ForumGarden

Am I reading this correctly (the bumf from the Electoral Commission) - I certainly hope not!

It would appear that, even if 100% of the population votes to take up AV on May 5th, the government can disregard the vote by voting against adoption of the new constituency boundaries when the gerrymander review is completed?

If so, it is totally unacceptable.

It would be hard for any party not to implement the majority view in the referendum but you're quite right, it's not binding.

spot;1356993 wrote: It would be hard for any party not to implement the majority view in the referendum but you're quite right, it's not binding.


With neither of the major parties wanting the change it is the perfect get-out for them - make sure the constituency review is flawed and claim they have no option but to reject it.

Why should the implementation of the change to AV be dependent on the take-up of the new boundaries? Totally different issues with unrelated outcomes.

We had a vote in Ontario to adopt proportional representation and the government fixed the fight by not providing info on what that meant until the last few weeks.

koan;1357029 wrote: We had a vote in Ontario to adopt proportional representation and the government fixed the fight by not providing info on what that meant until the last few weeks.


I'm quite sure most people here know what it means but I doubt whether any of us know quite how to manipulate it tactically. I might try working that out. Let's see.

At the moment, to keep out the most undesired candidates from a constituency, one excludes them from the list and votes instead for the candidate representing the next highest polling party from the previous general election, that person having the likeliest chance of pushing the unwanted incumbent out of office. That's a generally understood convention here and it's toppled several members of various cabinets. They're the trophy heads of the electorate.

So, under the new system, I'd suggest the following. List all the candidates in the order of most abhorred to least objectionable and then number that entire list in reverse order - starting with 1 at the bottom and ascending sequentially. Transcribe those numbers onto the voting slip. It might look as though you're voting a preference to some obscurely vapid nonentities but, this time, being AV, those are no longer wasted votes. In the unlikely event of that obscure candidate winning, you don't mind because they've achieved the result of keeping out the class enemy. If they're eliminated, your list will progressively apply to (potentially) everyone except the one candidate you don't want to see returned. QED: just what you wanted when you went to vote.

I had thought this was proportional representation, but after watching a debate on TV apparently it is most definitely not.

If the average voter has the attention span of the likes of me, then this might very well get voted for without looking in depth at what they are voting for.

I am not convinced this is good, or what the public have been asking for.

Can anyone explain in their opinion the advantages/drawbacks of AV, PR and first past the post.

Bruv;1357037 wrote: I had thought this was proportional representation, but after watching a debate on TV apparently it is most definitely not.

If the average voter has the attention span of the likes of me, then this might very well get voted for without looking in depth at what they are voting for.

I am not convinced this is good, or what the public have been asking for.

Can anyone explain in their opinion the advantages/drawbacks of AV, PR and first past the post.


Proportional Representation cannot incorporate the idea of constituencies. A constituency can't be represented by 0.31 Conservative MPs and 0.27 Labour MPs and 0.53 Independent Hospital Reform MPs. PR only exists if you're voting for dozens, at least, of representatives, who can then make up those proportions. You can only vote for parties, you can't vote for a particular representative. The system can hide behind a smiling wall of "vote for Ms X and we'll use her excess votes to make up other constituencies", or even party lists, but that's all a sham disguising the fact that the parties will choose the ranking of their prospective members. You'll never see another Cabinet member walk the plank, under PR. Moments like Twigg v. Portillo will come to an end.

First past the post leaves moaners saying "He got in with only 35% of those who turned up to vote" or (meaning the same thing) "He got in with only 23% of those entitled to vote". With the elimination of low-scoring candidates in AV at least the winner can claim a mandate of sorts from the majority of the electorate who turned out.

First past the post made it difficult to vote tactically. Most people just voted for a candidate they liked or a party they approved of. Personally, since 1997, I've voted for whoever is the incumbent regardless of party, because as a constituency representative they'd put in a stack of work over the previous four or five years and deserved rewarding for the effort.

AV will make it more difficult for a detested party to form the next government. I can imagine surprising independents getting into the House, and a good thing too.

Andrew Neil on TV today was saying the majority governments of Thatcher and Blair would have been far bigger majorities under AV, can that be a good thing ?

Bruv;1357039 wrote: Andrew Neil on TV today was saying the majority governments of Thatcher and Blair would have been far bigger majorities under AV, can that be a good thing ?


I'm not sure I believe him. He certainly has no statistical, historical or numeric basis for saying it. I apologize to Mr Neil if that's not true but I can't imagine one exists.

Bruv;1357039 wrote: Andrew Neil on TV today was saying the majority governments of Thatcher and Blair would have been far bigger majorities under AV, can that be a good thing ?


That is utter bollocks. If that was the case then both parties would be all for it - as it is they are shitting themselves because they know neither would be able to form a government with the kind of overwhelming majority of seats that they had.

We jave it in scotland wherwe the tories think it wonderful for the simple reason that without it they would have no seats at all, the SNP would not be in power it and the labour mafia would be ruling the roost.