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

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I'm not normally so egotistical as to go around quoting myself

Now you’re just being modest.


AV does make safe seats less common

I’m trying to find evidence to support this. In the last election, the candidate received more than 50% of the vote in 217 seats, and therefore would have been elected with first preference votes. Thinking it might be reasonable to assert that these very safe seats might have poorer turnout, I eyeballed the data on turnout, which had a reasonable spread from high 50s to low 70s. Expanding the range, in 386 seats, the candidate received more than 45% of the vote.

This leaves a substantial number of safe seats into which favoured candidates could be parachuted.

I then looked at comparative data from Australian legislative elections. This did suggest that seats change hands more frequently under AV, and needed a smaller swing in order to change.

However, what it couldn’t tell me is: Which of these had been very safe seats; whether seats that changed were primarily marginal seats; whether Australia simply has more marginal seats.

At this point, I could reasonably conjecture that decades of AV have brought about a greater culture of marginal seats in Australia, and that there might be longitudinal effects from introducing AV in the UK. Obviously conjecture, but a reasonable working hypothesis. Someone should do a study.

Therefore, AV seems to have little effect on very safe seats but, based on the Australian data, it’s likely that it will make some seats more marginal.

All of this seems congruent with the findings from the Curtice BES study of second preferences, which suggests that main party majorities would have been largely untouched under AV in elections held between 1983-1997, and that the landslide victories would in fact have been slightly inflated. The Australian data is also congruent with his finding that Lib Dem representation would have been increased: this would presumably arise from second preference votes in marginal seats, and if more seats became marginals.

So I can’t conclude that AV would have an effect on very safe seats, or, therefore, on two-party politics. I would agree that it makes marginal seats more up-for-grabs, and make some less marginal seats more marginal – but not seats that were previously ‘safe’. If you have other evidence, it would be good to see it.


That's what AV offers over FPTP. Wasted votes and an overabundance of safe seats are two problems that arise under FPTP when there are more than two candidates per seat. AV fixes those two problems. With, the trend in recent decades away from effectively two-party politics, fixing these problems is timely.

So the evidence, as far as I can see, is that AV would not affect extremely safe seats or indeed two-party politics; it is likely to provide a better barometer of opinion in marginal seats; it is likely to expand the number of marginal seats. I can imagine a long-term effect in which more seats become more marginal.

Based on the Curtice study, this might favour the Lib Dems; it’s also possible that they will be the main targets for anti-Coalition sentiment in the next general election.

I would also question a bald assertion that we have seen a ‘trend’ away from two-party politics in Westminster elections. Certainly the Alliance/Lib Dem share of the vote increased markedly after the Labour implosion of the 1980s. However, it’s remained roughly steady since (some decline during the 1990s, not yet back to the 1983 high). As such, it seems to be part of the longer-term cycle of reconfiguration of voting patterns for and against the Labour Party. Obviously devolution has brought other parties to prominence in Scotland and Wales.

Nobody has yet made what seems a straightforward pro case to me that introducing AV might have a Hawthorne effect and raise turnout for a couple of elections.

[katlinel.livejournal.com]

Nobody has yet made what seems a straightforward pro case to me that introducing AV might have a Hawthorne effect and raise turnout for a couple of elections.

This would be one thing I really would like to see from electoral reform - an increase in voter turnout, but I would like it to be a sustained increase.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I agree. And I think the problems are more structural, and fiddling around with the ballot isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.