4 ms·

Unfortunately we haven't been offered a suggestion box, just a choice between AV and FPTP - personally, AV seems like an improvement on FPTP, even if it's not t

Unfortunately we haven't been offered a suggestion box, just a choice between AV and FPTP - personally, AV seems like an improvement on FPTP, even if it's not the best possible system overall.

henrikschroder 16y ago
Why are those the only choices? Why not switch to proportional representation instead, using D'Hondt or Saint-Laguë? Or is there such strong support for the current single-winner system in the UK that noone wants to change the base idea?
- MikeTaylor 16y ago
  The only reason we got the referendum at all is because the Conservatives didn't win an outright majority of seats, and so weren't able to form a government after the last election. They had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and the LD's terms for lending their support to a party that they have very little in common with was they they insisted on the AV referendum. The Conservatives grudgingly accepted this, but would never have agreed to a referendum on full PR. Basically, the entire thing is, sadly, driven by self-interest. The Tories don't want AV because they will probably lose some seats under it; but they DEFINITELY don't want PR, because they (and Labour) definitely would lose seats to the Lib Dems.
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    ... and, lest anyone think that losing seats to the LibDems just means it's the LibDems' self-interest driving their wish to change, look at the comparison of the vote and seat percentages. At the last election, for every LibDem MP elected there were 5 Conservative MPs elected, but for every 2 LibDem voters there were only 3 Conservative voters. Is that really the parliament we asked for? We need AV not because it's the best forever but because it's our only chance of reform for a generation. I'm voting yes.
- estel 16y ago
  Neither of the main political parties (Labour, Conservatives) want to support STV because it will greatly diminish their power in Parliament, therefore there will be no possibility of it being on the agenda either in this Parliament or at any other time in the next twenty years. As it stands, the "No" campaign merely for AV has, for a number of reasons, managed to convince more than enough people that this is a hatefully undemocratic change to our electoral system - regardless of how tiny an effect it will have on anything - that I can't see STV having a chance for many decades yet.
  - afterburner 16y ago
    "It's undemocratic", the rallying cry of anti-progressives in these sorts of situations. The Conservative Party of Canada was calling coalitions undemocratic. (But suspending parliament when coalitions against them are being discussed... apparently not undemocratic.) Conservative supporters were calling voting strategically (voting for whoever had the likeliest chance of lowering the odds of a Conservative majority) "undemocratic".
NickPollard 16y ago
Well if we vote in AV, can we then have an AV referendum next year on voting reform? "Please rank the following voting systems in order of preference."
- seabee 16y ago
  Apparently this is how New Zealand selected their voting method (with a qualifying question beforehand, "Do you want to change the system? Y/N"). Very reasonable. So we'll never see it here. ;)

Unfortunately we haven't been offered a suggestion box, just a choice between AV and FPTP - personally, AV seems like an improvement on FPTP, even if it's not the best possible system overall.

henrikschroder 16y ago

Why are those the only choices? Why not switch to proportional representation instead, using D'Hondt or Saint-Laguë? Or is there such strong support for the current single-winner system in the UK that noone wants to change the base idea?

MikeTaylor 16y ago
The only reason we got the referendum at all is because the Conservatives didn't win an outright majority of seats, and so weren't able to form a government after the last election. They had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and the LD's terms for lending their support to a party that they have very little in common with was they they insisted on the AV referendum. The Conservatives grudgingly accepted this, but would never have agreed to a referendum on full PR. Basically, the entire thing is, sadly, driven by self-interest. The Tories don't want AV because they will probably lose some seats under it; but they DEFINITELY don't want PR, because they (and Labour) definitely would lose seats to the Lib Dems.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  ... and, lest anyone think that losing seats to the LibDems just means it's the LibDems' self-interest driving their wish to change, look at the comparison of the vote and seat percentages. At the last election, for every LibDem MP elected there were 5 Conservative MPs elected, but for every 2 LibDem voters there were only 3 Conservative voters. Is that really the parliament we asked for? We need AV not because it's the best forever but because it's our only chance of reform for a generation. I'm voting yes.
estel 16y ago
Neither of the main political parties (Labour, Conservatives) want to support STV because it will greatly diminish their power in Parliament, therefore there will be no possibility of it being on the agenda either in this Parliament or at any other time in the next twenty years. As it stands, the "No" campaign merely for AV has, for a number of reasons, managed to convince more than enough people that this is a hatefully undemocratic change to our electoral system - regardless of how tiny an effect it will have on anything - that I can't see STV having a chance for many decades yet.
- afterburner 16y ago
  "It's undemocratic", the rallying cry of anti-progressives in these sorts of situations. The Conservative Party of Canada was calling coalitions undemocratic. (But suspending parliament when coalitions against them are being discussed... apparently not undemocratic.) Conservative supporters were calling voting strategically (voting for whoever had the likeliest chance of lowering the odds of a Conservative majority) "undemocratic".

NickPollard 16y ago

Well if we vote in AV, can we then have an AV referendum next year on voting reform? "Please rank the following voting systems in order of preference."

seabee 16y ago
Apparently this is how New Zealand selected their voting method (with a qualifying question beforehand, "Do you want to change the system? Y/N"). Very reasonable. So we'll never see it here. ;)