UK Alternative Vote Referendum

[Neal]

I take your point and agree with it to a certain extent but while a yes to AV may not have been a significant step towards PR the no vote sends out a message the country doesn't want change and is a step away from PR that will likely be the status for a very long time.

 

[Ardius]

I don't think that is a good justification for changing a voting system at all. You could just as easily argue that a yes vote would have suggested we would be happy with AV for 100 years. The Tories would have felt they had satisfied the public's need for change, perhaps the Lib Dems would have pushed for PR more then, perhaps not. Trying to predict how people would react in future and basing your vote on that isn't how the general public votes, it shouldn't be how anyone votes.
It seemed like no one really wanted AV, they just wanted the "step" towards PR...so its quite easy to see why this referendum flopped.

 

[Famine]

I don't think that is a good justification for changing a voting system at all. You could just as easily argue that a yes vote would have suggested we would be happy with AV for 100 years.

Oddly, the No campaign are calling the No vote a vote of confidence in First-Past The Post - which is pretty much what everyone thought they'd say.

"No, we don't want AV" isn't "Yes, we're happy with FPTP", but that's exactly what the relevant MPs are saying it is. Of course, had "Yes" won, the relevant MPs would be saying that it meant everyone wanted AV rather than any other voting system.


It's amazing how much spin they can put on even a simple "Yes" or "No" option.

 

[Neal]

Although AV isn't perfect I do think it's an improvement over FPTP so I didn't vote yes solely on the basis of wanting a change. I don't really think the majority of people who voted yes did so with the hope that another referendum for PR would be the next step but more to have the benefit of not needing to vote tactically at the loss of your prefered party. It is a valid point though that a yes result wouldn't necessarily mean further change would happen any time soon, regardless of that I doubt there will be another proposal for change for a while.

Maybe if Clegg hadn't been the face of AV it would have been a different result!

Maybe the referendum should have included the PR option but that doesn't fit in with a yes no choice...if only the AV system was in place so you could put them in order...

 

[Danisfast]

Trying to predict how people would react in future and basing your vote on that isn't how the general public votes, it shouldn't be how anyone votes.
It seemed like no one really wanted AV, they just wanted the "step" towards PR.

Unfortunately, that's just like how many people vote now (except in the present); that's the problem! People would have been able to be more honest with AV, which was the main benefit of the system. This was one of the failings of the campaign - providing a clear and direct context for the current situation. Now, PR would have been even better, but AV was still 'enough' to solve many of the problems of FPTP (such as easy manipulation of the system, of results and of false majority - among others).

Still, it's too late now.

 

[C-ZETA]

There were two guys protesting against the AV yesterday in my area. We all hate the protesters...not that it matters, we aren't getting it anyway. I never supported it - I'm used to the current style and a change in style would cause a bit of confusion at first possibly.

 

[Famine]

I'm a little curious about the stats, actually. Numbers were something conspicuously absent from both campaigns - preferring instead to come up with bare-faced lies*, ad hominem attacks and "won't someone please think of the children!!!11".


AV would only come into play in any situation where no candidate garnered more then 50% of "valid" votes (spoiled votes are apparently no longer valid ones) cast in the first count. Let's be kind to FPTP as suggest that a candidate polling 45% or higher in the first round under AV would likely mop up enough other votes to win. To how many constituencies would AV have actually applied in the last election?

I know Cameron polled 58.8% in his constituency (Witney), Ed Miliband polled 47.3% in his constituency (Doncaster North) and Nick Clegg polled 53.4% in his constituency (Sheffield Hallam), so they're all clear under either system.


*My favourite bit of the whole thing was when one group of liars threatened to sue the other group of liars for lying. How adult.

 

[Danisfast]

I'm a little curious about the stats, actually. Numbers were something conspicuously absent from both campaigns - preferring instead to come up with bare-faced lies*, ad hominem attacks and "won't someone please think of the children!!!11".


AV would only come into play in any situation where no candidate garnered more then 50% of "valid" votes (spoiled votes are apparently no longer valid ones) cast in the first count. Let's be kind to FPTP as suggest that a candidate polling 45% or higher in the first round under AV would likely mop up enough other votes to win. To how many constituencies would AV have actually applied in the last election?

I know Cameron polled 58.8% in his constituency (Witney), Ed Miliband polled 47.3% in his constituency (Doncaster North) and Nick Clegg polled 53.4% in his constituency (Sheffield Hallam), so they're all clear under either system.


*My favourite bit of the whole thing was when one group of liars threatened to sue the other group of liars for lying. How adult.

Well, don't forget that psychology would play a role here (had the AV system been in place). If people were voting for their own real preference (rather than compromising, by voting for the nearest of the 'big three/four' or for the opposition in protest), then would the outcomes be so similar? Probably initially, but not everywhere; and the 'first preference' votes (which is your only one in FPTP) would likely be considerably lower. You'd also get a much more honest and deeper view of the people's will (and it couldn't be manipulated as the 'clearly the people want us!' view taken by those in power - when their total first preference votes come racing down as the people get used to the new system).

 

[Famine]

Well, don't forget that psychology would play a role here (had the AV system been in place).

That's merely conjecture though, as is all "if we had AV then..." numbers trotted out on both sides of the discussion.

All that we know is how many people put something as their first (only) choice in the last election. I'm interested in the numbers of constituencies where that number exceeded 50% or 45% for the candidate who won. Neither side has referred to this, which suggests to me that both sides believe it'll show how little change it'd make - hardly a ringing endorsement of AV or a condemnation ("Look! It'll be nearly the same!" isn't much of an argument against) of it. Instead we got "Under AV, the person who finishes fourth could win!" and "Under AV, MPs and politicians can't be lazy any more!".


I suspect the numbers will show that 60% of seats, predominantly Labour and Conservative "safe" seats would have had a 50.1% majority and 75% of seats would have had a 45% or higher lead candidate, just as a guess based on what I've combed so far. This would again emphasise the fact that if you live in a safe seat, your vote is worth less than someone who lives in a marginal seat under either vote-counting system.

But then we all know that it's not really the vote-counting system that's the problem (short of proper PR - 10.7m for the Conservatives and they get 300 seats, 8.7m for Labour [81% as much] and they get 260 seats [87% as much] and 6.8m for the Libdems [64% as much] and they get 60 seats [20% as much]).

 

[Sureboss]

Welcome to our wonderful democracy! Turnout at something like 40% for AV referendum just shows how lazy our fellow Brits are and then they'll still like to moan about the whole damn thing. The vote against AV was a vote against change, a vote against a broken an utterly shameful system we have in place.

Found it quite interesting the massive gains that the Greens made in Brighton. My ward even now has Labour as the 2nd party! (still about a fifth of the Tory vote, mind) Considering it's been behind UKIP in previous elections. UKIP weren't much behind Labour, but that's not surprising, as UKIP is (as I think Famine once described) racist Tory.

Not really sure how yesterday could have been worse for the Lib Dems. Still, you get what you deserve for selling yourself to the devil.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I had a huge choice of candidates for the council, Labour and Conservative. No one else at all! I voted Yes for AV. Two crosses. That's a lot of effort for the 60% or so that didn't bother.

At the very least people could at least be bothered to spoil their vote.

 

[Sureboss]

The BNP also got decimated, that was something good that came out of yesterday.

 

[Tired Tyres]

The BNP also got decimated, that was something good that came out of yesterday.

What? Reduced by one tenth? I think it was better than that!

 

[Sureboss]

Oh ha ha.

Down to 2 councillors now, from 11 last year.