Re: From Meh to No...

A fisking of @kilburnmat's post.

Ultimately I don't care what Matt does, I assume that in reality he was already leaning to "No" for some of the reasons he says below (like his irrational linking of Lib Dems to this referendum) and his personal bias allowed him to move easily from the "not caring" camp. But still, there are propogations of lies here, misunderstandings that need correcting, and subjective opinions and unknowable supposition as fact...and they need responding to.

"This May the British electorate face a choice as to whether they want to keep FPTP or adopt the AV system of elections for members of the lower chamber. Overall this as exciting a decision as helping Ken Barlow choose a tie, but the campaign has become a bit heated lately and wherever I sense an argument I’m straight in, as regular readers will well know (all one of you – hello mum)."

Hopefully this kind of article has increased his readership, but it's always nice when No campaigners place their personal opinion of how exciting something is as being a universal truth. Some people recognise the real benefits AV can bring, and are definitely excited about it being a possibility, myself one of them. It's only natural we all care about this subject in different amounts.

"The whole premise of the debate is being framed by ‘Yessers’, they will to you that AV represents a ‘fairer’ vote. They will tell you that AV is fairer, it is more democratic and as we get closer to the vote in May, that you’ll be more attractive to the opposite sex (probably)."

Remember this now, this is a a guy that is going to slam "hyperbole" later on in his comments, yet his style is dripping with it.

"In 2011, after a year of abuse the word ‘fair’ has about as much meaning as the word ‘progressive’ and an apology from Richard Keys. ‘Fairness’ as a concept is bloodied, bruised and begging to be left left alone, but still Yessers can sometimes talk like they have a monopoly on fairness."

Because fairness, despite any misuse of the term, still means something. Fair, ultimately, means best...but not just best in one context, best with all in consideration. A dictator having an easy life is best for him, but at the expense of a national infrastructure for healthcare, it's clearly not "fair". AV campaigners use the word fair because they recognise that AV isn't the best system, but it is a fairer one...a system that on balance gives more benefits in each of it's contexts than FPTP does.

"However, let’s look at it this way, if you give everyone of voting age one vote each, with the candidate that gets the most votes winning, that sounds like a pretty fair type of democracy to me."

This is the trouble, the "bloodied and bruised" word fair has already infiltrated your brain...you no longer understands what it means. Fair doesn't mean "equal". Everyone having the same vote (though we, on the AV side, dispute that every vote is actually equal under FPTP) may be described as "equal" in principle, but it is not necessarily fair.

If everyone in this country who was working had to pay exactly £10000 in taxes, by the same definition that Matt uses, it would be "fair", regardless of what they earned and what they could afford. This is why progressive (yes, dictionary definition here again) taxation is "fair", while not being "equal".

"Some people live in areas that have large populations of voters for a single party, but that is democracy."

It's pot luck.

"It does not mean a vote has less value"

It does, though I guess it depends on how you define "value". If you are looking at it as if everyone should get a gold star for having voting, then yes they are all counted the same and everyone who took part had an equal opportunity to have a say.

But if value is measured, as those supporting AV look at it, as how much you voting actually allows you to affect the result, then it's clear that anyone voting for someone other than the top 2 candidates might as well not have bothered turning up.

Say Tories win 40% vs Labour at 35% vs everyone else at 25%. If those 40% of Tories don't turn up they have lost their party an MP, if only 6% of them don't turn up, in fact...it's a big deal that can change their party's fortunes. Labour on the other hand...they can have almost 10% not turn up and it won't make any difference...even if up to 5% extra turn out it doesn't change anything, though I would argue that all have still taken part and by turning up have avoided being one of that 10% that could lose them their second placing.

And of course, those 25% could not turn up at all and it wouldn't change the result, nor really any future result. Turn up, don't turn up...what's it matter, your vote doesn't do shit under FPTP in that situation.

So don't pretend that under FPTP all votes have the same value to the result, it's an absolute and objectively measurable fallacy.

"it just means that in democratic terms that constituency/region should return a candidate for that party. In fact, if we want fairness shouldn’t we be giving candidates with bigger majorities a larger vote in parliament? (No, of course we shouldn’t)"

No, but not for the reasons you're angling towards, but more because along with votes not being equal, they're not given equally either. Just because an MP is voted in with 60% of the vote doesn't mean the electorate there care more for him than an MP elected in with 40% of the vote. We don't measure level of feeling on an individual level, and nothing about the AV or FPTP debate changes that (nor should it).

"It’s simply not the case that AV is fairer"

It is... I should say at this stage I'm fisking this as I go, so I'm hoping I'll have the opportunity to see some examples of why it is claimed that AV is less fair (or just as fair) as FPTP that I can counter...

"as there is no set definition of fairness."

Dictionaries would like to have a word with you about that slur against their name. For clarity...from Oxford...

"1. treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination:
- the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its members
- a fairer distribution of wealth"

AV achieves greater representation across the board, without favouring a minority because they're the largest grouping, than FPTP. Dictionary definition. AV is fairer than FPTP.

"What AV is, is an attempt by those who don’t like the results they get to change the system in their favour. If voters are too bunched up do something about boundaries (more on that later), do not chuck away a perfectly democratic system."

Ignoring boundaries (until later), AV voters may well be trying to change things in their favour, it's true.

Me, personally, I know that my MP is likely to still be a Tory even with AV...but I also know my vote will have meant more, and been involved more. Others will be doing it for altruistic reasons. Everyone's reasons are different, though to claim here that those voting against AV are doing so purely out of some kind of objective holiness is, of course, laughable.

"We need also to think about the potential results that we could have. We could end up (indeed we will end up) in a situation where a candidate who has the most votes is beaten by candidate who has mopped up second & third choices etc. How is it fair that the candidate who is wanted by the most constituents does not win the seat to someone who is no.2?"

What a conflation of terms here. "Candidate who has the most votes", though clearly not a majority of the public's support. "candidate who has mopped up second & third choices etc", someone who has then gone on to achieve a greater amount of votes when just they and the previously mentioned candidate are compared directly to one another. "candidate who is wanted by the most constituents" actually refers to being wanted by the largest minority grouping, not "the most".

So how is it fair(er than FPTP)? Simple. Assume that there are three candidates. People vote, the top two candidates (X and Y) are the most popular two. The least popular one (Z) is eliminated. Rather than those voters being in a situation where they might as well not have turned up, they are told very clearly this:

The two candidates remaining are the winners of the last round, your candidate was the loser...given your candidate cannot be allowed to win the seat, how would you vote out of these two remaining? Their opinion on who is better out of the two people that remain is used, their vote still means something to the election. The result is more representative, as a result, of real local opinion.

Lets say people generally moved their vote from candidate Z to Y, resulting in Y winning under AV rather than X under FPTP, in this example.

The question to ask yourself is this...if it were a FPTP election instead of AV, the third placed candidate (Z) hadn't run, and those that would have voted for candidate Z just voted for their otherwise second preference (Y) as if they were their firs instead...would you be saying it is unfair that the candidate Y won? If Z was there X would have won, but he's not, so people voted for Y instead and made Y the winner. Is this an unfair and unacceptable FPTP result?

"This is the real reason the Lib Dems want AV, it is not for fairer votes or to be more democratic, it is because they know they will benefit the most from 2nd options at a national level."

Except they don't know this any more, though they may have thought tactically it's something that they can rely on. The reality is that if we look at the polls now (Lib Dems languishing around 10%), and at the change in boundaries (which is likely to benefit the bigger parties more than the Lib Dems due to the Lib Dems geographical dispersion), I believe that Lib Dems would actually be all but wiped out at the next election. This assumes a great many things...but then so does assuming that the Lib Dems are going to benefit the most.

Of course, the funny thing is "benefiting the most" is still only meaning gaining a more proportional level of seats than under FPTP, though not actually representatively so. Is a Lib Dem "benefit" at the expense of the other parties "unfair" if they are still not achieving a proportional amount of seats to their national vote share? Which is it you're arguing for here Matt, fairness for all, or unfairness for partisan ends?

"A Tory is unlikely to put Labour as their 2nd option, they are likely to put a Lib Dem, a Labourite is unlikely to put a Tory as their 2nd option, they are likely to put a Lib Dem (bit less now I assume). The Lib Dems will campaign hard for AV because they believe it is they who will benefit most by mopping up 2nd options and this must be prevented."

Why must it be prevented? What exactly is your problem with a population who's majority want either a Labour or Lib Dem (left type) MP and not a Tory, actually getting their wish? What, in your mind, is democratic about a Tory winning a seat where the majority of the population want a left-leaning MP? And vice versa?

"If it were about democracy, do we believe they’d be going for AV in the lower chamber? Like it or not, the lower chamber IS democratic. If the Lib Dems cared so much about democracy, if they cared about reform would they not have held out when they were in a massively strong position during the coalition negotiations to have forced through real reform?"

Who knows. What relevance does it have to whether or not AV is better than FPTP as a voting system, for the public, is what I say?

"Why tinker with the lower democratically elected chamber whilst we still have the House of Lords?"

And then why tinker with the House of Lords while we still have Global Warming? And then why bother with Global Warming while we still have wars and terrorism? Thankfully we humans are intelligent creatures and we can deal with multiple things at the same time!

"Much as Yessers will tell you that anyone against AV is a dinosaur, I want real reform to our parliament."

