News U.K. Alternative Voting Referendum 5th May

[cobalt124]

I haven't looked yet but I'd guess that the merits or otherwise of different voting systems has been done to death here. I'm wondering what U.K. members feel about this specific referendum, and also any thoughts from other members on Aletrnative Voting vs first past the post in general. This has confused me, because nomally I would vote no to change. However, having heard one debate - the pro AV sounding like they had valid arguments and the anti sounding insulting to intelligence, scaremongering and having facile arguments - and one anti advertisement comparing AV to a horse race where third placed gets the prize, so far I'm completely pro AV. Guess I'm looking for some clear reasoning if anybody has any thay are willing to share.

 

[AlephZero]

If you didn't get the joke in that anti advert, that the Lib Dem was initially in third place but only won because of AV, I think you missed the point of it. The only reason for having the referendum at all was to keep Nick Clegg happy.

The Pro campaign is being heavily funded by a company that makes electronic vote-counting machines. I can't possibly think why they would want to do that.

Not to mention the fact that Millipede and Cleggy both claim to be Pro, except they refuse to appear on the same platform to support it. And Millipede's paymasters (the unions) are anti.

Still, why should politicians in the USA have a monopoly of stupidity? We Brits can do it just as well when we have a mind to.

 

[Proton Soup]

so are these voting machines going to be open source, or magic black boxes ?

 

[cristo]

This has confused me, because nomally I would vote no to change.

Why, because the country's running so smoothly at present?

I'm voting yes because, in my opinion, anything that makes politicians focus less on their supporters and more on the public in general can only be a good thing. If used properly, it will mean that no more can you get an MP voted in with a 30% share of the vote, and a majority of a few. Instead, you will have an MP with the support of a real majority (50%) of the electorate. It will also bring an end to tactical voting, since you can support the party whose ideas you believe in most and not feel like you have to vote against one of the big two.

 

[cobalt124]

If you didn't get the joke in that anti advert

Yes I got the joke, I just thought the advertisement was very uninspiring and negative. I guess I'm looking for each camp to argue its pros rather than the cons of the other, which is what the anti campaign seems to be doing.

The only reason for having the referendum at all was to keep Nick Clegg happy.

Does that mean David Cameron is confident of an anti victory? If not, that is a dangerous concession.

The Pro campaign is being heavily funded by a company that makes electronic vote-counting machines. I can't possibly think why they would want to do that.

Hadn't thought of that. That is an issue that concerns me, if we need machines to count it. As well as the biased funding.

Still, why should politicians in the USA have a monopoly of stupidity? We Brits can do it just as well when we have a mind to.

Another case where potentially we are playing catch up with the U.S. Having said that, I'm unsure of how much stupidity is in it as a situation can always be played to advantage, such as Bush and the "chads"? in Florida when he was elected for his first term.

so are these voting machines going to be open source, or magic black boxes ?

Thats why I prefer a hand count. You can still fiddle the result, but a hand count is the most difficult to fiddle.

Why, because the country's running so smoothly at present?

I'd like to say "if it ain't broke don't fix it", but to be honest I can't. It may be a case of "too much change too quickly", which may not be a good thing.

I'm voting yes because, in my opinion, anything that makes politicians focus less on their supporters and more on the public in general can only be a good thing. If used properly, it will mean that no more can you get an MP voted in with a 30% share of the vote, and a majority of a few. Instead, you will have an MP with the support of a real majority (50%) of the electorate. It will also bring an end to tactical voting, since you can support the party whose ideas you believe in most and not feel like you have to vote against one of the big two.

I think it will make potential MPs work harder, which can't be a bad thing. Plus there's no concentrating on the whims of the electorate in a few marginal seats. The argument that fringe parties may be more easily elected also seems invalid as you do not have to give a preference to all candidates. It also seemed to be saying that if constituency boundary changes in 2013 do not make it through Parliament then AV could not go through either, which seemed odd, but would explain Cameron being willing to go ahead with the referendum, as it looks like a way to shoot AV down ifhe feels the need to.

So I am still pro AV, though I wouldn't want the count to be done by machine.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Does that mean David Cameron is confident of an anti victory? If not, that is a dangerous concession.

Nope but the Conservatives were over a barrel, it was on the list of points that the Lab Dems wouldn't move on in their negotiations for a coalition (they moved on just about everything else).

Which makes sense as it's the best chance the lib dems have ever had to tip the balance in their favour.

 

[Ken Natton]

Okay cobalt124, I’ll have a go at a dispassionate assessment of the issues at hand in this referendum.

