The AV referendum

[Lord Duckhunter]

You sir, are correct - ish. If you simply substitute the whittling down 'MP voting' rounds, for FPTP, but retain the 'membership' vote at the end, your spot on. However, if you replace all of the rounds including the 'membership' bit with FPTP, then Davis would have won. I guess it depends how you want to evaluate it...

 

Ho, hum, pretty irrelevent in the scheme of things.

 

What on earth are you on about?

 

Please explain how Davies would have won.

 

"replace all the rounds including the membership bit", what does that mean?

[Lord Duckhunter]

There were 198 MP's who voted.

 

There were 198,844 members who voted

 

Cameron won 134,446 of the members votes.

 

How would Davies have won if there was just one big FPTP election, bearing in mind that Davies won just 33 more votes in the first round. Unless you think that MP's alone should elect leaders. In that case Ed should stand aside for David.

 

Let's hope the rest of the voters aren't taken in with these lies as easily as you seem to be.

[trousers]

There were 198 MP's who voted.

 

There were 198,844 members who voted

 

Cameron won 134,446 of the members votes.

 

How would Davies have won if there was just one big FPTP election, bearing in mind that Davies won just 33 more votes in the first round. Unless you think that MP's alone should elect leaders. In that case Ed should stand aside for David.

 

Let's hope the rest of the voters aren't taken in with these lies as easily as you seem to be.

 

Fret ye not. Verbs has already assured us the British electorate aren't thick... ;-)

[Joensuu]

What on earth are you on about?

 

Please explain how Davies would have won.

 

"replace all the rounds including the membership bit", what does that mean?

 

It means, replace all of the rounds of voting (which for the Tory 2005 leadership election were: the first ballot (MPs only), the second ballot (MP only), and the popular vote (all members)) with a straight FPTP vote (i.e. just with the results of the first ballot).

 

It's basically just semantics. Both views are correct depending upon which rounds of voting you consider replacing with FPTP. If FPTP were to replace just the intial MP only ballots, you'd be correct; however if FPTP were to replace all three rounds, you'd be incorrect. As such, neither argument is incorrect, which invariably means that the point will both stand, but yet be debated, for as long as there is political capital to be made from it.

 

Personally, I couldn't care either way, it's a minor point, that is at best only milding embarrassing for Cameron, and a worst a complete deviation from the real debate. Still, to emphatically say that FPTP definately would or wouldn't have elected Davis would be incorrect - it depends upon the interpretation.

Edited 27 April, 2011 by Joensuu

[Joensuu]

There were 198 MP's who voted.

 

There were 198,844 members who voted

 

Cameron won 134,446 of the members votes.

 

How would Davies have won if there was just one big FPTP election, bearing in mind that Davies won just 33 more votes in the first round. Unless you think that MP's alone should elect leaders. In that case Ed should stand aside for David.

 

Let's hope the rest of the voters aren't taken in with these lies as easily as you seem to be.

 

See above, and if you still don't undertand try google.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

It's basically just semantics. Both views are correct depending upon which rounds of voting you consider replacing with FPTP. FPTP were to replace just the intial MP only ballots, you'd be correct; however if FPTP were to replace all three rounds, you'd be incorrect.

 

 

 

I still cant understand how you can fail to grasp the facts.

 

Cameron won the only members vote by over 60,000 and only lost the first MP's votes by 33, how on earth would Davies have won one big FPTP election?

[Joensuu]

I still cant understand how you can fail to grasp the facts.

 

Cameron won the only members vote by over 60,000 and only lost the first MP's votes by 33, how on earth would Davies have won one big FPTP election?

Sorry Lord D, I don't think I can explain it any more simply. Have another gander at my above response. Seems to me your too focused on the membership vote, forget about that round and you might understand.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Sorry Lord D, I don't think I can explain it any more simply. Have another gander at my above response. Seems to me your too focused on the membership vote, forget about that round and you might understand.

 

I understand what you’re saying now.

 

If you reduce the electorate to 198 and discount 198,000 of the votes and then run it as FPTP then Davies would have won. If you did the same with the Labour Party then David Milliband would have won.

 

 

One of the reasons I am against AV is, if you reduced the vote in Barking to 198 white racists and then ran the election on an AV basis, Nick Griffin would have won the seat.

[Joensuu]

You're not very good at playing dumb.

[scotty]

I understand what you’re saying now.

 

If you reduce the electorate to 198 and discount 198,000 of the votes and then run it as FPTP then Davies would have won. If you did the same with the Labour Party then David Milliband would have won.

 

One of the reasons I am against AV is, if you reduced the vote in Barking to 198 white racists and then ran the election on an AV basis, Nick Griffin would have won the seat.

