http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/upcoming-elections-and-r...
The question that will be on the referendum ballot paper is:'At present, the UK uses the 'first past the post' system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system be used instead?'
from wikipedia:
Under the alternative vote system proposed in the referendum, voters will still be electing just one candidate associated with one geographic constituency. Instead of simply voting for one candidate choice on the ballot paper (with an 'X'), the voter would instead rank one or more of the candidates in order of preference. If after first preferences have been counted, no one candidate has a majority of the votes cast, then the bottom candidate will be eliminated and their next available preference will be redistributed accordingly. The process continues repeatedly until one candidate reaches a majority and wins.
Conservative Voters Propel No to New Heights in British Referendum
Practically three-in-five decided voters would cast a ballot to keep the existing first past the post system.
Query: apart from New Zealand, are there any other countries or jurisdictions which have changed from a FPTP system to some other electoral system (be it AV, STV, MMP, etc) through a referendum?
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11609887]AV referendum - Where the parties stand[/url]
Proportional Representation is [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/04/av-referendum-nick-clegg-... down[/url] to massive defeat in Britain, with 68% predicted to vote no in the PR referendum.
The losing campaign has weakened the main proponent of PR in Britain, the Lib Dems.
The Tories, the Lib Dem's coalition partner campaigned on the No side of the vote. They used their ads to [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/04/av-referendum-pre-mortem-... the general credibility of their Lib Dem partners. This has lead to [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/04/ed-miliband-prepared-for-... of an election sooner than later. Tories and Labour hope to squeeze a weakened Lib Dem party.
Lessons for the NDP:
1) Do not expend political capital on introducing PR in Canada.
2) Do not join any coalition with the condition of holding a referendum on PR. Coalition partners will be tempted to use the agreement to undermine you.
3) Losing a vote on PR will weaken your party. Since Canadians have given no indication they want PR, championing PR is like putting your neck on the block, and giving your opponent the axe.
So, a question for all the PR enthusiasts on babble:
At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?
Isn't that like changing from Pepsi to Diet Pepsi when really you should be drinking milk.
So, a question for all the PR enthusiasts on babble:At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?
I would have supported FPTP over AV, because AV has the effect of channeling votes towards the 2 dominant parties. The idea is to give people choices. As bad as FPTP is, it at least allows a more marginal party to break through in a particular area on a 3 or 4 way split, whereas in AV, those votes are more likely to elect a member from the established party.
Isn't that like changing from Pepsi to Diet Pepsi when really you should be drinking milk.
Good one.
@Wat, Krago and others: Alternative Vote is not a proportional representation system. It is still a winner-takes-all structure.
@Catchfire, Pogo: So how would you vote?
Is it possible that AV was tied too closely to the unpopular Conservative coalition and people rejected AV on that basis? Kind of like how in Canada the Charlottetown Accord became known as "the Mulroney Deal" and was defeated in no small part because of Mulroney's unpopularity?
Proportional Representation is [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/04/av-referendum-nick-clegg-... down[/url] to massive defeat in Britain, with 68% predicted to vote no in the PR referendum.
AV is not a proportional system. AV is not PR.
I would have supported FPTP over AV, because AV has the effect of channeling votes towards the 2 dominant parties. The idea is to give people choices. As bad as FPTP is, it at least allows a more marginal party to break through in a particular area on a 3 or 4 way split, whereas in AV, those votes are more likely to elect a member from the established party.
Correct.
It looks like AV was imposed as the choice in order to provoke the electorate into a "No" vote on electoral change, thus giving the Tories a chance to make the false statement that the referendum was a mandate to preserve the electoral status quo.
Or, as the Brits would put it more succinctly "A stitch-up".
You can see how the vote's going at:
http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/default.aspx
So far it looks like about 2/3 "No", but they only have 8 out of 440 voting areas declared as yet.
I would vote for the change, but it is as minimal a change as possible. The positives that flow the change are almost wiped out by the negatives.@Catchfire, Pogo: So how would you vote?
