The BBC conducted an election experiment based on both First Past the Post and Alternative Vote system.
The results, as shown in the chart on the left, shows that the 50% threshold argument is rubbish. Oooooops.
I wonder if the BBC will also show that the other AV claims, making all MPs perfectly honest, ending safe seats, making MPs work harder, creating world peace etc. are just a fatuous?
Hat tip Guido
Posts
27 comments:
you talk about fatuous claims and you post this on a page with one of the most disgraceful pieces of fear based propaganda marketing I've seen in a long time.
A vote for AV would stop bullet proof vests getting to front line troops. Really?!!!
And you an military man! You should be ashamed of yourself for carrying such on your site - because I know you're not so ridiculously naive to believe that is anything other than crass misrepresentation of facts and reality.
I think he is quite naive actually, he didn't know that it was the Tories who shut our military hospitals.
Yes it's shocking really...9% in that AV example are completely discounted, 51% if you include all those whose votes actually mean nothing. Wait a minute. In FPTP 61% of people's votes mean nothing. So more people under AV support the winner than under FPTP. Well...conclusive proof using your own example that AV = > political efficacy than FPTP. Thanks, am more pro AV than ever now.
AV is a load of b*ll*cks. At least we know what we're getting with FPTP. Italy's a perfect example of the chaos FPTP would lead to.
Excalibur
I think you men the chaos a non-fptp system would lead to.
Keeping MPs honest.
Making them work harder.
Sounds like that wonderful term "modernisation".
And we all remember how outspoken Mr Cleverly was about "modernisation" in the Fire Service. Reap the whirlwind, dont be afraid of change, embrace it. Happy days. ;)
Curious all these "damning facts" about AV are being churned out by the Tory party just before a vote.
I seem to remember details/election promises concerning a "certain hospital" being released a week before the last election.
Note to all
Enjoy the ramblings of a Councilor by all means, but don`t take them too seriously.
If AV has got the wind up the Tories, then it already gets my vote.
Inflation on the up, cuts in essential and non essential public services, MPs kicking up a stink about a 1% wage rise freeze, bless (see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8271377/MPs-protest-at-ludicrous-request-to-sacrifice-pay-rise-during-austerity-drive.html), price of food is through the roof. The list goes on.
Christ knows where the BBC got those figures to get the Tories on 22% in a seat we hold, and the Greens on 16%. Utter BBC twaddle to pretend the left and far-left are popular.
You are right to condemn AV. Speak your message, speak it again.
"MPs will have to work harder to earn - and keep - our support. Doing just enough won't be enough any more."
Sounds like a great plan. Hows your multi-tasking Mr Cleverly?
So let’s separate the fact from the fiction….
Myth 1) AV will cost us £250 million
The only piece of equipment you need to vote with AV is a pencil.
The No camp’s sums, like their arguments, simply don’t add up. Electronic counting machines aren’t an issue in this referendum.
Australia has hand counted its elections for 8 decades. The £130 million of make-believe machines don’t exist in Australia and won’t exist in the UK.
AV will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving voters more of a say. Short on arguments the No campaign are trying to claim we can’t afford change. After the expenses crisis we can’t afford not to.
Myth 2) AV is too confusing
Few people would be confused by this. Voters put a ‘1’ by their first choice, a ‘2’ by their second choice, a ‘3’ by their third choice and so on. The logic’s familiar enough to anyone who’s ever asked a friend to pop down to the shops for a coke and said, “If they’re out of that I’ll have a lemonade.”
Some people have a very low estimation of the British public.
Myth 3) AV helps the BNP
The BNP have already called on their supporters to back a ‘No’ vote. Currently because MPs can get elected with support from less than 1 in 3 voters, there is always a risk that extremist parties can get in.
The BNP have learnt this lesson, and have used it to scrape wins in town halls across Britain. With AV, no-one can get elected unless most people back them. Therefore the risk of extremist parties getting in by the back door is eliminated.
Myth 4) No one uses AV
AV is a tried and tested system. In Britain millions of people in businesses, charities, and trade unions already use it. Political parties use it to elect their leaders. MPs themselves use it to elect their Speaker and their officials.
When politicians are the voters – when they are electing their own leaders – AV is the system they choose. When you need a real winner who needs to speak for the majority AV is the go-to system.
Myth 5) AV means some people get two votes
No. With AV everyone gets one vote. The difference is that AV gives you a vote that really counts and more of a say on who your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out your vote is transferred to your second preference. Whether you just vote 1 for your favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the ballot only one vote will be counted.
If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out of cod, and you choose pie and chips instead, you have still only had one meal.
Continued:
Myth 6) AV means more hung parliaments
No. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as you might have noticed First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung parliaments.
