The UK Voting Referendum

These cats are slightly biased, but I enjoyed their overview



For what it's worth, I'll be voting yes. But with even AV-friendly London polling at around 34% yes, I doubt we'll get past the post. Ironic? (Not really in a 2 issue vote - but anyway ).

AV ('-') is a fairly muddled and 'compromised' system, but as the vid points out, almost all our political parties are happy to use it for their own leadership elections (and London used it to elect our Mayor - who is against it incidentally). It's nothing more than a stepping stone towards some form of PR (or more likely, just 'away' from 'FPTP'). I don't like to vote 'against' things per se, but I am inordinately frustrated at having my vote almost certainly count for nothing if I vote for someone other than the local favourite (and FPTP's morays, and in-power gerrymandering, almost always generate this scenario).

A lot of the aspersions cast against AV are outlier events rather than inevitable outcomes that have been portrayed: Extremist empowerment (for this to happen the BNP et al need to actually win a seat for a start, which still looks unlikely given their general support and alternatives for 'Europhiles' etc. And even then it takes more of a Le Penn movement as seen in France for them to act as any kind of 'kingmaker' or fulcrum); Blandification to appeal to all (as 10 O'Clock Live put it, could our politicians get any more centrist/bland/disengenuous??). And as for the cost. Plz.

Anyways, enough ramble, what are some other Brits' thoughts on the subject? *EDIT* Or non-Brits for that matter - I know Aussies have AV in part, and the US is fairly 'past the posty'. There are certainly plenty of pros and cons worth chewing over

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Here's B3ta's ever-so-thoughtful take on the issue

Seems like one of those things where both systems have their strong suits and the wisdom of each probably varies in time and in place. I am rather curious as to what sorts of results a switch would produce, though. I can't tell if having to campaign to persuade voters that dislike you to rank you a little higher would be a good thing or not. Does that sort of thing foster cooperation and understanding, or breed resentment and horse-trading?

That said, this is a movie site, and the Oscars did recently switch to something equivalent (or roughly equivalent) to AV (or "instant runoff" voting) to determine Best Picture. Just sayin'.

True that. The Aussie system of mixing AV & FTPT in their two houses, to try and apply the strengths of each (and counter balance the weaknesses) is interesting tho. What makes this a pressure cooker issue here is that this is a rare opportunity try an alternative system (& the 'third' party have basically bet the farm on getting it - if they don't we may well be looking at another 35 years before the next referendum, with a polarised '2 party only' system continuing to dominate). We've had FPTP pretty much our entire modern history, as far as I know (just with increasing levels of enfranchisment I believe).

*EDIT* Yeah that's where the accusation of ''blandification' comes in, but I'm not sure it's possible for the current crop to centralise their positions much more and/or soften their image to opponent groups while appearing on-message internally. Media coverage / snooping is just too ubiquitous now. One unsavoury outcome therefore might be that they'll try, but contantly snoop on each other / get found out.

I'm not a fan of the morass of 'horse trading' that many more proportional set ups result in, with endlessly hung parliaments and the like (& indeed this compromised pitch for change sprang from hurried negotiations within a minor version of that here). That's partially why I like they 'checks and balances' appearance of the Aussie set up (even if they don't address the 'hung' issue per se, - plus I hear Aussie don't like the AV aspect )

Yes, and the Brits won. Sounds like a perfect system

That is interesting. I can definitely imagine that one system might produce a better Congress or Parliament, but another a better single leader. Though I'd say there will always be problems. FTPT is obviously a bit more zero-sum and probably a bit more divisive, but then again there are plenty of times where having a lone voice rise above the others is important, lest everything be created by committee or based on polling data, so that we get less horrendously unpopular things, but also less bold, visionary things. AV would seem to raise the floor and lower the ceiling a bit for these types of initiatives, at least in theory.

Actually, the more I think about it, AV seems like it would try to create through electoral engineering what's supposed to happen somewhat naturally with FPTP. That is, AV = almost all candidates are more moderate, whereas with FPTP = candidates are more ideologically aligned, but on aggregate they're about as moderate. The benefit to FPTP here being that instead of a bunch of moderates agreeing, you get the type of spirited (and even angry) debate that, as much as everyone says they hate it, is clearly the best way to separate good ideas from bad over time. Though as you say, I'm sure the reality would be less stark.

I guess, the more I talk through it, the more I prefer FPTP, but that's because I'm pretty thoroughly American and I have an affinity for (and general belief in the effectiveness of) ideas fighting to the death in some kind of public arena. But I realize this probably puts me at odds with most Britlanders and it's entirely possible that AV is a better cultural fit for you folks.

Might be helpful to clarify what you mean by a 2-party only system. You've obviously got far more prominent third and fourth parties across the pond than we do over here. Do you mean 2-party in the sense that you'll never have a Green PM, or something?

