4 ms·

I still don't understand why the referendum is on AV and not PR. Most votes get thrown away because of this silly county-based system. If you live in a county w

by udp 15y ago

I still don't understand why the referendum is on AV and not PR. Most votes get thrown away because of this silly county-based system. If you live in a county which is heavily weighted towards a particular party, you do not have a meaningful vote.

MikeTaylor 15y ago
udp, some people prefer PR over AV (for the record, I prefer AV because it keeps the one-representative-per-constituency link), but since PR is not on the table, voting for AV is the way to go. (Or voting to keep British politics the way it is, of course.)
- ugh 15y ago
  Just for the record, it is possible to force one-or-more-representatives-per-constituency on PR. Germany, for example, has a (pretty complicated) voting system that insures that every constituency has one representative (that's half of the parliament, the other half has, technically speaking, no constituency but they are obviously still from somewhere). Everyone gets two votes, one for a representative from the constituency (whoever gets the most votes wins and will definitely be in parliament), and, more importantly, a second vote which determines the proportions of the parties in parliament. (Seats that parties cannot fill with directly elected representatives are filled from the party list.) That second vote decides about the government (proportionally!), the first makes sure that every constituency has someone in parliament they can write letters. This voting system is called mixed member proportional representation and here is the link to its Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_repre...
  - MikeTaylor 15y ago
    The German system sounds good. But the UK Conservative Party's argument against simple AV has been "it's too complicated for people to understand". Trying to get people to vote for something that genuinely IS a bit complicated would be a complete non-starter at this point. Anyway, right now it's AV or Continue As You Were. That's the choice we Brits have to make TODAY, and I do hope that any of you reading this will make sure that you do vote.
    - jamii 15y ago
      The German system can be presented more simply. First, here are your local candidates. Which one do you want? Second, here are the global parties. Which one do you want? That's pretty simple.
      - r7000 15y ago
        I agree. Here is the ballot: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Bundestagswahl_05_stimmzett.jpg/315px-Bundestagswahl_05_stimmzett.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Bun... Voters have two votes: one on the left and one on the right. "Hier 1 Stimme" means "Here 1 vote". It is still just an X in a circle but twice instead of once. Most people when shown this grasp it immediately. A similar Scottish ballot is on the left here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/05/04/ballotpapers372_big.jpg http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures...
    - nfg 15y ago
      The Tory stance seems ridiculous to me (as an outsider) considering that the UK's devolved assembly elections use PR-STV or other similarly "complicated" systems. FWIW we use PR-STV in Ireland and are currently going through a debate about conceivably switching to a "list" system, or possibly a hybrid list system tempered as they do in Germany.
      - MikeTaylor 15y ago
        It IS ridiculous. But people have been TOLD that AV is too complicated for their simple little minds, and too many of them seem to have accepted this statement uncritically. It breaks my heart.
        seabee 15y ago
        Unless it's something they care about (and not everyone cares about voting reform!), being told "Don't worry about it, it's too hard to explain" is often met with "Oh, okay." The trick is to get people to care about it so they become curious and reject the assertions of "it's too hard". The Yes campaign attempted this initially but did a poor job, in this case it turns out much easier to explain the thing than to pose half-truth arguments why people should care!
- vidarh 15y ago
  The "one-representative-per-constituency" link doesn't mean much to those of us who end up getting "represented" by a parliament where none of the elected MP's have views remotely like our own because our views are uncommon enough in every constituency. That's what gets me about this debate: Ultimately it is about whether or not you keep disenfranchising those who do not agree with the larger parties. AV will help somewhat in the long term, as people are more free to vote for the smaller parties without quite the same risk of losing seats for the lesser evil of the large parties, but it will still leave a substantial number of people without any meaningful representation. I'm originally from Norway, and I much prefer the Norwegian system: PR with multi-seat constituencies where each constituency is a reasonably small geographical region, combined with a small number of seats that are allocated in order to more closely approximate the countrywide vote totals amongst the parties that got more than 4% of the vote (personally I think the 4% limit ought to go too). It maintains a regional link, while at the same time getting a far more accurate representation of how people vote. I support AV over FPTP because it will force the larger parties to be somewhat more mindful of other voters and because it may allow some opposition parties to grow faster because of less tactical voting, but whatever the result, I will still be without anyone representing my interests.
- r7000 15y ago
  A PR system maintaining one representative per constituency is already in use in the United Kingdom - in both Scotland and Wales.
dazzawazza 15y ago
The Liberal Democrats want (for the most part) PR. There was no way the Conservatives would agree to that in the coalition agreement so this was as good as you they could get. As the press would say "it's a dirty coalition compromise" which you can read as "it's a pragmatic decision based on the political landscape of the day taking in to account the moral perspective of all involved acting as elected officials"
- GeneralWaste 15y ago
  Some in the UK hold the opinion that the Liberal Democrats capitulated too easily to the Conservatives during the negotiation process that led to the formation of our current government. Whilst they only have a relatively small number of MPs they still hold the balance of power and could perhaps have held out for PR. Their apparent willingness to compromise this and other principles of their party in exchange for a share of power has led to a plummet in their popularity. Their leader has been spat at in the street and had dog poo through his letterbox.
  - seabee 15y ago
    Bear in mind that Labour offered AV with no referendum necessary, but did not have the seats to form a majority with the Lib Dems alone. Had they upped their offer to (a referendum on) PR it would have had the support of the minor parties and likely would've passed; however, all other issues would face severe compromise and difficulty, so being in opposition benefits Labour (a party that doesn't need PR, even if it desires it) in the long-term. Minority governments do not last very long and with Labour on the wane there was a significant possibility of a subsequent election giving the Conservatives a majority; at best, there would be an opportunity for a Lib-Lab majority. The Liberals' power is often overstated by principled idealists, but for pragmatists it was a good choice: 75% of their manifesto is becoming Government policy, compared to 60% of the Conservative manifesto (http://guildfordlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/486213/75-of-lib-dem-manifesto-becoming-government-policy http://guildfordlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/486213/75-of-...). Of course, the remaining 25% matters a lot more to many people than the 75% they implemented...
mdasen 15y ago
In Ireland (both Ireland and Northern Ireland), voting is done by Single Transferable Vote (STV). It's an interesting system that gets closer to proportional representation while still meaning that you're voting for candidates. Basically, you have multi-seat constituencies. So, you live in Place X and there are, say, 12 people running for 3 positions. You rank the candidates in order of your preference (like AV). Then you have a point that the candidates have to pass - the number of votes divided by the number of seats + 1 (#votes/(seats in constituency + 1); hope that disambiguates my language). Votes get redistributed somewhat like AV. It's a tad hard for me to explain since it seems a bit intuitively obvious to me. Wikipedia has an example that does a decent job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#An_example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#An_exa.... As you see, excess votes get redistributed from candidates who got past the quota without any transfers to the second choice candidates (in proportion to the second choices of people who voted that person as their first choice). Then you see if anyone has reached the quota and if one or more have, any excess votes they received are distributed to their next highest choice; if no one has then the person with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed and you continue on. It doesn't exactly get you proportional representation, but it gets closer than AV or FPTP while still allowing you to vote for individual people rather than party lists and it allows you to legitimately have representatives for your region while maintaining decent proportionality. I really think it's a nice system. I like the idea of having regional representation - so that you have your (Congresspeople|TDs|MPs). I like the idea of being able to vote for minority parties. I like the idea of those minority parties being able to get close to proportional representation. STV seems like a nice compromise there. You get to have your representatives for your area bringing local views, you get to vote for people, and you get closer to proportional representation than AV and FPTP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