On the face of it, first-past-the-post is not a very democratic system. As cristo pointed out, it does tend to mean that parties with less than 40% of the vote get substantial majorities in parliament. But it should be understood that those parties do have significantly the largest share of the vote, and there is a strong case for majority government. If you look around the world at other countries that operate something with a more proportionally representative result, the tendency is for a more-or-less permanent state of coalition government. The reality of that is ineffective governments and prime ministers that don’t last for more than eighteen months or so and are characterised more by their failures than their achievements. The primary up side of first-past-the-post is a tendency for governments that can get things done and stay around long enough to make a difference. Of course, whether you see that difference as positive or negative depends on your viewpoint.

So the original alternative to first-past-the-post was straight-forward proportional representation, and there have always been those who cannot see why a country that believes itself to be democratic could possibly operate any other system. But it is clear cobalt124, that such a view is very naive, and there are some prominent examples in history of its big disadvantages, which is not just ineffective governments. The problem with proportional representation in its simplest and most obvious form is that even parties with the smallest proportion of the vote get some seats in parliament. That means that parties with some pretty unpleasant agenda get opportunities that should be of concern to anyone with a proper sense of democracy. Coalition governments and parties with very few seats are not a good mix. Those parties with very few seats can find themselves holding the balance of power, and when they do, the result is that they have a highly disproportionate say in what happens. As I say, there are some prominent cases in history of just what can happen in that situation.

And that, I think, is the primary thing that the alternative voting system is supposed to achieve. It should give a more proportionally representative result for larger parties, while still ensuring that extremist parties don’t wield a disproportionate amount of power. But it will still tend against majority governments and it is far from a done deal that the result will be better government for the UK.

 

[cristo]

So I am still pro AV, though I wouldn't want the count to be done by machine.

But wouldn't it take days to do the counting by hand?

 

[AlephZero]

But wouldn't it take days to do the counting by hand?

No. If you think about it, you never need to recount more than half the total number of votes cast, and you already have those votes physically separated out from the previous stages of counting. But the vote-counting funding is working on the basis that AV is just a foot in the door leading to a system which does require automatic counting, like STV or constituencies with multiple representatives.

There are only 3 countries in the world which use AV at present. Australia isn't very happy with it. The other two are Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

 

[cobalt124]

If you look around the world at other countries that operate something with a more proportionally representative result, the tendency is for a more-or-less permanent state of coalition government. The reality of that is ineffective governments and prime ministers that don’t last for more than eighteen months or so and are characterised more by their failures than their achievements.

This shouldn't happen in this case because MP's will still be elected by and representing constituencies. The "proportioning of the vote" will not be on a national level. If it was I would struggle to support it for the reasons you state.

This is just one of many AV systems isn't it and all will have pros and cons.

The primary up side of first-past-the-post is a tendency for governments that can get things done and stay around long enough to make a difference.

With the "right people" in place (not meaning right politically or right-wing, just right) if AV stopped them getting things done that would be a definite minus IMO. I don't think we would end up in this situation with the form of AV proposed.

The problem with proportional representation in its simplest and most obvious form is that even parties with the smallest proportion of the vote get some seats in parliament..

I believe we would also prevent this one.

But it will still tend against majority governments and it is far from a done deal that the result will be better government for the UK.

A representative government is what is needed.

But wouldn't it take days to do the counting by hand?

No. If you think about it, you never need to recount more than half the total number of votes cast, and you already have those votes physically separated out from the previous stages of counting.

I wouldn't mind waiting two or three days for the result to be hand counted. I would feell more able to trust the result.

The first results usually come in within about three hours of the polling stations closing, so I would reckon that two days would be more than enough to get any result in.

But the vote-counting funding is working on the basis that AV is just a foot in the door leading to a system which does require automatic counting, like STV or constituencies with multiple representatives.

That is just wrong IMO, maybe I'm just old and prefer hand counting, or maybe company profiteering should have no part in the electoral process.

 

[xxChrisxx]

One strong argument for a permanent coalition government is that they would have to acutally negotiate and agree on policies. With a majority government you can push through any policy you want, even if it's not the best thing for the country. It provides balance in the commons.

With PR, the coalition govts are made up of many, many smaller parties (which is why you get the infighting and they break down). A coalition govt from AV is likely to consist of two large parties giving a majority which is less likely to break down, but will provide balance.

This last election isn't the most representative. You have two parties that don't really have the same politics, but the lib dems caved on everything to get the AV referendum which will give them increased power in the future.