Good for you!

"I want a fully elected upper house"

Me too, and we're getting it (or at least significant stepping stones to it)! Who's getting it for us? Ah yes, those Lib Dems you hate so much, thanks also to a much more progressive Tory leader than we would usually have.

"I’d also like to see the monarchy replaced, or at least having all political power (even ceremonial) stripped away (the latter is unlikely I know)"

Sure, good...and?

"We live in a society where many of those who make our laws are unelected"

Those who make our laws are, ultimately, those in the House of Commons. Very few bills are started in the Lords, and even then they have to be passed and scrutinised by the elected layer of the House of Commons. At every stage of our law making system, there is the "safety catch" of our elected officials being the ones that can amend, vote down, and ascend our laws. In short, every law made is done so, ultimately, through an elected body, the House of Commons.

"but we want to mess around with the elected lower house?"

And the upper house too, they can be done concurrently...multi-tasking, we love it!

"Someone’s taking the piss."

And others have trouble rubbing their belly while patting their head, metaphorically speaking.

"This is a fop to reform, designed basically to somehow draw a line under the expenses scandal, designed to essentially keep everything the same in Westminster"

Except that MPs will have a greater mandate from their local area. AV is, after all, an improvement for constituencies first, and by proxy...subtly...westminster after. The outcomes of this reform are to do much more for local voices than to maintain a status quo.

"keep the Lords sitting, keep the whole thing ticking along much as it was before, when in the electorate there is a real hunger for change."

Except when the Lords becomes an elected chamber, as the coalition agreement states. You do understand that reform is happening, right? I hope that your whole stance isn't based on your annoyance at the House of Lords situation, given you don't seem to have yet accepted reality on what is happening with it.

"I’d go so far as to say that not only is AV no fairer, it’s actually an insult to the electorate to offer up such a miserly reform, to waste tax-payer’s money like this. AV is a clever distraction from the real problems of Westminster politics. A no vote is the only possible answer to such an insult."

Yes! You've "wasted our money" so let's TRULY waste it by doing NOTHING and changing NOTHING! Ha! Have at that you nasty politicians, TAKE THAT!

Excuse me if I prefer the option of not *actually* wasting this money and taking the opportunity to instigate the changes that are indeed fairer and more democratic and representative on a local level, rather than just pissing it up against the wall out of spite.

'‘But if you vote no there’ll not be any future reform’ the yessers will tell you.'

Well that's an opinion of ours, strongly held because of two things. 1) The No camp is largely lead by people and organisations that see no benefit in losing FPTP, the main body that is associated with "no" by the media are the Tories who in their own manifestos state that First Past the Post is the right system for Westminster. And 2) Any opportunity that "no" supporting MP has had to offer up a true reform of the House of Commons, by supporting an amendment to put PR on the list of options in a referendum, almost all of them have voted against it.

'Real reform is already dead, for a parliament at least. Real reform died when it was allowed off the negotiating table when the coalition was being formed, it was so easily put to one side one has to wonder if it was ever a real objective for those negotiating.'

For a whole parliament you say!? Not a long time then. I think you should be more realistic and say "a generation". Although, House of Lords reform is happening this parliament. Is that not real reform?

"Does anyone believe after what looks set to be a spiteful campaign about something that the electorate simply don’t care about"

I always love this crystal ball gazing. What constitutes "don't care about"? I wish there was a definition for this political phrase, which people utter when they want to play down other people's passions without actually having taken some kind of evidence to back up their claim that "no-one cares".

"that the same electorate will have any stomach for another referendum? When the press go to town on what a huge waste of money the referendum has been will there be any politician who will stand up and say ‘encore’?"

Again, are the media going to talk about "waste of money" more or less when we make zero change because of a successful no vote?

"No, reform, for this parliament, has been killed stone dead,"

Gosh. You're like a political Emo.

"it’s in the ashes of the purple ‘revolution’ of the election and it makes me angry that we’ll have yet another few years of unelected cronies being given jobs for the boys and having a say on our lives."

Yada yada yada, remember Lords reform is underway, etc, etc.

"(Obviously, the real reform many yessers want is full PR,"

Obviously, you've done an empirical study and everything to back this supposition up. Oh? Oh sorry... Well let's just assume you're right and most "yessers" want PR in some form.

"the fact that FPTP has worked relatively well for hundreds of years"

We've only had FPTP as we have it now for 60ish years.

"is democratic"

Everyone stating a party name and the party that gets the most votes (in the FPTP sense) running the country regardless is also democratic. Democracy isn't, unfortunately, a word that immediately denotes quality of representation.

"and has never returned some God-awful extremist government"

Define extremist, and then explain how on earth AV will deliver said government.

"and by and large keeps extremist candidates out of parliament"

Even though FPTP can elect an extremist on as little as 1% of the vote, in impractical theory, and in more practical terms could return an extremist on as little as 25-30%. Would you describe Greens as extreme? They're certainly niche, and Lucas won on only 31% of the vote. This isn't to say she wouldn't have won under AV as well, but...like all niche parties and extremists, AV means people have much more of an opportunity to state their preference against those extremists/niche parties getting a seat if they so wish.

FPTP keeping extremists out of parliament isn't an argument against AV when AV does it BETTER!

"is to be ignored."

Quite rightly, given the lack of fact and reason in the description you've given for why it shouldn't be ignored.

"No, yessers want full PR"

Show us that study again please, as I assure you I don't know of any single person I've spoke to who wants "full PR" and all the issues that can bring, as simple as it is to count and define in to a result. I'd love to know how you can demographically categorise us all as wanting full PR.

"because many yessers are Lib Dems and Lib Dems like PR"

So you're NOT talking about full PR then, but rather STV, which is what the Lib Dems really want?

" because it would give them the constant balance of power."

Let me rephrase that as well, because I want to see if you understand how stupid it sounds, what you just said...

Many yessers are Lib Dems, and Lib Dems like STV because it would give them the actual number of seats in the House of Commons that relates to their share of the votes nationally, instead of under-representing them or over-representing other parties.

You've harped on for however long now about "democracy" and real "fairness" and the injustice of people making our laws without mandate and THEN you stand here and say that achieving a share of the seats that makes you as representative of that section of the public as can be is a problem because it's the Lib Dems who will sit in the middle ground? Give us a break and just say the real reason you're against this referendum...you hate the Lib Dems and anything they like!

"PR isn’t being discussed but I raise it because it’s part of the debate."

It's not though, the debate is AV or FPTP, PR won't come without another referendum after this, either way the debate now is not about PR, even if the debate *then* may be.

"One day I’ll write a fuller blog on it, one day, maybe…)"

Hopefully it'll be less full of shit.

"Let’s not forget that AV,"

Back on subject finally"

"this vast step forward in democracy has been bundled in with a direct and unhidden attack on democracy."

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN.


"The bill for the referendum has been bundled up with a guillotine of 50-odd MPs from parliament, the reason is vague, ‘we need to level out boundaries’ (why? Different constituencies are very different, even the geography can impact on the MP’s role) ‘we need to save money’ is the other one you’ll hear, whilst exactly 50 new unelected Lords were sworn into the other chamber"

50 Lords cost considerably less than 50 MPs, unfortunately. If you saw an extra 150 Lords come in to being you would have a perfect point. The thing is the extra 50 Lords increases the representativeness of the house, so in a way it's a good spend (rather than not spending the money and remaining unrepresentative of public opinion).

But I do get your point here (breaking the duck!)

"(this is actually amazing in its breath-taking arrogance)"

Or, despite such "arrogance" is there to make sure the Lords remains representative in comparison to the Commons. I assume you'd rather the Lords was still majority Labour while the public voted for mostly Conservative + Lib Dem, thus remaining unrepresentative completely, rather than someone other than the public doing the task of rebalancing that representation.

Again, I question whether you truly care about representativeness of our house or not, otherwise out of all the things you could level at the Lords you wouldn't pitch an attack at pretty much the ONLY thing done in the last 5 years to ensure it is in tune with public opinion on party levels of power.

"I may be stupid but more representation feels more democratic to me."

As long as it's that half representation that FPTP provides, not actual full representation...because that's what the Lib Dems want and wanting what the Lib Dems want makes you feel dirty...right?


"It stinks doesn’t it?"

It does, but it has nothing to do with the Referendum aside from being in the same Bill. Different aspects of things falling under the same categories go in to Bills all the time, it never means they're related.

"What else stinks has been the nasty, spiteful Yes2AV campaign"

Rar.

"which has not only had to fire people for making islamophobic jokes in support of AV (I shit you not)"

It's true! One person that associated with and helped the Yes official campaign was indeed fired for being politically inept and making an offensive joke. This makes all of the yes campaign spiteful and nasty?

"but the campaign has so far been a consistent barrage of abuse"

Fuck off.

"making out that anyone who is against AV is against democracy, against fairness, against reform, is stuck in the past"

You need to get in the now.

"is a dinosaur"

Why are you out of the museum?

"even linking no2av with such shits as Nick Griffin (again, I’m not joking)"

Well that'll be because the BNP actually have come out as No2AV.

"The vote isn’t until May and the yessers have got to this phase already."

It's hard to phrase this properly, but in all serious I couldn't care less. I'm seeing some of the No people insulted, and they are liars, they are deceitful, and they are trying to dupe people in to thinking something that isn't reality. When faced with the constant claims of "Lib Dem king makers" to "Multiple votes for some not all" and so on, repeatedly, despite being shown to be strictly wrong...people lose their patience and get sweary.

Yes (and myself) need to try and reel it back, of course...it is probably a No tactic to try and get us in that state to portray us in the light you're doing so now...solely as insulting political fixers rather than the people shedding light on the truths and reality of the situation such as we do. But at the same time, if you want to keep on saying something patently false then you're a conniving arsehole that would hopefully be exposed as such.

"The effect of this negative campaigning has been very real, it has changed me from being a simple no to AV with a big ‘meh’ to the whole thing, to a firm campaigner for the no camp."

At least we know you're more swayed by naughty words than truly negative but subtle undermining, character assassination and deception that the other side carry out. We all know it's better to be told something untrue than to hear something we might not like, after all.

"One of my other major problems with AV is that for many Westminster is already too consensual, many don’t feel they have any real options. AV will help make Westminster even more one-dimensional. It will mean that candidates will spend too much time playing to second option voters more than their core vote, whose votes they will feel they can count on."

Currently MPs don't have to "play" to any second option voters except swing voters, as well as their core vote. If MPs don't keep their core vote happy under AV they will lose them...potentially more easily given that the core vote can much more easily protest vote while still giving their party the second preference to ensure their more loathed party doesn't get in.

I'm not saying here that you're wrong entirely, that some MPs won't forget their core vote (foolishly in my opinion), but the logic says this... in FPTP core voters remain core because they fear that voting for someone else may let a much worse MP represent them, someone that may help to ruin their lives (or, of course, that they love their MP and would never think of leaving them...the MP never knows this fully).

In AV core voters have more freedom to be more vocal about their party. "I want to vote Labour, but this MP just doesn't get it..." so votes for an independent with Labour as second choice. No fear of a Tory getting in, but also gives the Labour MP a bloody nose to say "buck your ideas up".

This is what happened in London with Livingston, if the Mayoral election when he went independent was under FPTP, would he have won? More importantly would Labour have still won? Livingstone was a protest vote against Labour's handling of selection of candidates, who knows if under a different system he may have lost despite being wanted, or perhaps even let the Tories win through vote splitting?

So this premise that the core vote will be ignored doesn't ring true with me. And then, of course, you understand that the second and third choices are important under AV, and more so than FPTP. It seems to me it's clear that there is an incentive to cover both Core and non-core but friendly votes under AV, but only swing voters under FPTP (depending on majority size).

"It’ll be the bland leading the bland (well, only leading once you’ve factored in 2nd and 3rd votes)."

Or the representative leading the represented, but then your comfort zone on when that is acceptable is still something I can't get my head around.

"This is the exact opposite of what we want right now."

Yeah! We want reform! With more representation! But not *actual* representation! More like hyper-representation of a minority set of views in order to secure 30-40% of the vote! That's REAL representation!

"The major parties have to be able to display their differences or we are at real risk of seeing swathes of voters move to the fringes."

Is there any proof you can offer that parties will "homogenise", as you go on to claim? Surely PR, where EVERY vote matters is the perfect time to be "bland" and get the votes in...would you say countries like Italy and Germany lack the diversity of political outlook that would constitute "blandness" to pull in all those votes?

"AV could well lead to those extremists doing well in the longer term as mainstream candidates become more homogenised, more like eachother, more bland to avoid dropping 2nd votes. I think that’s pretty bad for democracy myself, and it’s another reason I’ll be voting no."

I'm not sure if you're really thinking this through, it's some pretty fantastic kind of supposition you've got going, but logical it is not.

First you're complaining parties will homogenise to APPEAL to voters, in essence doing what voters want to get the votes.

You then claim voters will hate this so much, having so many choices of parties all doing what they actually want the parties to do (and thus be representative to them) that they'll instead vote for an extremist party that (I have to assume, as they're not part of the homogenised mass) DOESN'T offer what they want.

Does that make any sense, really?

"The final consideration is more of a happy accident really, voting no will give Clegg a bloody nose"

As if it wasn't obvious enough already that most of your anti-AV stance comes from a deep and disturbing loathing of the Lib Dems...

"it will take us closer to a world we once again have a socially liberal Lib Dem party and much as it’s no reason to vote against AV, it’s an enjoyable extra benefit."

Or not, who knows. It may well just take them further in the direction of the Tories, and reduce (as you fear) the number of options on the table outside of the extremists. Either way, what happens to the Lib Dems isn't the concern of people who actually give a shit about reform, as reform is about the voters and how their opinions are accounted for.

"Let’s not get too hysterical because the electorate frankly don’t care"

Again, let's wait until the referendum to see just how much they "don't care" and then haggle over that definition. I mean...a turn out of 70% is "very much caring" in elections, so not caring must be a turn out of less than 35%, right? Let's wait and see.

"but join me in May in voting No 2 AV. Join me in giving those who would insult the electorate with this fop, this sorry little compromise, a slow clap for throwing away the chance for real reform. But mostly join me in holding the whole thing in the disdain it deserves."

But without any actual basis in reality and fact, and built on a foundation of misunderstanding and lies. How proud it must be, to be No 2 AV.

An AV analogy

The claim that AV is too confusing, or isn't something people will understand or use always seems false to me. Millions of people every year vote in the X Factor, and this in itself is a form of alternative vote. It's not exactly comparable as people can join and exit the vote as they please, and people get more than one vote...

But the process of everyone positively voting for who they most like from a list, and eliminating the weakest before doing the process again and again until a winner is found is not so much a foreign and abstract idea, more an every day commercial reality in our entertainment industry.

This doesn't stop people from thinking it's unfair though, so I thought of this little analogy to help you understand that while it is not perfect, it is clearly a fair and inclusive system.

Miss Jones is an English teacher for 30 students, and she wants to get them to study with material that will enthuse them and encourage them to keep reading outside of class. Rather than picking a book thinking she knows exactly what the kids like, or doing a straw poll, she picks several genres out... adventure, horror, poetry, comedy or romance.

Each of the 30 students are asked to write down which type of genre they'd like and when everyone's done to hold it the card up with their choice.

The first time they all do this and the results are...

Adventure:10
Comedy: 8
Horror: 8
Poetry: 3
Romance: 1

Romance isn't very popular, it seems..but then they are a class of mostly boys, maybe that's not surprising. The student that voted for romance is asked to change their vote to one of the remaining four, Adventure, Comedy, Horror or Poetry.

The student decides if they can't read Romance in class, they'd prefer Adventure, leaving the result as...

Adventure: 11
Comedy: 8
Horror: 8
Poetry: 3

Those three students wanting poetry are a little disappointed, but know they can change their vote now. The genre's of Adventure, Comedy and Horror clearly have a lot of support in the class; the poetry students are happy to be able to say that if they can't have poetry, 2 of them would prefer comedy, and 1 would prefer horror.

Our results now stand as...

Adventure: 11
Comedy: 10
Horror: 9

With horror the least favourite now, those that voted for that have an opportunity to change their choice between Adventure and Comedy. 6 decide to go with comedy, 3 with Adventure...

Adventure: 14
Comedy: 16

Comedy wins it, the class has spoken and after having been focused on reallocating their choices based on the popularity of genres everyone else in the class gave, it's clear that the majority would prefer to read something funny. Unfortunately 14 people may feel that they've lost out. However if the teacher had only taken that first vote then 16 people, or more due to the nature of only one vote, would have felt they lost out.

So which is fairer? To me it's clear...the system that leaves less people feeling like they've lost out is king.

Labour leadership election 2010, and AV

Labour's leadership election produced the right result. There is plenty said by people about how the wrong man won, how it was David's win stolen by Ed...I don't particularly care, both to me lacked the direction I wanted to see from the party.

What irks me is the claim that AV as a voting system is shown to be bad because of this result. Utter tosh, on three levels.

1. The result was conducted in terms that everyone understood, as has happened in the past, with a defined electorate - all of which have the right to a say
2. The AV election for the Labour leadership is a weighted system, so not every person's vote counts the same. A Labour MP has a bigger say than a member, who means more to the result than a union member. This is incomparable with the system proposed for the UK General Elections.
3. The result was, on a person by person, one person one vote basis Ed's win with a clear margin anyway. So Ed won not only under the system as designed (as wrong as that weighted system may or may not be), but he'd have won under a normal AV election too.

Round 1: 114205 votes for David, 125,649 for Ed.
Round 2: 118175 (+4370) votes for David, 137599 (+11950) for Ed.
Round 3: 127389 (+9214) votes for David, 149675 (+12076) for Ed.
Round 4: 147220 (+19831) votes for David, 175519 (+25844) for Ed.

Is that simple enough to understand? In FPTP terms, without weighting, Ed won. In AV terms, without weighting, Ed won. In AV terms with weighting, Ed won. The only situation that Ed didn't win was the fictional, and completely redundant argument of if FPTP had been used with the weightings. Ed even gained more support every round compared to David!

Should only MPs and Members be able to vote on who leads the Labour party, that's what this result *really* asks. The voting system is not even in question, the only "problem" here is that those who are directly involved with, and directly pay money to, the Labour party clearly wanted David more...but the union's bought in vote changed that. If the result was unpalatable it wasn't because of the system, it's because unions have had the right to let their member's voices be heard in the leadership election too.

