It will be used as a referendum on the LibDems.

The question is: when they lose this referendum will the LibDems get the message?

On the face of it it looks like Labour voters are the problem – whoever becomes leader should make a pledge to support voting reform and decouple it from the issue of constiuencies…after all Labour supported AV during the election. Muddying the two issues risks losing our best chance to get rid of FPTP.

@2 – or voting reformers and Lib Dems could do more to reach out to Labour voters, e.g. by putting pressure on the coalition to have a separate vote on the boundary changes, attacking the Tories and showing that voting reform doesn’t have to mean permanent Lib/Tory coalition government.

Alternatively, the Yes campaign could try to get Tory voters to be more supportive of voting reform.

S. pill.
Labour voters are not the problem. AV is. It is a thoroughly bad system and one of the worst things Brown did to hang on to his job.
LibDems should not be surprised that Labour voters have turned against it and them. they kick us in the teeth then tell us we have to make more effort to smile brightly.

@3

Yep, I’d agree with that – but I reckon Labour voters will be more receptive to a Labour leader’s arguments as well.

@4

Why do you say AV is a “thoroughly bad system”? It’s not like FPTP is a shining beacon of democracy is it? I’m in favour of full PR myself but if we can get AV on the books then that’s a small step towards a properly functioning democracy.

PS
The other point to remember is that although the percentage of Liberals backing AV is unchanged, there are far fewer of them than there were a few months ago. So the Tory majority against is now a bigger share of the electorate and the Labour vote has gone up a lot too.
The Liberals won’t quit if the vote is No. They know that an early election would see them wiped out. Which would be a very good thing.

2 quick things Don:

1) does this necessarily show support for FPTP?

2) Can it take account for Labour’s tactical opposition to the bill?

[as a declaration of interest re:my comment @2 I should point out that I both voted Labour at the last election and support AV...]

“Why do you say AV is a “thoroughly bad system”? It’s not like FPTP is a shining beacon of democracy is it?”

Because AV can lead to even more disproportionate results. The Tories in 1997 and Labour in the 1980s would have got far fewer seats than they did under AV.

“Because AV can lead to even more disproportionate results.”

This is why the polls are turning, because Labour is quite handily spreading Tory bullshit.

“The question is: when they lose this referendum will the LibDems get the message?”

The question is, after people have used a chance to reform as a petty partisan swipe against a single party, will anyone in this country give a fuck about politics any more as they’re STILL forced in to larger constituencies and a higher likelihood of Tory majorities forever more?

Some of you on here just make politics so fucking stupid and counter-productive.

@9

Um, only assuming people will vote exactly the same under a different voting system. Evidence from other countries suggests not.

@9: Given that neither AV nor FPTP are designed as proportional voting systems, then comparing their proportionality is meaningless. Some years one will be better, some years the other will be.

Vote From Hat (VFH) is the only proportional voting system that works with single-seat constituencies and without “top-up” seats. I doubt anyone concerned about AV’s disproportionality will be suggesting VFH instead, however, because there are other properties besides proportionality that are important for a voting system to have.

It does amuse me that – simultaneously, though not usually by the same person – the arguments against AV are made that “it will lead to permanent coalition government” and “it’s even less proportional” (i.e. it magnifies landslides).

@12: Exactly. That’s a huge assumption to be making, and history shows it’s not actually true.

Some of us predicted this trend in polls quite some time ago.

Labour people don’t care about electoral reform. It just isn’t as important to them as things like the NHS, policing, schools, works programmes, the minimum wage, and so on.

So they were always likely to use a referendum for something more important than bringing in a rather weak change to the electoral system. And that more important thing is to strip the Lib Dems of the figleaf that allows them to accept the Tory whip and hurt the people of this country with a big push on a small state agenda.

The fact that the Tories have also stitched up the LibDems by attaching the referendum to other changes, some of which are just wrong, only makes that easier for Labour.

And on top of that the Lib Dems are making it worse by alienating Labour and the devolved parties by trying to get the vote held on the day of existing elections.

Frankly it is exactly what the Tories wanted and Labour have been saying the coalition deal is. A concession in name and name only.

The question is, after people have used a chance to reform as a petty partisan swipe against a single party

Agreed Lee – but unfortunately Labour voters are doing this without Labourites saying much on this issue for now. So it does look like its the way Libdems have presented this that is turning off Labour voters.

But also – I wonder if the decline in support has stabilised. The Yes campaign hasn’t kicked off yet. What also matters is how many pro-reform people are motivated to come out and vote

Worth remembering that undecideds usually vote ‘no’ in referendums.

Earth to Simon Hughes, Earth to Simon Hughes, we have a problem.

Could you wake up and smell the coffee before you give the tories the reduction in seats that they want, (without consulting the people in a referendum) and then, when the voting system is not changed the tories will be able to win without you or your idiot party.

@9: Because AV can lead to even more disproportionate results.

AV isn’t a proportional system and doesn’t pretend to be. What it is is a system that tries to elect the most-preferred candidate in a particular constituency. it might not be the best for this — arguably Condorcet or approval voting are better, but it is a big improvement on FPTP.

The Tories in 1997 and Labour in the 1980s would have got far fewer seats than they did under AV.

This would only happen when those parties are unpopular and thus don’t pick up many lower-preference votes. And to the extent that the voters don’t like a party, it’s surely reasonable that they do badly? For this reason, AV would be good in local govmt elections because the BNP would do worse.

The big advantage of AV, for supporters of PR, is it is a stepping stone on the road to it. If we get AV, supporters of parties that favour it can give their lower preference votes to other such parties, and if enough of us do this, we’ll get a majority for PR in the HoC. (Are there any psephological figures on what proportion of the electorate think PR is important?) The pro-PR parties could form a “PR alliance”, give it a logo and put the logo as part of their logos on the ballot papers for the next general election, to remind voters about this.

@14: Labour people don’t care about electoral reform. It just isn’t as important to them as things like the NHS, policing, schools, works programmes, the minimum wage, and so on.

Then they probably haven’t thought about the issue enough. The voting system controls who gets elected, which in turn controls the health system, the criminal justice system, the education system, and just about every other system. It is thus one system to rule them all.

@12 Mr S Pill: Um, only assuming people will vote exactly the same under a different voting system.

Indeed. Under AV, the Greens and UKIP would both see their vote increase, because voters will realise that it isn’t a wasted vote. Between them, minor parties would probably get about 20% of the vote in any constituency. And even if they don’t win, the winner knows that that’s what their constituents support and it’s bound to affect their behaviour in parliament.

Phil Hunt

I guess they could think more about it. They could look at AV and realise it makes coalition government more likely. They could then look at the present coalition and realise how terrible more of the same would be for policing, the NHS, education and the average working family. And they would then all vote no.

But actually I don’t buy into the “They disagree with me so they must be corrpt or stupid” attitude in political debate. They just don’t care, don’t think electoral reform makes much difference (and with this one it doesn’t) and think there are more important uses for their votes.

Much like the Lib Dems who thought Nuclear energy was fine and VAT should rise but voted Lib Dem because electoral reform was their biggest priority in politics. Prioritising is part of politics.

I’m sure there must be one or two of those.

@20: One of the interesting possibilities from this is that it – over a few election cycles – could actually make some of the currently ultra-safe seats less so.

If you get 60% Conservative vote in a constituency, then there’s probably room for a challenger from the right – UKIP, perhaps – to build up vote share over a few years and make the seat unsafe, in a way that wouldn’t be practical now. Similarly for a socialist party in some of the core Labour seats.