 

I detest the bnp, but paradoxically thats the reason I'll be voting yes. If, say, 1% of the population share their views then that 1% should be represented in parliament. And if you go into the polling booth knowing that your preferred mp hasnt a snowballs chance in hell of winning the seat in your constituency, you ought to be able to vote for them as your first choice, but give an element of support to another candidate that does have a chance of being elected. And the av system would probably increase the number of people voting for who they genuinely want rather than picking from the candidates who actually have a chance of winning, while still having some sort of voice in the election. That would leave a wider field as people would realise that a vote for a smaller party would not be wasted, hence the smaller parties like the greens and ukip would therefore have more hope of being elected by the voters that support their views. I also dont think its a bad idea for every mp to need some level of approval from at least half of the people they represent.

[badgerx16]

I also dont think its a bad idea for every mp to need some level of approval from at least half of the people they represent.

There is no MP at Westminster who won 50% of the electoral potential in their constituency at the last election. 433 did not achieve 50% of the votes actually cast, and 53% of the votes cast were for a 'losing' candidate, ( courtesy of the Electoral Reform Society: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/ERS%20General%20election%20facts+figs%20booklet.pdf ).

Edited 27 April, 2011 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

If you look at the last election and divide the number of MP for each party by the number of votes cast nationally for that party you find that the Tories needed 34995 votes for each House of Commons seat, Labour needed 33345, the LDs needed 119795, and the Greens 285616. ( same source as above ).

Edited 27 April, 2011 by badgerx16

[Verbal]

I detest the bnp, but paradoxically thats the reason I'll be voting yes.

 

It's not a paradox at all, just simple logic. The overwhelming reason people give for supporting the BNP is their feeling of disengagement and disillusion from the political process - and FPTP is fatally implicated in this. It's actually why the BNP opposes AV - they WANT a corrupt and broken system that disenfranchises people to continue, because that's the core of their 'protest' support.

 

A more representative form of democracy at the ballot box would diminish support for the BNP and other extremists - and they damned well know it.

 

So contrary to the scaremongers in the No campaign, the BNP would struggle to get a look-in in AV. Vote for AV; vote against extremists. (And also, unlike the No campaign, actually do something radical - trust the electorate.)

[trousers]

A more representative form of democracy at the ballot box would diminish support for the BNP and other extremists - and they damned well know it.

 

Would the same apply for a truely proportional system such as PR? (which AV is apparently just a stepping stone towards....)

 

Wouldn't true PR actually encourage more people to vote for these 'vulgar' minority in the knowledge that every vote truely counts? (I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, just highlighting what I perceive to be an apparent dichotomy between AV ("keeps nasty minority parties at bay") and PR ("allows every vote for nasty minority parties to count")

Edited 27 April, 2011 by trousers

[scotty]

There is no MP at Westminster who won 50% of the electoral potential in their constituency at the last election. 433 did not achieve 50% of the votes actually cast, and 53% of the votes cast were for a 'losing' candidate, ( courtesy of the Electoral Reform Society: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/ERS%20General%20election%20facts+figs%20booklet.pdf ).

 

But thats the whole point. I meant that under av, they would have to achieve a level of approval of half their constituents, not necessarily as their first choice of representative.

[scotty]

It's not a paradox at all, just simple logic. The overwhelming reason people give for supporting the BNP is their feeling of disengagement and disillusion from the political process - and FPTP is fatally implicated in this. It's actually why the BNP opposes AV - they WANT a corrupt and broken system that disenfranchises people to continue, because that's the core of their 'protest' support.

 

A more representative form of democracy at the ballot box would diminish support for the BNP and other extremists - and they damned well know it.

 

So contrary to the scaremongers in the No campaign, the BNP would struggle to get a look-in in AV. Vote for AV; vote against extremists. (And also, unlike the No campaign, actually do something radical - trust the electorate.)

 

I disagree with this notion, and possibly the bnp was a poor example, but how many more people would have voted ukip if their secondary preference would have been taken into account in the event of no candidate getting 50%? Or the greens? What I'm suggesting is that we could vote for whoever we genuinely wanted as a representative in parliament, but without the knowledge that our vote was utterly wasted and our wishes ignored.

[Verbal]

I disagree with this notion, and possibly the bnp was a poor example, but how many more people would have voted ukip if their secondary preference would have been taken into account in the event of no candidate getting 50%? Or the greens? What I'm suggesting is that we could vote for whoever we genuinely wanted as a representative in parliament, but without the knowledge that our vote was utterly wasted and our wishes ignored.

 

My point is that with the electorate's greater engagement in the political process, the noddy parties like UKIP and the BNP, who have ALWAYS been little more than vehicles for protest votes, would fall away.

Edited 27 April, 2011 by Verbal

[Saintandy666]

http://joerantsalot.tumblr.com/post/4992417657/debunking-myths-of-the-alternative-vote

 

Great blog here on the myths of AV!