THAT running analogy...and why it's still wrong.

Some people clearly aren't yet in tune with how to make an analogy that works. The one that always bothers me is the "running a race" analogy for FPTP and AV.

For a start, a race is not a good analogy to FPTP. Sure, on the face of it the example seems to fit, everyone's in a race, the winning line is the close of polls, the person that crosses that line fastest (or with the most support in real terms) is the winner.

But let's think..if you're Usain Bolt, do you run slower if you've got more people competing against you, or faster? Under FPTP if you're a strong candidate, more candidates in the running just takes more support from you (or makes you slower, see?). Now under what reality can we say that racing the 100m is therefore analogous to FPTP as a system?

So, for a start the whole "FPTP is the first person crossing the line in a race" thing is bollocks.

But then, because on the face of it the analogy *appears* to be good, the attempt is made to shoehorn AV into the same discussion of a single occurrence of a race.

AV, according to FPTP supporters, is like everyone finishing the race and then giving the medal to the third place runner instead of the first. Really?

For a start trying to boil down a whole election under AV into a single running of a race is a false analogy. If we're going to be accurate then AV is a full competition of running events, from qualifying all the way up to the final. In the first round we run the race and the slowest runner is told to go home. It's run again and the slowest runner in that race is asked to leave. This happens over and over again until either the first place runner has beat the combined times of the remaining runners, or we're down to a straight one-on-one sprint.

No "third place" person ever gets the medal, it's always the first place runner that'll win the race under AV, but the field of runners will have been systematically reduced by taking away the slowest...the same kind of practice that happens on any professional athletic stage.

As you can see, the running event is actually much more analogous to racing than FPTP, despite the racing analogy being "owned" by the FPTP crowd, but only if you use the analogy correctly...in which case it completely fails to represent FPTP as a system.

Would any of you say that it is wrong to run qualifying rounds in the 100m, eliminating the slowest, until we end up with a race between the two fastest? Perhaps you oppose the whole ethos of competitive sport as much as you oppose AV?

So, in conclusion..again...please keep your analogies relevant!

What is AV to me?

AV is a voting system that is fairer than FPTP. Why?

AV lets me keep a link to my constituency MP, like with FPTP.

AV lets me vote for who I want to win the election, like with FPTP.

AV also lets me vote in a way that also lets me vote against a candidate I don't want in the election, without tactical voting, UNLIKE FPTP.

AV is transparent, or at least much more transparent than FPTP, because I know full well who everyone is voting for in my area. Politically I can see the *real* politics of my neighbours, not the potentially obfuscated votes that could have been placed tactically.

With this, under AV, I know exactly how large the extremist/fascist vote is, and how much of a problem it is that needs to be tackled, unlike FPTP.

With AV I know that my MP can never be elected while being, initially, the most disliked candidate, unlike FPTP.

AV free's me to care only about my own preferences, not to worry about what everyone else's preferences may be, unlike FPTP.

With AV candidates don't only have to concentrate on the swing vote in their constituency, about 5-10% of the electorate...but ALL of the electorate, to get further preferences, including opposition party die hard's, unlike FPTP.

With AV I know that my MP can never be a BNP member without 50% of the voters ultimately wanting them, unlike FPTP.

With AV I know that the winner will have a much, much greater chance of being shown to have endorsement by over 50% of the voters involved than under FPTP.

With this, I know that under AV our MPs will have a greater understanding of what type of politician they're looking for... capitalist, socialist, leftist, rightist, conservative or liberal, and have the opportunity to represent us properly. This opportunity of understanding is significantly lower with FPTP.

With AV I know that a fair proportion of MPs, up to two thirds as it stands, will know that their vote is only secured to parliament by voters that don't necessarily prefer them in parliament in an ideal world, and could switch their endorsement easily. This also isn't known under FPTP.

Therefore with AV I know that my parliament is locally representative, unlike FPTP.

With AV I know that coalitions are no more or less likely over time than with FPTP.

With AV I could even have multiple members of my party stand in the same election, with no fear of splitting the vote, allowing me to rank *better* MPs within parties, if it were to be put...unlike FPTP.

This is why, despite my greater wish for PR, I support AV fully. It's a better system, a system we can trust more, and we should be supporting it for it's own merits as much as a potential route for greater reform.

How To.... make an analogy

Dear AV/FPTP debaters.

I know making analogies are hard, they're perfect tools for representing the complexities of voting systems in "every day" ways, but they're being abused, misused. Right now, if they were living things we'd have a government task force cracking down on this abuse right away. But they're not...so here are a few handy hints.

Choosing your setting

When talking about FPTP or AV you are talking about voting systems where multiple people are making independent decisions that will affect a change or direction for one thing that affects all participants. An accurate example may be multiple people choosing where to collectively go for dinner, or multiple people deciding where to put the printer in the office.

It'd be false to have multiple effects in play, as this wouldn't represent the "MP" factor of the single member constituency.

Talking about preferences

When you vote you put down an X under FPTP, or a list of preferences under AV. No matter which way you vote you ultimately choose to put a mark next to a candidate, or to not put a mark against a candidate.

If your analogy starts to talk about levels of "care" or "weight" then beware! Ensure that you are being fair with your analogy and using this weighting in the right manner. Whether talking about FPTP or AV, you can never know how much a person "weights" their own choices. You can compare internally but not externally.

For example, I can say with full confidence that person X prefers radishes to sprouts, and person Y prefers lettuce to radishes. What I cannot say with full confidence from this information is that person Y cares less about radishes than person X.

If your actors in the analogy are making decisions, when talking about a voting system, they aren't discussing their individual beliefs with each other...they are making a statement for a single candidate. As soon as your analogy starts to compare actors' influences or intentions then it is no longer analogous with a voting system.

Timing

Adding time in to your analogy for AV should be frowned upon, but isn't always wrong. As long as actors do not change their choices, and act honestly, then decisions can take place in either an instant run off or a normal run off manner. If you find yourself in a situation whereby actors are using previous decisions made in the scenario to inform their further decision, then you too have left analogy-land.

Use these basic principles and go forth! Make your own analogy garden full of happy examples and representations of reality; free them from the abusive shackles to which they're currently cruelly contained.

Ignorance or lies? Or both?

Take a look at the blog post here by "dbirkin". It's worth a look as I think that in all honesty it is probably the most confusing aspect of the AV vs FPTP debate. It comes down to things I've spoken about before, the lack of a Condorcet method, for ensuring the winner is always the most popular, on the table. It's easy to use it against AV, but to do so without realising that it's also an argument against FPTP is false.

The problem with DBirkin's argument is he's only looking at one half of the problem, that of AV's ability to hit a specific scenario whereby the "most supported" is actually the third place candidate overall. The whole picture needs to be told to be fair to those that are trying to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each system.

This scenario mentioned above requires, statistically, for more people from the first and/or second placed parties to support the third party as their second preferences for a combined total, than the combined number of their rival's first preferences with the transfer of the third party's second preferences.

To try and visualise this, see the preference table below.

20 A voters, second preferences - 20 for C.
15 B voters, second preferences - 15 for B.
10 C voters, second preferences - 1 for A, 9 for B

In this scenario a potential vote score of 30 is available for C, and this can't be beaten by a combination of B's voters and C's 9 preferences moving to B.

However change it up a bit, to be a little bit more realistic.

20 A voters, second preferences - 10 for C, 10 don't transfer.
15 B voters, second preferences - 8 for B, 7 don't transfer.
10 C voters, second preferences - 4 for A, 4 for B, 2 don't transfer.

In this scenario the potential score for C is only 20, whereas A will have 24 by comparison, being a worthy winner.

The assertion by DBirkin here is that the scenario at the top means the whole system is worse than FPTP. So. How would it work under FPTP?

20 A voters, 15 B voters, and 10 C voters. Unfortunately, as DBirkin admits, FPTP is ignorant. We don't know specifically who people are voting for and why. But let's take one possible example, using the same figures as a FPTP scenario.

of the 20 voters for A 10 are true supporters, 2 are ex -B voters, 8 are C voters...but all vote (tactically or not) to give A support.
Of the 15 B voters, 14 want B and 1 would rather have C but don't like the rise of A support and want to try and stop it.
Of the 10 C voters all are primarily C voters.

This gives a "real" first preference count (for example, under AV) of...

12 A supporters
14 B supporters
19 C supporters.

Yet the system is such that enough people have to guess about how people are going to vote that they actually turn their first place support in to last place ranking.

The reality is that far from saying "FPTP is ignorant, but AV is a lie"...actually FPTP is ignorant, and it's ALSO a lie (we can never tell under FPTP when it's lying to us or not outside of safe seats, unlike AV!). AV can certainly be a lie...but at least it's a white lie.

What do I mean by this, white lie?

FPTP can result not only in the most preferred candidate losing, but in the LEAST preferred candidate winning (in terms of first preferences). This is the travesty of the broken system of FPTP, delivering results that are actually the opposite of what people initially want.

With AV we see more honest initial preferences, though this can still lead to DBirkin's "lie" scenario. However unlike FPTP there is no chance of the initially most hated party being voted in to power, they are eliminated in the first round. We may end up with an MP that is not the most popular, but that happens every election under FPTP currently. It's not ideal, but at least we know that the winner is one of the most popular to begin with!

So under AV, the lie can be no worse than what we have currently, and in certain situations could be more representative, or endorsed, than the lie we have to live with under FPTP. In even more situations AV will deliver the candidate who is, on balance, the most endorsed, and isn't a lie at all.

To use this argument of results being a "lie" against AV is to also use it against FPTP. It is not an argument against reform, but one of criticising the practice of using non-Condorcet methods...of which both AV and FPTP can be described. We don't have a Condorcet method on the table, we have only AV or FPTP; In that comparison it's clear which system provides the more fair results.

AV a lie? No more so than FPTP already is, and no where near as ignorant or potentially unrepresentative on a local level.

Prescott's slur on Clegg, misreading the data!

THAT'S why Clegg supports AV RT @tobyperkinsmp Lib Dems would support Tories 2nd ahead of Labour by 51% to 16% #no2av http://bit.ly/ep7xDG

From the fingers of @JohnPrescott. *Sigh*.

Check out the YouGov survey for yourself. Here are the facts...

1. The survey shows Lib Dem support at 8%.

At this level the Lib Dems aren't going to affect anything nationally other than to increase the majority of one party or the other. So much for "increasing coalitions" eh? At 8% the Lib Dems will only effect the outcome of something like 15% of all seats (these are seats where the two main runners are within that 8% of each other, if the spread was even and none of those seats contained Lib Dem in the top two runners...so obviously a rough estimate).

2. The survey shows that these 8% currently support a Tory government led by Cameron, rather than a Labour government led by Ed Miliband.

Does this show that Lib Dems prefer Tories to Labour? Or does it show that this core support of 8% are going to currently support the party line of supporting the coalition? Is it a statement of support for the Tories or for Cameron? Is it that they don't like Labour, or is it just Ed that they dislike? This is such an open an ambiguous question from the get go.

3. The survey also shows that Lib Dems (at the time of the Election), who may have no switched to support other parties, prefer Labour to Tories (or Cameron to Ed, etc) by 27% to 38%.

This shows that what has happened here is that people claiming to support Lib Dems are now the mostly entrenched and loyal. All the Labour-friendly voters have, it seems, decided they don't want to vote for the Lib Dems any more.

4. Clegg and Lib Dems put AV on the table around the time of the election, so when the Lib Dems were more likely to shift support to Labour.

Prescott now choosing this survey to make a partisan jab at the Lib Dems and Clegg by aligning them with the Tories on reform is an extremely pathetic and narrow view of the data that has been presented. Unless John thinks that Nick is a fortune teller and knew exactly how the support for his party would wane and switch by joining the coalition and acting the way he has, before he did any of it?

Pathetic.

AV and Plurality

Plurality. It is the ultimate aim of electing parliaments and MPs. No representatives that haven't got the absolute most support of everyone (all opinions considered).

AV nor FPTP deliver this in every situation, sad as that is given the options we have in this referendum coming up.

But we need to judge the systems on the merits they have, in comparison to each other. A condorcet method, nor a PR-esque method if on the table. We're being asked do we want to stick with what we got or go with AV. To make the move to AV we need to know it's an improvement.

I think it demonstrably is, but some get caught up on this whole plurality lark.

Right now we have FPTP which returns MPs from 2/3rds of the constituencies of our land, somewhere near 400 or more seats, a huge number, who don't necessarily have the most support from their constituency. By using FPTP we are opting for a "simple" system that doesn't give us enough information to tell if local voters can be happy and feel they are properly represented nationally.

This isn't to say those MPs *aren't* the most popular, but with our simple FPTP system we cannot know. We are simply making an assumption that they are because it is logistically easy for us to do so and ensures that winners can be reported first thing on a Friday morning.

AV ensures that at the very least the constituency gets an MP that it doesn't hate...or more accurately ensures that the candidate elected has the endorsement of over 50% of the original turn out, and where that candidate doesn't (as can happen under FPTP in those 400+ seats) at least unlike FPTP we can ensure that they are the least hated candidate.

AV is not a system where one vote is used by every person to go in to a perfect equation or system that ensures the absolutely most popular, the "plurality choice" is elected. It's disingenuous for anyone on the "Yes" side to claim otherwise. Instead we have to think about the break down of the system and what is being asked.

Everyone is given a first choice, and that first set of preferences decides who the most popular MPs are. From that point we know the last placed candidate, the least liked. In the second round we aren't asking everyone to vote again, as in a "run off" system, but to have pre-placed their preferences so that if their candidate is removed to enable their vote to move to someone that is still in the running.

This isn't the way to gain a view of plurality. But the system isn't trying to attain that, it's a series of FPTP elections held sequentially, with a diminishing list of candidates at each stage. Those supporting the weakest candidate are essentially being asked "Look, you can't have that choice, choose from this lot instead".

Come the end what we're doing is collectively judging our candidates. We're coming to a consensus in each round of elimination as to who is the worst of the candidates remaining, but not then (like FPTP) telling those voters that support the worst candidate in that round that their further opinion doesn't matter.

This isn't plurality, but it doesn't mean that it isn't fair; it's just a system that delivers a different way to come to a consensus over the right candidate for the constituency.

Do all votes count under AV?

As always I can rely on @CharlotteV to bring up a deceitful and twisted argument to try and persuade people to vote No. Her latest today is that (supposedly) unlike FPTP, not everyone's vote counts under AV.

tl;dr

Don't be fooled in to thinking that because some people are taking the perfectly acceptable option of "spoiling" their ballot if they have no preferred candidate left in the rounds of counting, that their vote somehow hasn't counted or has been worthless.

Where votes count

We all know how FPTP works. One person, one vote, one candidate. Simple, done. It does mean that if you're not supporting a candidate that is the winner last time around, or is within 10% of the vote share of the winner last time, that your best bet is to either vote tactically or not turn up at all, but it's simple.

Charlotte Vere wishes to make us believe that AV, by comparison, ignores voters. This is the stock line of attack for the No to AV campaign, take a truth and then pretend the opposite is true.

@CharlotteV
@robertcp Under FPTP every vote is counted. Under AV, not every vote is counted - only those with sufficient no of prefs. #no2av

AV and choice

AV gives more voters a larger voice. It allows you to vote for your candidate, and then let the constituency know that if your preferred candidate is gone that you'd also be happy to be represented by other candidates in a specific order of preference. This could be all the other candidates, or perhaps not all of them. Maybe you hate Tories, or Labour, or Lib Dems, and you'd never put your vote to them.

Charlotte is claiming that because those people that choose not to put down full preferences can find themselves in a situation where their ballot is exhausted in the final round of counting, for example by leaving a preference for the Lib Dems and Labour blank and those being the final two parties standing, that their vote is not being counted.

This doesn't mean their vote hasn't been counted any more than their vote isn't counted under FPTP. Their first preference was counted, perhaps that kept their first preference from being eliminated early and thus has instantly effected the election outcome. When their first preference was knocked out their vote transfered and started to count towards a different candidate. Under FPTP this vote would have already run it's course, yet under AV it is instead given to someone else to reflect that voters preference over who represents them out of the remaining field.

All along, their vote has been counted, has been a part of the process that has decided who gets eliminated or not, who goes through to each round, but then Charlotte thinks because an unfortunate outcome (for that voter) in the final round of counting their vote no longer counts when their ballot of preferences is exhausted?

Conclusion

Think about it. Essentially what is happening here is that, when it boils down to it, the constituency as a whole has said that they want either candidates from Labour or Lib Dems (in the above example) to be their MP. If those two were the only choices under FPTP, and our example voter decided not to turn up, or to spoil their ballot, because they couldn't vote for either of them...would that be someone's vote "not being counted"? No. It's an active choice by that voter to not endorse the candidates on offer, to make an indirect statement that the election has not enabled or encouraged them to endorse one candidate or the other.

This is exactly what is happening under AV, the voter has, by not putting all preferences down, stated that if the result comes down to being between prospective MPs that they do not wish to put preferences down for, that they would rather not "turn up".

They have under AV, unlike under FPTP where your chosen candidate needs to be either the last winner or within 10% of the winner to have a realistic chance of winning, at least had the opportunity to try and influence the result, to give much greater information about their political opinion...but like FPTP aren't forced to vote for a candidate that they can't support.

This isn't votes not counting, it's voters having the choice to vote for exactly who they want, or not vote if their choices are too limited. Their votes in the first round have counted just as much as under FPTP, and then every vote counts MORE than under FPTP through the expression of deeper political preference in each further round.

So there we are. As I say, No 2 Av will take a truth and pretend the opposite is true. They have here decided that they don't like the fact that AV gives people more of a voice, to make their vote work harder for them, and are instead attempting to mislead people in to believing that AV ignores your votes instead. Disgusting.

Instant or Non-Instant run off?

I just want to start by saying this is a stupid argument to even be commenting on. We haven't got run off voting on the table and it never was on the table. The introduction of "Why not use Run-Off Voting instead of Instant Run-Off Voting (or AV)" Is an argument intended to obfuscate the debate and detract us from what we should be doing... extolling the virtues of AV over and above FPTP.

But, here is a post that explains why the argument is bunkum anyway. Don't engage with trolls for long periods of time, just give them this link!

tl;dr

In case you're adverse to reading long articles... IRV, or AV, would produce no different results in the UK, given our political makeup, than Non-Instant Run-Off Voting. To try and debate the fairness of IRV versus Run-Off Voting in the UK is to ignore that ours is a three party politics, and is a debate only introduced to try and wrong foot someone for kudos points that really aren't cashable anywhere outside of debate club.

