Referendum III

[caddyman]

On a final note, since it will change nothing, I would just like someone to explain the underlying fairness of a First Past The Post system that translates votes thus:

2010 General Election:

Conservative: 307 seats. 36.1% of popular vote. 47.2% representation;
Labour: 258 seats. 29% of popular vote. 39.6% representation;
Liberal Democrats: 57 seats. 23% of popular vote. 9% representation.

This is the fair system the Tories and the majority of the Labour party wish to preserve. Not because it serves the National Interest, but because it serves their own interests and hang the country.

Comments

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

If we had AV in 2010, the results, based on modelling, suggest an outcome for the three main parties of:

Conservatives 284,
Labour 248 and
Liberal Democrats 89

It would not have been much "fairer" by your yardstick (of % representation) but would have given the Fib Dems grossly UNFAIR leverage in relation to their share of the vote):

"This outcome would have radically changed the arithmetic of post-election coalition building, with the Liberal Democrats being able to form a majority coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives." [Parliamentary Affairs - Simulating the Effects of the Alternative Vote in the 2010 UK General Election]

Edit: I think this study may answer one of the questions raised in your previous post. It is based on a sample of real data i.e.: "In the ‘replay’ of the 2010 election under AV, respondents were asked both how they voted in the actual election and, using a simulated ballot form, how they would have voted in a comparable AV election. Under AV, voters’ second and third party preferences are used to determine the election outcome."

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I disagree. 89 seats is still only 13.7% of the available representation, leaving them grossly under represented (though not as grossly under represented as now).

How does a closer approximation to the popular will make their influence unfair, unless you support the party that would have done better under the current system?

As I say, what suits a party does not necessarily suit democracy and democracy is where my interest lies, rather than pandering to an individual party's interests.

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

"89 seats is still only 13.7% of the available representation, leaving them grossly under represented"

That's what I mean. AV, as proposed for the UK, wouldn't have changed the "fairness" according to % representation. (So why bother?)

It's not so much influence, it's real power, when they get to dictate terms to either main party - their terms and conditions for being in a coalition. And how do backroom deals and less accountability help democracy?

I believe AV is a Lib Dem party interest - not borne out by the public's interest. Fortunately, the public is expected to democratically deliver their resounding verdict in today's referendum.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I expect there will be a resounding 'no' largely because the 'yes' campaign was so poorly organised and the 'no' campaign admitted to lying far too late.

The problem is quite simple in my view: the defeat of AV will end all attempts at reform in our lifetime. If I thought there would be a way to collect on that bet, I'd be down the bookies to make it.

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

I accept that the defeat of AV will (most likely) end all attempts at major reform (but there will be some tinkering e.g. equal sized constituencies).

Sadly the AV campaign lied also (e.g. under AV we would not have had the MPs expenses scandal, and claims that the NO campaign said that babies would die if we got AV etc etc), and that's probably put a lot of people off too.

I do regret the fact that there hasn't been the proper level of debate in the run up to this referendum. The chatter just seemed to intensify only in the last couple of weeks. It is an important issue. The other thing I would say, if turnout is less than 40%, I don't accept it to be legitimate - whichever side wins.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Oh I definitely agree with you on the lack of real debate, the stupidity and lies of both sides.

I am with you on the turnout issue too. I won't be surprised if it dips well below 40% which would be a shame.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

That looks as resonable as can be done for the 2010 analysis. I am still sceptical about assertions for previous election alternative outcomes!