I've been asked several times why I've not blogged at all so far about the AV referendum. The reason is because I am not in the least bit interested. As people keep asking, I'll be voting Yes. I think First Past the Post is an awful system. I think that AV is very slightly less awful, as an MP needs over 50% of votes to win.
My own view is that rather than constituencies, we should have larger regions, and the seats should be dished out on % of vote. The criticism of this is that it breaks the link between a specific area and an MP. Given that most MP's are completely whipped to death and completely useless, I don't think the Constituency argument holds any water. I'd also allow the electorate the right to sack MP's if say 10,000 people signed a motion and then over 50% of the electorate voted to sack them. It would have been interesting had these rules been in place during the expenses scandal.
One other thing. I urge everyone to vote. A low turnout will be used by the opponents of referendums to say "people don't like to be bothered, leave it to us". I think the opposite is true, they've just chosen a subject akin to watching paint dry.
Sorry if it's a bit of a dull posting, but I can't get excited.
My own view is that rather than constituencies, we should have larger regions, and the seats should be dished out on % of vote. The criticism of this is that it breaks the link between a specific area and an MP. Given that most MP's are completely whipped to death and completely useless, I don't think the Constituency argument holds any water. I'd also allow the electorate the right to sack MP's if say 10,000 people signed a motion and then over 50% of the electorate voted to sack them. It would have been interesting had these rules been in place during the expenses scandal.
One other thing. I urge everyone to vote. A low turnout will be used by the opponents of referendums to say "people don't like to be bothered, leave it to us". I think the opposite is true, they've just chosen a subject akin to watching paint dry.
Sorry if it's a bit of a dull posting, but I can't get excited.
9 comments:
You're under-rating it. AV really challenges party power. Right now, in most constituencies, the seat is basically the gift of one of the two main parties. A voter may not particularly like the candidate presented by their least-unfavoured of the two main parties, but they'd be a fool to vote for anyone else. Under AV, they can do so without any fear of helping their most-unfavoured party.
This means two things: Firstly it will actually be in voters' interests to pay a bit more attention to the candidates, this will increase the pressure on candidates to be worth paying attention to and potentially increase the quality of candidates and improve the performance of the elected members. Secondly, candidates will no longer be as in debt to their parties, because they will personally have done more in the constituency (rather than hacking within the party) to get elected. This reduces the power of the whips.
You're right that multi-member constituencies would be an even bigger challenge to party power (although not if they involve any kind of PR-based list system) but AV already contains a lot of the benefits. And multi-member creates more potential for extremists. Under AV if 50% of voters hate you, you're not getting in (so the BNP is screwed). Under STV in a 5-member constituency, the bar rises to 80%. I reckon the BNP can easily find 20% of non-haters in many constituencies.
Hear, hear. One, the systems needs changing; two, as an Irish woman who's father and his entire family, male and female was involved in the Irish struggle in the early part of the twentieth century, I regard exercising my vote as a duty. And low turnouts puzzle me.
Joel, thanks for your very interesting comment, i've learned from reading it. and u make some interesting points as to the advantages of AV.
Joel,
I doubt the BNP could ever get 20% in larger constituencies, with a more balanced populace. They only ever win hyper local pockets which ebb and flow as people realise they are not very effective. The case in point is Barnbrooke in London - he got 5% for his seat.
You are making an assumption that people will want to use their second preference vote. To do so is an admission that you are not actually voting “for” a particular candidate but rather voting “against” someone else.
First past the post is considered unfair because it allows someone to win with less than 50% of the vote. Last year, Glenda Jackson won Hampstead & Highgate with just 32.8% of the vote. Not fair. But neither is it fair for the candidate who came third to win.
All AV will do is ensure that the major political parties continue to carve up constituencies between themselves. It will effectively allow the third party to hold the balance of power in a permanent coalition.
First past the post is not perfect, but it is the best of a bad system. As I have written previously, the problem is not with the voting system but with the calibre of candidates who stand for election.
Douglas Carswell MP has some interesting ideas as to how candidates should be selected. His plans stop parties from imposing their own candidates or allowing MPs to have jobs for life. We need to get the candidate selection problem dealt with first before tinkering with the voting system.
No to AV!
AV is not that proportional a voting system but it is still far more democratic than first past the post. The key difference it will make is that politicians are going to have to appeal to a wider electorate than just their base and at last voters who don't necessarily back one of the two main parties can go to the polls confident their voice will be heard - and there will be no such thing as a "wasted" vote. Of course the establishment don't want AV but then again Barnet backed the establishment at the last council elections and look at the mess we are now in!
@Don't call me Dave
Using a second preference vote is not necessarily voting against someone. For example, my mum would love a green candidate to win, but she's pretty happy with a labour candidate. Green first and Labour second would both be positive votes.
The fairness thing (and the whole grand national analogy that David Cameron likes) is misleading and somewhat specious. Yes, the person who wins under AV might not have won under FPTP, but that's kind of the point - If we choose AV then we're changing the way that we determine who wins!
And yes, it might be the case that the person who gets the third highest number of first choice votes would win, but that's only going to happen if they have lots of support from people's second and lower choices (and the 2 candidates who got more first choices have little similar support). There's nothing perfect about this, but it's definitely not obviously "unfair". There are lots of sporting analogies that have different kinds of "winner" to FPTP. For example, the formula one world champion is not (necessarily) the person with the most number of race wins, it's the person with the most points, and you get points from coming anywhere in the top 10.
I mentioned in my first post some reasons that you're wrong about AV meaning that parties will have more power to carve up constituencies. Another example is that AV allows independents to have a much better chance. Under FPTP voting for an independent is almost always a wasted vote, so most people don't even consider it (no matter how strong the candidate is). Under AV, you can confidently vote for an independent 1st and a party candidate 2nd, knowing that if the independent fails, you're at least still supporting a candidate from a party you like (or don't hate).
One consequence of this is that the calibre of candidates may improve. By reducing the reliance of candidates on the colour of their rosette to get votes, they may have to resort to other strategies, (maybe even like being competent, or responsive!).
DCMD: "you are not actually voting 'for' a particular candidate but rather voting 'against' someone else."
In the extreme, this may be so - but why it that a negative reason for AV?
If AV arrives in Barnet elections in, say, Totteridge, someone might vote for two Conservatives, but not the third (guess who), and then work their way through the other candidates, knowing their third vote would probably achieve something (or DEFINITELY, if they went as far as all the Labour candidates).
Democracy? What nonsense. It'll never happen while I'm a councillor I can tell you.
Your blog is amazing and i study some posts these are good but this post is not at according to your blog.
translation london
Post a Comment