Why have the British rejected AV?

Denerick

I know the referendum hasn't occured yet, but I think its a foregone conclusion at this stage (68% against according to a guardian poll)

I know AV is a 'miserable little compromise' as Clegg put it, but its a lot better than first past the post. The Tories are opposing it because they will be the net losers, the Lib dems the net winners from such an electoral reform. It is understandable on a political level why each party would take the position they have.

What I don't understand is why so many Britons have bought into the tabloid hate fest concerning Nick Clegg, and all of the silly propaganda about the 250 million it would cost to implement the system (A spurious charge on its own right, but the image of a soldier and some rubbish about the Brits not being able to afford his medical treatment is utterly absurd and insults the intelligence of everyone on the planet for such a base act of political trollery)

AV is a step on the road to PR; a frustratingly fair system where seats are apportioned according to the actual votes that parties get. First past the post gives government majorities to parties with under 40% of the vote; a ridiclously undemocratic state of affairs, and something that needs to change. AV would even benefit smaller parties like the Greens or UKIP; which would certainly be a boon for those who prefer thoughtful engagement in their politics, not just partisan rancour.

In short, my opinion of the average person has plummeted even more in light of this. Only a couple of weeks ago the yes side were cruising to victory, but then the Tories and the far right start hammering home a load of lies and nonsense designed to exploit the innate stupidity of the average voter, as they attempt to understand the world around them.

Nodin

...fear of change, a crap campaign by the yes crowd, a more effective one by the 'no', and yes, confusing the issue and Clegg. Ye'd lose your faith in humanity.

And indeed, AV might not be great, but compared to the medieval stus quo monstrosity they have at the moment, its leaps and bounds ahead.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Completely agree. Utterly mad.

I have a feeling the voters in northern ireland will vote to change it. Maybe Scotland/Wales too - as they don't use fptp for assembly elections and realise the world wont fall apart without it.

Though of course the English population dwarfs them. I wish I was living in England or knew more English people to see what the objection to change is for rational people.

RDM_83 again

I don't understand is that the majority of the UK aren't conservative voters, and AV would benefit every other party apart from them, why doesn't this majority support it strongly? My theory is the

Media in the pocket of the Conservatives (that war with Sky never went far*)

And the fact that during the Labour terms reform never happened thus Labour voters may be suspicious (even with Millibands blessing to the project)

*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/03/rebekah-brooks-dinner-david-cameron?INTCMP=SRCH

View

Denerick wrote: »

What I don't understand is why so many Britons have bought into the tabloid hate fest concerning Nick Clegg, and all of the silly propaganda about the 250 million it would cost to implement the system (A spurious charge on its own right, but the image of a soldier and some rubbish about the Brits not being able to afford his medical treatment is utterly absurd and insults the intelligence of everyone on the planet for such a base act of political trollery)

Those are fairly tame claims in comparasion to some of the wilder stuff that gets trotted out in our referenda. And, which do influence some of the electorate...

A Dub in Glasgo

This thread will show you some of the ludicrous claims of he No side. As far as I know, the Yes side has never been in the lead never mind cruising to victory.

I will be voting Yes today

sarumite

Coz voting yes to AV means babies will die and soldiers will go into battle without proper equipment.....or so says the No campaign. I would compare the hyperbole used by the AV no campaign to that of the original Lisbon treaty no campaign telling me that the minimym wage would drop to below €3. FUD out trumps truth on too many occasions.

HivemindXX

Denerick wrote: »

What I don't understand is why so many Britons have bought into the tabloid hate fest concerning Nick Clegg

Whenever the fact free nature of the red tops is brought up people say "they are just a bit of a laugh, nobody takes them seriously". I'm convinced that people do believe what they read in them, especially if it confirms any opinions they already have.

hardCopy

HivemindXX wrote: »

Whenever the fact free nature of the red tops is brought up people say "they are just a bit of a laugh, nobody takes them seriously". I'm convinced that people do believe what they read in them, especially if it confirms any opinions they already have.

The people who buy them, believe them.

I've been living in the UK for a few months now and can't get over how much worse the tabloids are here than in Ireland, so overtly political it's ridiculous.

By the way, if there was any doubt about the Tories' motives, they don't even use FPTP for their own internal elections.