Britain has experienced hung parliaments in the 1920s, 1970s and in 2010, and had periods in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s where a single party was unable to effectively govern alone. Canada, which uses First Past the Post, has permanent hung parliaments. Australia uses AV, and has returned its first hung parliament in 38 elections.
Hung parliaments occur if enough voters support a third party. AV gives voters a greater say over candidates in their constituency. How they vote is up to them.
Myth 7) AV means more tactical voting
No. AV simply eliminates the need for it. Why should we have to abandon the party we actually support, to prevent the party we least support getting in? The dilemma facing millions of voters is often characterised as the choice between “voting with your head or your heart”. AV allows people to do both.
AV offers an honest vote. It gives everyone a chance to vote sincerely for the candidates they really want knowing their vote can go further.
Myth 8) AV weakens the constituency link
No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger. Politicians like to talk about their constituency link. And a lot of them seem to enjoy it a lot more than the voters.
Many of our MPs currently have a pretty dodgy link to their constituents. Barely a third of MPs can speak for the majority of their voters. AV strengthens the link by giving people the MPs they actually voted for. AV forces complacent MPs to take heed of the interests of their constituents because their jobs depend on it.
Myth 9) AV forces you to give a second preference
No. You can vote for as few or as many candidates as you like. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.
You aren’t forced to vote for any candidate you don’t want. If you only want to support one candidate you can. Just mark an ‘X’ as you did before.
Myth 10) AV means you end up with the least worst candidate
No. First Past the Post just lets in winners that most of voters didn’t want. AV ensures a winning candidate has to work harder and go further to secure support from a majority. That’s what’s needed to be ‘best’, and may explain why politicians are so keen on AV when electing their own…
When Hollywood recently dumped First Past the Post for AV, they didn’t change the wording on the statuette to Academy Award for Least Worst Picture. They wanted a ‘Best Picture’ winner that could deliver on that promise.
Myth 11) But First Past the Post is a British tradition…
Our parliament is not a museum. There has always been evolution in our politics, and today AV is the logical next step - an ‘upgrade’ to First Past the Post.
The secret ballot, votes for women, and votes for working people were all innovations once, and met with opposition. These changes didn’t rip up the rule book, but they were necessary to improve the way we do politics.
Voters aren’t looking for a revolution. They’re looking for a simple change that preserves and improves on what’s come before.
(taken from http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/av-myths
Just to play the advocate.
Yes, quite correct James - I obviously got a bit carried away whilst typing - must have been too worried about the chaos that a NON FPTP system would bring!
I like the idea of politicians working harder and being more accountable. They hate change in westminster, but are happy to instigate it in the rest of the public sector.
Anyone who has worked within the public sector knows the sacrifices workers have and are being asked to make. So given the sensible information available on the net (not here obviously) av is not this horrible demon that mr cleverly and his well paid cohorts will have you believe.
It's just modernisation of an old fashioned system.
Whilst you're carrying out your secret negotiations regarding QMH, what are you doing with regard to sorting out the fact that no preparation appears to have been made at other local hospitals for the closure of Queen Mary's A&E? Or is it just photos of you saying 'no to AV' we're getting for our money now?
Sir,
A informative table from the BBC, the most interesting point you fail to make is that Labour are well ahead of you. A bitter pill to swallow?
Perhaps you should concentrate on winning voters rather than muddying the water, or is muddying all you are capable of?
Mr Jones,
Can you explain how changing the voting system will bring about the changes to MPs behavior that the Yes to AV campaign claim.
Anon,
I don't think that anyone would claim that the results are realistic for the country as a whole, Labour may well be in the lead at the moment but Greens second? Really?
Mark C,
I'm a little confused, are you suggesting that the Conservatives shouldn't campaign on this issue?
Putting forward differing views and letting the voters decide is what democracy is all about.
How about you change your behaviour and move on to issues that are of concern to constituents rather than the self-obsessed career-building and vote-generating subjects that you choose to concern yourself with?
Let credible, uncompromised politicians who have done something for constituents tell us about AV or no AV.
Actually Mark, what I find more interesting is the sudden conversion of both the Lib Dems and the Electoral Reform Society.
Before the election the Lib Dem leader described AV as "miserable little compromise" and the ERS said "The Electoral Reform Society regards AV as the best voting system when a single position is being elected. However, as AV is not a proportional system, the Society does not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament, council, committees, etc"
The Labour leadership are all over the place on the issue having had over a decade to make a change and failed to do so and only making noises about electoral change when the support of the Lib Dems look like it might be needed.
Far from churning out these "damning facts" about AV just before a vote the Conservatives are the only people who have been consistent on this issue.
Tell me, I'm interested. If a LAM or MP were in a constituency where they were so safe that they could carry on throwing mud at other politicians, issuing ludicrously out-of-touch statements or campaigning for voting systems that would work best for their parties to the exclusion of matters of direct importance to constituents, or say, jumping on a bandwagon such as a local hospital just before an election, only to forget it shortly afterwards; what would be best for their constituents who wanted someone who was a little more interested in them: AV or FPTP?
