Yes or no

[altariel]

OK, f'listers, let rip. In 100 words or less, and without reference to the other case, tell me why I should vote either 'yes' or 'no' to the following question:

"Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?"

Non-UK perspectives welcome.

Comments

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

‘Yes’, because AV allows voters to express detailed opinions on all candidates, without the distortion of tactical voting. The difference between a first preference and no ranking at all is real and meaningful under AV, and should make voters’ views much clearer. Also, in order to win under AV candidates have to secure the consensus support of a majority. This means candidates will need to reach out positively and appeal to everyone – not just the party faithful. It should mean that both campaigning and representation is taken more seriously, and that failure on either count will make (re)-election impossible.

(PS - it was more or less impossible not to make at least implicit reference to FPTP in the above, as this is inherently a comparative question. But I've done my best.)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this! The more I've been investigating, the more I realize I would like to see studies comparing attitudes towards the vote in the UK and Australia. I think this would give me some sense of how or whether political culture might change here as a result of AV.

[carl-allery.livejournal.com]

I can't really see the point of AV - if no candidate gets more than 50% of people's first choice, then whoever wins will still be the first choice of less than half the constituency. Seems to me it's wanting to have your cake and eat it, to vote for who you want and then to say, oh, no, I didn't really mean that, let me have it again. Doesn't work in chess, counts as cabbaging in rounders ... ;)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I'm also struggling to see the point of AV. I can see why all three main parties like it: doesn't disrupt majorities, whilst being likely to deliver more seats to the LibDems. I'm really waiting for someone to give me the killer reason why, though.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with charlie but I am sure most of your commentators will take the other view. I think AV creates an artificial impression that candidates have been endorsed by voters who have simply ranked them as 'not as bad as some other candidate'. I think the aim of those keen to introduce AV it is to ensure permanent coalition government, which will remove political decision making to an arena of post-election stitch ups behind closed doors, and give them an alibi to roll back the NHS, universal education, minimum wage etc, which is against the interests and will of the majority.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I think AV creates an artificial impression that candidates have been endorsed by voters who have simply ranked them as 'not as bad as some other candidate

I have a lot of sympathy with this perspective. One feature of FPTP is just how impressively it chucks out unwanted governments.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a Canadian heading into our third federal election in 5 or 6 years, I am getting increasingly fed up with the consequences of a "first past the post" system here in Canada. It keeps producing results at odds with the expressed will of those who show up to vote, you see.

And when the subject of coalition government as an option comes up over here, the Harper Conservatives keep damning it as illegitimate if not illegal. Which, given the examples provided by the UK, Israel and Italy - among other nations - is patently ridiculous.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

FPTP breaks when there are more than two candidates. AV is the minimal change that fixes this.

Under FPTP, many voters vote tactically: "My preferred candidate won't win, so I will vote for my second preference who can win", and so on. The problem is that the voter's knowledge of which candidates can/cannot win is limited and subject to error, based on previous election results and perhaps some knowledge of political changes since then. AV is essentially automatic tactical voting: if your preferred candidate genuinely cannot win this election, then your vote is automatically shifted to your next preference, and so on. It allows a voter to accurately express their preferences without risking wasting their vote.

(Yes, I've ignored "without reference to the other case" because the point of AV is to fix problems with FPTP, and I can't be arsed with the circumlocutions involved in discussing the advantages of the former without reference to the latter.)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I quite understand the logic of it. However, this doesn't address my concerns how the system will work in practice. What I'm really concerned about is whether or not it does deliver the horse-trading and behind-the-scenes dealing that opponents are anxious to claim that it does. Because that seems to give more power to our political classes, and not necessarily of a healthy sort.

[paranoidangel]

Vote yes because at least that way it'll make voting more exciting than just putting an x in a box with a blunt pencil.

Or alternatively, because you'll be voting on my birthday and I want to celebrate with a yes result.

I think both of those arguments trump any reasonably political reason.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

because you'll be voting on my birthday and I want to celebrate with a yes result

Best reason yet!

[matildabj.livejournal.com]

Vote yes. Mainly because it's the first step down the road to full proportional representation. Voting 'no' because it's not 'proper' PR is defeating the object. No government is ever going to be brave enough to make the leap all the way all at once: one step at a time. And this is the first step.