Can'tseeme

At first I was surprised at the polls coming through. I can't understand why they wouldn't won't a more progressive and fair form of democracy. But then again 80% of the British believe in paying for the establishment of the Royal family and all the bs that goes with it.

Fr Tod Umptious

Can'tseeme wrote: »

At first I was surprised at the polls coming through. I can't understand why they wouldn't won't a more progressive and fair form of democracy. But then again 80% of the British believe in paying for the establishment the Royal family and all the bs that goes with it.

Good post

Lets all lecture other countries about how their form of democracy is not fair enough.

Manic Moran

But then again 80% of the British believe in paying for the establishment of the Royal family and all the bs that goes with it.

One does not follow with the other. I'm a great fan of the transferrable vote, but I can also see the advantages to a monarchy.

I'd say the main reason for the lack of support for a change is that the British just don't see any particular reason for one. For all the failings, the current system (a) is one they're familiar with, and (b) in the final analysis, the UK is not exactly a third-world cesspool, but a first-world power, so the current system seems to be doing the job well enough.

NTM

Can'tseeme

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Good post

Lets all lecture other countries about how their form of democracy is not fair enough.

I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm giving my opinion on a political messageboard. :eek:

bmaxi

Could be because of the Coalition government. People are looking at the LibDems much as we looked at the Greens and as they are the ones most in favour, it can't be a good thing.

Batsy

Nodin wrote: »

...fear of change, a crap campaign by the yes crowd, a more effective one by the 'no', and yes, confusing the issue and Clegg. Ye'd lose your faith in humanity.

And indeed, AV might not be great, but compared to the medieval stus quo monstrosity they have at the moment, its leaps and bounds ahead.

If FPTP is so "medieval" why is it that 43 countries currently use that system and only two (Australia and Papua New Guinea) use AV?

A Dub in Glasgo

Batsy wrote: »

If FPTP is so "medieval" why is it that 43 countries currently use that system and only two (Australia and Papua New Guinea) use AV?

FPTP is great for a 2 party contest, not so democratic for more than 2 party contests. I have just came back from the polling station and I voted Yes to change although I am no great supporter of AV but it is better than FPTP

Can'tseeme

Batsy wrote: »

If FPTP is so "medieval" why is it that 43 countries currently use that system and only two (Australia and Papua New Guinea) use AV?

Power, that's why. The British labour party had said it was going to introduce this referendum years ago and shelved it because it didn't want to disturb their own strong position. The bigger traditional parties who have held power or strong opposition don't want to give any other parties a slice of the cake. Hence the only arguement used against it are weak arguments. Eg, it's too complicated for common folk or costs too much money. Were the real argument should be, which is the more democratic?

Manic Moran

Batsy wrote: »

If FPTP is so "medieval" why is it that 43 countries currently use that system and only two (Australia and Papua New Guinea) use AV?

It's starting to get some traction here in California. Most famously in the Oakland mayoral election in which the favorite, and first round leader, lost out to a relative lightweight in the second round. Other cities are starting to get a look in.

The "power" comment is probably apt. California has just gone to what they're terming an 's open primary' but which is in effect a once-transferable vote system. The established parties were not pleased, it was put on the ballot without asking them.

NTM

astrofool

Britains tend to like one party governments, rather than coalitions that are inevitable under more propportional systems.

OS119

astrofool wrote: »

Britains tend to like one party governments, rather than coalitions that are inevitable under more propportional systems.

i think there's an element of that, but i think two, much larger things have come into play:

firstly that, despite what they may say now, nobody campaigning for AV actually wants AV, they want something else, and they see AV as either a vanguard reform leading to much greater, much more attractive reform, or as a crude mechanism to get rid of the Tories. from what i can see, nobody seems to like the idea of something as crucial as the way our votes are counted being either 'just a starting point' or crudely partisan.

secondly that, whatever the proponants of AV say about AV changing the way we make governments, FPTP has delivered a result that has changed the way we make governments - we have the first peacetime coalition for 80-odd years! had there been a Labour/LibDem coalition, then i think the appetite amongst the public for voting reform would be far greater, but FPTP delivered what, it appears, the electorate wanted - Labour out, but no Conservative majority. its very difficult to argue that only AV can deliver what people actually want when FPTP demonstratably did so just a year ago.

my own view is that had a much more proportional system been on offer vs FPTP then people would be both more interested in the arguments and more likely to vote for it specifically - but the downfall of AV is that its too much of a compromise, and i don't think people want the way they elect governments to be a compromise.

