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]

it seems that many (albeit not the safest) safe seats will become more changeable

Yes, that seems likely to be the case, although it's unclear to me whether enough of those will become changeable actually to make a difference.

whether the prospect of being more likely to unseat a sitting candidate in some of those "safe" seats would turn more opposition voters out in future...

Indeed, prediction is a tricky game! I looked at the turnout data for the last election on safe seats to see whether it was depressed, and it didn't seem to indicate that turnout was substantially lower in safe seats. But that was only from a quick eyeball of the data.

My conclusion is that AV isn't likely to make much difference when it comes to forming governments, or to two-party politics in Westminster. Data seems to suggest that it will benefit the LibDems slightly, although of course now the LibDems have actually been in government, we are back to guesswork again.

As for whether I should vote 'yes' or 'no'... I've still not heard a knockout argument for 'yes', other than "a change will does us good" or "John Reid supports the 'no' campaign". Everything else seems speculation.

[azalaisdep.livejournal.com]

Just going back to the "horse-trading" argument for a moment... thinking about this some more, it strikes me that we currently have a government which, after an FPTP election, was formed as a result of outright horse-trading, and which nobody voted for as such. Had we conducted the last general election under AV, we would at least have known whether the nation at large would have preferred a Labour-LibDem coalition or a Tory-LibDem coalition.

(We probably still wouldn't have a government with a mandate for what it then proceeded to do, because none of the main parties was even remotely up-front about the degree of cuts they would be imposing and where they would impose them, but that's a different discussion...)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Having now looked into the figures, I think the "horse-trading" argument against AV is a red herring. I think AV will deliver majority governments at least as often as FPTP. There's an established process under FPTP for forming coalition governments (who can deliver majority government which is therefore able to pass legislation) which I don't imagine would change much under AV. So the horse-trading will continue (as it does within factions within parties anyway), and presumably happen as infrequently as it does under FPTP (every thirty years or so).

ETA: All of which leads me back to my original position: why bother?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

ETA: All of which leads me back to my original position: why bother?

Surely because, while imperfect, it's a slightly less blunt instrument that FPTP*, and will produce a parliament slightly more representative of people's preferences - and that's what democracy is surely meant to be about, rather than engineering things to get the outcomes we personally happen to like. Also that it's the first step to having the choice of something less blunt again, whereas a No vote will shut the door on that for generations to come.

The fact that all the right-wing red tops have come out against it should also give quite a good clue as to which way Jesus would vote.

* I admit I don't really understand this phrase - since there isn't any "post" that gets passed (for example, like have a majority of votes). It should really be called the "More votes than anyone else" system, or MVTAE.