I’ve yet to see one person describe to me how a failure to get AV will result in AV+ or more proportional voting systems, when both Labour and the Tories, the two biggest parties in parliament, stand against such reforms for the House of Commons.

I happen to prefer AV to PR.

How should I vote?

AFZ

To draw a distinction between AV and FPTP on the basis that one ‘offers more choice’ is to misunderstand how voting systems work. Both AV and FPTP make it equally hard for new and minority parties to get represented in parliament. Both reinforce the Labour-Conservative duopoly. Any semblance of extra choice offered by AV is an illusion – one of the two big parties will get your vote in the end.

The real change to how we are represented in this country has already gained royal assent in the form of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 2010-11 which has reduced the number of sitting MPs to the lowest level since 1800 when the population of the UK was barely 10 million people.

This decision was made swiftly by the political class after the expenses scandal to reduce representation, increase centralisation and tighten the stranglehold in which the Westminster elite have the whole country. Democratic accountability has been stripped from us by this bill with no whiff of a referendum.

Instead, we get to vote on how many boxes we tick on election day.

The AV referendum should get the minuscule turn out it deserves. Stay home on referendum day.

Yes to all of this. And to AV, of course.

If AV is voted down then supporters of FPTP will be saying for the next several decades that the public have shown they have no desire for change and that the current system now has a proven democratic mandate. FPTP will not just be retained but strengthened (perhaps permanently) by a no vote.

That’s a strong reason for anyone who opposes FPTP, and who wants to see the thoroughgoing constitutional reform that Britain needs, to regard victory in the AV referendum as a crucial first battle in a long-term effort.

A popular and smooth transition to a new system of voting would hopefully bring other and better reforms into the realm of the thinkable and the possible. The status quo camp will find it much harder to peddle their already piss-weak arguments about how its all too difficult, all too costly, and how the old system has served us pretty well up til now (translation: the old system has existed for a long time, irrespective of its lack of merits), and so on, and so on.

People on the left understand that our voting system is not amongst the more fundamental reasons why public policy all too often serves the interests of power rather than those of ordinary people. But our antiquated constitution is a contributory factor in the effective exclusion of the public from national decision-making, and the referendum provides a chance for us to knock a small but important chunk out of the edifice. Why not take it?

3. Except in areas where Red or Blue get the vote despite more people backing Yellow, or Green even in some areas. AV is about local choice, and the whole argument of Tories or Labour doesn’t actually ring true in that scenario.

It’s very simple. A defeat for AV is a win for the status quo. You can then come back in 5 years with a referendum for PR, arguing that the status quo still isn’t working.

If you win, you can’t come back with a PR referendum for at least 10-15 years, as people will roll their eyes at being asked to change a system you had previously argued was fantastic. You will end up having to argue against AV, which you previously argued for.

I’m against AV by the way.

At the 2008 London Mayoral election I voted for Sian Berry as my first choice and Ken Livingstone as my second; I was able to support both without having to pick one over the other.

Only one person can be mayor. You have to choose. A voting system that allows people to vote for several people is nonsensical.

@2

If AV is your favourite system then vote for it this time round and then campaign against any future attempts to change it.

@7

“Only one person can be mayor. You have to choose. A voting system that allows people to vote for several people is nonsensical.”

So how is it that the mayoral electoral system still somehow managed to elect one person to be Mayor of London then? It couldn’t… it couldn’t be because it’s some how possible to have a voting system where you don’t just have to vote with an X could it? No, surely not. After all, such a system would be “nonsensical”.

“Only one person can be mayor. You have to choose. A voting system that allows people to vote for several people is nonsensical.”

Hardly. What Sunny did was basically say “if Sian Berry is running, I’ll vote for her, if she’s not I’ll vote for Ken”, it’s as legitimate a form of voting as tactical voting under FPTP, or voting for someone you don’t necessarily want as your 1st choice because they’re not standing under FPTP.

“You will end up having to argue against AV, which you previously argued for.”

And people arguing for AV will have to do so despite arguing against AV, for the most part. Though I don’t really see further electoral reform like this going down the route of a referendum if we’re talking about 5-20 year periods between change.

Hardly. What Sunny did was basically say “if Sian Berry is running, I’ll vote for her, if she’s not I’ll vote for Ken”

Or in other words:

“Who do you want to win?”
“The Greens!”
“Yes dear, very nice. Now who do you really want to win?”
“Labour”

I remember at the time of the Mayorals that I was astonished at how many people were saying that they’d put Ken as first preference as they didn’t want to risk a Boris win, but they’d put Lib Dem/Green as their second preference to show where their real support was. If ever there was a system that allowed you to use your primary vote as a futile gesture as, it’s the London Mayoral one.