Nodin

Batsy wrote: »

If FPTP is so "medieval"

..it is, as its not remotely representative.

Batsy wrote: »

why is it that 43 countries currently use that system ......

...presumably a legacy kept on by much the same reasons we're discussing in this thread

Batsy wrote: »

and only two (Australia and Papua New Guinea) use AV?

...out of approximately 80, who use some form of PR.

djpbarry

hardCopy wrote: »

I've been living in the UK for a few months now and can't get over how much worse the tabloids are here than in Ireland...

Aren’t they the same tabloids?

OS119 wrote: »

...the downfall of AV is that its too much of a compromise, and i don't think people want the way they elect governments to be a compromise.

I don’t think it’s that complicated, I think it’s simply a case of “it ain’t broken, so why we fixin’ it?” On top of that, the referendum descended into a Lib Dems v Tories slugging match, with Labour on the fence. In such a contest, the ‘Yes’ side never stood a chance. The merits or otherwise of AV had little to do with it (in my opinion).

Hayte

astrofool wrote: »

Britains tend to like one party governments, rather than coalitions that are inevitable under more propportional systems.

Not true. Most people don't understand what Alternative Vote and Proportional Representation is or how they work, so they believe what authority figures say about them. Which in the case of the the AV referendum is a rabid pack of lies.

mlumley

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'd say the main reason for the lack of support for a change is that the British just don't see any particular reason for one. For all the failings, the current system (a) is one they're familiar with, and (b) in the final analysis, the UK is not exactly a third-world cesspool, but a first-world power, so the current system seems to be doing the job well enough.


NTM

As an Englishman, I can tell you, you have just about got it right. We dont see the benifit of your 3rd choise getting the seat on a 4th count. One man, one vote, that has always been our motto.

djpbarry

mlumley wrote: »

We dont see the benifit of your 3rd choise getting the seat on a 4th count.

Is it better for your first choice to get the seat, even if the majority of people didn’t vote for him/her?

mlumley wrote: »

One man, one vote, that has always been our motto.

AV would not have changed that.

Solair

Nobody I have spoken to in Britain has the slightest idea what AV or PR is all about. Since they didn't understand it or see any reason for or against it, they voted No to preserve the status quo.

The campaign was abysmal, never mind bad!

Hayte

You have 5x parties.

Party A gets 30% of the vote
Party B gets 20%
Party C gets 20%
Party D gets 20%
Party E gets 10%

In FPTP, Party A wins despite only having support from 30% of the electorate. Now what happens when most of Party C, D and E supporters absolutely hate Party A and would rather have Party B if they couldn't have the one they voted for? Well thats too bad. 70% of the votes are wasted.

In AV, Party E is out and we go again with Party E votes reallocated to the voter's next preferences. Then the next party with the least votes gets eliminated and we go again with the loser's votes reallocated until one party gets more than 50% of the vote. This means:

a) voters *never* need to do tactical voting because their vote is never wasted.

b) For a party to win, they *must* have more than 50% of the electorate. This means you can't win by doing what Labour and the Tories have been doing for as long as I've been alive - appease ardent base, smear the other parties and win with a minority of the electorate who vote lockstep (Tory and Labour "lifers").

STV would be even better. You may not want either Party A or B to win, but if you truly despise Party A politics you can vote for your party anyway and if they don't win, you can still use your vote to make sure Party A doesn't get in.

Now thats something every Englishman can understand, because everyone has a party they DON'T want to get in.

