tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post1287014450285720347..comments2023-06-29T12:07:43.973+01:00Comments on Program Your Own Mind 2: AV and 2005Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-53404208627013173162011-02-07T17:14:45.474+00:002011-02-07T17:14:45.474+00:00"The question here is not "If you had to..."The question here is not "If you had to choose, would you prefer a Labour or a Conservative government." I'm willing to accept that more people would have chosen Labour."<br /><br />Given the geography of 2005, that's precisely the question.<br /><br />"The question is rather, "would you prefer a Labour government with a larger majority?" I suspect the answer to that question would have been "No"."<br /><br />That's a question our voting systems on offer have no right to try and answer. We keep trying to mould the FPTP or AV model to be more proportionate in this way, to be fair...but it's impossible through anything other than fluke. Even if we are locally voting for our favourite national party of government, the limit of the system is only ever to return one MP.<br /><br />In a single member constituency system, we cannot talk about what people want or don't want in terms of parliamentary majorities, 1) because we have no power to control that and 2) because even analysising the vote shares of "first preferences" nationally, considering that there are a proportion of people that must take their local situation in to account and vote tactically, is a fools game.<br /><br />"The core of my objection to AV is that, all other things being equal, it exaggerates the binary effects of FPTP, mainly be reducing the geographical anomalies."<br /><br />It can exaggerate or lessen, dependent on geography. Nationally the "Exaggeration" is down to the interplay of different preferences from constituency to constituency, and how they balance out.<br /><br />"AV would, other things being equal, tend to exaggerate that effect."<br /><br />Except with a boundary review also on the way you can't know that and, if it were the case, it's still precisely the wishes of each local constituency and that is entirely fair and democratic.<br /><br />"The logical conclusion of "the greater will of the nation" is a one party state."<br /><br />If you want to take my meaning and bastardise it sure. My terminology is that each individual constituency states which MP they want, the truly popular get through, this is very representative democracy...it seems like your hatred of Labour is ultimately what drives you here.<br /><br />FPTP and AV are both nasty systems that propagate parties over policy, but to claim at all that AV isn't simply returning results that people actually want is wishful and arrogant thinking.<br /><br />Right now most constituencies in the UK most likely wanted a left-leaning economic recovery policy rather than the Tory right leaning one...yet due to vote splitting and lack of being able to co-ordinate a split leftist vote against an almost completely unitary rightist one we ended up the other way around. Under AV we'd have a government that represented the truest views of each constituency, or so it seems, without it we've got a government plan that potentially has less mandate than it's opposition version.<br /><br />It's this kind of reason why I'll always vote for AV over FPTP, because people's collective opinions should come first in any election.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-84342025538766836572011-02-07T11:28:23.387+00:002011-02-07T11:28:23.387+00:00"It'd be because that's what people w..."It'd be because that's what people wanted". Really?<br /><br />The question here is not "If you had to choose, would you prefer a Labour or a Conservative government." I'm willing to accept that more people would have chosen Labour.<br /><br />The question is rather, "would you prefer a Labour government with a larger majority?" I suspect the answer to that question would have been "No".<br /><br />The core of my objection to AV is that, all other things being equal, it exaggerates the binary effects of FPTP, mainly be reducing the geographical anomalies. In other words, at the present time there are seats where Labour votes pile up and seats where Conservative votes pile up, but more of the former; and there are seat where Labour squeak home and seats where Tories squeak home, but more of the latter. That's basically why FPTP, while it disadvantages the Tories under the present constituency spread, does so less than AV. For the past 20 years, the major beneficiary of FPTP has been Labour; AV would, other things being equal, tend to exaggerate that effect.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with what people really want. Or, if it does, it is so brutally majoritarian as to harm multi-party democracy. You write that "claiming this is proof of AV's failing, completely ignores the greater will of the nation". But the "greater will of the nation" is a concept usually advanced by dictators. The logical conclusion of "the greater will of the nation" is a one party state.<br /><br />To paraphrase Churchill, FPTP is the worst of all electoral systems, apart from AV.Heresiarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03515376670031027455noreply@blogger.com