AV vs FPTP

[Dr Mindbender]

What way will UK people be voting on the AV referendum?

Is there a risk the BNP will make gains under AV?

[Tommy4ever]

Well, I guess we'll find out soon. I just voted yes to AV.

AV means that it will be easier to see who people's actual first choice party would be - so that might show a more accurate picture of BNP support. But it should lead to the party who is acceptable to the largest number of people winning in each constituency. So, whilst the BNP (just like socialist parties) will probably get more actual votes they are less likely to actually win seats.

[Q]

It is hardly an improvement, but it still is and for two reasons:

1. Like Tommy said, the actual support is registered. This is also useful for the far left to see what is the real potential out there.
2. It points out that there is nothing "eternal" or "natural" about the current voting system, which could open the way for better systems in the future.

If I were in the UK, I'd probably vote yes.

[Futility Personified]

Voting yes in a bit

[bailey_187]

Voting no.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

I'll be voting Yes. Although I couldn't really give a shit about AV, FPTP entrenches the ruling parties and needs to stop. I hear people are going to vote NO on principle that they want PR or STV instead, or because they stupidly voted LibDem and want to stick it to Clegg. Are people fucking stupid? This is only the second full country referendum in UK history, it's highly unlikely that, after a defeat, there will be another electoral reform referendum because the FPTP camp can say 'We had on of those, people said NO... so, yeah, fuck your referendum request'...

[bailey_187]

AV will be even worse for "entrenching" politics as usual. The parties will stick in their most moderate candidates to be as least offensive as possible. Any sort of politician will strong views and principles wil not be elected. Rather, we will get the wishy-washy spineless characters elected with no real convictions.

You think if we vote YES, they will say "oh, lets see if they want PR now"? If the voting system changes, theres pretty much no way we will see any reform for even longer. Your quote can just was easily be 'we already changd the system once, we cant keep changing it'.

This referndum about voting didnt come about because of popular demand for it, but through backroom deals between Lib Dems and Tories.

Also, fuck off whoever says whatever system will "keep the BNP out", as if the solution to defeating fascism is a technical fix to the voting system. Also, look how the language around this is framed by the official campaigns, "keep extremists out" - i suppose u lot arent considered "extremists" too by the main parties?

[Kenco Smooth]

Also, look how the language around this is framed by the official campaigns, "keep extremists out" - i suppose u lot arent considered "extremists" too by the main parties?

Indeed Clegg claimed various times that the only people opposed to AV are tories, the BNP and the communist Party (he was less than clear on which party but the CPB seems to be the only major one putting forward a no position.)

I voted yes, not because AV is any kind of improvement but because it might in 30 years or so open the door for a system of PR which would go some way to breaking the parliamentry hegemony of the big 2 parties. This said I'm hardly going to be broken up if it fails to pass (as it seems likely to) apart from having to listen to endless complaints from liberal friends about how this is the worst catastrophe to befall democracy since the fall of Athens.

[caramelpence]

Indeed Clegg claimed various times that the only people opposed to AV are tories, the BNP and the communist Party (he was less than clear on which party but the CPB seems to be the only major one putting forward a no position.)

LOL, what, you think Clegg might have been referring to some Stalinist sect like the CPGB-ML or a bunch of losers like the CPGB? I think when politicians or the BBC introductions to electoral broadcasts refer to the Communist Party they obviously mean the CPB because that's the most direct descendant of the Cold War-era official Communist Party and the only party with Communist in its name that has any meaningful visibility in public life.


but because it might in 30 years or so open the door for a system of PR which would go some way to breaking the parliamentry hegemony of the big 2 parties.

Poor argument, not a single country that has adopted AV has gone on to adopt PR. Agree with what another poster said about not using electoral engineering to defeat fascism, and I think that's true of politics in general as the role of communists shouldn't be to create the best conditions for electoral success, it should be to call on people to reject the whole electoral game by not even bothering to participate in elections. Increasingly large numbers of people don't vote anyway, which reflects a more or less inchoate recognition of the farcical nature of politics in a capitalist state, so our goal should be to get as low a turnout as possible. I didn't vote for the LibDems but if I were voting in this referendum I would also vote purely no because I think a no vote is the most effective way to deepen existing divisions within the coalition and between the LibDem leadership and party base.

[El Rojo]

I abstained because government is the management committe for capital. i don't give a shit how they vote, parliamentary democracy is a joke.

it will fail. this means more political deadlock, similar to the US. although it seems a little machievellian, the sooner parliament falls, the better

[Manic Impressive]

I forgot to vote:)

[Kenco Smooth]

LOL, what, you think Clegg might have been referring to some Stalinist sect like the CPGB-ML or a bunch of losers like the CPGB? I think when politicians or the BBC introductions to electoral broadcasts refer to the Communist Party they obviously mean the CPB because that's the most direct descendant of the Cold War-era official Communist Party and the only party with Communist in its name that has any meaningful visibility in public life.

