my pile of election leaflets (ya I'm hijacking this with Scottish election talks) I see that I have one from N4TIONAL FR0NT SCOTLAND. Who knew that was a thing?!?

even though I don't feel very strongly about AV I am pissed off enough at the No lobby to vote Yes, so I'm kicking myself for being too stupid to check I'm on the electoral register

got sent a bit of paper like a week after the general election shouting "make sure you are on the electoral register!" and I went "duh, I voted last week" and then forgot about it, only to realise last week that I hadn't received any more reminders since that letter and I'm not registered

(I know this is entirely my fault, but still)

Just show up the polling station and blag yer way into the booth. Say you're on the guest list.

supporters on both sides are reprehensible. Cameron's mob are straight-faced liars, no question. still don't believe AV advances the cause of economic democracy which is the only democracy worth a damn, so voting No.

isn't it pragmatically & tactically worth voting for just to hinder the various parties supporting? both in terms of them losing a battle & their future electoral performance? voted yes.

got sent a bit of paper like a week after the general election shouting "make sure you are on the electoral register!" and I went "duh, I voted last week" and then forgot about it, only to realise last week that I hadn't received any more reminders since that letter and I'm not registered

I hadn't re-registered since the election either and I was still on the register.

Tip for electoral fraud: go to polling station, give neighbour's name and address, vote.

from what i saw the No campaign was stupid rather than reprehensible -- i don't know or care if £250m is the amount it would cost to change to AV. i felt this was less of a lie, though, than the idea that AV would somehow make MPs work harder/not cheat on expenses. the Yes ads were smug as hell.

I hadn't re-registered since the election either and I was still on the register.

Yeah, it's definitely worth showing up, more than likely you'll still be on it

it MIGHT make them work harder

it WON'T cost £250m

one is rubbish, the other is lying

xpost

Somehow I find the rubbish more of an insult to my intelligence than the lying though

quite. What are the exact cost figures btw?

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-clegg-huhne-and-the-250m-question-who%E2%80%99s-right-about-the-cost-of-av

no one knows, but they counted the cost of the referendum itself, as well as electronic voting machines, which don't seem a given, leaving £39m for voter education. silly argument though: you know what would be cheapest? no elections ever.

i agree it's not certain and i agree it's a silly argument. i was wondering how that made it different in type to "AV will stop all MPs from slacking and fiddling their expenses"?

to be frank though, i don't think anyone is stupid enough to be swayed by the 'it costs too much' argument, not to the extent they'll go out to vote

there was something equally stupid about the Nos saying 'with FPTP you get a clear, decisive win' -- not the best time to make this claim

"AV is too confusing for people" is the most insulting argument from the No camp.

which is a tremendous flaw because it's such a terrible bad faith argument. one would expect the status quo-ers to come out with any old shit - they're not selling anything as such. but for the Yes campaign to go gung ho with this anti-politics bullshit means they either hold the electorate in contempt or they don't have any big selling points for their cause

sorry that was an xp: "AV makes MPs work harder" is the bad faith argument i meant

other stupid arguments: "Vote No because coalition governments don't work", mainly coming from members of the er coalition government. "AV is fairer". Fairer is fucking meaningless in this context, I will give you "a bit more representative of the mood of the electorate than FPTP", shd have run with that.

if we want to improve Parliamentary democracy in England or the UK or whatever - I think that's quite a big "if" tbh, depending on how you define the "we" - we'd be much better off starting with some new rules for how you can run yr fucking stupid PR-spun lies lies and big fucking lies campaigns i think

or maybe if the electorate behaved with a bit more savvy then the big parties wouldn't treat them with quite the same level of contempt

Voted yes. Not particularly excited by this. But yeah, that little bit more representative is something at least. And although I don't believe in the pro-slippery slope argument ('vote for AV and we might get PR'), I do believe in its inverse ('if you don't vote for AV then the mantra of "no public mood for change" will be inescapable').

xxpost a thousand times yes, this campaign has been ridiculous.

or maybe if the electorate behaved with a bit more savvy

given that nigh on 40% of the electorate don't contribute to electing anything, i think compulsory voting is worth consideration.

either hold the electorate in contempt or they don't have any big selling points for their cause

No camp = former. AV = latter. To put it crudely. It's hard to sell something you don't believe all that much in.

To give kudos to Nick Clegg, prior to the last General Election I'd've reasoned that AV wd guarantee the Tories never being able to form a majority government again. Good job he set me straight.

xxpost

Mrs V was talking about compulsory voting this morning. Not sure how much all those peeps who can't be arsed to vote now wd bring to the party, tbh.

wd only add to the worrying possibility of Matt Cardle becoming our next Chancellor under Prime Minister That Screamy Anorexic of Big Brother

even if everyone who felt truly disenfranchised spoilt their papers instead of just staying at home, that would send a much stronger message. might still be ignored of course, but at least it would be visible.