The problem with referenda like these is that you inevitably end up asking people to hold their nose and vote for "half a loaf". Apparently there were a lot of electoral reform and proportional representation supporters who voted 'No' because they didn't like AV and decided to hold out for something better. Something similar happened during Australia's referendum on whether to ditch the Queen as head of state - there was majority support for doing so, but those who supported getting rid of the monarchy couldn't agree on the alternative, and so the 'purists' ended up voting to retain the monarchy because they didn't care for the alternative that was on offer in the referendum.
That's why I think these referenda need to have two stages, as was done in New Zealand. The questions could even be combined in a single ballot. First, do you want to retain the current system, yes or no? If no, which of these alternative systems do you prefer?
Look at BC's first referendum as an example. The STV option that was offered by the Citizens' Assembly was a complicated, confusing, Rube Goldberg-ian contraption that was difficult to sell to the voters. Even still, 57% of British Columbians voted to adopt it (despite the fact that very few people fully understood how it worked) because they simply wanted a change. I think a two-stage ballot would very likely have produced a new electoral system in 2005, had people been given the option to vote first on a straight-up-and-down yes/no vote on FPTP, followed by a choice of alternatives.
You can see how the vote's going at:
http://ukreferendumresults.aboutmyvote.co.uk/en/default.aspx
So far it looks like about 2/3 "No", but they only have 8 out of 440 voting areas declared as yet.
The results are final now.
I don't know which is best but I think a change is needed. However I think the last people we should entrust it to is our elected reps because they all have a vested interest in the current system and in biasing any proposal to benefit themselves or their party: They all want to be in Harper's position of having a majority. I think the discussions need to be much broader to educate and inform people about the reasons for change and the options. However, I can't see there being much broad interest until Harper's use of his majority majority offends the vast majority including many of his voters, and I'm not holding my breath for that.
Is it possible that AV was tied too closely to the unpopular Conservative coalition and people rejected AV on that basis? Kind of like how in Canada the Charlottetown Accord became known as "the Mulroney Deal" and was defeated in no small part because of Mulroney's unpopularity?
Yup. Disappointed Lib Dem voters wanted to hang Clegg, widely seen as traitorous.
I'm not so sure about that. The Tories were vociferously opposed to AV (to the point of attacking their own coalition partners in the media), so I would be surprised if the 'Yes' side was truly associated with the coalition government in the public's mind. Further, I suspect that notwithstanding their animosity towards Nick Clegg, most Lib Dem voters did support AV. The Lib Dems (and their Liberal, SDP and Alliance predecessors) have been pushing for some form of PR since the 70s. I have a hard time believing that large numbers of Lib Dems would throw away the chance for reform in a fit of pique over Nick Clegg's leadership. Were that the case, I would have expected the 'Yes' side to have lost by an even greater margin.
The Lib Dems (and their Liberal, SDP and Alliance predecessors) have been pushing for some form of PR since the 70s.
That's why AV had no really enthusiastic backers. Electoral reformers campaigned for it on the basis that it would give voters a taste for reform, so that the next step would be a PR referendum.
A year ago, before the last election, you had Nick Clegg calling AV "worthless." At the time, Labour was making noices about holding a referendum on AV, with the motive of attracting Lib Dem second preferences, while the Lib Dems were against it. After Labour gave up on the Lib Dems' first choice (a coalition with Labour, with one term being a referendum on PR, which Labour may have agreed to; but the final seat count left a Labour-Lib Dem Coalition unworkable), the Lib Dems had nowhere to go but the Tories, and no hope of a PR referendum. Why, then, did Nick Clegg get trapped into an AV referendum? There are many theories, but we'll have to wait a while for the book.
That's good that they've at least introduced the idea to the public for electoral reform. It was a nice setup for PR when comparing and contrasting different systems down the road. They'll say, Wow, we should have been looking at PR back then.
I saw this coming from the moment the coalition was announced. The Tories grumpily agree to a referendum in order to get the Lib Dems to support them, then turn around and knife them when their donors give massively to the 'No' campaign. The Lib Dems end up with their credibility shot to hell.
The UK Tories are absolute snakes, and will exploit anyone – anyone – to get their majority, so they can get back to the glory days of Thatcher. Because who wouldn't want City of London bankers getting even more obscenely rich, the poor exploited six ways to sundown, and Poll Tax riots? Oh, and Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales feeling the 'benefits' of the Westminister government. Glory days, eh?
