Tag Archive for Alternative Vote

Leafleting for the Yes campaign

Today’s polling day! And I’ve been busy most of the day help­ing the Yes cam­paign leaflet parts of Leeds for the final push. Mostly the uni­ver­sity, but with some leaflet­ing tak­ing part in the city cen­tre, espe­cially near the train station.

The response I got was sur­pris­ingly pos­i­tive. Dis­count­ing the peo­ple who shrugged me off — it’s Leeds, they prob­a­bly thought I was adver­tis­ing for a new bar — there was a lot of inter­est and sup­port in a Yes vote. Only a hand­ful of peo­ple said they had already voted no. I did work on the cur­rents of “yes to democ­racy”, “yes to peo­ple power”, “make your MPs work harder”, and “if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us!”. This was quite effec­tive in sway­ing float­ing vot­ers. » Read more..

Why I am voting Yes today

Because AV is fairer, more demo­c­ra­tic, and ends tac­ti­cal voting.

It’s fairer because never again will the most unpop­u­lar can­di­date win, as they do in coun­cil elec­tions all the time, and even in a few gen­eral elec­tions (take a look at Scot­tish elec­tions from 1970, where the anti-Tory vote still eclipsed the Tory vote). If there is truly a “pro­gres­sive major­ity”, as last year’s elec­tions appar­ently stated, then rep­re­sen­ta­tion in the Com­mons will reflect that. The same applies for a “con­ser­v­a­tive major­ity.” » Read more..

What would Parliament under STV look like?

This image shows what an STV-elected House of Commons would look like.

As I said in my first posts, I am a believer in the Sin­gle Trans­fer­able Vote: it devolves power to the peo­ple, is pref­er­en­tial, and is pro­por­tional. I’m vot­ing for AV as it does the first two, but I really want the third as well. But we can’t win them all. Indeed, as recent polls show, the No cam­paign — which has been run­ning mostly on the “you’re too thick to count to three” mes­sage — may scup­per the chances for even AV.

The Elec­toral Reform Soci­ety did some research into this, but I found the results some­what… strange. In Brighton, which has a strong Green Party pres­ence, no Green can­di­date was elected under the ERS’s cal­cu­la­tions. So I decided for myself, in my free time, to do a sim­u­la­tion for myself. » Read more..

The No2AV leaflet

The AV cam­paign is in full swing but strangely, I’ve only received cam­paign lit­er­a­ture from the No cam­paign so far. As a Yes sup­porter, I find this amus­ing but dis­heart­en­ing: with only a week to go, where is the Yes lit­er­a­ture? It is really squeaky-bum time now.

In any case, they’re going full frontal on the Nick Clegg attack angle, after see­ing no joy in the BNP argu­ment. As the new Pri­vate Eye so eru­ditely sum­marises: Yes to AV’s argu­ments are about cleaner or fairer pol­i­tics. The No campaign’s argu­ment is a pic­ture of Nick Clegg. And they list so many dis­cred­ited argu­ments. » Read more..

AV or not AV: an addendum

There’s a strange logic to No2AV’s argu­ments; they’re try­ing to push both the “AV will lead to more coali­tions” and “AV will lead to less coali­tions” on dif­fer­ent pages on their Why Vote No? In a sense, they’re kind of right; if AV was adopted for 1997, then pos­si­bly, yes, the Tories would’ve been dis­ad­van­taged because there was a huge anti-Tory sen­ti­ment. But if it was adopted for 1992, it would’ve led to a hung par­lia­ment; Major barely hung on then. In a way, AV makes more deci­sive elec­tions slightly more deci­sive, and mud­dled elec­tions more muddled.

This exposes one of the sup­posed advan­tages of FPTP: accord­ing to them, only FPTP allows vot­ers to “kick the ras­cals out”, like in 1997, and implies vot­ing sys­tems such as AV, STV, AMS, do not. Why don’t you ask the Irish? » Read more..

The AV “debate” in Leeds

Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice
…wasn’t really a debate.

There’s been a spat between the Yes and No camps. Basi­cally, the No cam­paign are host­ing “debates” across the coun­try. I say “debates” because they weren’t really. See:

AV or not AV? That is the question.

The answer is “Yes”. And a kick in my shins for such a ter­ri­ble joke.

Let’s digress for a minute. In truth, I am a sup­porter of the Sin­gle Trans­ferrable Vote. My ideal vot­ing sys­tem is one that is pro­por­tional (i.e., a party with 20% of the vote should get 20% of the seats) and rep­re­sen­ta­tive (each leg­is­la­tor is answer­able to a dis­tinct group of peo­ple, hope­fully a local com­mu­nity). But more on that in a few posts time; this is about AV.

AV is not my desired sys­tem, but it’s a good one nonethe­less. It’s rep­re­sen­ta­tive, and does mean that half the vot­ers of a con­stituency will def­i­nitely pre­fer him over another can­di­date. True, it’s not pro­por­tional, but it makes it eas­ier to change to a pro­por­tional sys­tem: for STV, by merg­ing five con­stituen­cies into one five-MP con­stituency; for AMS, the top-up sys­tem works in tan­dem. And one of the big rea­sons I want a change in the sys­tem is where par­ties other than the Tories and Labour became more pop­u­lar, but lost seats (or didn’t get any). Such a sit­u­a­tion should be untenable.

Let’s go through No2AV’s argu­ments, shall we? » Read more..

%d bloggers like this: