Arguably, the main price of coalition for the Conservatives was the commitment to hold a referendum on electoral reforms – specifically on AV. That was the Lib Dems red line (or orange line, I guess) issue – they want a system which is more proportional and, incidentally, one which will deliver them more seats. But I’m not convinced that AV delivers on the first of those aims (though it probably will on the second – but that is probably a lesser concern).
So, why am I verging on being opposed to AV? Well, several reasons. First off, don’t confuse me for a First Past the Post apologist (see Harris, T – and while I don’t agree with him here, his point is well made). I’m not. I do believe we need electoral reform, and that we need a system which delivers a more proportional – more fair – outcome, one which provides much more in the way of a correlation between the votes cast for a party and the seats won by the same party. You will note in that previous sentence I didn’t just say “more†but “much moreâ€, and this is partly where AV does not deliver for me. Yes, it will be (marginally) more proportional than FPTP but it does not go far enough to be proportional. All we would be doing is making sure that voters in each constituency gave one candidate over 50% of the vote – and on a larger scale, all that would do is make landslides even bigger (since people would tend to vote for a popular party further down the ballot, even if they were not their first preference).
The second reason I’m opposed is that AV (whether the referendum is won or lost) precludes a properly proportional system being implemented – probably for the next 30 years at the very least. What do I mean by that? Well, it’s taken, what, three hundred years (and several reforms to the franchise) to get to the point where politicians are thinking about changing the electoral system, and even then they can’t agree on what to change it to. So now we’re to have a vote on a system which is marginally more proportional than the current system, and it is a lose-lose situation for me. If AV wins, we’re stuck with a system which does not adequately provide any real proportional element to the system. If AV loses, we’re stuck with the status quo – a FPTP system which ignores the preferences of up to 70% of the electorate in any single constituency. Either way, we’re unlikely to see any further change to the electoral system for the foreseeable future.
Without trying to be too negative here, I blame Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats for putting me in this position – its rock and hard place stuff. Â Do I vote ‘Yes’ in the referendum, and end up stuck with a system which is in no discernible way a massive improvement on the FPTP system we currently use? Â Or do I vote ‘No’ and make us stick with the not-proportional-at-all system we currently have until we get offered something a bit better?
I’m inclined to go for the latter.  There are other reasons, but those outlined above are the main two – the lack of proportionality and the fact that it precludes moving to a more proportional system. I’m sure you (particularly the Lib Dems, who don’t much like it either, but will probably vote for it anyway) disagree as, indeed, my co-editors do – why?
#1 by Lallands Peat Worrier on September 21, 2010 - 10:10 am
A difficult one this, strategically speaking. I too hadn’t a clear and decisive feeling about how to vote AV. Few do, I suspect. Like you, I’m in favour of a proportional system. I’m also not terribly pleased that the Liberals have put us in this position. It looks increasingly like an opportunity squandered, a red line that became all too hastily attenuated and frayed.
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2010/07/av-referendum-to-doom-case-for-pr.html
However, I’m not sure if I’m convinced that a no vote is the best way to realise PR in the future. That, I imagine, is the question most pro-PR folk are asking themselves as they consider how to vote here. In a way, one can see parallels with some of the rhetoric emanating from gradualist/fundamentalist fellow nationalists.
Gradualism offers a narrative of reform, it keeps an impetus going, it has a story about progress and an unrealised telos.
“By soft degrees make mild a rugged people and subdue them to the useful and the good.”
In the other conception, our politics is imagined more like a champagne bottle which is vigorously shaken – and in a single scoosh, all its energies will be spent to knock the cork skyward. Independence and PR in a single gush. Here, the bottle logic takes it that political force risks being spent by the gradualist logic. Just as with independence, bottle-shakers like yourself reasonably fear that we’re being invited not to tread a golden road to proportionality, but instead the cul de sac of an unloved and unlovely system. Which is right? There, my friend, is the bugger.
For myself, I think I’ll be voting yes, guessing that a better and more compelling story for PR in the future can be told on its basis.
#2 by Jeff on September 21, 2010 - 10:35 am
Strange, I have endured precisely the same thought process as you LPW but came to a different conclusion, that a no vote would ‘send them homewards tae think again’ or maybe an abstention. Much like the Lisbon Treaty that wasn’t fit for purpose in its original form, you don’t take a shabby compromise as the best there is on the table (Calman anyone?) while ignoring the elephant in the room; you argue for the principle of the best solution.
This AV referendum will end up looking sillier and sillier without STV on it.
I do think (somewhat counterintuitively) that the further away the UK is from PR, the more likely it is to achieve it. If we voted Yes to AV, how long would we expect to be saddled with it? 50 years is my guess. Far too long. Indeed, isn’t there only one other country in Europe who has this same system, Slovenia or Estonia or somewhere? Hardly a ringing endorsement that only one of our EU neighbours feels impressed enough by AV that they implement it.
No, the Swedish election has shown plan A. If a party gets x% of the national vote then they get x% of the seats.
AV helps the Lib Dems and the Lib Dems alone, so much for a new kind of Politics.
#3 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 10:37 am
Its funny, because on the independence argument, I’m really not a bottle-shaker in your conceptualisation. I’m a gradualist. Does that make me inconsistent? Arguing that gradual change will lead to much larger change in one field but not in another? Perhaps, but I don’t see them in quite the same light as you.
For independence, I think a larger argument has to be made on how best a country’s resources can be utilised – be that in a union or independent – and by showing that with more powers at its disposal, said country can demonstrate ability with more and more, so that independence is a natural progression. For PR, I don’t think the same theory holds – I don’t believe that a slightly more proportional system represents a step towards a fully proportional system.
#4 by Lallands Peat Worrier on September 21, 2010 - 11:36 am
The parallel with independence is certainly not exact. However, I think there are similarities in the question we’re asking – if we’re pro-PR folk, think AV isn’t proportional and wonder what strategically is the best way to realise our true goals? Here I’m thinking of the independence debate in a rather truncated way – between an ideal typical gradualist and fundamentalist, set on the same goal.
Your different answer does not necessarily leave you open to suggestions of inconsistency Malc, because it is a question of practical stratagem rather than principle. I’d easy to concede that the calculation how best to bring about PR differs substantially from how independence might be realised.
As I note in the old post I mention above, I don’t believe that AV is a “step” in any meaningful step towards PR either. Not necessarily. We can, however, offer an account of it as such, a way of maintaining the impetus, onward ever onward. The causality of the problem seems the devil, as Jeff mentions. We’re forced to make our best-guesses about how a potential “no” vote might impact on our actual preferences. No easy thing.
That said, haven’t the English Greens decided to support the ‘Yes’ campaign?
#5 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 11:42 am
They have (as Jeff said). And though I don’t know if the party has decided officially, I do remember hearing Patrick Harvie say on a BBC Radio Debate post-election he’d support it, as did Bill Kidd of the SNP. For me, as I’ve said in response to Hamish, I don’t think its enough of a change – and I’m with you Lallands, its not a step in that direction either.
#6 by Indy on September 21, 2010 - 10:39 am
I have a clear and decisive intention not to vote at all. Here’s why:
No-one supports AV. The Lib Dems don’t support it. The Tories don’t support it. Labour don’t support it. The Greens don’t support it. The SNP doesn’t support it. The socialists don’t support it. UKIP don’t support it. No-one supports it. Not even the BNP.
Having a referendum on changing the electoral system to one which no political party supports is intrinsically stupid and pointless and will further the dislocation between political parties and the electorate, who will be rightly bemused by why they are being asked to vote either for or against an electoral system no-one really supports.