by udp 15y ago

MikeTaylor 15y ago

udp, some people prefer PR over AV (for the record, I prefer AV because it keeps the one-representative-per-constituency link), but since PR is not on the table, voting for AV is the way to go. (Or voting to keep British politics the way it is, of course.)

ugh 15y ago
Just for the record, it is possible to force one-or-more-representatives-per-constituency on PR. Germany, for example, has a (pretty complicated) voting system that insures that every constituency has one representative (that's half of the parliament, the other half has, technically speaking, no constituency but they are obviously still from somewhere). Everyone gets two votes, one for a representative from the constituency (whoever gets the most votes wins and will definitely be in parliament), and, more importantly, a second vote which determines the proportions of the parties in parliament. (Seats that parties cannot fill with directly elected representatives are filled from the party list.) That second vote decides about the government (proportionally!), the first makes sure that every constituency has someone in parliament they can write letters. This voting system is called mixed member proportional representation and here is the link to its Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_repre...
- MikeTaylor 15y ago
  The German system sounds good. But the UK Conservative Party's argument against simple AV has been "it's too complicated for people to understand". Trying to get people to vote for something that genuinely IS a bit complicated would be a complete non-starter at this point. Anyway, right now it's AV or Continue As You Were. That's the choice we Brits have to make TODAY, and I do hope that any of you reading this will make sure that you do vote.
  - jamii 15y ago
    The German system can be presented more simply. First, here are your local candidates. Which one do you want? Second, here are the global parties. Which one do you want? That's pretty simple.
    - r7000 15y ago
      I agree. Here is the ballot: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Bundestagswahl_05_stimmzett.jpg/315px-Bundestagswahl_05_stimmzett.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Bun... Voters have two votes: one on the left and one on the right. "Hier 1 Stimme" means "Here 1 vote". It is still just an X in a circle but twice instead of once. Most people when shown this grasp it immediately. A similar Scottish ballot is on the left here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/05/04/ballotpapers372_big.jpg http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures...
  - nfg 15y ago
    The Tory stance seems ridiculous to me (as an outsider) considering that the UK's devolved assembly elections use PR-STV or other similarly "complicated" systems. FWIW we use PR-STV in Ireland and are currently going through a debate about conceivably switching to a "list" system, or possibly a hybrid list system tempered as they do in Germany.
    - MikeTaylor 15y ago
      It IS ridiculous. But people have been TOLD that AV is too complicated for their simple little minds, and too many of them seem to have accepted this statement uncritically. It breaks my heart.
      - seabee 15y ago
        Unless it's something they care about (and not everyone cares about voting reform!), being told "Don't worry about it, it's too hard to explain" is often met with "Oh, okay." The trick is to get people to care about it so they become curious and reject the assertions of "it's too hard". The Yes campaign attempted this initially but did a poor job, in this case it turns out much easier to explain the thing than to pose half-truth arguments why people should care!
vidarh 15y ago
The "one-representative-per-constituency" link doesn't mean much to those of us who end up getting "represented" by a parliament where none of the elected MP's have views remotely like our own because our views are uncommon enough in every constituency. That's what gets me about this debate: Ultimately it is about whether or not you keep disenfranchising those who do not agree with the larger parties. AV will help somewhat in the long term, as people are more free to vote for the smaller parties without quite the same risk of losing seats for the lesser evil of the large parties, but it will still leave a substantial number of people without any meaningful representation. I'm originally from Norway, and I much prefer the Norwegian system: PR with multi-seat constituencies where each constituency is a reasonably small geographical region, combined with a small number of seats that are allocated in order to more closely approximate the countrywide vote totals amongst the parties that got more than 4% of the vote (personally I think the 4% limit ought to go too). It maintains a regional link, while at the same time getting a far more accurate representation of how people vote. I support AV over FPTP because it will force the larger parties to be somewhat more mindful of other voters and because it may allow some opposition parties to grow faster because of less tactical voting, but whatever the result, I will still be without anyone representing my interests.
r7000 15y ago
A PR system maintaining one representative per constituency is already in use in the United Kingdom - in both Scotland and Wales.