I don't really keep up with organisational dick measuring. Shoot me.


Poor argument, not a single country that has adopted AV has gone on to adopt PR.

Only 3 countries use AV for votes in their major representative houses. That's a nice sample size you've got there.

[caramelpence]

Only 3 countries use AV for votes in their major representative houses. That's a nice sample size you've got there

Don't you find it at all ironic that you're using a (poor) argument from the no campaign to support the position that adopting AV is likely to prompt a move to PR in the future? In any case, you may not like the sample size, but unless you have any evidence, the argument that AV will allow or encourage or enable (or whatever) a move to PR is baseless. It's a non-argument, it has no supporting empirical basis. I would also point out that what's relevant from the viewpoint of empirical evidence is not only the number of countries that currently use AV but also the period of time that they've operated under that system - the fact that many have used AV for some period of time (since 1918 in the case of Australia, for example) and that they have not changed to PR means that, considered in terms of country-years rather than just countries, the evidence that AV does not encourage a move to PR is even greater.

[Kenco Smooth]

Don't you find it at all ironic that you're using a (poor) argument from the no campaign to support the position that adopting AV is likely to prompt a move to PR in the future? In any case, you may not like the sample size, but unless you have any evidence, the argument that AV will allow or encourage or enable (or whatever) a move to PR is baseless. It's a non-argument, it has no supporting empirical basis. I would also point out that what's relevant from the viewpoint of empirical evidence is not only the number of countries that currently use AV but also the period of time that they've operated under that system - the fact that many have used AV for some period of time (since 1918 in the case of Australia, for example) and that they have not changed to PR means that, considered in terms of country-years rather than just countries, the evidence that AV does not encourage a move to PR is even greater.

Pretty crude analysis there. Out of curiosity how much pressure do you think representatives in Fiji and Papua New Guineaare coming under to move on to a system of PR? And again, Australia is one nation. You want to draw your conclusions from one nation with a fundamentally different approach to parliamentary voting (compulsary voting) go ahead.

The simple fact is whether or not AV leads to PR or hinders the move can not be drawn from an analysis of the countries using AV simply because the sample size is so small and so difficult to generalise with. However a look at other recuring issues of representation can show that, at the very least a vote for yes does nothing to hinder. For example, in the vote on Scottish devolution in 1979 should the nationalists have voted no and then continued campaigning for independance outwith that? Or has the devolution in 1997, influenced by the 1.23 million Scots votes for and 1.15 million votes against in 1979, simply reinvigorated that push to the final goal of nationalism?

Few here, myself included, place much faith or hope in the parliamentry process, but to simply abstain on this sort of issue in the fears that we'll get stuck with a compromise is not a sensible one. The push for PR won't end if AV is put in place and if it does there's no-one to blame but the people who wish to see it used.

[Demogorgon]

I voted yes but also wrote "my true vote is for proportional representation" on the ballot paper. If that spoils the ballot, so be it. Two awful choices barely different from one another.

[El Rojo]

Frankly I don't see the point of either discussing or voting. Any electoral reform is meaningless from an anti-capitalist perspective unless that thing that you may have heard about - worker's control of the means of production - can be brought about.

This referendum is re-arranging the deck chairs of a sinking ship. And since this government has no actual electoral mandate in the first point, why respect any of its policy changes, or even the legitimacy of the state itself?

If voting changed anything, ect

[red_rich]

its like either voting for a 'shit' system or a 'bollocks' system. We dont want either so why vote at all? by voting for either you legitimise the outcome.

We should always reject the bourgeois political system. the lower the turnout the better. Concentrate your efforts in explaining to people WHY they shouldnt vote for this farce and what we have to offer instead.

[bricolage]

I was tempted to go and write 'represent this' under a massive picture of a knob... but in the end I just went home.

[Demogorgon]

Frankly I don't see the point of either discussing or voting. Any electoral reform is meaningless from an anti-capitalist perspective unless that thing that you may have heard about - worker's control of the means of production - can be brought about.

This referendum is re-arranging the deck chairs of a sinking ship. And since this government has no actual electoral mandate in the first point, why respect any of its policy changes, or even the legitimacy of the state itself?

If voting changed anything, ect
If you see voting-full stop-as a waste of time, I take it you believe Universal Suffrage was pointless and that the left should never have pursued it?