RE:
"Anon,
I don't think that anyone would claim that the results are realistic for the country as a whole, Labour may well be in the lead at the moment but Greens second? Really?"
I sense a moment of doubt, lets not start on the Greens now, that is a true sign of desperation (picking on other political parties with better credentials). As for the rest of the country I would not dare judge how the fine people of this country will vote. But hey you are a fairly insignificant politician towing the party line, so I will let people make their own minds up.
Mr Cleverly, its a pity I have to answer your questions for you, but as a politician I will respect your right to question but I am sure you already know the answer, and perhaps you are trying to catch me out or indeed far too lazy to see why.
Here goes you have been warned Sir :
"AV will force MPs to work harder to earn - and keep - our support"
MPs need to secure a real majority of voters to be sure of winning, not just the 1 in 3 who can currently hand them power. They'll need to work harder to get - and keep - their jobs.
The expenses scandal showed how deeply out of touch some of our politicians became from the people who elect them. It arose from a culture where some MPs have ‘seats for life, and leads to poor service, complacency and taking voters for granted.
2. AV will give us a bigger say on who our local MP is
Forget tactical voting - just pick the candidate you really want to win. But if your favourite doesn't win you can still have a say.
3. AV will tackle the ‘jobs for life’ culture in Parliament
Too many MPs have 'safe' seats for life. We saw that in the expenses crisis. The AV system will change this.
4. AV is an upgrade on our current voting system
AV builds on the current system, eliminating many of its weaknesses, retaining its strengths and strengthening the link between MPs and their communities. Voters still have just one vote.
5. AV will keep extremists out of politics
AV is the anti-extremist system because candidates have to secure a real majority to be sure of winning. First Past the post enables candidates to win with a very small percentage of the vote, which means extremist parties such as the British National Party have more chance of being elected despite most people in an area opposing them. This is one of the reasons why the BNP is opposing AV.
6. AV lets you vote for who you really want
Forget tactical voting- just pick the candidate you really want to win. With AV you can back just one candidate (like now), or if you'd like to, state a second choice, or even a third choice. Voters can vote for what they really want so there is no need to vote tactically.
7. AV gives control to more voters
Less than 2% of voters decided the last election. To be sure of winning a seat with AV, candidates will have to get over 50% of the votes in that area. They will have to work harder and not just take us for granted.
8. AV will force candidates to positively engage with the wider community
First Past the Post has created a culture of complacency whereby most MPs know they can just rely on their core vote. AV rewards politicians who can reach out to a widest range of voters. Politicians will need to engage more constructively with more people if they want to be sure of winning.
9. AV is already used by 14m people in the UK
Alternative Vote (AV) is a widely used and trusted system in Britain outside public elections, because it is used by businesses, charities, trade unions and membership organisations.
10. This referendum is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for us to have our say on the current system
MPs have been deciding their own rules for far too long. This is the first time that voters are being given a say on the system we should use to elect MPs. This is our chance to have a public debate and to demand more from our democracy.
In finishing, yes you will have to come through with your promises, you will need to be honest and statesman like with your canvassing, you will have to consistent and spend real time in your elected constituency (not on some quango, sorry committee) otherwise you will not even make the second round. Sadly there are far too many people being affected by savage cuts to their work or services.
R Jones,
Repeating an assertion is not the same thing as explaining it, neither is cutting and pasting from the Yes to AV website.
Lets take one of the points you made. You claim that "3. AV will tackle the ‘jobs for life’ culture in Parliament
Too many MPs have 'safe' seats for life. We saw that in the expenses crisis. The AV system will change this."
How exactly would AV change that? An MP with over 50% of the vote or close to 50% would be unaffected by the change.
If AV is so great why do only three countries in the world use it for their parliamentary elections?
As someone who has looked closely at a variety electoral systems, (Regional and National Party lists, STV, SV, AV+ and so on) I've always described AV as the FA Cup option.
If your team is knocked out in the first round, like mine, Southport, AV makes you choose a second, third or even team, until eventually you choose a team that is likely to win. But of course, you don't really care who wins.
In the context of the FA Cup such a system of support seems ridiculous so why use it for General Electons?
Dear Sir,
I feel I must post an answer in response to the AV system.
I like yourself, am not a lover of change within the civil service. It is ridiculous to change something that has worked so well for so long.
Oh hang on, isnt that what we are doing to every hard working public sector worker (changing something that has worked well in the name of progress)?
Couldnt resist posting this:
from the conservative website-
The first 200 people to join will get a limited edition set of No to AV postcards - so there's no time to waste. Join The No to AV Group today and help save our democratic system.
Well I`m convinced...
Post a Comment