tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post3385632554770356462..comments2023-12-23T10:18:58.321+00:00Comments on The Extra Bold Blog: AV would be brilliantJoe Ottenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-30984191374766423982009-06-29T19:57:26.523+01:002009-06-29T19:57:26.523+01:00No, I don't think there is any clamour for mix...No, I don't think there is any clamour for mixed systems and I don't think I said so, that's why I want to raise discussion of their potential.<br /><br />Is AV+ or STV better? Frankly I could care more; the detailed policy discussion is a turn-off to most normal people. So while we debate the finer points among ourselves we are losing an opportunity to build a consensus for reforming the system and the defenders of the status quo are laughing their way into power.<br /><br />While we remain divided on the subject nothing will change, so let's be open to the possibilities and save the precise nature of our personal proposals for the constitutional convention.<br /><br />Which is why I think anything which will weaken our insistence on particular ways of reforming the electoral system will actually bring it closer. If we can reach out to moderate members of other parties to show we share some mutual concerns we'll be taking an active lead.<br /><br />Elections effect everybody, so we can't be parochial about it.Oranjepanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08150901449640162740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-61073752366635057392009-06-29T19:15:47.580+01:002009-06-29T19:15:47.580+01:00Orange, I don't see any clamour for mixed syst...Orange, I don't see any clamour for mixed systems in particular. There is some clamour for independents (hence AV, AV+ or STV, and not list systems) and a general recognition of the need for reform.<br /><br />Even if there were a huge clamour for moves towards PR, it would be water off a duck's back to most Tories. Oh they might increase the size of Scottish constituencies I suppose.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-62947048155425769272009-06-29T18:21:14.586+01:002009-06-29T18:21:14.586+01:00I've wonder how you brits deal with more than ...I've wonder how you brits deal with more than two parties and it seems to be quite confusing when looking at coalitions that have to be built and agendas won. Even here in America, as much as we like to think of our candidates as independent from poltical parties it stills seems to matter very little as they almost alwasys vote the party line.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02455663180636758438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-71354064003780525002009-06-29T17:41:00.129+01:002009-06-29T17:41:00.129+01:00The question is not just where do wer want to get ...The question is not just where do wer want to get to, but also how do we get there.<br /><br />I've mentioned the idea of FPTP+100 elsewhere because I think tories would find it difficult to resist amidst the clamour for change and we need to make the first step along the road to greater proportionality if we are to get this journey started.<br /><br />There are a range of mixed solutions which I've yet to find any discussion of online, so I'd like to put that one to you to find out what you think.Oranjepanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08150901449640162740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-57424930833429219292009-06-10T15:08:36.129+01:002009-06-10T15:08:36.129+01:00Bernard, your objection is somewhat double-edged.
...Bernard, your objection is somewhat double-edged.<br /><br />It would probably have inflated Labour's 1997 majority precisely because people were united in throwing out a discredited lame duck government. The same might happen now for the Tories. <br /><br />This blows away the single most common objection to reform. <br /><br /><br />Tim, yes tactical voting is never redundant. But the sort of example you give is one where AV gives the second best result and FPTP gives the worst result, in terms of whether a majority of voters would prefer some other result to the one they got.Joe Ottenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18380362092159905533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-15325758078095515502009-06-10T14:47:52.229+01:002009-06-10T14:47:52.229+01:00It's a myth that tactical voting is redundant ...It's a myth that tactical voting is redundant under AV. If in a constituency the result (after minor party elimination) is Labour 41%, Conservative 30%, Liberal Democrat 29% then it's probable Labour would win.But if some Conservatives tactically ranked the Lib Dems first then it's probably the Lib Dems would win. And no doubt this would appear on a bar chart.Tim Roll-Pickeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12589024696145675963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20480185.post-53815229422737226252009-06-10T13:52:43.012+01:002009-06-10T13:52:43.012+01:00It's not just the lack of proportionality whic...It's not just the lack of proportionality which is a problem with AV. It will often exaggerate swings between parties and does almost nothing to end the problem of safe seats. It's very likely that Labour would have got an even bigger majority in 1997 under an AV system, with the Tories being almost wiped out. And AV is not a stepping stone to STV - if AV goes through, we would probably be stuck with it for decades.Bernard Salmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16756716991445396009noreply@blogger.com