Interestingly enough, you could probably sell a lot of American conservatives on the system precisely because it'll lead to hung Parliaments and make things more difficult to enact. Plenty of people over here who think the government governs best when it governs least. Any conservatives over there thinking of voting for AV based on that idea, or has Cameron's stance on it made this pretty much a party-line thing?

Aye, but given what they picked one could also fear that AV will lead to a resurgence of the monarchy. Between The King's Speech and the Royal Wedding, I smell a bourgeoisie revolution.

By the way, In Trade (an online betting market) has the odds at 50/50 right now, though I can't tell if that's because they just added it and aren't sure where it'll end up.

As I understand it they've split it between the two major 'houses'/statuatory bodies, with I believe the initial 'parliament' being FPTP and the 'check and balance' 'Lords'/upper house being AV. Any Aussies here can doubtless clarify. (I've got an excellent New Scientist breakdown of current systems and pros & cons which I'll thumb through later and see if it can add anything here).

Agreed on the 'squeezed/stifled debating arena' analogy in theory, but I think the idea that candidates would be generally more moderate is an illusion. Certainly they'd espouse moderation in public, but I imagine it'd just be a sop. (Not to say that it wouldn't force political debate more behind closed doors, but I do have a reasonable amount of faith in the power of press and public interest to fathom key aspects of what they're really up to - even if some of this will come via the increased backstabbing and whistleblowing mentioned - not that it isn't de rigueur already ).

It's worth noting that we've had very commitee/polling-data led politics in the UK since it powered the '97 Labour success as it is. I think it is the minor presence of alternative parties that's forced this level of visual 'pastuerisation' / image-molding, which does bode poorly for AV - but I genuinely do wonder how much further they can take what's already a very 'centralised' environment of spun agendas.

The coalition government has been a model of angry debate to be honest, when it comes to principle differences like the AV vote - and the coalition format in some way presages what we might expect under AV voting. (After the 'honeymoon' of dealmaking at any rate).

Erm, hello, birth of modern parliamentary debate-democracy over here . Certainly we're less visceral in our debate style over here (& our media coverage), but that's not to say public arena debate isn't still central to our system. We just like to think it's less hysterical over here :P. (What's interesting about the Lib-Con clashes over AV is how visceral they do become tho when they break cover from the apparent 'everyman' broth).

You're right that the '3rd' party of the Lib Dems has much more of a look in over here, but nothing on the level of what their (recently evapourated) voting base might expect (as they never get near the gerrymandering keys like the first two). In that sense they struggle to have any impact on either of the big sluggers. Certainly the candidate returns seem massively more 2 party aligned in the US (but I believe you could argue that public 'off message' debate within each of the big two is currently far stronger your side).

The Cameron Gov are as disappointing to Big C Conservatives as Bush was to you guys . They've chosen pragmatics over idealogy on this - they'd much rather hold the keys the voting-boundary cupboard and keep themselves in or near power than risk seeing someone else implement their beliefs, even by default. I'm not aware of one Tory coming out for AV to date. (Equally no Libs have come out for FPTP that I know of, whereas Labour are splitting down idealogy/pragmatism lines).

V..vv..vvvVVIVA the revolution

Yeah be interesting to see where they go on that. I do like this whole new world of 'wisdom of the crowds' betting markets that are springing up.

We've had PR-style elections here for as long as I can remember, with the added ingredient of D'Hont to turn the whole thing into a hash of the finest order.

The only FPTP ones left are the Westminster elections, which are becoming an increasing irrelevance as more powers get devolved back to us. I'll be, however, voting for AV (we've got the referendum, council and NI Assembly elections all on the same day - the amount of election posters around the town is frightening ) on the basis that if the Tories don't want it, it must be good.

That's how interested I am in Westminster these days.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Wow, D'Hondt looks as clear as a tinted-windowed Honda, buried in mud.

I'm amazed this sentiment hasn't been more apparent

(The Lib Dem self flagellation has been bizarre to behold. Let's vote against ourselves coz we're pissed off with us etc.)

You know, I read all these entries and I still don't know what y'all are talking about.

FPTP is the style of voting in which the most votes win, even if the winner only manages a plurality. AV is also known as "instant runoff" voting, where voters list candidates in order of preference, and if no candidate gets a majority the lowest vote-getter is removed from the ballots, the next-highest choice on each of those lists is moved up, and you re-tabulate. You do this as necessary until someone has over 50% of the first-place votes.

Convoluted systems like that are necessary here at this point in time, I think. We're hugely over-represented with 108 MLAs for 1.7 million people (plus 20something councils and 9 MPs) but the fudge which PR helps create, along with mandatory coalition by the 2 largest parties from the formerly warring tribes, means that there's little opportunity for triumphal gloating in electoral victory and calls-to-arms in defeat.

As our democracy becomes more mature I trust we'll not ditch PR or D'Hondt but drastically decrease the number of elected representatives. For instance my constituency, Fermanagh & South Tyrone, has 6 MLAs in Stormont. Crazy when you consider that the biggest town, Dungannon, houses 15,000 people.