[Jonnyboy]

I shall be voting YES.

[Whitey Grandad]

I shall be voting YES.

 

And for your second choice?

[trousers]

My point is that with the electorate's greater engagement in the political process, the noddy parties like UKIP and the BNP, who have ALWAYS been little more than vehicles for protest votes, would fall away.

 

It's a reasonable hypothesis but how can we be absolutely sure of that?

 

How do we know it won't actually galvanise the support of minority parties in the knowledge that their vote is no longer wasted? (I'm talking about true PR here, not it's miserable little compromise)

 

Are there any stats we can unpick from other countries who have moved from one system to another?

[trousers]

And for your second choice?

 

Made me chuckle :-)

[CB Fry]

I understand what you’re saying now.

 

If you reduce the electorate to 198 and discount 198,000 of the votes and then run it as FPTP then Davies would have won. If you did the same with the Labour Party then David Milliband would have won.

 

 

One of the reasons I am against AV is, if you reduced the vote in Barking to 198 white racists and then ran the election on an AV basis, Nick Griffin would have won the seat.

 

 

The only "reduction" that went on in that leadership election was a reduction in the candidates. They were whittled down using a AV system.

 

I am assuming you are not thick enough to describe that Cameron v Davies run-off as "first past the post" but no doubt you can still surprise me.

[trousers]

The only "reduction" that went on in that leadership election was a reduction in the candidates. They were whittled down using a AV system.

 

I am assuming you are not thick enough to describe that Cameron v Davies run-off as "first past the post" but no doubt you can still surprise me.

 

I believe he's simply saying that had all the candidates been voted for by the members in a FPTP vote then Cameron would still have won.

 

The whittling down process amongst the MPs simply delayed the inevitable result.

 

I think.

[Verbal]

It's a reasonable hypothesis but how can we be absolutely sure of that?

 

How do we know it won't actually galvanise the support of minority parties in the knowledge that their vote is no longer wasted? (I'm talking about true PR here, not it's miserable little compromise)

 

Are there any stats we can unpick from other countries who have moved from one system to another?

 

Any psephologist worth their salt - even that Tory nitwit Norton - would tell you that parties like BNP and UKIP are what they define as 'single-issue' parties. They attract, by definition, protest votes, and their fortunes rise and fall with those issues race, Europe, etc).

 

We know it won't galvanise support for single-issue minority parties because AV requires more engagement - politicians with electorate and vice versa. AV may well give greater representation to minority parties with genuine, stable political agendas (like the LibDems and the nationalist parties) - but that's the price of democracy surely worth paying, that people's votes are proportionately represented in elected representatives.

 

At the risk of sounding controversial, the ONLY fair way to vote on the merits or otherwise of AV is not to hold a referendum on it, but to impose it by executive decision. Introduce it for one Parliamentary election and one or two rounds of local elections. THEN have a referendum on AV vs FPTP. That way, people won't be facing a choice between something they know and something they don't. Maybe even the most spooked of No voters, like our doom-laden Lord Tender, would change his mind.

[Jonnyboy]

Made me chuckle :-)

 

Grow up you whippersnappers.

[Jonnyboy]

And for your second choice?

 

My 2nd Choice is a benevolent dictatorship run by ME.

[Jonnyboy]

Mods - Can we have an anonymous Poll please??

[Joensuu]

I believe he's simply saying that had all the candidates been voted for by the members in a FPTP vote then Cameron would still have won.

 

The whittling down process amongst the MPs simply delayed the inevitable result.

 

I think.

 

I think that's what he's trying to say too.

 

Of course what he fails to grasp is that had all the candidates been voted for by the MP's in a FPTP vote (without the members having a say) then Cameron wouldn't have won.

[pap]

Baroness Warsi eviscerated by Adam Boulton, and a few AV myths punctured too.

 

Edited 27 April, 2011 by pap

[pap]

[solentstars]

Fret ye not. Verbs has already assured us the British electorate aren't thick... ;-)

 

ha ha good post

[solentstars]

There were 198 MP's who voted.

 

There were 198,844 members who voted

 

Cameron won 134,446 of the members votes.

 

How would Davies have won if there was just one big FPTP election, bearing in mind that Davies won just 33 more votes in the first round. Unless you think that MP's alone should elect leaders. In that case Ed should stand aside for David.

 

Let's hope the rest of the voters aren't taken in with these lies as easily as you seem to be.

 

so davies won the first election and you had 4 elections the first 3 useing av and the 4th fptp:lol:

Edited 27 April, 2011 by solentstars

[solentstars]

Any psephologist worth their salt - even that Tory nitwit Norton - would tell you that parties like BNP and UKIP are what they define as 'single-issue' parties. They attract, by definition, protest votes, and their fortunes rise and fall with those issues race, Europe, etc).