You know when they do vox pops in General Elections and invariably some cretin will pop up and say, "It's time for a change", 'cos that's the only thing they can think of in their tiny brain and you want to smash them in face? Well, today I was that cretin.

lol

I will be voting for "let's the crush the Lib Dems in every possible way"

fairer is fairly meaningless is all contexts

the "AV means some people's votes will be worth more" is also bad and easily-refutable misinformation that the YES failed to combat

tons of xposts

I think AV will tend to favour consensus and coalition building. Then I look at our existing political parties and think "fuck that".

I mean I'm sure there's a middle ground where Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories can come together, but who the fuck wants to live under that for the next 200 years?

u r savvy

I mean I'm sure there's a middle ground where Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories can come together, but who the fuck wants to live under that for the next 200 years?

We have been living under that for some decades now

almost a fair point. some = 2 arguably

And although I don't believe in the pro-slippery slope argument ('vote for AV and we might get PR'), I do believe in its inverse ('if you don't vote for AV then the mantra of "no public mood for change" will be inescapable').

my rationale too, basically

the polling station was completely empty when i went, when i asked the women behind the desk semi-jokingly whether they'd been busy they laughed and laughed and were still laughing by the time i left

The majority have consistently voted against the Tories. They didn't win this election after all. If you have a progressive coalition then the middle ground shifts left - or at least as left as it can go under a neo-liberal system. As long as the Orange Bookers and Blue Labour types don't prevail that is.
So I've voted Yes. And as I'm in Scotland, SNP for the constituency, Green for the region.
I'm undecided on independence, but think the SNP have done a decent job and prefer them to useless Scottish Labour. I'm a Green party member, so I'm really hopeful that they'll have a good election.
Hope England and Wales stick it to the Tories in the local elections.

But if you vote No or spoil your vote, then there will be no change anyway. So you might as well vote Yes and bring about some small change. There's no point taking the huff because it's not your ideal system. AV is the best option available, so do the right thing. I'd prefer some form of PR, but it has its faults too, the main issue being how to maintain the constituency link.

"Blue Labour" is Cruddas etc isn't it? Don't think it's quite what its name implies.

"Blue Labour" is Maurice Glassman... and him alone as far as i can tell

... no, you're right, Cruddas is in there... with James Purnell?!??!?!

voting yes, because the 'constitution' is appalling.

if we had some sort of PR lower chamber (maybe multiple member constituencies) then for a smaller upper chamber idk whether I'd prefer FPTP or AV. as it is AV is slightly more representative, but the stakes are still low and I'm not sure how representative things can be under our cabinet system.

also, fuck compulsory voting, the system is unrepresentative no matter the turnout.

I would totally vote for random ballot today if I had the chance. I would spend 10 minutes shading in the box perfectly.

So I've voted Yes. And as I'm in Scotland, SNP for the constituency, Green for the region.

snap. I'm no SNP-er but it's a choice between one "eh you're alright I guess" and three "FUCK YOOOOOOOOU"s. Was tempted to vote for the pensioners party who had a crudely drawn smiley face for a logo, tho.

Yep, James Purnell, that vile benefits cutting careerist scumbag, has signed up to Glasman's Blue Labour project. Which says it all. They're selling it as a 'return to core Labour values' but really, it's basically a Lab version of Phillip Blonde's Red Tory-ism. Don't buy it at all. The fact that they talk of 'equality' as some kind of abstract that people can't understand gave the game away for me. Anyway, that's another debate.

i don't like anyone in uk politics right now. don't like purnell but it's sort of hard to get angry about it -- he's not in the shadow cabinet (not even an MP) and ed balls is. the majority didn't vote against the tories last year. the majority just *did not vote tory*, which is different. im sure there's some complex math out there that said what would have happened under AV, but i have big doubts that lib dem voters are actually labour voters. if we take politics seriously, all parties are different. there isn't a natural fit between labour and other parties just because they're not tory. there isn't a progressive coalition to root for. and even if there were, the labour front bench is discredited and the saviour of social democracy vince cable is... not the saviour of social democracy.

if we take politics seriously, all parties are different. there isn't a natural fit between labour and other parties just because they're not tory

Actually this has kinda been the myth since 1997 and Clegg was happy to play up to it to an extent only to blow it wide open, hence the howls of rage from people who supported him. People using "liberal" as part of a binary with "conservative" haven't helped obv.

Wonder what happens if the Yes vote wins on turnout of less than 50%.