OS119

djpbarry wrote: »

...AV would not have changed that.

thats not how it looks here. it very much appears that if you vote for whichever of the parties are the two front-runners you get one vote, but if you vote for the mirority parties like the BNP, or UKIP, or Greens who will get dismissed at the first hurdle, you get two votes - your first preference vote that goes into the political narrative, and then your vote that determines which of the two original front-runners wins the seat.

you don't, as with full PR, get the party you want, you just get an opportunity to vote for the winner.

its a silly system which is blatently only being 'offered' as a sop - that they don't really want - to the LibDems. its the Ginger step-child of voting reform and is being treated accordingly.

getz

mlumley wrote: »

As an Englishman, I can tell you, you have just about got it right. We dont see the benifit of your 3rd choise getting the seat on a 4th count. One man, one vote, that has always been our motto.

also as a englishman,i see it the same as you ,without doubt AV would bring more hung parliaments,its expensive [just the thing we need in this day and age] as well as some of the people who may be elected like the BNP,and the islamic parties,when elected ,would not be representing all their constituents only their own interests,the only countries that have AV is austraila smaller population and two banana republics,

dohouch

As a daily listener of Radio4, and daily scanner of the Guardian Online, what amazed me was the lack of interest/coverage of the topic. Would realy have expected the "liberal media" to campaign for a more European style electoral system.

Hayte

OS119 wrote: »

thats not how it looks here. it very much appears that if you vote for whichever of the parties are the two front-runners you get one vote, but if you vote for the mirority parties like the BNP, or UKIP, or Greens who will get dismissed at the first hurdle, you get two votes - your first preference vote that goes into the political narrative, and then your vote that determines which of the two original front-runners wins the seat.

you don't, as with full PR, get the party you want, you just get an opportunity to vote for the winner.

its a silly system which is blatently only being 'offered' as a sop - that they don't really want - to the LibDems. its the Ginger step-child of voting reform and is being treated accordingly.

In reality, the way constituancies are set up, it won't make all that much difference but its a step in the right direction.

DJCR

British Synicism

- It is very much seen as Nick Clegg trying to get more Lib Dem seats in the future. With Clegg Mania dead and a split Labour Party - the AV referendum had little or no chance.

Still quietly hoping that change happens though... however, I believe I am likely to be dissapointed!

HivemindXX

There was a pretty good discussion of this on a web page that I unfortunately couldn't find again to link here. On the false issue of AV meaning more than one vote I posted the following analogy in a comment.

In the pub it's your turn to get the drinks. Someone says I'll have a shot of tequila but if they don't have that I'll have vodka. You don't scream at them that you're not buying them two drinks when everyone else is just getting one do you?

AV or PR does not mean some people get more than one vote. If you think that you should educate yourself. It's not too expensive or too complicated as demonstrated by the fact it's used in internal party voting and various other types of election around the UK.

The only valid reason to oppose AV is that you prefer a strong overall majority to a coalition government. This means that a party that gets only 30% of the vote can win 60%+ of the seats which is effectively 100% of the government.

who the fug

Quiet happy that this has been booted into the long grass for a generation, the present system is quiet capable of expressing the wishes of the electorate.

Now to stop them reforming the House of Lords, we do not need another house of party hack beholden to party leaders

Cool Mo D

who the fug wrote: »

Quiet happy that this has been booted into the long grass for a generation, the present system is quiet capable of expressing the wishes of the electorate.

...Unless the electorate doesn't want to vote for Labour or the Tories of course.

mgmt

HivemindXX wrote: »

The only valid reason to oppose AV is that you prefer a strong overall majority to a coalition government. This means that a party that gets only 30% of the vote can win 60%+ of the seats which is effectively 100% of the government.

That is the best thing about FPTP. It gives strong governments. The PR-STV system we have is farcical. Take the last government (FF+Greens), the green party got about 4% of the vote, but got to have a disproportionate amount of influence on decision making. With FPTP you know what to expect with your vote.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

who the fug wrote: »

Quiet happy that this has been booted into the long grass for a generation, the present system is quiet capable of expressing the wishes of the electorate.

Now to stop them reforming the House of Lords, we do not need another house of party hack beholden to party leaders

Damn straight. Its should be abolished completely.

who the fug

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Damn straight. Its should be abolished completely.

then the mob in the lower house would be able to lock us up for 6 weeks at a whim

djpbarry

OS119 wrote: »

thats not how it looks here. it very much appears that if you vote for whichever of the parties are the two front-runners you get one vote, but if you vote for the mirority parties like the BNP, or UKIP, or Greens who will get dismissed at the first hurdle, you get two votes...