 

We know it won't galvanise support for single-issue minority parties because AV requires more engagement - politicians with electorate and vice versa. AV may well give greater representation to minority parties with genuine, stable political agendas (like the LibDems and the nationalist parties) - but that's the price of democracy surely worth paying, that people's votes are proportionately represented in elected representatives.

 

At the risk of sounding controversial, the ONLY fair way to vote on the merits or otherwise of AV is not to hold a referendum on it, but to impose it by executive decision. Introduce it for one Parliamentary election and one or two rounds of local elections. THEN have a referendum on AV vs FPTP. That way, people won't be facing a choice between something they know and something they don't. Maybe even the most spooked of No voters, like our doom-laden Lord Tender, would change his mind.

 

i agree i think we should have started useing av in council elections to show how easy it is.

[Joensuu]

Worth a go. Gives you an indication of how much more relevant your vote in your seat will become with AV.

 

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

[pap]

Point by point dismantling of No To AV's campaign leaflet.

[Joensuu]

Point by point dismantling of No To AV's campaign leaflet.

 

Like this bit:

 

Imagine if we ran restaurants under FPTP :-

 

“Sorry, sir – your first choice is not available. As a consequence of you making your first choice, all other options are now off the table and I must ask you to leave”

[dune]

Just had a LidDem candidate disturb me whilst I was painting the fence. Told him I was voting UKIP and NO in the referendum and the scruffy **** soon ****ed off.

[pap]

Vote meow.

 

[solentstars]

Just had a LidDem candidate disturb me whilst I was painting the fence. Told him I was voting UKIP and NO in the referendum and the scruffy **** soon ****ed off.

 

i expect he thought you were a tramp and he was going to put some money in your hat towards getting your daily bottle of vodka.

[dune]

i expect he thought you were a tramp and he was going to put some money in your hat towards getting your daily bottle of vodka.

 

I expect he just sighed and put me down as one of the un-enlightened ones that had not experienced the joys of Islington.

Edited 28 April, 2011 by dune

[Saintandy666]

Vote meow.

 

 

This is brilliant.

[pap]

This is brilliant.

 

When Reform Cat gets in, things will be different around here

[Lord Duckhunter]

Would the same apply for a truely proportional system such as PR? (which AV is apparently just a stepping stone towards....)

 

Wouldn't true PR actually encourage more people to vote for these 'vulgar' minority in the knowledge that every vote truely counts? (I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, just highlighting what I perceive to be an apparent dichotomy between AV ("keeps nasty minority parties at bay") and PR ("allows every vote for nasty minority parties to count")

 

 

Under PR (which most supporters of AV want in the end) the BNP would have the 5th most seats in a uk Parliament, behind UKIP and the big 3.

[solentstars]

Under PR (which most supporters of AV want in the end) the BNP would have the 5th most seats in a uk Parliament, behind UKIP and the big 3.

 

i doubt it has protest votes would go to other partys and normally their is a limit of the national vote around the country they would need to achieve to- keep out far right and far left.more likely you would see the rise of the green party has a force.

Edited 28 April, 2011 by solentstars

[trousers]

I think that's what he's trying to say too.

 

Of course what he fails to grasp is that had all the candidates been voted for by the MP's in a FPTP vote (without the members having a say) then Cameron wouldn't have won.

 

That hypothesis doesn't really need 'grasping' though. The Tory leader is chosen by the members in a FPTP election. All the MPs do is whittle the candidates down to the final two. A means to an end if you will.

 

Davies and Cameron made the shortlist and then Cameron won the actual vote. It didn't matter who came first or second...a bit like us and Brighton you might say... ;-)

 

Simple as that.

[trousers]

i doubt it has protest votes would go to other partys and normally their is a limit of the national vote around the country they would need to achieve to- keep at far right and far left.more likely you would see the rise of the green party has a force.

 

That may happen but the truth is we won't know for sure how true PR will affect the likes of the BNP's share of the vote.

 

Some might say why run the risk of finding out one way or the other when it can be ruled out by not changing?

[pedg]

Under PR (which most supporters of AV want in the end) the BNP would have the 5th most seats in a uk Parliament, behind UKIP and the big 3.

 

If that is the distribution of votes then I would rather accept a more representative distribution of MP's in parliament with a few extremists than an unrepresentative distribution. Also I think there is something to be said for shining a light on these people, as per the question time with the BNP leader, rather than letting them fester and grow out of the spotlight of normal political debate.

[Joensuu]

http://paperbackrioter.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/an-a-z-of-rubbish-arguments-from-no2av/

[dune]

Two New Polls Show NO Campaign Well Ahead

 

Comres have the NO campaign ahead by 60% to 40%

 

ICD have the NO campaign ahead by 53% to 39%

 

Unlucky tree huggers.

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/