This is roughly what my argument would be.

If the referendum on AV results in a ‘no’, then, whenever the question of electoral reform is raised again its opponents will be able to argue that the public is contented with FPTP and therefore is no reason to change.

A ‘no’ vote will make any further electoral reform less not more likely. And given the powerful forces lined up against it, is more likely to see the issue relegated to the fringes for a generation.

On the other hand if it is accepted, supporters of electoral reform will be able to argue that they regarded AV merely as a stopgap stepping stone to further reform. A compromise made neccesary by the expediences of coalition.

I’m reminded of the Australian referendum on whether they should become a republic. Despite there being a majority in favour of it according to polling, enough people voted against the system on offer for the referendum to be lost, claiming that they’d just wait for another referendum to get the system they wanted…and now, twelve years later they’re still not a republic, and there’s not been another referendum.

AV’s not my preferred system, either, but with a majority of the House of Commons against any form of electoral reform, it’s the best we’re going to get, and it’s better than being stuck with FPTP for the rest of my life.

“Only one person can be mayor. You have to choose. A voting system that allows people to vote for several people is nonsensical.”

It is really depressing that some people can be so obtuse. Expressing a first preference and then a second preference is not “voting for several people”, it is voting for one person, but then transferring that vote if the first choice stands no chance. If you ask for egg on toast but the cafe has run out of eggs, you might say well in that case I’ll have beans on toast. You’ve still only had the one snack.

At the end of the day the following will happen:

The whole News International press will declare the public fight for traditional british values and to keep FPTP.
The Tories will declare it as a vindication of their direction and that they’re right to keep such a “sacred” system
Labour, who don’t want PR, will also say it shows the public don’t have an appetite to move away from FPTP
When the subject comes up any time in the near future the government of the time will use the existence of the referendum to prove a lack of a need for another that they feel they may lose (see EU referendum)

Again, I invite anyone to let us all know how the above leads to PR or AV+.

“Or in other words:

“Who do you want to win?”
“The Greens!”
“Yes dear, very nice. Now who do you really want to win?”
“Labour””

Not at all, the opposite in fact.

I suspect that the only way PR is going to end up voted on in Parliament – win or lose the referendum – is if a party manages to get a majority government despite being behind in the popular vote, or a similar result that is not only disproportional but in the “wrong” order. (As might, if the 2010 election had worked out slightly differently and the Lib Dem’s boost held up, have happened with Labour getting the most seats from third in the popular vote)

There’s probably not a lot of difference between AV and FPTP for that likelihood: it really depends on either the Lib Dems recovering or another party partly or completely replacing them as the third party.

“If ever there was a system that allowed you to use your primary vote as a futile gesture as, it’s the London Mayoral one.”

Not necessarily futile. It allows the minor party to see how much support it really has, and where that support is to be found. It might then, if it persuades enough people, increase its support over time. Under the present system that you cannot know whether your first choice is futile, you have to make a guess on the basis of previous results in that constituency and how you think everyone else might vote. Under AV that guesswork is taken away and you can vote as you really feel, without the danger of “letting in” the candidate you least prefer.

Of course the fact that some people voted Labour 1, Green 2 in the mayoral election, rather than the other way round as Sunny and I did, just goes to show that many people failed to understand how the system works. One hopes that situation would improve over time.

The difference between Medicare and electoral reform is that health reform CAN develop incrementally where electoral reform cannot: if you change the system once – to AV – you won’t be able to change it again anytime soon. People need healthcare all the time but we only generally have two elections in a decade.

On the other hand AV has to be an improvement over FPTP so if its the only offer on the table we should take it.

cim: In 1951 Labour got most votes, Tories won overall majority. In February 1974 Tories got most votes, Labour got most seats. Nobody seemed to think it in the slightest bit odd or undemocratic.

@15

I think you overestimate the power of the News International press. I suspect the murdoch press may well get egg on it’s face if it decides to back to anti side.

I think the pro electoral reform camp have one big advantage on their side. Which is the appearance of being anti-establishment. And given how discredited the political establishment is at present that is a big bonus.

On the other hand the anti camp, look and sound like defenders of power and political machines (which of course they are).

Which possibly explains why most opinion polls show the pro voting reform side ahead by a sizeable margin.

I can understand that some people would not want to support AV because it’s not proportional. But I can’t understand why they would then affiliate to the No campaign which is stuffed with people who think any electoral system other than FPTP is the work of the devil.

(For clarification I’m for AV and against PR)

Jonathan Phillips: True, but not by much in either case. 1951 was a very narrow margin in terms of votes, and in Feb 1974 it was a hung parliament and Heath with the higher popular vote who had first go at forming a new government. And again, narrow margin. I’m thinking of something considerably more obvious than that.