All political groupings (apart from various lunatic fringe candidates and the Tories) are represented in Stormont which is, of course, the reason for the joy of AV's supporters and the ire of its detractors. Mandatory coalition is what really creates the fudge, though - I can't imagine we're mature enough to have a country led wholly by Unionist or Nationalist parties just yet. PR is the mixing bowl.

Interesting stuff Tatty! I wonder if there's anywhere else using the same system to work through a violent partisan split?

And Yoda, you are more succinct than a cat

That cat video was hilarious.

A lot of people claim that this kind of "problem" (pht'put') was what allowed Bush to win in the key Florida counties circa 2000 election. In this case it was Nader taking away votes from Gore.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Yeah I'm just reading about that now. The whole 'outliers detract' thing, never gaining the seat themselves but often landing us with the second favourite. (Intriguingly, the article suggests 'range voting' at one point IE the starring system used by Youtube etc - Altho unsurprisingly, that too has its flaws ).

It looks at the work of a guy called Arrow who tried to compare available systems. Makes some interesting brief cases for 'One person, more than one vote'

Seeing as professional Art Garfunkel lookalike and Royal Wedding avoider Martin McGuinness has been shilling the NI Peace Process (TM) model around various hotspots for the last half decade it's a distinct possibility.

A fair few places use a D'Hondt type model - It's similar to the Jefferson system in America - but I don't know how many would be willing to subscribe to straining the public purse by massively over-employing elected representatives so that no one side can clearly win a willy-measuring contest.

We've got 20 fewer MLAs than Scotland but under half the population...

I'll be voting "YES." I'm in two minds about both FPTP and AV, they both have their pros and cons, but I'm mostly voting for a change just to see how it goes.

If AV succeeds and it turns out to be a great system that works well for everyone, then hurrah. If it doesn't, I feel like we have something of a safety net in the Tories and some members of the Labour Party (I assume they're split on this), who'd be only too happy to go back to FPTP. Not that I think we would go back, this isn't the first change that's been made regarding how we vote, and it probably won't be the last.

Any system where an MP can be elected with only 25% of his constituents votes seems broken to me, no matter how little that happens.

Dan Snow presents probably the clearest explanation I've seen for how AV works, and how it could be better than FPTP:

&feature=player_embedded

&feature=player_embedded

__________________
"When I was younger, I always wanted to be somebody. Now that I'm older, I realise I should've been more specific."

For the first time in my adult life I'd been seriously considering not voting. Watching a couple of quite dreadful performances in the Leaders' Debate yesterday was almost the final nail in the coffin - I've been an SDLP voter ever since I moved back here but Margaret Richie is dragging the party down further than Mark Durkin ever did, and Durkin was undone by Blair's need to manoeuver Sinn Fein into being the largest Nationalist party.

I think I'm better now, though. Somebody has to stand up for what's right in this dysfunctional little Statelet!

I'm also voting 'Yes' to piss off Cameron and, locally, Peter Robinson and looking forward to a ballot paper which resembles a toilet roll.

Nice little debate-ette about AV between Armando 'In The Loop' Iannucci and Peter 'lapdancing club' Stringfellow.

Link

Iannucci, who I've got a great deal of time for and has been one of my favourite comedy writers for years, has just had his new show commissioned by HBO.

Hah, he mentioned that on Question Time last night. Bizarre state of affairs. And an example of how paltry the Yes campaign has been, as he says (and no disrespect to him intended, he's come out swinging for it as a 'celeb' fairly grudgingly).

Early results are even worse than the polls for AV. Coming in at over 2:1 for no at the moment. I don't know if it's encouraging or discouraging that we've had 'high' turnout in the non-local-election areas (well, over 30% anyway ). Seems between elections the only thing that gets us out is maintaining the status quo. Sigh.

I genuinely can't understand why people would get this 'militant' over FTPT, other than being wedded to Tory/Labour positions to the extent that they'd overlook the pretty undemocratic circumstances that underpins their political dominance. Either that or they believed the 'babies will die if you vote for AV' smear campaign. Double sigh

Paddy Ashdown used this quote beautifully;

"A lie can be halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on"

I've got no problem with people genuinely wanting to keep FPTP, but in my own experience the people I know who've voted No did so because of the "costs" (which the No campaign have admitted were made up) and because they didn't want their 3rd choice to win (even though they don't have to choose a 3rd choice, or even a 2nd choice).

If that's what's been happening nationwide then it's a shame, but like I say, its only my own experience.

Not that the Yes campaign did much to counter this, the only information I've seen in favour of it has been on the internet, and most of that I had to look for myself. Those Dan Snow videos I posted came up on my Stumbleupon bar, and as I haven't come across them since I have to assume I wouldn't have seen them otherwise.

I've seen no adverts on television, I've seen no billboards on buildings or buses, no posts on the sides of roads, not even a leaflet through my door.