Written without any reference to anything my former employers might have said on the subject...

[altariel.livejournal.com]

the first step down the road to full proportional representation

I confess I struggle to see this happening, at least immediately. Isn't it more likely that this referendum will put electoral reform off the agenda for a generation, regardless of the outcome? Isn't that historically what has happened with electoral reform bills?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Yes, because a) it means not so many people will be disenfranchised by living in a safe seat; b) it allows you to express your nuanced opinion in a nuanced way (I've never found myself in complete agreement with any candidate); c) coalition government as a system shouldn't be judged by the current shower - it can be effective, and is a fair(er) reflection of the people's will (which is what democracy is meant to achieve). Yes, there will be horsetrading, but tactical voting is horsetrading too.

The downside is that it will please Nick Clegg.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Having poked around, I'm not convinced the data show that safe seats will be particularly affected, although some seats are likely to become more marginal. Which would make the new form of the ballot a way of regularising the increase in tactical voting, I suppose.

The downside is that it will please Nick Clegg.

All evidence does seem to suggest that the Lib Dems would be the beneficiaries here... although that's based on evidence from before they participated in government.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I'm a yes, too. In a three-party vote it means I can make sure the one I least want to get in is right down at the bottom of my choices. I can vote according to my conscience and not have to worry about tactical voting.

[uitlander]

I'm a no. I think it will lead to endless coalitions, where no-one actually wins, and we'll get a lot of compromise decisions that no-one really wanted. Government by everyone's second or third choices in most instances, so the worst of all worlds.

[jhall1.livejournal.com]

I'm a no, for the same reason.

[nwhyte]

Vote 'Yes'. The Alternative Vote is much more fun for the voter, and also removes the need to calculate tactically whether to use your entire vote to endorse a candidate who may not be your first choice.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

The experience in the ballot box is actually another one that troubles me. I'm worried about making the voting process more complex, and the effect that has on people's sense of having fairly represented their own views.

I've looked around pro-AV websites, but the chief response to this question seems to be: "Are you calling people stupid?" Which I'm not. But I've seen people get very anxious faced with a FPTP ballot - how much more anxious would an AV ballot paper make them? I guess I'll have to find whether any research has been done on this.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Yes. So that you can vote for the party you really want to get in, but if they get too few votes to be elected, you can still have an opportunity to make a difference with your second choice.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

A yes, certainly. AV is not as good as a properly proportional system (I'd prefer a form of constituency-based STV as in the Republic of Ireland) but it should remove some of the distortions of FPTP. A successful move to AV would open the door to further reform a little way down the line, and also better reflect the country's real mood - which was probably not, for example, to deliver Thatcher landslides in 1983 and 1987, or Labour ones in 1997 and 2001.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, from what data I've been able to find (a study by John Curtice of second preferences expressed on the British Election Study), AV would most likely have inflated the majorities in 1983 and 1997. The main finding was an increase in Alliance/Lib Dem seats, but only in the 1983 election would the Alliance have been within spitting distance of Labour. AV seems to keep the two-party system intact, but make a number of less marginal seats more marginal.

[temeres.livejournal.com]

Yes, because although it'll make little difference in itself, it opens up the prospect of greater reform by slow degrees and the consequent re-enfranchisement of all those whose votes are effectively wasted in non-marginal constituencies. Like me.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I honestly can't see how that works. Won't this put voting reform off the agenda for another generation, whatever the outcome? (With a 'no' win, the attitude will be: "Well, we offered reform, but people didn't want it"; with a 'yes' win, the attitude will be: "We've had reform, why do we need more?")

[bill-leisner.livejournal.com]

American here, so I don't know enough specifics to tell you to vote yes or no. (And what little I know about British party politics is enough to know there's no comparison to the US's Republican/Democrat/Fringe Group of the Moment set-up.) That said, I don't like the idea of an alternate vote system because, in effect, it gives some people one vote, and some people more than one.

[muuranker.livejournal.com]

in effect, it gives some people one vote, and some people more than one.
I am not sure how you work that out.

