General election results 2015

[Bryn]

AV isn't PR.

Indeed not! AV is no real alternative to FPtP.

There are two main versions of PR, the party list system (which I personally do not care for due to the lack of personal link to the candidates), and STV (Single Transferable Vote) which has a particular potential drawback of 'donkey voting', i.e. simply ordering preference by that of the listing of candidates. This might be ameliorated by randomizing the order of listing for each ballot paper printed. An expensive solution, but democracy does not come cheap.

See http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems

[french frank]

No reason to consult the electorate? I am astonished at your totalitarian point of view.

One does not consult the electorate on every single issue. I'm simply saying I'm not sure that the actual electoral system is one to put to a referendum, any more than each boundary change goes to the electorate.

I do not want PR. Am I not entitled to hold this view? Does this view not carry any weight? This is my view - I have not been "persuaded". Do I get no say at all as to whether PR is introduced?

You've misunderstood the point: what I was querying was the publicity from the last referendum - which would apply to any referendum on a preferential voting sytem - that 'some people get two votes', which fundamentally misunderstands how it works. People were "persuaded" this was the case. If the argument didn't "persuade" you, you weren't fooled and I wasn't directing the comment at you.

Is there anything else you would like to have a say on, but don't? Changes to welfare support? Fracking under your house? Nuclear power? Bankers' bonuses?

All you're asked to do in a General Election is place the symbol of illiteracy next to the name of someone you may or may not know anything about.

[Richard Barrett]

Interesting article on "shy nationalists": http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...ampaign=buffer

[jean]

Is there anything else you would like to have a say on, but don't? Changes to welfare support? Fracking under your house? Nuclear power? Bankers' bonuses?

I think putting the voting system in with all these misses the point, because it is of a different order - the voting system we use precedes and distorts our ability to make our voices heard on all other matters.

[french frank]

Interesting article on "shy nationalists": http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...ampaign=buffer

Very interesting. Anyone who's done much canvassing will know that a bit can be inferred from how people (don't) respond, but you can never be sure.

'I'm not interested in politics.' 'You won't be voting in the election?' 'Oh, yes, I will vote.'

'That's between me and the ballot box.'

'Yes, I'll vote but I haven't made up my mind yet.'

even (only occasionally now):

'My husband is the one who votes.'

[french frank]

I think putting the voting system in with all these misses the point, because it is of a different order - the voting system we use precedes and distorts our ability to make our voices heard on all other matters.

That's true, and I haven't checked with the latest ERS view. Originally it was totally wedded to STV, but was taken aback by the 'arguments' against AV, like the 'multiple votes' and the extortionate cost (remember 'Vote No, or the baby gets it'?) which seemed to sway the voters.

AV isn't PR, but its introduction would no more have closed the door on PR, than having the same money and nonsense being spewed out again if any attempt is made to introduce preferential voting. Jean, you and I disagree on that. Neither of us can be sure, but at least I can say: "It happened once, it can happen again."

Added: Should make it clear, on reflection, that 'seeing no reason why it should be the subject of a referendum' isn't the same as saying I'd oppose it: I wouldn't. Unlike the poorer, more disdvantaged members of society, I am not personally significantly affected by who governs the country.

[David-G]

One does not consult the electorate on every single issue. I'm simply saying I'm not sure that the actual electoral system is one to put to a referendum, any more than each boundary change goes to the electorate.

You've misunderstood the point: what I was querying was the publicity from the last referendum - which would apply to any referendum on a preferential voting sytem - that 'some people get two votes', which fundamentally misunderstands how it works. People were "persuaded" this was the case. If the argument didn't "persuade" you, you weren't fooled and I wasn't directing the comment at you.

Is there anything else you would like to have a say on, but don't? Changes to welfare support? Fracking under your house? Nuclear power? Bankers' bonuses?

All you're asked to do in a General Election is place the symbol of illiteracy next to the name of someone you may or may not know anything about.

If you can't see that the voting system is more fundamental than all of these I shall not be able to convince you. My view is that this goes to the heart of democracy. If the voting system were changed without a referendum I would spoil my paper in future elections.

[french frank]

If you can't see that the voting system is more fundamental than all of these I shall not be able to convince you. My view is that this goes to the heart of democracy.

I quite agree. People have been a long time working this out. But I was - to my shame - unaware that members of the general public were so concerned about a change in the system: I did think it was principally those who benefited from the current system who were against PR. I didn't realise they were concerned about 'democracy'.

[Bryn]

If you can't see that the voting system is more fundamental than all of these I shall not be able to convince you. My view is that this goes to the heart of democracy. If the voting system were changed without a referendum I would spoil my paper in future elections.

Sorry David, could you please remind me, when was the referendum which preceded the introduction of the current, decidedly undemocratic, FPtP system?

[Serial_Apologist]

Sorry David, could you please remind me, when was the referendum which preceded the introduction of the current, decidedly undemocratic, FPtP system?

Was that before women got the vote?
Or was there ever, even, a referendum to introduce fptp?