Furthermore I think it is utterly outrageous that councils have been instructed that the referendum count will take precedence over the Scottish Parliament count. I do not see why we should have to wait to find out the results of the AV referendum (which hardly anyone in Scotland cares about) before we find out which party is going to form the Scottish Government.
Therefore on a practical level – as well as a political level – I advoctate non-voting. The fewer referendum votes they have to count the quicker they will get to the Scottish Parliament count.
#7 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 10:47 am
I can’t fault your logic Indy. Particularly the latter part – less votes = quicker count. However, I’m not sure abstentionism makes the point I want it to. Yes I’m unimpressed by the options, but I think an abstention looks like contentment with FPTP (which, I guess, a No vote does too). Which is the problem.
#8 by Jeff on September 21, 2010 - 11:13 am
I can’t fault Indy’s logic either, so much so that I wonder if a concerted campaign to abstain north of the border is worthwhile? Something like ‘Can’t count, won’t count’ (or something that, you know, makes sense)
Interesting that you initially suggested an abstention is tacit approval of FPTP, seemingly moreso than actually voting for it. I guess if it’s not a perfect referendum then there is no perfect answer to it.
To add a Green element, it is interesting that the GP england&wales resoundingly voted in favour of backing a Yes vote. I was a bit surprised by this but I can see that being frozen out for so long means you’ll take any change to the system that comes your way.
I still, despite being a member, just can’t stomach the brazen approach to democracy that has been taken as part of the coalition agreement and overall opposition/abstention remains the best bet.
#9 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 11:19 am
Here’s something else to consider. Given the AV vote will be on our Scottish Parliament election day, we’re likely to see a sizeable (65%+) turnout. Similar situation in Wales (though not likely to be quite so high). But in England, it isn’t tied to a devolved election, so turnout will be lower. What if it was so low that a Yes vote was only carried by the larger turnouts in Scotland and Wales?
Its not an implausible scenario – England wants to stick with FPTP but gets lumbered with AV on the back of Scottish/ Welsh votes in the referendum. Of course, a concerted “abstain campaign” might work to do the opposite…
#10 by Chris on September 21, 2010 - 11:00 am
A No vote on AV would stop any progress on PR altogether (‘consign it to the dustbin’ in mediaese).
However a Yes vote would make coalition governments more likely and so keep the pressure on for more PR.
Scotland – to an extent – is a case in point. The Scottish parliament was elected by PR and the resultant coalition introduced STV for council elections. This has made a fundamental change to Scottish politics by sharing council powers more wildly.
PR would make the UK a more democratic place, the threat of a huge Tory majority against the wishes of the people of Scotland would be nullified. This would be an interestind development on the independence debate as one of the main grievances would be ameliorated.
#11 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 11:08 am
Chris – though I see your point, I don’t agree either that a No vote would stop any progress on PR (since AV itself is not PR) nor that a Yes vote would make coalition more likely (we can – and did – get a coalition from FPTP, a coalition that is – in my view – likely to survive whether AV is instituted or not).
But let’s assume you are right and I’m wrong – and AV makes coalition more likely, thus keeping on pressure for PR. As Jeff asked – how long do we suffer AV before we get proper PR?
#12 by cynicalHighlander on September 21, 2010 - 11:06 am
Simple solution “None of the above” is what I shall do as at least I have voted and if enough spoiled votes are announced it might give them a jolt.
#13 by commenter on September 21, 2010 - 11:22 am
Any thoughts on how AV would specifically impact results in Scotland? We know that the LDs already get good representation per vote, because they’re clumped enough to do well with FPTP. Labour do great, and Tory/SNP do badly.
How might each party fare with AV?
AV is a kind of compromise-promoting system as far as I can tell. Since in my experience, for lot of people, the SNP are ‘beyond the pale’, will this affect them badly? How about the Tories?
If one doesn’t support AV on principle, then perhaps the idea is to pick your choose based on naked self-interest.