The differences

The differences between AV and Run-Off Voting are small but important. AV asks individuals to give an honest preference list to be used to elect the highest supported candidate in an elimination style election. Run-Off Voting asks individuals to, round by round, state who they'd prefer from the remaining candidates while being able to alter their preferences based on who's left in the running.

It sounds similar, and in practice they are as good as identical, but there are some scenarios where not having an instant run-off is beneficial.

They are few and far between, and tend not to occur unless there are four highly supported candidates in the running for one post...but to clarify here is the situation under which AV is deficient...

How it works

Candidates A, B, C and D all have around 20% of the vote. Candidate A is most supported by first preferences, D least supported. The trouble (under both instant and non-instant run-off systems) is that D supporter's second opinions are now read before the supporters of A, B, C.

This happens regardless of system, D has no chance of winning. Under a non-instant system, however, D may look at the landscape different. Perhaps D supporters thought that they wouldn't be going out in the first round, and so their second preference was ill-chosen. Whereas under AV all of D's votes may have transferred to C, under a non-instant system those voters might choose to support B instead based on the numbers.

The real world

But in reality how is this really going to work? Most seats only have three main parties contesting them, if they even have more than two parties in the running. Those parties are the Lib Dems, Labour and Tories. Statistics from after the election show that Lib Dems would tend to give their votes almost equally between the two other parties, while the other two parties split almost equally between the lib dems and not voting for anyone else.

In seats where Lib Dems are the least popular of the last three remaining parties, they will most likely not change the status quo, unless the constituency itself is specifically more socialist or libertarian in it's blood. In seats where the Tories are the least popular of the last three remaining parties they'll give what votes they will to the Lib Dems, which may or may not push the Lib Dems above Labour. The same happens in reverse if Labour are the least popular of the three remaining parties.

Given this knowledge we have of people's opinions, are we ever going to be in a situation where the Lib Dem supporters being knocked out before the final round would have put their preferences down mostly for Labour under AV, but would have changed that to Tories under Run-Off Voting? No, we're not. Equally are Tories or Labour ever going to vote for each other because they have an opportunity before the next round of voting in a Run-Off election, as opposed to their original preference for Lib Dems under AV?

Those that are trying to obfuscate the advantages of AV by talking about Run-Off Voting are doing so without any sense of reality. AV is, at the end of the day, a way to put your true preferences on a piece of paper and let the collective opinions of the local area combine to find the best candidate in a knock out format. The idea that those true preferences would then change in such a polarised political society as ours is laughable.

The exception?

There is a statistically fantastic thing that can happen whereby voters could be better off trying to vote tactically for someone else...for example Tories could recognise that by coming last their second preferences would transfer to Lib Dems instead of Lib Dems transfering to Labour, thus denying Labour a seat.

The likelihood of this scenario being present, however, is a) extremely unlikely and b) relies on voters knowing for sure what multiple levels of opinion will be in their constituency. Is that relevant in this argument?

It may well be an argument, a relevant one, for the condorcet supporters among us, but not for Run-Off voting, where exactly the same action is needed as under AV, with no additional opportunity to "rig" results due to the lack of diversity of supported candidates.

Conclusion

Again, just think... will a pause between voting rounds really make Tory voters vote for Labour as a second preference when they wouldn't have done so under AV?

So, aside from the use of the diversion tactics of the No camp to talk about systems other than the AV or FPTP on the table, this particular diversionary tactic doesn't even make any sense given how the results between instant and non-instant run off systems with our particular diversity of political opinion are almost indistinguishable!

AV, Spread of Opinion, and how it ISN'T a cause of coalitions

I've posted about this before, that the voting system under a single member constituency system isn't the cause of coalitions, nor is it the defense against them...that in fact it's spread of opinion nationally, and how groups of people congregate in their constituencies under a political landscape that has more than 2 parties achieving sizeable support.

In the comments I gave a worked example, so I thought I'd give it it's own post for clarity. Take a rather basic example of 5 equal sized constituencies, they have the following (very) rough make up....

1: Tory 60%, Labour 30%, Lib Dem 10%
2: Tory 40%, Labour 30%, Lib Dem 20%
3: Tory 30%, Labour 45%, Lib Dem 25%
4: Tory 25%, Labour 30%, Lib Dem 45%
5: Tory 20%, Labour 45%, Lib Dem 35%

The Tories achieve a total vote share of 35%, Labour 36% and Lib Dems 27%

Under FPTP this returns Tory - 2, Labour - 2 and Lib Dem 1. Hung.

Under AV, we (for the sake of this example) assume the second preference always goes to Lib Dem from Tory or Labour, but from Lib Dem it always goes to Labour.

The new result under AV would be Tory - 1, Labour - 2, Lib Dem - 2. Hung as well, though potentially with a much strong "massive" coalition of Labour and Lib Dems.

Now see what happens if the constituencies change to the following. Note that I'm not changing the proportional share of voted "nationally" (or across all constituencies), only how they're share is balanced in each area...

1: Tory 44%, Labour 41%, Lib Dem 10%
2: Tory 56%, Labour 39%, Lib Dem 10%
3: Tory 25%, Labour 45%, Lib Dem 30%
4: Tory 15%, Labour 30%, Lib Dem 55%
5: Tory 35%, Labour 25%, Lib Dem 40%

FPTP would now return Tory - 2, Labour 1, Lib Dem - 2

But under AV we'd now have Tory - 1, Labour - 1, Lib Dem - 3.

Notice how in the first example the hung parliament is the same proportion as in the second example, just with different people in power. But in the second example AV actually moves us AWAY from a hung parliament.

So there you have it. AV can cause coalitions where FPTP would normally have delivered a majority, but they can also cause a majority where FPTP would have delivered a coalition.

With boundary changes coming that we are still to find out the effects from, and several years of political wrangling in an obviously tense climate, it'd be insane to try and predict right now whether EITHER voting system would return a coalition or not at the next election.

In short, it's not practical (or honest) to claim that AV is a coalition making system.

No 2 Av's new leaflet: Lies, Damn Lies and statistics

The new No2Av leaflet is out, and you can check it out here. Time for a bit of fisking...

Learn about the proposals

An education does await, but perhaps not the kind we'd expect...

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats want Britain to change the way we vote to a method of voting called the ‘Alternative Vote’, sometimes called AV for short.

Good first spin, It's all about Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems, not all of us independent thinkers and reformers who want to move away from a system the IPPR has today described as "broken"

A referendum is planned for May, when we all get to vote whether we agree with him or not.

And the rest of the independent thinking reformers, Labour supporters, even Tory ones!

And we think it is right to be suspicious why the party that is pushing in the change is the Liberal Democrats.

Because it's the first time Lib Dems have had any power for a long while and the Tories and Labour are notorious in their inability to reform parliament and politics without a Telegraph sting attached to it?

We’re all angry about the way some politicians abused our trust with their expenses – but that doesn’t mean that the system for electing them is at fault.

Except the evidence points one way...MPs that have the safest, most incontestable, seats abused expenses the most. Marginality and fear of losing their seat seemed to keep the other MPs a little more honest!

After all, the current system, called ‘First Past the Post’ where the winner is the one that comes first, has stood our country, and many others around the world, in good stead for hundreds of years.

Same could have been said about women not having the vote, homosexuals not having equal rights, or smallpox...can't say I'm unhappy for those long standing afflictions to have disappeared.

At election after election, it has given the country the kind of government it was seeking – the occasional coalition mixed in with plenty of strong governments that reflected the type of leadership the country wanted at the time.

Except we don't know this for sure except during the deepest of our two party politics days. FPTP wasn't a problem when it was only ever "either/or" not, "either/or and perhaps". New political landscapes have brought with it a need for some better and more enlightened thinking. None of which you'll see in this leaflet.

TO THE TOP 7 REASONS TO KEEP FPTP!

1. It creates strong governments

It can do! As can AV! You see, as I've explained previously it is not the electoral system that creates a government's structure, but how our opinion is dispersed throughout this fine land. That's why FPTP has this time not created a strong government (though in all honesty, as far as weak coalition governments go, this one has been pretty strong on the legislation side, hasn't it?) and why it may well not do again for some time

2. It's simple to understand

So's picking a name out of a hat. Since when has simplicity been a reason to hold back democracy?

3. It excludes extremist parties

No it doesn't. The Greens are pretty extreme (though not in the "bad BNP" sense) and they got a seat under FPTP. Why? Splintering of opinion. Under AV the greens could win that seat again, or the wider view of the constituency could be they really don't want a Green MP and they could lose it. One thing is for certain, parties like the BNP can get in to power with just 30%ish support under FPTP, but would need 50% under AV.

4. It's cheap

See number 2, since when should what can only ever be described as a marginal increase in cost hold back democracy?

5. It's fair

I need to quote the lie here...

One person, one vote – unlike AV, where supporters of minority parties end up getting multiple votes.

In AV you get one vote. It transfers if your candidate is knocked out. Is it counted more than those that don't transfer? NO. It is counted in every round that it exists once, same as every other vote. EVERYONE gets multiple votes, most of them just end up being for the same person in each round which gives the illusion of being counted less.