The way I see it, everyone still gets the same number of votes. For example, with a 3 candidate race and (say) 10 voters, if at the first round, 4 people vote for A and four for B, and two for C, and the two votes for C are then re-allocated to B (hurrah! B wins), then it isn't the case that those who voted for A or B got one vote, and those who voted for C and then B got two votes: everyone got two votes. 4 people said 'keep voting for A, until A stops being a candidatate', and voted A twice as a result, 4 people said 'keep voting for B, until B stops being a candidatate', and voted B twice as a result, and 2 people said 'keep voting for C, until C stops being a candidatate, then vote for B', and voted C once and B once as a result.

(not a comment for fptp or for av).

[wiseheart.livejournal.com]

I would, if I got the foggiest idea what you're talking about. ;)

Living in a country that's just about to dismantle democracy again certainly doesn't help...

[altariel.livejournal.com]

We're having a referendum in May about changes to the vote system. I'm not terribly enthusiastic about either option.

[sallymn.livejournal.com]

I don't really understand what AV is - we have preferences, which is a headache but one I'm willing to have for the better representation we get - but as I understand it, this might be a first step in changing FPTP.

But then, I'm one of those strange folk who approve of compulsory voting, so....

[altariel.livejournal.com]

From my understanding, AV is a system which is like FPTP in delivering a single winner and keeping the link with constituencies, but asks voters to rank candidates rather than pick a single preference. Second and third preferences are shared out until one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote.

So it's not that much of a change from FPTP, but I haven't quite sorted out to my satisfaction whether the horse-trading that will result will be positive or not, and whether I really want to lose FPTP's capacity to thoroughly spank a party and chuck it out of government. I think that's an unsung feature of FPTP.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

Yes!

We use a version of the German system here (two votes per person: local candidate and party. What precipitated the change was a majority vote for Labour but National getting in.

Australia uses a preferential voting system; AV seems to be "single transferable vote", a cut-down version of that.

It beats FPTP because people's votes will count more. You do get more minor parties getting their due votes which can lead to major parties not having a clear majority and having to form coalitions; we’re used to that now.

[Edited down to 90 words after I saw the 100 or fewer stipulation] :-P

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Having poked around more, I'm with you: no idea.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

No. Absolutely not. NO.

My case about to rest:

- Italy
- Israel
- French Fourth Republic
- Belgium.

I rest my valise.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Not great advertisements, are they?

[wormwood-7.livejournal.com]

Having lived in countries with both systems I am not sure if I am as enthusiastic about AV as some people in the UK. The argument against that after an election a government could be decided via "horse trading and political fixes" certainly has some truth to it. AV can work perfectly fine of course, but after years in the UK I am not as opposed to FPTP as I once was (and I am politically left of centre).

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Very interesting perspective - thank you.

[toft-froggy.livejournal.com]

Thanks for making this post - good to see a variety of perspectives. It's helping me make up my mind.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I thought folks would have interesting things to say.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

You know, you could do a lot worse than to just read this:

Electoral Reform Society - Alternative Vote

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I had.

[gfk88.livejournal.com]

Suggest vote yes. It's shades of grey, innit (mostly very dark shades, admittedly). Putting just one X feels horribly like suggesting there might be A Right Answer.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

It's difficult to be enthusiastic for it.

[azalaisdep.livejournal.com]

I'm going to vote yes, because as has been pointed out it should considerably reduce the safeness of many safe seats, thus re-enfranchising voters in said safe seats who don't support the previously "home-and-dry" candidate, and therefore might in the longer term increase turn-out and make our democracy a bit more genuinely democratic. In essence I'm with Iain: I think FPTP only really makes sense in a two-party system. And I think the horse-trading goes on now, only it goes on in terms of which candidates parties put up in which seats, and is therefore far less visible to the electorate at large than horse-trading post hoc on the basis of votes actually cast.

ETA: Damn, sorry, for someone who's been writing drabbles all month that was a shocking failure to keep to word-limit (114!)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

My current investigations into effects on safe seats.


ETA: Damn, sorry, for someone who's been writing drabbles all month that was a shocking failure to keep to word-limit (114!)

It is in my power to grant you an extension! *waves wand*