Clegg was happy to play up to it to an extent only to blow it wide open

yeah that's true. i guess i meant there's no *natural* fit because when it comes to the crunch, the lib dems don't have a fixed character. so i suppose they could ride along in a labour-led coalition too, but they'd lose votes that way too, in some places.

parties ought to be different, is what im saying, and that means they have to have some principles. im not asking for much, just one or two.

but then granted that i don't want the tories ever to win, i also don't want a one-party state. once you start thinking about the state of democracy, it's all pretty compromised :(

I didn't get home till 9pm and then forgot to vote. In the unlikely event that the 'No' campaign wins by one vote, you can blame/thank me.

As a Yes voter I wish the campaign had been run a different way, even though I'm not sure there's anything the Yes side could have done to win in this climate. In an election where the proffered benefits of change are completely abstract it's incumbent on the proposing side to run a spectacularly good campaign (all the opposition has to do is scaremonger about change). As we've all noticed, the Yes campaign was dire, focusing on issues that are peripheral to AV ("nobody cares about voting change but people do care about dodgy expenses, let's rope that in too!") and using random celebrities to front their publicity (Kris Akabusi WTF???). So whatever the polls might have said months beforehand, Yes was always going to lose.

Kris Akabusi! Eddie Izzard! Greg Dyke! Your boys took one hell of an etcetera.

dan 'no nepotism here' snow

My polling station was impressively/surprisingly busy. I queued behind 3 other people, 2 were marking ballots as I arrived, and there were about 10 coming from/going to the polling station on my way there and home. Not bad.. right?

This may be frightening obvious, but I haven't seen this anywhere in the papers, but... why was the referendum on AV which no-one wants instead of PR which some (I don't have any idea of any polls) people do want? Who decided these were the choices?

Part of the coalition agreement. There was no way the tories were going to allow a referendum on PR. Labour offered one, iirc.

The Con Dem coalition. I think the Tories wouldn't budge on PR so AV was the compromise.

xp

As it happens, with 2 seats declared in the Scottish election, the Lib Dems have lost two deposits. Heh!

Libs looking to lose every single seat in Manchester. that's the way to do it boys and girls.

tempting to enjoy the idea i'm slapping nick clegg, and he can then publicly reintrepret the slap as something positive.

i hope that's true about manchester, anyway.

in the end i didn't want this country to be run by the same old clique of arrogant right wing patricians. so i voted no

I succeeded in voting despite not having received a poll card and being told by the council that I was "probably not on the register but we can't tell you over the phone". Having thought I was ineligible to vote I didn't research the candidates like I probably should've done; was going to vote Labour but there weren't any Labour candidates (lol Oxfordshire) so I ticked some Green dude and voted Yes to AV.

Thanks to everyone who told me to go along anyway because I was fully prepared to sit on my arse all evening and of course my single randomly-assigned vote will have made a crucial difference to, er, something.

I was discussing this with my Ice cream man yesterday.

He was saying that he'd already gone to vote as he always has, mainly because "you can't moan if you don't vote"

Apparently, he wrote "Who Cares?" on his AV voting form...

But also, he said about how he'd been asked to vote for three candidates, whereas he'd always only put one cross down before. I told him that there were obviously three council seats up for election which is why they'd asked for three votes. "naah, I only put one cross down, that's all I ever have done"

I didn't explain AV to him...

didn't even bother broaching the subject with my ice cream man

So where do you get some perspective?

My ice cream man never stops banging on about Mussolini.

you can take the boy out of italy

Yeah, but he's from Barrhead

Mr. Chief Whippy

Always got the 99s made on time.

1513: Lib Dem minister Chris Huhne has conceded that the Yes camp looks set for defeat in the AV Referendum. He told the BBC he had no idea what the final percentages would be, but "if the boxes are anything like what I've seen it doesn't look good".

damnit i'm not gonna beat the spread

lots of undemocratic sentiment in the air today

The turnout in the West Midlands in the AV referendum was 39%. Other regions to follow.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5693575322_78c0aef7f0_z.jpg

abt 75% no right now says bbc

dammit i backed 65

plenty of time left old boy

1752: Nowhere has returned a Yes to AV vote yet.

Still awaiting the result from Boredom...
http://media.sexpistolsofficial.com/non_secure/images/pvpsostsing72a.jpg

(and we don't care)

john reid has got his happy face on

surprised they can show that before the watershed

john reid happy face + chris huhne's toupee + adam boulton, agh my eyes

so far 3/280 are in favour, so that's 1.07%

Yes campaign hoping to catch up when the second preferences are counted

yes voter twitter tantrum well underway

that's that then, FPTP 4 lyfe losers

hardly seems fair all those Yes voters had their vote wasted

don't think clegg is taking this too well, he looks a bit ill

He looks quite pale. I bet his wife is dreading him coming home tonight. Crying into his dinner!

all that cured ham ruined.