dazzawazza 15y ago

The Liberal Democrats want (for the most part) PR. There was no way the Conservatives would agree to that in the coalition agreement so this was as good as you they could get. As the press would say "it's a dirty coalition compromise" which you can read as "it's a pragmatic decision based on the political landscape of the day taking in to account the moral perspective of all involved acting as elected officials"

GeneralWaste 15y ago
Some in the UK hold the opinion that the Liberal Democrats capitulated too easily to the Conservatives during the negotiation process that led to the formation of our current government. Whilst they only have a relatively small number of MPs they still hold the balance of power and could perhaps have held out for PR. Their apparent willingness to compromise this and other principles of their party in exchange for a share of power has led to a plummet in their popularity. Their leader has been spat at in the street and had dog poo through his letterbox.
- seabee 15y ago
  Bear in mind that Labour offered AV with no referendum necessary, but did not have the seats to form a majority with the Lib Dems alone. Had they upped their offer to (a referendum on) PR it would have had the support of the minor parties and likely would've passed; however, all other issues would face severe compromise and difficulty, so being in opposition benefits Labour (a party that doesn't need PR, even if it desires it) in the long-term. Minority governments do not last very long and with Labour on the wane there was a significant possibility of a subsequent election giving the Conservatives a majority; at best, there would be an opportunity for a Lib-Lab majority. The Liberals' power is often overstated by principled idealists, but for pragmatists it was a good choice: 75% of their manifesto is becoming Government policy, compared to 60% of the Conservative manifesto (http://guildfordlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/486213/75-of-lib-dem-manifesto-becoming-government-policy http://guildfordlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2011/486213/75-of-...). Of course, the remaining 25% matters a lot more to many people than the 75% they implemented...

mdasen 15y ago

In Ireland (both Ireland and Northern Ireland), voting is done by Single Transferable Vote (STV). It's an interesting system that gets closer to proportional representation while still meaning that you're voting for candidates. Basically, you have multi-seat constituencies. So, you live in Place X and there are, say, 12 people running for 3 positions. You rank the candidates in order of your preference (like AV). Then you have a point that the candidates have to pass - the number of votes divided by the number of seats + 1 (#votes/(seats in constituency + 1); hope that disambiguates my language). Votes get redistributed somewhat like AV. It's a tad hard for me to explain since it seems a bit intuitively obvious to me. Wikipedia has an example that does a decent job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#An_example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote#An_exa.... As you see, excess votes get redistributed from candidates who got past the quota without any transfers to the second choice candidates (in proportion to the second choices of people who voted that person as their first choice). Then you see if anyone has reached the quota and if one or more have, any excess votes they received are distributed to their next highest choice; if no one has then the person with the least votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed and you continue on. It doesn't exactly get you proportional representation, but it gets closer than AV or FPTP while still allowing you to vote for individual people rather than party lists and it allows you to legitimately have representatives for your region while maintaining decent proportionality. I really think it's a nice system. I like the idea of having regional representation - so that you have your (Congresspeople|TDs|MPs). I like the idea of being able to vote for minority parties. I like the idea of those minority parties being able to get close to proportional representation. STV seems like a nice compromise there. You get to have your representatives for your area bringing local views, you get to vote for people, and you get closer to proportional representation than AV and FPTP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote