First-past-post system 'is broken'

[Hopeless Romantic]

Last year's general election result was determined by less than 2% of voters, according to a think tank report which has denounced first-past-the-post voting as a "broken system" for choosing Westminster MPs.
The report from the left-of-centre Institute for Public Policy Research comes ahead of the May 5 referendum on replacing first-past-the-post (FPTP) with the alternative vote (AV) system, under which voters rank candidates in order of preference.

While supporters of FPTP - including most Conservatives and a large number of Labour MPs - argue it is the best way of producing strong governments, today's report argues that long-term changes in voting patterns mean the system has become a recipe for hung parliaments and coalitions in future.

Only about 31% of voters - 9 million people - live in the marginal seats which form the main battlefields in elections under FPTP, found the IPPR. But the number whose votes made up the margin of victory in seats which actually changed hands was even smaller - just over 460,000, or 1.6% of the electorate.

more

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jL9ZDgq1Hb9jF0HLHMptDCiIXgyA?docId=N0436351294073164012A

[LeftishBrit]

1. I agree

It's unfortunate that the drive for changing the electoral system has become so associated with one political party, and that a small and currently unpopular one. It should be seen as important to us all. I have thought our system very unsatisfactory since the days when Maggie Thatcher was able to rule as an 'elected dictator' without ever getting over 43% of the vote.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Still, Ed Miliband supports the switch to AV

so that means, I think, that there will be a reasonable push from some senior parts of the Labour party for it.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Hope so!

Most Tories clearly are not going to want it. Why would they object to a system that allowed Maggie an elected dictatorship with 42% of the vote, and now allows Dave almost complete control with 36% - the same share of the vote that they got in their 1945 debacle, much as they may now consider it as a mandate?

But though there are some Labour diehards against it, there are, as you point out, some key leaders who support it.

[T_i_B]

5. The trouble is not that the Tories got in with 36%

They have after all had to go into coalition with the Lib Dems, as would be the case with AV.

No, the problem is that that Lib Dems are proving to be utterly useless as a counterbalance to the Tories and failing to reign in the likes of Andrew Lansley and Grant Shapps. This much is a very bad omen for how future coalitions under AV would work out. Indeed for many it will be a very strong case indeed for opposing AV.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Disagree here (well, not about the LDs being useless in the coalition, but...)

Firstly, AV is not just about the LibDems. It is about giving a more balanced representation of the voters' wishes in parliament.

Secondly, it is also about reducing the power of any single party, unless it really does get a huge landslide. It's true that if the voters' wishes had been better reflected it *might* still have led to a Tory/LibDem coalition (though there are other possibilities). But it would have been one where the Tories were much less big a party, and the LibDems had more power. Then, even with Clegg etc. being useless, the party might not have signed up to so much of the Tory crap - and perhaps the Tories wouldn't have tried it on to the same extent.

Thirdly, to some extent AV itself is a tool at present whereby the Tories can blackmail the LDs ('you cause the coalition to break up and we'll make sure that you NEVER get AV!'). This is not an excuse for the LDs' failures, but it is an explanation. Once the AV referendum is over, whichever way it goes, I suspect there will be a lot more pressure on Clegg from leftwing LibDems, and from those who just don't fancy losing their seats by a landslide next time.

Finally, to get back where I started: AV is *not* just about improving LD prospects. Indeed, it might not do so if people vote against the LDs in droves. Those who are pissed off with the LDs (i.e. the majority of former LD voters!) can vote Labour next time, or for smaller parties like the Greens - who would also benefit from AV. People should not vote against AV because of the LDs failings.

[T_i_B]

7. Hmmm....

Firstly, AV is not just about the LibDems. It is about giving a more balanced representation of the voters' wishes in parliament.

It's not technically a proportional system. Indeed it would have produced a larger Labour majority in 1997, when we already got over 60% of the seats off 43% of the vote. This is not a democratically good thing, however good it might have been for Labour.

Secondly, it is also about reducing the power of any single party, unless it really does get a huge landslide. It's true that if the voters' wishes had been better reflected it *might* still have led to a Tory/LibDem coalition (though there are other possibilities). But it would have been one where the Tories were much less big a party, and the LibDems had more power. Then, even with Clegg etc. being useless, the party might not have signed up to so much of the Tory crap - and perhaps the Tories wouldn't have tried it on to the same extent.

In theory the Tories power in the current arrangement should be less then it is, but the Lib Dems are letting the Tories get away with a heck of a lot and I don't think that would change if they did get AV.

Thirdly, to some extent AV itself is a tool at present whereby the Tories can blackmail the LDs ('you cause the coalition to break up and we'll make sure that you NEVER get AV!'). This is not an excuse for the LDs' failures, but it is an explanation. Once the AV referendum is over, whichever way it goes, I suspect there will be a lot more pressure on Clegg from leftwing LibDems, and from those who just don't fancy losing their seats by a landslide next time.

If Clegg gets his yes vote, then if anything it would ease the pressure on him and the Lib Dem leadership.

Those who are pissed off with the LDs (i.e. the majority of former LD voters!) can vote Labour next time, or for smaller parties like the Greens - who would also benefit from AV. People should not vote against AV because of the LDs failings.