The effect of this would be to exert a decentralising force on the two big parties: at the moment the best strategy is to leave behind your base to grab swing voters, because you can still make a profit even if you lose almost twice as many base voters as you gain in swing voters. You have to appeal to fewer people. If you have a party threatening to both sides of you, then you have to appeal to both sides of your own party.

@18 AV isn’t a proportional system and doesn’t pretend to be. What it is is a system that tries to elect the most-preferred candidate in a particular constituency

Or, to be pedantic, the least-unpreferred candidate.

hello ive said this again and again both online and in the real world, most people who want electoral reform want a greater variety of voices in the parliament av would make make it harder for minorities to get elected. Most people who are against it are worried about minorities being elected who they regard as extremists. Other people dont care or even think about the issue but the above are the only arguments that have the potential to interest them. Id advise people to look at the australian lower house and note that under av it is dominated by big parties on a scale next to the usa. On a side note people who support electoral reform that i know eithers see av as a (i would think a risky stepping stone) or a deadend worse the fptp that we will be stuck with. Why have nt electoral reformers in the last few years hit on the rather obvious demand that westminser and local government have the same system as scotland and wales londonn. I mean we have ten years of expirence of how ti would work. peace james?

@24 (james?)

By “minorities” I assume you mean smaller parties rather than BAME candidates …

There is no strict reason why AV would give more or fewer seats to a small party than FPTP – it all depends on what peoples preferences are.

That said, I would estimate that small parties with more reasonable policies (lets say Green and Liberal for example) would do better under AV because you don’t have the “wasted vote” factor.

At the same time, extremist small parties (e.g. the BNP) would probably do worse under AV since they can’t benefit from a split vote across the other parties letting them in on a small percentage – they still need some small degree of approval from 50% of the valid ballots.

If people like FPTP so much, you can always just vote for AV and then only give one preference!

Their is evidence smaller parties would do worse under av, this is the opinion of some pollsters(including you gov) and is empiracally shown in the australian lower house. Smaller parties and independents will to win a seat have to get fifty per cent of the vote ie win second preferences off labour and consertive. Its hard enough to out poll these parties let alown get their second preferences. Plus you dont know whose second preferences your going to be courting a narrow second place victory can change the result radically. This forcing smaller parties and independents to act more like labour and consertive which undermines there own support bases and reasons for existing.

@21 Margin4Error: They could look at AV and realise it makes coalition government more likely.

Actually I think the effect would be marginal. AV would lead to the Lib Dems having more MPs, but not enormously more.

They could then look at the present coalition and realise how terrible more of the same would be for policing, the NHS, education and the average working family.

If anything, it would be the other way round. If the Lib Dems had won a few more seats, so they could have had a working majority with either Labour or the Tories, then they would have had a much better negotiating position and there would be less cuts, nor more.

They just don’t care, don’t think electoral reform makes much difference (and with this one it doesn’t) and think there are more important uses for their votes.

It’s May 2011 and you’re a voter in a polling booth. You’ve got two ballot papers in front of you: one for the referendum and the other for an English local or Scottish parliamentary election. Since you have a vote for the referendum, and you can only use your vote for that purpose, that’s what you have to vote on.

(It’s not like there are 10 referendums on the same day but you only have 5 votes and must decide which 5 to vote on — which would be an interesting system from a point of view of game theory, but probably not a very democratic or sensible one.)

Phil

I fear you may have missed my point.

The stuff about thinking more about AV and coming to the conclusion it would be bad for schools and hospitals was illustrative – not a prediction. My prediction is that those people won’t think about it because it isn’t important to them. The illustration was to point out that it is absurd to imagine that “People would see I’m right if they just thought about it/cared enough/were smart enough/etc” which is an attitude far too common in politics.

And in terms of having just one vote, it isn’t up to you what people choose to use their vote for. It is up to them. That’s democracy.

They have every right to choose (and many Labour people will) to express anger at, and to undermine the government. They might be less likely to do that if they cared about reform and cared less about the NHS, policing, schools, etc. But they don’t.