#14 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 11:45 am
Commenter, I’d have to defer to someone who may have done the maths on it. But I’d imagine we’d see more of the same. For instance, AV requires 50% of the electorate to support a candidate. In some (Glasgow) constituencies, Labour are already there (as are Lib Dems in some Highland seats) and while there may be some debate post-Con-LD coalition, I’d think many would transfer between the two. As for SNP and Tory, I suspect they’d suffer from a lack of transfers, though some obviously would buck that trend.
#15 by Hamish on September 21, 2010 - 11:31 am
“Either way, we’re unlikely to see any further change to the electoral system for the foreseeable future.” — so why not AV rather than FPTP in the meantime?
#16 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 11:38 am
I see what you’re saying. Like a socialist’s £20 an hour minimum wage dream – ask for 20 quid and compromise on a fiver in the meantime. Problem is, when you want 20, a fiver is rubbish in comparison. I’d argue the same with AV – its not PR, its marginally better than FPTP. Sure, it’s better than no change (just as a fiver is better than nothing) but at least hold out until you’re offered something that remotely resembles what you want.
#17 by James on September 21, 2010 - 2:14 pm
Quite. Get folk used to preferential voting, then grouping constituencies together would be a much smaller change. Jumping the chasm in two bounds is normally contra-indicated, but this might be an exception worth swallowing.
#18 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 2:21 pm
“Might be”? So can I take it from that that you are undecided as to the benefits of voting for AV too?
#19 by Una on September 21, 2010 - 12:22 pm
I’m having the same problem deciding how to vote. It’s the first time I’ve actually considered abstaining in protest, but I think spoiling the papers, as ‘cynicalhighlander’ suggests, may drive the message home better.
But then again we have the Scottish elections to focus on so who is going to waste time on this campaign? It’s an irritating, pointless distraction.
#20 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 3:39 pm
It’d surely make a point if we all turned out to vote in the Holyrood election (and by all, I mean a decent 65%+ turnout) and yet the turnout for AV referendum in Scotland was only 20% or so.
#21 by Chris on September 21, 2010 - 1:32 pm
Malc,
Your position sounds like that small minority of nationalists who voted No to Devolution because they wanted independence, nothing less, and regarded the parliament in Edinburgh as merely a sop. In the end their votes were counted in the No column as much as any Union Jack underpants wearer.
#22 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 1:36 pm
Chris – see my response to Lallands above. I know it sounds like it, but I don’t think it is. At least with devolution you can see the progression from Parliament with minimum powers to fiscal autonomy to independence (though I grant you, fundamentalists didn’t see it that way). With AV to PR, that progression is less clear.
#23 by Douglas McLellan on September 21, 2010 - 3:25 pm
I sympathise with your position if even if I dont agree with your logic.
You can dislike the Lib Dems if you want but what possible approach could have been taken other than the Coalition and the AV election. The voters would have been somewhat vexed if Gordon Brown was still in power and the Rainbow Coalition would have been destroyed by in fighting within weeks of it being formed. If the Tories had opted for a minority government then the markers would have wobbled (or worse) and the Tories could have called an election the moment the House of Commons voted something down. And the Tories were the only party with money to spend in an another election. And the Lib Dems would have been punished for helping foist another election on the country. There was no choice.
Now, when it comes to the AV referendum. If there is not a yes vote or only a very very close defeat then electoral reform is dead for at least 20 years if not longer. Look at what happened to devolution when Scotland said no. At least then there were still parties keen on the idea but if the result is no then only the Lib Dems and occasional Green in Westminster will want electoral reform. A No vote is a vote against reform.
Just 10 years after devolution there is serious discussions about how to enhance it. Whats to say the same wont happen with voting reform?
If you vote no (or even abstain) when do you think you will be asked again. 20 years? 30 years? Our lifetime?
#24 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 3:34 pm
Douglas – This has nothing to do with “disliking the Lib Dems”. For what it is worth, I think they were right to join the coalition and are doing a decent job in government (though I’ll say that quietly – my co-editors probably disagree considerably). I just think the AV referendum was/is a mistake.
As for your second point, I’ve dealt with why I don’t see parallels with devolution previously – but specifically, it is because devolution was everything to everyone. For gradualist Nats, it was the first step to independence, for Unionists it would “kill nationalism stone dead” and save the Union. But it was at least seen to be a PROCESS, a journey from one point to another. Can you honestly say that is the intention with AV?
As for the length of time until another vote on PR – I’d sooner wait for the next one (which – you are right, may not be for another 50 or so years) than vote for little progress. But answer this – if we ARE lumbered with AV, how long before we get a vote on a system which IS proportional? I’d wager it’d be longer than the time we’d be waiting were we to vote No.
On an aside, if by “serious discussions” about how to enhance devolution you mean Calman, I’d cast aspersions about your eyesight! To anyone who wants to see devolution progress, Calman has been a huge disappointment.
#25 by Douglas McLellan on September 21, 2010 - 4:23 pm
Sorry, that didn’t come out as a meant it about the Lib Dems (I was just questioning the blame the Lib Dems line).
I do think that AV is a step on a journey that most of the voters will not understand they are on. For pro-PR/STV people it is the start towards their outcomes. For those not engaged in politics it is a step in helping them realise that their votes counts. For the Labour Party and Tories it is a step in realising their worst fears might not be realised.
Thats why I think a yes vote is better than a no vote. If you vote yes and keep pressing for fairer votes as more people become used to the system it becomes easier to explain and easier to ask for more fairness. If you vote no then you are rejecting the first step on the fairer votes journey. And then you shouldn’t be surprised when no-one ever lets you think of taking that journey again.
On issues like Calman and voting reform you come across as an idealist that hopes if people would only believe as you do then momentous change can happen immediately. If the bulk of the population were like that then big bang change would be possible whenever you wanted it. Unfortunately they are not, they are people who, when push comes to shove, want today to be the same as yesterday. That’s why any changes need to be evolution not revolution.
#26 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 4:39 pm
Douglas – that’s probably the first time I’ve ever been described as an idealist… and, I think, its been wrongly attributed. We’re at a stage in devolution where we know what has worked and what hasn’t – and ideal time for a review. So that’s what we had. Calman was an opportunity to assess what we’d done well and what we hadn’t (which it did well) and assess where we could go with it (which it did not do well). Even Jim Wallace, who was on the Calman Commission, was fed up with its progress halfway through. Though perhaps he was looking at the Lib Dem Steel Report’s recommendations as a benchmark for which Calman should be aiming. And with that as his (and your) party’s policy at the time, surely there was some backing for more substantial recommendations?
Anyway, back on topic, I’m not convinced by your theory that AV is a step on a journey to STV or any other PR system. I think it is too unlike any kind of PR for it to be seen as such by those in support, and yet too far away from pure FPTP for its defenders to get on board. I think, in their heart of hearts, most Lib Dems wouldn’t support it either but feel almost duty bound to so it doesn’t reflect badly on the party in power.
#27 by Phil Hunt on September 21, 2010 - 3:46 pm
The main beneficiaries of AV would be the Lib Dems. These are also the main people pushing for PR. If AV wins, there are likely to be more Lib Dem MPs, which make coalitions more likely (since neither Labor or the Conservatives will have an overall majority), and also means that with more Lib Dem MPs, they’ll have a better negotiating position so are more likely to get PR.
Assume you prefer AV to FPTP, even if only slightly. If that’s the case, then whatever the suffering under AV is, it’ll be less than the suffering under FPTP.
#28 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 4:18 pm
Choosing between AV and FPTP is like choosing gas or lethal injection – neither are attractive options and neither lead to a satisfactory conclusion.
I note, however, that you didn’t answer the question. If I do indeed vote for AV, and we get it, how long do we have to wait for proper PR?
#29 by Phil Hunt on September 21, 2010 - 3:47 pm
BTW, the reply/quote system on this blog is broken — if I press Quote, my post should go as a reply to what I’m quoting.
#30 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 4:18 pm
Yep, I noticed that – but I’m unsure how to fix it. James?
#31 by Indy on September 21, 2010 - 3:59 pm
I have to say I am pretty astounded by comparisons between the referendums on AV and devolution.
Devolution has made a pretty huge difference to Scotland – apart from anything else, it’s the reason we now have councillors elected using STV (there was no referendum to decide that and no-one demanded one that I can recall). In contrast, introducing AV will make very little difference either to the outcome of Westminster elections or to the way elections are fought.
The people who support it are seriously over-egging the pudding.
#32 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 4:19 pm
Agreed Indy. I don’t get the comparison at all.
#33 by Chris on September 21, 2010 - 4:03 pm
But AV is far more likely to produce another coalition government than FPTP. And a coalition is likely to lead to pressure from the Lib Dems for further voting reforms.
If we stick with FPTP it might be another 25 years before we have a coalition again.
#34 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 4:20 pm
Okay, I agree AV is slightly more likely to produce coalition than FPTP. But I think the Con-LD coalition is here to stay for a couple of elections anyway, whether they are AV or FPTP elections, so I disagree with your second point.
#35 by Chris on September 21, 2010 - 4:38 pm
Really?
I think a Conservative outright majority is far more likely.
#36 by Malc on September 21, 2010 - 4:43 pm
Because their cuts agenda is so popular? For what its worth, it may depend on Labour’s recovery, but if they can get a few more seats and the Lib Dems can stay roughly between 60 and 70 seats, for me it looks more like coalition. I’ve written about it before.
#37 by Mike Shaughnessy on September 21, 2010 - 6:54 pm
The English Green party have decided to back AV in the referendum, but not all of us.
http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-av-much-of-alternative.html
Mike
#38 by Chris on September 22, 2010 - 10:56 am
Unless UKIP, Greens or the BNP fill the void the state of Westminster is a zero sum game between the three main parties. They can’t all lose support.
Coalitions are rare in the UK under FPTP because they require LibDems to do well, Tories to underperform and Labour to not overperform.
The people who want cuts, low taxation and fewer services will be very happy with the Conservative performance. It’s why they voted Tory remember. Lib Dem support is collapsing mostly to Labour’s gain. But the electoral reality is that in many parts of the country a swing from LibDem to Labour would win the Tories the seats they need to win an outright majority: On Lord Ashcroft’s analysis the current swing from LibDem to Labour would give the Tories an additional 30 seats.
#39 by commenter on September 22, 2010 - 3:33 pm
I’d say coalition governments are a prerequisite for any referendum/legislation on ‘real’ PR. Therefore, voting for AV is a no-brainer if you want PR.
If you don’t want PR, then make sure we have the electoral system that is least likely to deliver coalition government.
Vote accordingly on the AV referendum.
#40 by Malc on September 22, 2010 - 4:23 pm
I may grant your first point (coalition governments are a prerequisite for any referendum/legislation on ‘real’ PR) though it is contestable. However, I’d argue that electoral systems deliver nothing. FPTP is SUPPOSED to have 2-party politics and ‘stable, single-party governments’ but the voters decided otherwise in May. Point is, if the electorate want PR, they don’t need AV, they just have to vote for candidates who will deliver PR. Which makes the AV referendum moot, in my view.
#41 by commenter on September 22, 2010 - 8:03 pm
But the May result was a fluke occurrence and is the only reason that AV is on the cards. (And, don’t get me started on whole ‘the voters decided’ thing! Individual voters vote for individual candidates – there’s no group mind). Shift the percentages a few points around and we’re back to majority one-party government inevitably by a party that is quite happy with FPTP.
I think you’re saying that the road to PR requires a seismic shift in voting patterns in the UK such that a PR-supporting party becomes the majority party in Westminster, as Labour and the Tories are highly unlikely to adopt PR as a goal. I think that’s unlikely to happen. Tories are and I suspect always will be against PR, and Labour only leapt at AV+ (I think?) as a last ditch cynical manoeuvre.
So, a fluke occurence has resulted in a coalition – a very rare thing under FPTP. Anything that makes coalitions more likely in future has to increase the likelyhood of PR being introduced, or a PR referendum being held. AV will do that.
To vote for FPTP is I think to vote for many years of FPTP.
Carpe Diem ‘nat?
#42 by Malc on September 22, 2010 - 8:25 pm
Fluke occurrence? Maybe. I’d go with “convergence of events”. And when I said “the voters decided” I didn’t mean they collectively voted for a coalition. I meant that there was such a dispersal of voting between the parties that meant there was a coalition. You can “shift the percentages a few points around” – and polls DO that. But the one poll that mattered was in May – and it resulted in a coalition.
Again, you say it was a fluke, and its unlikely to happen again soon – but I wouldn’t be so sure. I think the way that political views have shifted in the UK as a whole means that the old power bases that the Tories and Labour used to have are, while still existent, not as prevalent as in the past. And, incidentally, if the coalition get their way on boundary changes (particularly on the equal sizes thing) we probably don’t need a “seismic shift” as the institutional bias which favours Labour will be significantly reduced, making the likelihood of their holding a majority of seats slimmer. Thus by my thinking, we’d have 2 government options in 2015 – Con majority or Con-LD coalition – delivered under FPTP.
Whether a coalition is likely/able/willing to deliver on PR is a further debate, but I don’t buy your premise that AV will make coalition, and therefore PR, more likely.
#43 by commenter on September 22, 2010 - 8:38 pm
You have a keener psephological mind than I (wouldn’t be hard) if you can look at the results of recent elections and discern that we’re headed for more coalitions.
Look at these results: one is a hefty majority, one is a hung parliament.
Election A – 35.2% 32.4% 22.0%
Election B – 36.1% 29.0% 23.0%
FPTP is a total crap shoot, and it tends to deliver majorities. Believing that something is changing to make coalitions more common… well I think it’s wishful thinking. Maybe…
#44 by commenter on September 22, 2010 - 8:49 pm
ctd… You make a good point about the removal of Labour’s built-in advantage though. I would like to see how such a change might have panned out in previous elections. You guys need to recruit a number-crunching nerd from somewhere to add to the collective.
#45 by Malc on September 22, 2010 - 9:27 pm
Whoa. Back-up. I never said FPTP was likely to deliver coalitions. It isn’t. And your point is valid – Election A and B on the figures are similar. But it wasn’t the figures that suggested to me that we’re headed for coalition (though I will admit that the figures as they are may lead to a seat distribution that makes it, if not likely, then at least a possibility).
The figures don’t tell the story of the changed political circumstances. And I think there is discussion elsewhere as to whether the Tories and Lib Dems may do some kind of pre-election deal in 2015 to limit competition… and maintain co-operation post-election.
As for a number-crunching expert. Well, we’re working on it! Though Jeff and James can crunch numbers with the best of them.
#46 by Indy on September 23, 2010 - 10:21 am
There can be a “group mind” in voting patterns. At the last election it was very clear that the Scottish electorate – collectively – voted in the way that they considered most likely to ensure that the Tories did not get any new MPs i.e. they voted for the non-Tory incumbents.
Reducing elections to that kind of negative tactical voting is of course one of the strongest argument against FPTP and AV would make very little difference to that situation.
#47 by Eric F on September 23, 2010 - 10:35 pm
Guys – get yourselves down to the polling station and write “STV” on the ballot paper.
They can control the question – you don’t need to let them control the answer.
Pingback: Scotland the grave – Scottish Roundup