The moronic state of British Politics

[rory_20_uk]

As some may be aware, there have recently been votes in England (and the errata) for local councils and the AV voting system, amongst others.

In both cases, people appear to have used these votes to "send a message to Whitehall" of their displeasure rather than what they're voting for...

I'm not concerned about votes not going my way, but it does piss me off that the one chance to review the English voting system in probably decades and councillors who will run local services was greatly determined that people didn't like Nick Clegg.

It has come to the point that I feel that when votes are conducted there should be boxes for rating parties from 1 to 10 and the leaders of the parties from 1 to 10 to let people blow off their vent up anger and vote the way they want.

Does the house agree, or do I need to reserve a booking at Speakers Corner?

[econ21]

I'm not sure Nick Clegg was that big a factor. I can't speak for the great British public, but myself, I rather like the guy but voted against AV. The idea of second preference votes having the same weight as first preferences seemed daft. It might have been a closer run thing if it was genuine proportionally representative system on offer, but almost no one thinks AV is their first choice for a voting system.

And personally, I am not convinced about government by coalition becoming the norm. I prefer a system, like first past the post, that usually allows the larger party to form the government. I rather like the alternating of parties in government - it seems rather healthy as they do seem to run out of ideas or at least, the public tend to get disillusioned with them at some stage.

Maybe coalition could work - I rather admired the way they set up the Lib/Con coalition. But I can see it not working in many cases - a putative Lib/Lab coalition negotiated at the last election looked like a potential disaster (Brown and Clegg really not communicating well). And with the current coalition appearing to be electoral poison to the Liberals, I am not sure this is a sustainable model for the UK.

A broader point is that I am pretty conservative about constitutional issues - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Personally, I think referendums should only pass if a majority of the population (not voters) vote for it.

I don't think the referendum vote was moronic. I think the outcome was pretty smart. (But you may have a point about the quality of the campaigning.)

[therother]

I also don't think the AV defeat was mainly an anti-Clegg vote, although his actions over the last year certainly didn't help. The Scottish and English council elections were a different story: there's little doubt there was a clear anti-Clegg message in how people voted.

Simulations suggest that AV doesn't result in a lot more coalitions: the big majorities of Blair and Thatcher, for instance, would probably have been enhanced under AV. And in many ways, this really put people off the system. The big problems with our current voting system, I believe, are the number of effectively wasted votes on a local level and the disproportionality of representation on the national level. AV does little or nothing to address either.

Indeed, arguably it would be a roadblock to a more representative system, as it gives the appearance of fairer voting without actually really delivering it. If the Scottish and Welsh elections are any guide, smaller parties such as the Green will get extra votes, maybe going from 1% to 3-5%, but that would still be well short of the ~40% support needed to win under AV. So they'd still get nothing (outside Brighton and perhaps Norwich South).

There are many arguments against AV, and econ raises one of the bigger ones for me: I don't think that 4th or 5th choices should potentially count as much as 1st choices.

About the only solid argument in favour of AV that I heard was that it allows voters, under most circumstances, to vote for their first preference, as they would believe that their vote would eventually count for someone in the running if their first choices were eliminated.

Basically, no one wanted AV, it is a miserable (even mendacious) voting system that is frankly suffers from all the main problems as (the rather poorly named) First Past The Post. Indeed, even it's one obvious pro point, that it ensures MPs need 50% support is misleading, because it relies on every voter ranking every candidate.

It seems highly unlikely to me that they will: I wouldn't rank the BNP, for instance. Tories will probably only rank 1 or 2 parties. So, if neither of their choices are elected, their votes are eliminated. So, in practice the winning margin will be lower than 50% after the first round (I read predictions of 40% or so in constituencies where it goes beyond the second round, but it's difficult to know as AV is somewhat unpredictable). All AV ensures is that if it comes down to just two candidates, the winner will have been ranked higher in the still active votes than the 2nd placed candidate. That sounds good, but virtually no constituency will be decided this way.

Only about 15% of current MPs were elected by FPTP with less than 40%. Indeed 218 had over 50%, and a further 80 had between 47.5% and 50%. It's highly unlikely AV which made any difference to these safe seats, unless it's one of those rarities where two candidates poll over 40% (a candidate with over 47.5% is likely to be elected in subsequent rounds simply by virtue of the number of active votes decreases at every round and so once 5% of the original votes are eliminated, the winning margin is now 95% and so they are elected even if no one else expressed a preference for the candidate).

The mean first choice support for candidates at the last election was 47.0%. AV gives the appearance of addressing an issue that isn't really that major with FPTP and indeed could have negative side effects if parties perceive they need candidates who appeal to a broader section of their constituency, we could end up with ever more bland and vacuous MPs than we have at the moment.

I was going to vote No. In the end though, seeing that AV was likely to be defeated, I voted Yes hoping a narrower defeat would help any future PR campaign. First time I've ever voted for something hoping it was narrowly beaten...

And yes, if this had been referendum on a system people actually could get behind, it would have been an awful lot closer. In fact, I believe a decent PR system (eg STV) probably would have passed.

[Furunculus]

Does the house agree, or do I need to reserve a booking at Speakers Corner?

Nope.

AV was utterly demolished, and while that may in part be attributable to the anti-clegg mentality it does not change the fact that it was a poor referendum put to a disinterested public.

The difference between AV and FPTP is too small for the "yes" campaign to make a convincing argument against a known tendency for conservatism in referenda.

Likewise, electoral reform over systems of voting simply was not a priority, or even an interest, for much of the electorate.

But the thing that made the result a disaster rather than a close run thing was the presumption of virtue.

We were regaled with tales of dogs and cats, along with wonderful explanations of why it is not a good idea to let representative government to fall to the former. Its all very entertaining but it is a fantastic example of exactly why the “yes” vote is destined to lose; because it panders to the idea of a progressive-majority and ignores the fact that their are multiple ‘dog’ candidates too.

This prevented the “yes” campaign from communicating with, and persuading, those people for whom the principle of proportionality or ‘vote-power’ simply is not a significant priority.*

The same can be said about the argument in favour of grown-up and consensual politics; does the “yes” vote actually understand that their are people who like the benefits that an adversarial electoral system brings? * *

It is difficult to bring people round to your way of thinking when you are not interested in debating the merits of alternative views because it is apparently mere propaganda mouthed by useful idiots on behalf of scoundrels.

If we can accept that the Conservatism is an attitude whose ambition is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, then we must likewise accept that there are people of a progressive bent too, and that it is beneficial for society to have a balance of the two.

I am wholly in agreement with the old saw that conservatives fight to protect the systems they fought to reject a generation earlier………….. but:

How did the “yes” campaign try to appeal to the small “c” conservatives in Britain?

The answer is they did not, the presumption of virtue, a failing for which their cause paid a heavy price.

If they “yes” campaign was truly serious about persuading the country at large about the merits of electoral reform why then was UKIP marginalised from the their campaign?

The electorate is allegedly composed of adults of legally sound mind, so any argument that the referendum was lost because the “no” campaign didn’t play fair is really a confession that people cannot be trusted with representative democracy. Why not be honest about the implications of that confession? Stop pussy-footing around with electoral tinkering and just advocate the benign governance of technocrats, like the EU or perhaps the PRC……..

I do not think that AV is significantly worse than FPTP, but the “yes” campaign has failed to demonstrate to the real majority that AV will be any kind of an improvement, or that the affair was worth their time and effort.





* The ranking of preferences was deemed a de-facto good-thing, without appreciating that its unpredictability often serves to hinder Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition from holding the Gov’t of the Day to account, as well as trivialising that which should remain fundamental; who you authorise to act in your name. Therefore the assumption that disenfranchised voters must be succoured at all costs does not necessarily hold true for many.

* * The politics of consensus was deemed a de-facto good-thing, without appreciating that the coalition politics that breeds such consensus likewise undermines the manifesto mandate which provides both a platform for radical policy making and a tally-sheet against which failure can be punished. Therefore the assumption that european style politics is a natural direction does not necessarily hold true for many.