[TC]

No, there is no chance of the BNP making gains under AV.

AV is not a proportional representation system, it is an instant runoff system.

To compare:

In FPTP - the party with the largest plurality wins, even if not in a majority, even if most people oppose them and prefer someone else over them.

In AV - there are 'instant runoff' elections whereby the party with least votes is eliminated in the 'first round' and their voters 'second preference' votes are then transfered to the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until one candidate has a majority.

Since labour voters would prefer lib dems to the tories, and lib dem voters would more often than not prefer labour to tories, AV would increase lib dem and labour power and considerably weaken the tories.

Small parties will not gain seats in proportion to their representation under AV because they will be eliminated in the early rounds. But small parties would gain more votes because people who would say, prefer green or respect but vote labour strategically, will no longer have a strategic incentive to vote labour since they can safely vote green or respect knowing their vote will transfer to labour as a 2nd preference.

[human strike]

I've been encouraging people not to vote. The lower the turnout the better. Let's not legitimise their farce.

[Tommy4ever]

I've been encouraging people not to vote. The lower the turnout the better. Let's not legitimise their farce.

That'll work!

Oh .... wait ....

[Coggeh]

AV will be even worse for "entrenching" politics as usual. The parties will stick in their most moderate candidates to be as least offensive as possible. Any sort of politician will strong views and principles wil not be elected. Rather, we will get the wishy-washy spineless characters elected with no real convictions.

You think if we vote YES, they will say "oh, lets see if they want PR now"? If the voting system changes, theres pretty much no way we will see any reform for even longer. Your quote can just was easily be 'we already changd the system once, we cant keep changing it'.

This referndum about voting didnt come about because of popular demand for it, but through backroom deals between Lib Dems and Tories.
If AV is rejected the last thing that will happen is a push for PR, those in favour of PR are voting and campaigning for AV whereas those in favour of FPTP are those strongly against the PR system. A win for AV would not bring about PR but it would show a strong indication of the support there is for it.


Also, fuck off whoever says whatever system will "keep the BNP out", as if the solution to defeating fascism is a technical fix to the voting system. Also, look how the language around this is framed by the official campaigns, "keep extremists out" - i suppose u lot arent considered "extremists" too by the main parties?
Bang on.

[bricolage]

That'll work!

Oh .... wait ....
Voting for voting systems'll work!

Oh ... wait ...

[Coggeh]

Voting for voting systems'll work!

Oh ... wait ...

Jesus christ.

If there was a vote tomorrow on legalising abortion would you vote? or would that be endorsing bourgeois democracy?

Like it or not somethings are worth voting for in the context of winning or defending progressive gains. It is ignorant and nothing else to abstain when real gains for the working class are on offer or under attack.

[bricolage]

Like it or not somethings are worth voting for in the context of winning or defending progressive gains. It is ignorant and nothing else to abstain when real gains for the working class are on offer or under attack.
Since when is AV a part of 'real gains for the working class'?

[Coggeh]

Since when is AV a part of 'real gains for the working class'?

AV is progressive in terms of what FPTP is. It is a better more representative way of voting, its not progressive really in itself but its better than FPTP

[Bronco]

Didnt really want either, they're both shit systems. That said, I had hoped for a "Yes" result, partly because now the whole debate over electoral reform will be put to bed for the forseeable future, and partly because it might actually be a step towards not having so dominant a two party state

[Stranger Than Paradise]

AV is progressive in terms of what FPTP is. It is a better more representative way of voting, its not progressive really in itself but its better than FPTP

How though? Have countries with AV had more socialist candidates elected (not that I think that is "progressive" either) than ones with FPTP?

[bricolage]

AV is progressive in terms of what FPTP is. It is a better more representative way of voting, its not progressive really in itself but its better than FPTP
I still don't understand what this has to do with being a 'real gain for the working class'.
The ability to rank in order who is going to fuck you as opposed to just picking who is going to fuck still means you get royally fucked. This doesn't mean anything to workers fighting for jobs, conditions and services. It's something alien. And I'm not even saying abject political things like this are always equally alien (although the probably are) but if they have anything to do with working class gains they come as the result of working class struggle. Class analysis of society means you don't just address things in a vacuum you look at them within the contradiction of interests between those that produce social wealth and those that reap its benefits. So universal suffrage (as Zanthorus if he saw this would say...) came after groups such as the Chartists engaging in mass struggle, who Marx would refer to as a 'party' of the class, and so forth. But how did the AV referendum come about? As a stitch up to secure a coalition of mass austerity. I cannot see how in anyway AV can be justified as any kind of gain for the working class or anything at all to do with working class struggle.