Those tomatoes cut into cogwheel shapes...

the cheesy footballs turned soggy

so now it's 8/426, a glorious 1.87% of yesness, great stuff

The director of the No campaign, Matthew Elliott, said he had been "astonished" at the scale of the No victory: "I personally believe that this result will settle the debate over changing our electoral system for the next generation."

i voted yes and i'm not particularly upset about the result but the way politicians on either side have conducted themselves during this campaign makes me feel like not voting again for another decade. i want to be treated like an intelligent human being who can make a decision based on logic + facts and not slogans and fucking churchill. fuck this country.

bell hops is only a dick

Hell, it means that if a shitty (con) gov gets voted in that wouldn't have under AV those of us who voted 'yes' get to act all smug. So there is that.

look i'm sorry conrad if you think it's a big deal. i'm a socialist and i don't think it matters a fuck. the section of the public that could be bothered to vote clearly didn't think it was an improvement anyway. they got their referendum, they got spanked. would genuine PR have won more Yes votes? probably, but probably not enough. all I see from AV is the perpetual enforcement of centre right governments, which some might argue is cool because if that's what the electorate wants. i don't think it's cool. the arguments about the fundamental inequalities that prevent representative democracy from being very representative or very democratic belong somewhere else, but i've gotta say that as long as our economic and social institutions remain undemocratic, i don't believe that tinkering with the people who get to manage this undemocratic system will make a blind bit of difference.

12 months ago i would've agreed that AV might prevent a Conservative government down the line. then the Lib Dems proved that a vote for them was a vote for a potential Conservative government. all bets off now. consensus can't help but be in the interests of small c conservatism, obscurantism, and the status quo.

hmmph i remember when you useed explain yourself to *me* like that ;_;

lol my "hackles up" voice

guys if its any consolation we have pr and our cunts are worse

Also, your alternative govt are a pack of cunts also

*positivity*

as our economic and social institutions remain undemocratic, i don't believe that tinkering with the people who get to manage this undemocratic system will make a blind bit of difference.

this might be wrong but it's too vague for me to tell (appropriately)

how do you think economic and social institutions can be reformed?

look he doesn't say he has any of the answers okay

:p

oh touché

obviously i do have a "how to make the world a better place in 10 easy steps" plan in my head but i'll just make a few observations.

Poverty and social exclusion, including the part of the country you're born in and the kind of schools and other institutions that are available to you, make enormous differences in people's life outcomes including but not limited to their education, health and prospects of fulfilling employment.

The gap between the rich and poor has steadily risen over the last 30-odd years. The last Labour governments tried all sorts of methods of reducing the number of people in poverty, except for doing anything about reducing this gap, or increasing the number of fulfilling employment opportunities or the number of affordable homes.

Poverty, social exclusion and poor education affect your understanding of and commitment to the democratic process, whatever way you might want to run the ballots.

We don't have a genuine free market and we don't have much state control over the economy - we have a system that is as close to the worst of both worlds as possible.

Economic democracy would mean the state (potentially amongst other agencies) taking steps to ensure that businesses consider the needs of the wider community (up to and including the whole population of the planet tbh), and that those needs are comparably weighted with the interests of share-holders or other owners. One step might include compulsory representation of outside interests on the boards of large enough companies.

The state needs to enforce legislation that increases market competition, especially by stopping large companies from using economic muscle to gain an unfair advantage and distort the market. At the same time we need to take steps to improve the opportunities of all members of society, including improving education, social support and social housing.

Of course I don't think we can do that in a couple of years, or decades. I do think it's all more important than tinkering with an electoral system that, as I said, works much harder to preserve the status quo than it does to make this a country that you would be proud to be a member of.

"The gap between the rich and poor has steadily risen over the last 30-odd years."

has this problem been solved anywhere in the world?

lol ireland

has this problem been solved anywhere in the world?

no idea tbh. are you saying it doesn't matter or we shouldn't try to change this state of affairs or we shouldn't care? i agree with the shouldn't care bit on the whole, since people seem to have little inclination to do anything about it. i want to try hard not to care. but still, the kind of state-protected capitalism that has spread out from western Europe and the US over the last 100-odd years is so wasteful in its exploitation of resources both natural and human that it seems to be leading inevitably to, at the very least, a devastating reduction in humanity's viability as a species. swinging between defeated shrugs and gibbering outrage feels like a natural response to me.

france has been getting more equal in terms of income over the last 50-60 years, norway too to a lesser degree (to pick two countries which haven't been getting obviously poorer). half the fight is not falling for the idea that the gap between rich and poor is a natural and unvarying condition of the universe.