6. It's the most widely used system in the world

So what? Mandarin is the most spoken language in the world, perhaps we should all be converting? Each country has it's own needs and quirks, and this country is one that is once again starting it's move towards a more representative and fairer political system.

7. It's quick and easy to count

See 2 and 4, since when does how quick you get the result have to hold back democracy?

So there we are, the big 7! Tada! Even if 3 of them are redundant arguments that put logistics and penny counting ahead of the voice of the voter, 1 is an outright lie and 2 apply equally to AV. So.. uh.. the big 1 reason then! "Its popular elsewhere". What an endorsement for FPTP!

But this is but a taste of the leaflet, let's carry on...

AV is not wanted

Even those who want to change the way we vote don’t want AV. Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as “a miserable little compromise” and the Electoral Reform Society said they did “not regard it as suitable for the election of a
parliament”. Both Nick Clegg and the ERS now support the AV system and are campaigning for us to support it as well. But we
know they’ll want to change it again in a few years’ time!

So? Clearly the idea of continued reform is too "costly", "complicated" and "time consuming" for the No2Av camp to comprehend being a good thing. The key to all of the above is that the above organisations want a different system, yet they will still take AV over FPTP. Isn't the message here that it's time to move away from FPTP and get some power back to the voters?

AV would have no effect on safe seats

The No2Av camp going completely arse about face on this one. Is it a terrible thing that people elected with majorities straight away get their seat, I'm confused! This is clearly "fight every point against AV, even if it makes no sense from my stance of supporting FPTP!" tactics.

I'll say it again, who the hell wants overwhelmingly popular MPs to not get their seat in parliament?

AV is complex

The Government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters how AV works to prevent a fall in turnout at elections. In Australia, the only reason they have high turnout is because they made voting compulsory

a) Cost shouldn't be a barrier to better democracy, b) You're already sent a letter explaining the process through the post with your polling card, the "cost" is already there every election c) There is no evidence that turnout would fall in the UK, turnout is mostly linked to marginality (or likelihood of a seat to change hands) and that is increased with AV in more constituencies than under FPTP.

The winner should be the winner

There’s a very simple principle in politics and governments – whoever gets the most votes wins.

Same as under AV, yes...it's not thrown away with the bath water you know!

It’s wrong that the person who came second or third can overtake the person with the most votes and be allowed to win because the second and third choices of the little parties are counted again.

They're not, but it's a popular lie I can see will be used throughout the campaign.

Imagine applying the same principle at the Olympic Games and giving the gold medal to the person who came in third!

And the winner of "analogy that doesn't even attempt to be nearly analogous to the situation it's describing" award goes to... No2AV! I mean, what the hell? Seriously? Comparing a system of compromise and collective decision making to a race? Stellar work there Einstein.

Only three other countries use AV

Out of all the countries in the world, only Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia use it.

Again... so? Every country to itself on why it uses the system it does.

And Fiji have had enough of AV and are about to ditch it.

They're also currently being lead by a military leader who has previously performed a coup to take down a government that the ethnic Fijians didn't like. I don't want to misrepresent their situation but essentially their voting system changed and a bunch of nationalists kicked off about having people that aren't "real Fijians" rulling over them. Sounds pretty comparable to the UK political system to me!

More coalition governments with the Alternative Vote system

I won't copy out the rest...needless to say that this is a lie today debunked by the IPPR and, indeed, is common sense to see as a lie if you care to think about how coalitions are really formed.

But then the final bit I'm going to take (there's only a little bit more in the leaflet, most of it is pointless repitition mind you...):

The Lib Dems would always be part of a coalition government

They probably would be, but not because of AV. Why? Because this country likes three parties, and the Tories and Labour will NEVER form a coalition as one of them insulted the other's mum or something. Lib Dems are the only party either of the others are willing to sit on to get their policy book in to effect.

Now, I've already said this isn't a problem with the electoral system (FPTP is just as likely to throw up coalitions), but is it even the problem of the Lib Dems that Tories and Labour can't agree to get on for coalition's sake?

Indeed...IS IT A PROBLEM? A government that, under coalition terms, is much more likely to be representative of people's views with the best and biggest of each of their policies enacted in the same time period. What a terror that must be for the majority of the UK; A terror that'll land regardless of whether you vote Yes or No to AV in May all the same.

AV and the magic of geographic dispersion

"AV will cause more coalitions in this country!", "FPTP is the only way to ensure strong government!"

Nonsense.

It's time to put this myth to bed once and for all. No voting system that purely asks people to vote for an MP to represent them in their constituency is able to cause or limit the amount of coalition governments that form over the years. It may slightly enhance or hide the realities of support in each constituency, but in itself neither FPTP nor AV can cause coalitions.

Take, for example, our last general election result. The Tories had 36% of the vote, Labour 29% and Lib Dems 23% (in popular terms). Let's think about the realities of what forms coalitions. They are caused when the number of MPs elected for each party is in significant enough number that there is no majority to be had.

To form coalition governments in single member constituency voting systems (or to at least see Hung Parliaments) you need three parties with at least a modest popularity each, depending on how many smaller parties have strong localised support. The reality is that the cause of our latest coalition, under FPTP no less, is the increased support for the Lib Dems over several elections mixed with a redress of the geographical dispersion of the vote for each of the main parties.

Let me just be clear about that. It is how spread out or concentrated differing political opinions are across the UK that determines the likelihood of coalitions being formed.

Take a highly unlikely example. If the population was perfectly dispersed based on political opinion, to the degree that every constituency reflected the national picture of C 36%, L 29%, LD 23% then there would be only one result possible under FPTP....a parliament made up 100% of the Tories. Under AV it would be different, again assuming opinion is the same we would have either a 100% Labour parliament or 100% Tory parliament depending on where Lib Dem's would tend to put their second preferences.

But what if we switch it around? Let's say that the 36% of Tory support are localised entirely in 234 constituencies but in 0 others, that Labour similarly have 100% support in 189 constituencies, and Lib Dems the rest (not counting the constituencies that would be filled with the independent, national and Irish MPs). In this situation, still with the same voting system we'd have a proportional representation in parliament.

The same number of people voting for the same party they did in 2010, but depending on where they live you can have anything from an elected dictatorship to a fully proportional parliament forming a coalition.

Our current situation with a hung parliament is based mainly on the divide of class in this country, where more rural and higher earning areas tend to vote Tory, middle class and student (though we'll see how long that lasts) areas vote Lib Dem, and Working class to middle class areas vote Labour.

Without mixing these classes in to the same constituencies we have concentrated blobs of party support throughout the UK, and it is this segregation, combined with a greater than two dimensional political opinion, that led us to the coalition government we have today.

How will AV change this? I will come back to this issue in a future piece; However, it may well be that AV increases the hyper-concentration of support, making it less dispersed, and causing a greater hung parliament. Yet it is also the case that the fine balance of the geographic dispersal of political opinion could result in a bloating of the vote for (most likely) Labour, giving them a disproportionate (based on 1st preferences, though not in terms of absolute support) majority that helps to avoid a coalition while more accurately reflecting the political leaning of the population.

If you're against coalition politics then I'm afraid your only recourse to achieve this will be to try and return this county to a system of two party politics and to try and stop people from believing in political ideals they believe in.

Voting against AV won't stop coalitions from forming while three party politics takes hold, it's time for the "No" camp to accept this reality.

Nick Cohen's "failure" to appreciate the complexities of reform

Nick Cohen has released a piece for the spectator that gloriously highlights the 2 dimensional style of argument that those in the "No" campaign for the upcoming AV referendum display. I have no idea if Nick Cohen supports Yes or No camps, but his piece might as well be written by the more short sighted and mischeviously misleading parts of the No side.

You can read the Nick Cohen piece here, though I'll be fisking it below...

Over on Coffee House my colleague Dan Hodges notes that a large chunk of the Parliamentary Labour Party has come out against AV, and speculates that their stand will help the “No” campaign.

A fair argument, given that it's clear that Labour voters/supporters are torn and don't yet understand the benefits the Left in this country can gain through a more preferential voting system due to the current standing of opinion in the UK.

So it may, but he is missing the true danger to the “Yes” campaign, which lies with its friends rather than its enemies. To be blunt, the supporters of “reform” are at best deluded and at worse rank hypocrites.

And so begins the start of a strawman argument based on only half a reality.

The alternative vote solves no problems and remedies no grievances.

Straight out of the blocks and in to a lie. The alternative vote, AV, remedies one extremely important grievance and problem...that of lack of surety over an MP being elected who is supported by their constituency. FPTP allows MPs to be voted with only 35% of the vote in some cases, and thus all we know is that at least 35% of the constituency support them. AV ensures we know the MP elected has the most support possible (with some caveats).

It is an unlovely and unloved electoral system, as the voters of New Zealand showed when their government gave them the chance to choose how they cast their votes. New Zealanders were interested in all kinds of reforms to first-past-the-post but dismissed AV with scorn.

New Zealand were offered two referendums to ensure an absolute clarity of decision. The first was whether to move away from FPTP, to which they voted overwhelmingly by 84.5% to 15.5%. They were then asked (ironically under a FPTP system) which type of system they would like. AV lost out, unsurprisingly, as it was the shortest move away from FPTP.

Does this mean anything to us? New Zealand, a country that legalizes brothels, is a very different country to our own politically...I'm always loathed to make comparisons between different countries as easily as Nick Cohen does, it doesn't offer any relevance to ourselves and our own unique situation.