Labour could have – under other circumstances – have got the most seats despite being seven or eight points behind the Tories, rather than a fraction of a point. I think that would have made demands for PR much stronger (perhaps even from the Tories).

Lee Griffin @ 1

If “Labour and the Tories, the two biggest parties in parliament, stand against such reforms for the House of Common” then how will AV lead to PR?

Where is the evidence that AV leads to PR? There is none. Is there evidence that AV can lead back to FPTP? Yes, there is some, particularly when there are vested interests who are against any reform (Lee’s premise). So, if we vote for AV we get AV. Or put it another way, if we get AV we get another disproportional system that does nothing for greater plurality.

So how do we get PR from a failure of AV? Because the electoral reform movement will continue to push for STV for HOL or even better local elections (it will be easier to obtain and will not involve compromise – why? because STV is already used for locals in NI and Scotland). Once STV is being used by all the UK electorate for meaningful elections then if it is popular it will be seen to be superior to FPTP and demand will grow. Polls already show PR is far more popular than AV.

So, what’s the worst thing you can do now? Vote in AV and let the vested interests say “That’s it, we’ve done reform”. AV is the last chance TO KEEP a non-proportional and majoritarian system at Westminster.

The difference between Medicare and electoral reform is that health reform CAN develop incrementally where electoral reform cannot:

Arguing that you can progressively change an electoral system is pretty similar to suggesting you could progressively change which side of the road to drive on.

Some things can be done incrementally, where doing half the job gets you half the job done. Others can’t.

Yep, you’re right Sunny.

This is covered by the old proverb “making the best the enemy of the good”.

Barry@7:

I think you have the rights of it more than anyone else so far.

Here are the scenarios:

1) AV passes. Even when it becomes apparent in pretty short order that it’s no fairer or representative than First At The Trough, those in whose interests it lies to keep a disproportionate system will be able to say, “But we had a referendum in 2011! It’s the ‘settled will of the British people!’”. In this way, they’ll be able to go around stirring up apathy. Like with devolution, it would be twenty years or more before there could be another vote.

2) AV fails. Over a period of another five years or so, the unsustainability of FPTP becomes even more obvious than it is now, leading to an even greater rejection of the electoral process and even smaller turnouts. The pols would then have to act simply in order to protect their own delusions of legitimacy or relevance. AV having failed, PR would be the only choice they could offer.

There’s a fourth option which hasn’t been raised here so far, after voting ‘Yes’, voting ‘No’ or not bothering to vote at all. That’s the option which I intend taking. Namely, voting but (and for the first time in thirty years) deliberately ‘spoiling’ my paper with the words, “Give me a real choice – P.R. now!”. I would encourage anyone who doesn’t want either of the choices on offer to do the same – they will have to enumerate the ‘spoiled’ papers and that will give some indication of the demand for a real change.

The argument I have against electoral reform is that the brown shirts already have what they want. Namely, the reduction of seats in Parliament and a good deal of gerrymandering which the stupid Lie Dems have given them on a silver platter. No referendum for what they wanted

I believe the Av vote will be lost because the brown shirt tabloids will fire up their base to vote against, and many Labour voters will stay at home because they don’t give a toss. Net result will be that the Lie Dems will have made it much easier for the tories to win outright next time

@27

I’m sorry but I think you being very naive if you believe that will happen. It simply won’t happen like that in the real world. At least not possibly for decades if ever.

In reality, the antis will use a no vote as “proof” that FPTP has a democratic mandate (yes we understand the flaws of that argument, but it won’t stop them from using it) And every time in the future anyone brings up the question of electoral reform they will say “well FPTP was endorsed by a referendum”.

A no vote will give FPTP a spurious legitimacy which it did not have before, and thus will be firmly entrenched for probably another generation.

AV may not be perfect but unfortunately it is all that is presently on offer.
AV may not be perfect

The history of liberal democracy is the history of keeping apparent power in the hands of the political elite, keeping real power in the hands of big corporations, bankers, landowners, owners of capital and speculators the elite front for, and keeping ordinary people out of power at all times.

So AV, FPTP – what’s the difference?

“In 1951 Labour got most votes, Tories won overall majority. In February 1974 Tories got most votes, Labour got most seats. Nobody seemed to think it in the slightest bit odd or undemocratic.” (Jonathan Phillips)

Oh yes they did, maybe not in 1951 (probably nobody was alive to such issues then) but from the two 1974 elections onwards there was a huge boost in support for electoral reform, much of it from moderate Tories, a fact now completely forgotten. We had “Moggism-Levinism” in The Times – Rees-Mogg and Levin arguing week in and week out for PR. It built up a real head of steam in the mid 1970s. (I was on the Council of the Electoral Reform Society at the time and I remember for quite a while we had nearly as many Tories in active membership as Liberals. It was only after Mrs T and her far-right clique hijacked the Tory party that it began to die down.)