[Skullheadhq]

AV would make voting much more fun. I'd wish we'd had it here. But fun isn't a very good reason to pick a new voting system, now is it ;)

[gaelic cowboy]

* The ranking of preferences was deemed a de-facto good-thing, without appreciating that its unpredictability often serves to hinder Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition from holding the Gov’t of the Day to account, as well as trivialising that which should remain fundamental; who you authorise to act in your name. Therefore the assumption that disenfranchised voters must be succoured at all costs does not necessarily hold true for many.

Unpredictable wha???? why would you see it as unpredictable, unless what you really mean is unpredictable for headcounting in supposed safe seats etc etc.

On the idea the opposition can hold any government to account, basically that never happens at all, we just tend to think it does cos of all the times governments fell.

Be careful about dismissing voters your FPTP style ends up putting huge numbers of people who did not vote for there MP out of the loop, continue on that path and see where it leads you may not like it much. The days or natural government parties are pretty much over if our electoral styles dont reflect this we risk a lot for what takes very little effort to fix in the grand scheme of things.

[Beskar]

It should have been STV and it should have gone through.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's precisely what I don't understand about FPTP: the fact that it inherently, effectively discards legitimate votes at a rate that would make some less democratic countries blush.

[Furunculus]

Unpredictable wha???? why would you see it as unpredictable, unless what you really mean is unpredictable for headcounting in supposed safe seats etc etc.
.

av was somewhat unpredictable in its outcomes, achieving some extra proportionality for the lib-dems provided they remained a centrist party, but very unproportional results to the loser in landslide conditions.

it's why jenkins discarded it.

That's precisely what I don't understand about FPTP: the fact that it inherently, effectively discards legitimate votes at a rate that would make some less democratic countries blush.

we get to decide what constitutes representative and democratic government, and we chose to keep our adversarial system.

it's the way we roll.

It should have been STV and it should have gone through.

if it had been STV there would have been a greater chance of it winning, as it would have been a clearer case to make for change.

but i would have been even more opposed, i like the constituency link, i like majoritarian government, and i like the manifesto mandate to legitimise radical policy.

Be careful about dismissing voters your FPTP style ends up putting huge numbers of people who did not vote for there MP out of the loop, continue on that path and see where it leads you may not like it much. The days or natural government parties are pretty much over if our electoral styles dont reflect this we risk a lot for what takes very little effort to fix in the grand scheme of things.

i'm afraid i subscribe to a sink or swim mentality towards civil society, and believe that by creating endless mechanisms to protect against bad outcomes you do nothing but infantilise the political process.

the dangers you note are real, but i'll watch britain go over the cliff rather than lower my expectations any.

[Slyspy]

The trouble is of course that FPTP doesn't automatically provide a constituency link, a majority government or the implementation of manifesto promises anyway.

[Furunculus]

The trouble is of course that FPTP doesn't automatically provide a constituency link, a majority government or the implementation of manifesto promises anyway.

it does a better job of providing that than the alternative.

[gaelic cowboy]

i'm afraid i subscribe to a sink or swim mentality towards civil society, and believe that by creating endless mechanisms to protect against bad outcomes you do nothing but infantilise the political process.

the dangers you note are real, but i'll watch britain go over the cliff rather than lower my expectations any.

Then thankfully most people in Britain are not like that or 13yr olds would be still working down the pits or whatever else was fine till it wasnt.

There is no way you believe that fall of the cliff lark.

[Furunculus]

Then thankfully most people in Britain are not like that or 13yr olds would be still working down the pits or whatever else was fine till it wasnt.

There is no way you believe that fall of the cliff lark.

apparently most are, for despite repeated warning of unfairness and potential disengagement they still voted for the simple majoritarian system we use now.

no indeed, while the dangers you note are real i think we will continue to cope just fine with FPTP, which is why i am not at all concerned about losing the 'benefits' of AV.

[Tellos Athenaios]

we get to decide what constitutes representative and democratic government, and we chose to keep our adversarial system.

it's the way we roll.

'Course you do. But it is still surprising how many votes FPTP is willing to simply discard.