[LHC]

It was genuinely funny listening to the squeals of outrage from the rag tag and bobtail army of people who had split the anti-Tory vote by voting for the Greens, the Scots Nats and other parties that stood not a change of achieving real power. These people seem to have forgotten that we DON'T live under PR, which was deciively rejected by the electorate in 2011. There won't be another referendum on AV in any of our lifetimes.

I fully expect a Conservative government to be in power for the rest of my life (and I'm 'only' 47), largely because of the Left's inability to come up with convincing alternative arguments/figures.

'Progressive' politics in Britain is as dead as a thousand dodos.

Billy Bragg made a pertinent point in an otherwise futile Panorama debate on Monday. Several of those decrying the Conservative majority were calling for a move to PR rather than FPTP. He pointed out that a PR election would have delivered a more right wing Conservative/UKIP coalition. As he said, be careful what you wish for.

Furthermore, many people who voted for the Greens, SNP or any other party did so because their policies most broadly reflected their views; not because they were 'anti-Tory'. It would be a mistake for any party to think that it can govern by default just because those who oppose it appear to be split between a number of parties. One of the (many) failures of Labour's election strategy was the belief that UKIP would split the Tory vote. In the end defections to UKIP caused as many problems for Labour as for the Conservatives.

[Bryn]

Billy Bragg made a pertinent point in an otherwise futile Panorama debate on Monday. Several of those decrying the Conservative majority were calling for a move to PR rather than FPTP. He pointed out that a PR election would have delivered a more right wing Conservative/UKIP coalition. As he said, be careful what you wish for.

Furthermore, many people who voted for the Greens, SNP or any other party did so because their policies most broadly reflected their views; not because they were 'anti-Tory'. It would be a mistake for any party to think that it can govern by default just because those who oppose it appear to be split between a number of parties. One of the (many) failures of Labour's election strategy was the belief that UKIP would split the Tory vote. In the end defections to UKIP caused as many problems for Labour as for the Conservatives.

Bragg offered no cogent argument. He cannot possibly know how the electorate might have voted in an STV election. For those not 'donkey voting', or failing to offer a transferable vote, STV encourages greater consideration of the policies put forward by the various candidates. There is no simple correlation between FPtP and STV voting patterns.

[ahinton]

Isn't the nub of the voting system problem that is is quite simply impossible to devise and operate such a system that would be fair and proportionate to all and flawless? The very fact of tactical voting, to which both the present and any alternative system yet proposed or discussed would remain susceptible, is alone sufficient to demonstrate this, I think. Whether some kind of combination of some or all of them might provide a solution could be open to debate if anyone had the will to debate it, but one thing would be certain were such a combination to pertain in practice - it would be vastly more complex and expensive to operate, take longer to achieve results and be considerably more open to wilful abuse and corruption as well as to the outcomes of genuine margins of error that is what we have now or any one of the other alternative systems on its own.

[french frank]

I'm grateful to Jean and David-G for prompting me to reconsider what was said a bit thoughtlessly. (Interestingly, though they agree on a referendum, they are on different sides of the fence when it comes to PR).

Thinking about it again, if there were a referendum on whether there should be a referendum on voting reform, I should vote No on a principle. And the principle would be that I do not believe that the voting system should be changed, or not changed, because the electorate at a point in time indicated that was 'what it wanted'.

The voting system should be changed because it is unfair, undemocratic, out-of-date in 2015 and its results unrepresentative of the will of the electorate. With each election, people spend time, effort, even money, to establish the general views of the population. Those views are misrepresented by a system which hands over half the seats to a party with little more than a third of the votes, and which can then govern untrammelled for five years.

It is irrelevant whether PR would give power to people we don't like, or create alliances between people we don't like. The principle is that PR is fair and democratic and gives a voice to the many shades of opinion. (So, no, I haven't changed my view: that is my view of what democracy means.)

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm grateful to Jean and David-G for prompting me to reconsider what was said a bit thoughtlessly. (Interestingly, though they agree on a referendum, they are on different sides of the fence when it comes to PR).

Thinking about it again, if there were a referendum on whether there should be a referendum on voting reform, I should vote No on a principle. And the principle would be that I do not believe that the voting system should be changed, or not changed, because the electorate at a point in time indicated that was 'what it wanted'.

The voting system should be changed because it is unfair, undemocratic, out-of-date in 2015 and its results unrepresentative of the will of the electorate. With each election, people spend time, effort, even money, to establish the general views of the population. Those views are misrepresented by a system which hands over half the seats to a party with little more than a third of the votes, and which can then govern untrammelled for five years.

It is irrelevant whether PR would give power to people we don't like, or create alliances between people we don't like. The principle is that PR is fair and democratic and gives a voice to the many shades of opinion. (So, no, I haven't changed my view: that is my view of what democracy means.)

It seems a little perverse, unless I'm still misunderstanding you, to be for something unless people are calling for it. Unless people want it, whatever the given circunstances of deciding, it won't happen!