“A no vote will give FPTP a spurious legitimacy which it did not have before, and thus will be firmly entrenched for probably another generation.” (Graham)

I am inclined to agree with this. That’s why even if one might have preferred this referendum not to be happening, NOW THAT IT IS HAPPENING it behoves reformers of all stripes to get behind the yes campaign.

@3: Both AV and FPTP make it equally hard for new and minority parties to get represented in parliament.

I disagree. FPTP means that people don’t vote for minor parties in the first place because they think it’ll be a wasted vote. Under AV, a currently-minor party would probably get significantly more first preferences than under FPTP. Then, provided they are not actively disliked by many voters (as the BNP is), they can use the increased prominence to attempt to win seats, particularly where the sitting MP is unpopular, or in times when all the big parties are unpopular.

Indenpendents standing against unpopular sitting MPs will also gain, since the voters will no longer have to coordinate among themselves before the election on which candidate to unseat him. There’ll be more Tattons, Blaenau Gwents and Wyre Forests.

AV isn’t PR, of course, and the actual number of minor and independent MPs elected won’t have an enormous effect on parliamentary arithmetic, but I’d expect to see 5-15 in any parliament elected under AV.

@27,

I disagree with your argument that a win for AV would make another referendum on electoral reform more likely.

Why are we having this referendum now? Because it was the price the LDs could extract from the Tories for a coalition.

Similarly, a future referendum will happen when the conditions are right. The best condition is if no party has an overall majority and the LDs could for a coalition with either Lab or Con. AV is more likely to cause that outcome than FPTP, therefore AV is more likely than FPTP to lead to PR.

PR supporters, please don’t let the best be the enemy of the better.

Absolutely agreed, Sunny. Aside from anything else, having a referendum on PR shortly after a no vote on AV will look (however wrongly) like an attempt to force reform by asking the question over and over until you get the result you want.

The people who oppose AV because they prefer PR have their heads in the sand (unless they also think FPTP is better than AV, obviously). I lost a hell of a lot of respect for Caroline Lucas when she (presumably unintentionally) tried to sabotage the referendum by demanding that it include PR as an option. It’s seriously put me off voting for a party whose leader obviously doesn’t have a clue how this sort of thing works.

If you want PR, the question really boils down to: when is the soonest we might be able to secure a referendum on a proportional system such as STV.

Scenario 1: AV wins. Probably we won’t immediately see calls for PR, since this would make electoral reformers look obsessional, and it would be an uphill struggle to get the public back to the polls a second time to give “the right answer”. So that might be off the cards for 10-20 years. But at least, in the meantime, we have AV for the Commons, and PR for the Lords (as specified in the coalition agreement). We are also half-way to having STV for the Commons, by the way; this business about changing voting system being like changing which side of the road we drive on is bollocks. STV has two important differences over FPTP: preferential voting and multi-member constituencies. AV delivers the former, and leaves campaigners for electoral reform to win the argument for the latter.

Scenario 2: AV loses. The Lib Dems are weakened, potentially even leading to the coalition falling apart and an early election being called. It’s far from obvious who would win that election, but it’s quite possible it would be the Tories – whatever else you might think of Ed Miliband, it’s pretty clear that the public do not yet view him as a Prime Minister in waiting. In any case, if the Lib Dems suffer big losses at the next election, whenever it is, then where does the next impetus for PR come from, exactly? Labour has often flirted with the possibility, but every time a Labour majority government gets itself elected, for some curious reason they lose interest. Obviously it won’t come from the Tories. So do we then have to sit and twiddle our thumbs for 50 years or so, while the Greens make the same slow, arduous journey which the Liberals did for the last 50 years?

Personally, whilst there is no certainty to be had in either scenario, I think it much more likely that Scenario 1 produces the outcomes I want to see in terms of electoral reform.

The Electoral Reform Society has been campaigning for PR since 1884. In 2011, 127 years later, we get a referendum on changing the voting system. Does anyone really think that if we turn this down we’ll get another in the next 127 years?

By the way the changes from AV back to FPTP in the western provinces of Canada, were made because the politicians, not the voters, decided to change from FPTP to AV in the first place. When they found it didn’t do what they (the politicians) wanted, ie guaranteed a particular parties power, they (the politicians) changed it back to FPTP. At least if we, the voters, vote for AV the politicians will find it very difficult to change back without another referendum.