UK Alternative Vote Referendum

[Falarica]

Just got my voting card and associated propaganda through the post for the Alternative Vote referendum but haven't decided which way I'm going to vote. I'm leaning more towards the yes camp because of the small number of (swing) seats that tip the balance of power at the moment.

So what does SD.net think about the referendum?

If you don't know what I'm on about:
United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011

[Zaune]

AV could scarcely be a worse alternative to the current system, but I'd be very interested in hearing the views of fellow board members living in a country that uses it before I form any definite conclusions about it on its own merits.

[Teebs]

I will be voting for it as a slightly better alternative to the current system. It doesn't really appeal to me, but I think given that its failure would kill our chances of getting PR completely a marginal improvement is worth having.

[blahface]

You guys need to vote for it. Instant Runoff Voting(Alternative Voting) isn't the best solution and has some problems, but plurality is far, far worse. You guys have three main parties; you need some way to reduce the effects of spoilers. Please tell friends and family to vote yes.

The best system to be implemented though right now would be approval voting with a top two runoff. Under ideal circumstances, the Condorcet method would be the best system.

[Illuminatus Primus]

AV sucks ass. This will be a boon to shit like the LibDems. Its not PR. Vote it down. It does nothing but push parties of the mushy crap center.

[blahface]

AV sucks ass. This will be a boon to shit like the LibDems. Its not PR. Vote it down. It does nothing but push parties of the mushy crap center.

So what if it is not PR? It is better than plurality and makes sure the Condorcet loser won't get elected.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because it'll be impossible to get PR in the future if AV passes.

[blahface]

Because it'll be impossible to get PR in the future if AV passes.

PR is what the liberal dems originally wanted, but the conservatives rejected it. If AV is passed it will be easier for the lib dems to get more seats and eventually get PR implemented.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Because it'll be impossible to get PR in the future if AV passes.

Why would it? It would show there is an appetite for political change in the UK if nothing else.

[Hillary]

Because it'll be impossible to get PR in the future if AV passes.

I'd be interested to see your logic here. To my mind if it's voted down that'll be the end of any chance of proper PR. "There's no apetite for change" will be the mantra thereafter.

[Zaune]

I think what Illuminatus Primus is driving at is that having gone through the expensive and complicated process of drastically altering the way in which we elect our government, the Great British Public are going to be something other than wildly enthusiastic about electing anyone who makes a manifesto pledge to do it all over again.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Sure, but that just means you need to wait a decade or so, rather than pushing it immediately. People have short attention spans, so after ten or fifteen years, nobody other than politicians will care about a relatively recent change. If AV is voted down, though, then it'll be spun as there not being support for change, and Labour and the Tories sure as hell aren't going to try to push voting reform because there's no benefit in it for them. The only party of any relevance pushing for voting reform in any serious manner is the Lib Dems, and they only got the Tories to give them the time of day by being the power brokers in Parliament. That's a wildly unusual situation, since usually, either Labour or the Tories have an outright majority and therefore don't need the Lib Dems at all.

If AV fails, in the next election, either Labour or the Tories will probably get a majority (probably at the expense of the Lib Dems, considering how they've hacked off their support base), and then there's not going to be another opportunity for vote reform for the forseeable future. AV presents the possibility that, once the stain of the current government has eventually washed out, the Lib Dems might achieve enough power in Parliament to replicate the current power balance and then push for vote reform.

IP isn't fond of the Lib Dems, clearly (frankly, I'm not either), but the fact of the matter is, they are the only large party that's pushing for vote reform, so if we want PR, we have to allow them to gather the political power to make it happen. The other two are never going to vote for it.

[Hillary]

Not a great fan of any of the parties, but any system that is more likely to result in a coalition government is fine by me.

[TC27]

Im voting against this and am encouraging others to - may join the 'no' campaign proper shortly.

I wonder how many people who have castigated the Lib Dems for making compromises as part of the coalition also support AV? An AV system will lead to coalition goverments from now on where policy will be hammered out behind closed doors in the days following the election and manifestos and election promises will be horsetraded away at a whim and be even more worthless than they are now.

[Bluewolf]

A failure in the AV vote will be used a a way to block any future attempts at changing the electoral system for decades to come. At least if AV does pass then we have a small improvement at worse and a platform to bring about further reform at best. You would be a fool to vote no on this. As said, a failure in getting this "miserable little compromise" through will be used against any further attempts at bringing any new voting system in. This reform at least means an absolute majority is needed to a seat rather than, say 30% (which has happened sometimes).

I know a lot of the UK posters here dislike the Lib Dems but please don't vote no out of spite. They're going to be ruined enough next election and I'd rather not have a decent reform squandered over party riff raff. Also you'd be a total fool to think this brings about coalitions instantly. PR systems? More likely but the idea of being locked in constant coalition on the account of AV is amazingly stupid. AV would have INCREASED Labours 1997 majority for example. It is a majoritarian system like FPTP and is merely a patch for said system. Sadly, a patch is all we are getting and I'd rather not have that turned down.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Im voting against this and am encouraging others to - may join the 'no' campaign proper shortly.