AV would not stop tactical voting, or indeed politicans using tactical arguments over proper policy arguments at every available opportunity. Can you honestly tell me that partisan political activists won't be arguing for people to use their first preference only to vote for their party?

Heck even under the STV system used at European elections every man and his dog was arguing that you should have voted for them for the tactical reason of keeping the BNP out. (and that only they could "stop" the BNP).

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Great Britain does not use STV in European elections

Only Northern Ireland does. The system in which everyone was saying "vote for us to keep the BNP out" is a closed party list system, in which you get one vote per person, for a party, in a huge constituency that elects multiple representatives. Which surely you remember yourself?

The (GB) Euro election system is very different from AV. It does produce a more proportional result than FPTP, which is what meant the BNP got in in a couple of places. But, as you say yourself, AV is not an inherently proportional method. Its main effect is to stop the splitting of the vote between 2 similar candidates that then allows in a 3rd candidate who is actually very unpopular with a majority of electors. In some circumstances, as in 1997, this would have meant a more exaggerated result (because Tories were widely seen as scum that year). In 2010, one simulation says Labour would have gained 4 seats over the real result, and the Lib Dems 22, with the Tories losing 26.

AV would not stop tactical voting, or indeed politicians using tactical arguments over proper policy arguments at every available opportunity. Can you honestly tell me that partisan political activists won't be arguing for people to use their first preference only to vote for their party?

That's not what I'd call 'tactical voting'. That's saying "we're the only people worth voting for at all". Arrogant, perhaps, but hardly a 'tactic'. And that is the only option people get at the moment. Are you saying that all of FPTP is 'tactical voting'?

In very few circumstances is any kind of tactical voting, ie putting candidates in anything other than your true order of preference, at all worthwhile with AV. To use it, party 'A' would have to work to have party 'B' eliminated early, because they're afraid that 'B' will receive too many transferred votes in the crucial round. So, to do that, you'd have to have a 3rd party 'C' which 'A' can persuade enough people to vote for so that it beats 'B', and 'B' is thrown out, before 'A' then beats 'C' in a later round. But remember that 'B' must be fairly popular to be a threat to 'A', so getting that many votes for 'C' is tricky without risking 'C' ending up beating 'A' too.

All in all, in practical situations, it's unlikely to happen. If you think it can, then please illustrate it, with numbers and real parties.

[T_i_B]

4. Full list of Labour MP's opposing AV

Interesting that my own MP is on the list as she spoke in favour of AV at the hustings I attended.

Mind you, the prize for Labour if AV gets rejected is the destruction of the Lib Dems, who seem to be only interested in AV to the exclusion of just about everything else in their manifesto.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/29/no-to-av-support-114-labour-mps

David Anderson, Lindsay Hoyle, Ian Austin, Tristram Hunt, Adrian Bailey, Cathy Jamieson, Gordon Banks, Diana Johnson, Margaret Beckett, Helen Jones, Stuart Bell, Kevan Jones, Joe Benton, Eric Joyce, Clive Betts, Gerald Kaufman, Hazel Blears, Alan Keen, David Blunkett, Ian Lavery, Russell Brown, Ivan Lewis, David Cairns, Ian Lucas, Ronnie Campbell, Denis MacShane, Jenny Chapman, Steve McCabe, Katy Clark, Michael McCann, Tom Clarke,Siobhain McDonagh, Ann Clwyd, Jim McGovern,Vernon Coaker, Alan Meale, David Crausby, Ian Mearns, Mary Creagh, Alun Michael, John Cryer, Andrew Miller, Jim Cunningham, Austin Mitchell, Margaret Curran, Graeme Morrice, Simon Danczuk, Grahame Morris, Ian Davidson, George Mudie, Geraint Davies, Meg Munn, Jim Dobbin, Paul Murphy, Thomas Docherty, Ian Murray, Brian H. Donohoe, Fiona O'Donnell, Julie Elliott, Albert Owen, Louise Ellman, Toby Perkins, Natascha Engel, Yasmin Qureshi, Chris Evans, Rachel Reeves, Jim Fitzpatrick, Linda Riordan, Robert Flello, John Robertson, Caroline Flint, Frank Roy, Yvonne Fovargue, Barry Sheerman, Sheila Gilmore, Jim Sheridan, Pat Glass, Gavin Shuker, Mary Glindon, Dennis Skinner, Paul Goggins, Angela Smith, Tom Greatrex, Nick Smith, Kate Green, John Spellar, Andrew Gwynne, Graham Stringer, David Hamilton, Gisela Stuart, Tom Harris, Gerry Sutcliffe, John Healey, Mark Tami, Mark Hendrick, Emily Thornberry, Stephen Hepburn, Karl Turner, David Heyes, Derek Twigg, Meg Hillier, Keith Vaz, Julie Hilling, Joan Walley,Margaret Hodge, Dave Watts, Sharon Hodgson, Chris Williamson, Jim Hood, Phil Wilson, Kelvin Hopkins, David Winnick, George Howarth, David Wright.