No, everyone gets one single transferable vote, hence the total number of votes remains constant at each round of counting. I agree that it’s a compromise system, but it’s still more representative than FPTP. There now follows a wonderful summation of the nonsense spouted by the ‘No’ side...

getz wrote: »

also as a englishman,i see it the same as you ,without doubt AV would bring more hung parliaments,its expensive [just the thing we need in this day and age] as well as some of the people who may be elected like the BNP,and the islamic parties,when elected ,would not be representing all their constituents only their own interests,the only countries that have AV is austraila smaller population and two banana republics,

Boulevardier

I dont think Clegg should ever have agreed to a referendum at all. The price of Lib Dem participation in Cameron's government should have been the outright introduction of AV. FPTP was never brought in by referendum, so why should AV be?

who the fug

Boulevardier wrote: »

I dont think Clegg should ever have agreed to a referendum at all. The price of Lib Dem participation in Cameron's government should have been the outright introduction of AV. FPTP was never brought in by referendum, so why should AV be?

So a minority party gets to change the voting system (which the people seem to be quiet happy with) without letting the electorate decide.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

who the fug wrote: »

So a minority party gets to change the voting system (which the people seem to be quiet happy with) without letting the electorate decide.

I'm in favour of AV or PR but I'm with you on this, the Lib Dems changing the system without consulting the electorate would have been wrong.

Batsy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

FPTP is great for a 2 party contest, not so democratic for more than 2 party contests. I have just came back from the polling station and I voted Yes to change although I am no great supporter of AV but it is better than FPTP

I voted NO. And I think we will win!

Counting starts at 4pm and I think the result will be announced at about 10pm.

Boulevardier

Thatcherism would never have been possible under AV or PR. I think any non-Tory who votes No should bear that in mind.

getz

djpbarry wrote: »

No, everyone gets one single transferable vote, hence the total number of votes remains constant at each round of counting. I agree that it’s a compromise system, but it’s still more representative than FPTP. There now follows a wonderful summation of the nonsense spouted by the ‘No’ side...

you think its great ? let the people show you how wrong you are.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

getz wrote: »

you think its great ? let the people show you how wrong you are.

The people could be misguided and wrong.

dan719

dohouch wrote: »

As a daily listener of Radio4, and daily scanner of the Guardian Online, what amazed me was the lack of interest/coverage of the topic. Would realy have expected the "liberal media" to campaign for a more European style electoral system.

The Guardian pushed hard for AV until the polls showed that it was simply not going to pass, and even amongst their readership support was small.

This is off the top of my head but AFAIK the most recent poll showed;

• Voters above 40 most strongly opposed AV and were most likely to vote
• It was split in the 25 to 39 catergory
• Most popular amongst 18-25 but these were least likely to vote
• 9 out of 10 tories supporters opposed AV
• 8 out of 10 lib dems supported it
• Less than 4 out of 10 Labour supporters intended to vote for AV

Once the writing was on the wall for the proposal, the Guardian not only stopped pushing for AV but rather passively opposed it. Yesterday an article was published 'Meh to AV'. It was on CIF and really emphasised the lack of knowledge on and desire to engage with the topic. I.e. it was a load of rubbish.


Off topic- I buy the Guardian everyday,but I feel it's moving away from it's claim to be the "world's leading liberal voice" and free from interference "when no-one owns you, no one controls what you say'. It's only in the last week or two, but I feel the quality of the CIF is seriously falling, and that is the paper's main attraction.

getz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The people could be misguided and wrong.

very good of you to explain that,i am one of them

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

getz wrote: »

very good of you to explain that,i am one of them

I'm not saying you're wrong I'm saying that 'Most people didn't want AV therefore its completely useless' is a poor argument.

who the fug

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The people could be misguided and wrong.

Are you Neil and Glynis Kinnock in disguise, look it was kicked in to touch , accept it and come back with something we will accept instead of whinging.

Or are you going to do a Kinnock feck off to Europe, become rich and then become a Lord.


funny that

Lord Kinnock, but no Lord Major

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

who the fug wrote: »

Are you Neil and Glynis Kinnock in disguise, look it was kicked in to touch , accept it and come back with something we will accept instead of whinging.

Or are you going to do a Kinnock feck off to Europe, become rich and then become a Lord.


funny that

Lord Kinnock, but no Lord Major

I'm no sure what this post is supposed to mean, but I'll take it I'm supposed to be offended.