Which is all AV deserves because no one in their hearts believes it is the best or fairest way to produce a government, least of all the constitutional reformers behind the “yes” campaign?

So back to the New Zealand issue here, they were offered several good systems and definitely didn't back the worst of those. This was after a referendum that simply asked if people wanted to move away from FPTP.

Have we been asked this? No. Our referendum is unfortunately two questions in one. Some can interpret it as "Do we want to move away from FPTP" and others "Do we want to move to AV". The question specifically asks the latter, but it is the former that will be in reformers minds.

People like myself, who would prefer more proportional representation in our parliament, know that reporters like Nick Cohen...as he has evidenced in this article...will spin from a "No" result. While he talks here about the AV question, it is the "Keep FPTP" answer that will be the headline.

Does AV deserve to be dismissed when compared only to other more proportional systems? Yes, absolutely. Does it deserve to be dismissed when put up against FPTP, a non-preferential and non-proportional system that is clearly worse than AV in every way other than in terms of absolute simplicity and logistics (two arguments that we should be EXTREMELY worried to be included in the debate about our democracy)?

No, it most certainly deserves to be heard...

They believe, as I believe, that the fault with first-past-the-post is that it produces governments with large majorities on a minority of the popular the vote.

This is part of what we believe.

AV does not solve that the problem because it is not proportional.

On a national level it is certainly not proportional. On a local level it is more proportional...or as more appropriately described, it contains a fuller level of opinion from constituents to form a more representative outcome than under FPTP. Indeed AV, on a single member constituency level, is almost the best system for ensuring representative democracy is accurate.

Indeed in some circumstances, it makes unrepresentative governments more powerful.

Now Nick here is mixing up terms. Notice how suddenly he uses the term unrepresentative governments, a term that is only accurate if using the FPTP form of the term? Previously it was about proportionality.

There is no denying proportionality is out of the window with both AV and FPTP, except by pure chance. But this is due to our system of one MP per one constituency. We are not voting for a proportional make up of the House of Commons...it is impossible to guarantee or ensure such a thing with a simple one MP/one constituency system!

But AV would make it as representative a parliament, and therefore government, as could be under this single member constituency environment. Each constituency will have guaranteed the MP they sent to parliament has their explicit support, that the MP definitely represents the type of politician that the constituents wish to have.

And let's not even get in to the idea of representative governments being tosh, I can only assume Nick here has mixed up his terms by accident, because unless a government is made up of all different parties elected in their proportion of the vote...most likely becoming paralysed in the process, then government itself will never be truly representative anyway!

To understand how imagine a popular party leader heading for a resounding victory. It is not just the people who vote for his party who quite like the look of him. Many of those voting for rival parties will have soaked up the mood of the times. They too will see his appeal and under AV will be able to give him their second preferences, and deliver more seats to his party.

And here's that "what are MPs elected for" problem highlighted again. This referendum only allows us to choose between two single member constituency systems...the idea of the make up of parliament being fair or proportional flew out of the window with that question being affirmed.

If a party leader sails to a resounding victory, picking up extra seats because of second preferences, it's because we're forced to keep to a system that means we're technically not electing a party to rule us, but an MP to represent us. If 600 constituencies under AV decide that they would prefer a Tory MP (after preferences) more than any other MP, that would be a massive majority of Tories in parliament. It's most likely not proportional (based on first preferences alone) but it is what each constituency has, by majority, decided they want for their parliament.

This is not unrepresentative, far from it, it is the country saying that based on initial opinion, and the prospect of other MPs that they don't like...these are the MPs each section of our country want to be in power.

This was precisely the position Tony Blair found himself in 1997. Lord Jenkins in his report on electoral reform in 1998 concluded that far from making the 1997 Parliament more representative, AV would have “swollen the already sizeable Labour majority”.

However, as Labour popularity waned that swell may have deflated much quicker than under FPTP, the people may have got a sooner chance to get rid of Labour. Alternatively it may be the case that at the 2010 election most of the population were still Left leaning (this is my belief) and that Labour wouldn't have lost power due to more people having a greater say over exactly which MP they prefer over the others, without votes being split unfairly due to simple geographical statistics.

‘A 'best guess' projection of the shape of the current Parliament under AV suggests on one highly reputable estimate the following outcome with the actual FPTP figures given in brackets after the projected figures: Labour 452 (419), Conservative 96 (165), Liberal Democrats 82 (46), others 29 (29). The overall Labour majority could thus have risen from 169 to 245. On another equally reputable estimate the figures are given as Labour 436, Conservatives 110, Liberal Democrats 84 and others 29, an overall majority this time of 213. On either basis an injustice to the Liberal Democrats would have been nearly two-thirds corrected (their strictly proportional entitlement was 111 seats) but at the price of a still greater injustice to the Conservatives.’

Injustice, how it can even be said to be injustice while comparing the purpose of single member constituency voting systems to proportional outcomes is laughable. There is no injustice is Tories being unpopular over-all in a constituency by constituency basis therefore being appropriately under-represented in parliament.

The injustice right now is that a Tory, Labour or Lib Dem MP can hold less than 50% support, meaning that over half the constituency actively LOATHE that MP, yet still get in to power....yet that this is being paraded as a virtue of our current system over AV.

Remember, this is about voter opinion forming a more representative outcome in their constituency...we have no option in this referendum to guarantee proportionality either way.

There were other problems too – Tories in Scotland and socialists in Surrey would still have wasted their votes under AV

An absolute lie here again. But then I guess it's how you define a "Tory" isn't it? To Nick it would appear that Tories are people that would only vote Tory, the Tory party members themselves. What about those voters who would prefer a Tory style MP in their constituency but currently know that their vote for a Tory would be lost under FPTP? Perhaps those Tory supporters still vote Tory, but in doing so they split the vote.

Take, for example, Stirling

It used to be Tory once upon a time, but is no longer. Labour won the vote, but without an absolute majority. Do the Tories there want Labour to win, or would they prefer the SNP? Under FPTP their opinion on what they prefer doesn't matter. Under AV, those Tories may want to give Labour a bloody nose and give their preference to the SNP who they'd prefer over Labour. If they did so (with some help also from the Lib Dems) the SNP could have taken the seat, further helping any chance of a national Tory majority.

Now, tell me again...which system out of FPTP or AV leaves a Tory voice wasted?

– but let us stay with Lord Jenkins’ objection and relish the hypocrisy of the “Yes” campaign.

Much as I have been relishing in the out and out lies and misrepresentation by Nick Cohen (shared by the No campaign)....

We now have supposed constitutional reformers lobbying for a change to the electoral system that can exacerbate the worst features of the old regime they claim to oppose.

The system is not proportional as it stands. If we remain with FPTP then geographical chance can lead to the same disproportionate results that Nick claims AV can result in. You cannot make an argument one way or another...either as a Yes or No campaigner...about proportionality while the question is what it is.

What we constitutional reformers can hope for is a greater voice for the electorate, with our wider opinions making a difference even if our first choice isn't popular. Is it really a hypocritical and ridiculous thing to wish for more power to the people?

They know this. They have read the Electoral Reform Society’s pamphlets and argued at meetings in draughty halls about the virtues and vices of various electoral changes. Yet they persist in recommending that the public vote “yes” for a system which Nick Clegg once described as “"a miserable little compromise”.

Because miserable little compromise or not, it's still a step towards a greater voice to us, the voters, in forging for ourselves a representative parliament that we each, individually as constituencies, can be happy with.

Eventually, even the nodding dogs of the BBC are going to have to ask them why they are abandoning principles they have supported for decades, and recommending that voters support a system they once opposed.

More two dimensional, overly black and white misrepresentation. Am I abandoning my principles? How can I abandon my principles when the only options I've been given are between two potentially disproportional systems? None of us in the Yes camp are saying "Well actually we now believe AV is the best system around", it's a complete fabrication and an insult for Nick to paint us in this image.

We have a question before us, we have an opinion on which is the best answer...and that answer is Yes. Our principles are still here, we want greater power to voters, AV delivers that, it doesn't abandon it.

I have heard only two honest answers, which both reek of desperation. The first is that any change is better than no change

It's desperation to make positive steps forwards? Perhaps we should tell that to homosexuals that have the right to civil partnerships, and the benefits that come along with that union, without still having (disgracefully) the right to marry? Is it desperation that we at least support this interim step?

even if it is a change for the worse.

...When looking at only ONE aspect of the change, and then assuming a whole scenario that may or may not change in the future. Isn't it funny that Nick can describe this as a change for the worse when a change in public opinion in 5, 10 or 15 years time could suddenly mean FPTP is the system delivering bloated majorities?

The second is that AV referendum was all Cameron would offer the wretched Clegg, and they are stuck with it.

Are we not stuck with the question we've got? Does being stuck with the question change our ability to objectively work out for ourselves what the best answer is?

Nick insults the Yes campaign here by misrepresenting our arguments, putting words in our mouths and then lying through absence of the complete picture.

The moment of danger for the “Yes” campaign will not come when old Labour MPs announce their support for the status quo, but when journalists start exposing the fraught and insincere arguments of the supporters of “reform”.

I can only hope that journalists leading up to May have more integrity to report the full facts about the referendum question and it's two systems, rather than the strawman laden hatchet job Nick Cohen has written here.