I wonder how many people who have castigated the Lib Dems for making compromises as part of the coalition also support AV? An AV system will lead to coalition goverments from now on where policy will be hammered out behind closed doors in the days following the election and manifestos and election promises will be horsetraded away at a whim and be even more worthless than they are now.

I didn't like the Lib Dems in the first place, just like I don't particularly like the Tories or Labour. I think their policies, as put into practice through the coalition, are awful, but that goes just as much for the Tories. Nevertheless, I'm voting in favour of AV - the failings of the Lib Dems and Tories aren't due to the fact that they're a coalition, it's due to the fact that they're the Lib Dems and Tories. The only reason to hope for Lib Dem electoral success, and to try to get AV in order to boost that chance, is because the Lib Dems will push for PR, and if we get PR, we'll actually get a choice on who to vote for, rather than the universally terrible lineup we have today.

If that means we always have coalition government in the future, then so be it. Most of Europe gets on fine with PR and coalition governments, and I'd much prefer compromises and horse trading - actual compromises, not bullshit 'we'll just do whatever the Tories say' cave ins - to the usual state of affairs, ie, 'the government always gets whatever it wants because the reason it is the government is because it has a majority'. It'll actually force those in power to think about their legislation, because there might actually be something credible the Opposition can do about it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It is a "rock and a hard place" kind of thing. I might be wrong. Just goes to show how corrupt our political processes are that you only ever get proposals handed down from on-high which you can up or down but no matter what must benefit some of the existing creatures in power.

[Omeros]

For, for three main reasons.

Anything that stops the main parties continually pandering to the wishes of a small voting bloc in the UK's swing seats has got to be an improvement on what we have to suffer now.

The Conservatives have been in power for the larger part of the 20th century in Britain. Their policies are generally pro-City, wile being at best indifferent to industry and the country's wider economic interests. AV offers the chance to break their hegemony once and for all.

I would prefer a full PR system to be introduced but, unlike others who are against AV, I believe that if the AV vote fails it will kill the momentum for electoral reform for a generation, not clear the way for PR. If this vote passes then it will create a precedent for electoral reform and make the eventual transition to full PR easier.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

It is a "rock and a hard place" kind of thing. I might be wrong. Just goes to show how corrupt our political processes are that you only ever get proposals handed down from on-high which you can up or down but no matter what must benefit some of the existing creatures in power.

Pretty much, yeah. The Lib Dems suck, but if we want vote reform, then they have to hold at least the balance of power in Parliament, because they're the only party in favour of it that actually has any chance of getting into a position where they can act on their desire for PR (although they aren't the only party in favour full stop - every minor party in the country is pro-PR). There's no other option.

[evilsoup]

AV won't remove swing seats from existence, BUT they will remove the need to vote tactically. I would like to vote for the Socialist Worker's Party or the Greens, but I know they cannot possibly win where I live (or anywhere), so I am forced to vote Labour. Likewise, a Eurosceptic could see that UKIP can't possibly win in their area, and so vote for the Tories. Under AV, I can vote how I like in the knowledge that I'm not giving the seat to some freemarketeer shitfucking Tory wanker.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I've had the usual pamphlets come through my door, I'm probably going to vote in favour of the AV system, I figure if it shakes things up, so much the better

On a side note, there was the neutral leaflet that came through the door that explained the AV system and how it would work, then just today we had one from the "no" campaign, which does raise an interesting point- why not have a similar neutral leaflet come election time for all the candidates summing up each of their policies that cuts through all the bullshit, since the ones from the individual parties on their own will only ever show half the truth.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Good take down of the no pamphlet being passed around: http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ

I'm surprised by some of the commentary in this thread. I can't see AV having a great deal of actual change in the results. Certainly not making coalitions the order of the day, all the time.

[inviz345]

no to av.

[Teebs]

Just about everyone I know is planning to vote yes, but then I mostly know liberal (with a small 'l') young people, so if yes didn't have a big majority it would be in real trouble.

no to av.

Well that's me convinced.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As I presently understand it, and feel free to correct me, AV allows the possibility of second or third choice candidates coming out on top simply because they were a lot of people's seocnd or third choice.

This strikes me as a "lesser of two evils" type of thing. "Oh, none of the first rank lot got a majority, but look, this bloke got a load of second and third choice votes. Obviously he's the best comprimise."

Is that what this whole thing is? A massive compromise to get a "offends no-one" result rather than "won popular vote?"

I'm planning on voting NO, not because i think first past the post is the best possible system, but because I think AV is a worse idea, and expensive too, which we really don't need right now.