Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

2011 Voting Reform Referendum Watch

  • View Poll Results: Which of the systems proposed in the Referendum would you want used in UK elections?
    FIRST PAST THE POST (FPTP)
    14
    51.85%
    ALTERNATIVE VOTE (AV)
    11
    40.74%
    OTHER SYSTEM (Please Specify)
    6
    22.22%

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    Next year, the United Kingdom shall hold its first ever referendum on changing the voting system which has been the same.

    First Past the Post is up for renewal and the system proposed is the Alternative Vote system.

    The 2010 General Election held under FPTP produced the result CON 307 LAB 258 LD 57 OTH 28


    Had the election been held under AV a reasonable forecast of the results suggest
    LAB 219 LD 211 CON 170 OTH 50 UK ELECT

    CON 281 LAB 262 LD 79 OTH 28 ERS

    The government is already split on this system with each party promising to vote in different sides of the referendum.

    Are you planning to vote? Do you want to change to the AV system - Or do you want to retain the current system, or do you want a complete change?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No idea where you got those figures but they are seriously misguided.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...neral-election

    What is your source?
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    (Original post by The Next Left)
    No idea where you got those figures but they are seriously misguided.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...neral-election

    What is your source?

    UK Elect - which is one of the contributors to the ERS figures so I'm surprised at that. I'll gladly amend it though!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    AV would give more detail in what the electorate want. For example, someone who was a die-hard Labour voter would appear no different to someone who wanted the Green Party, but didn't want the Tories so went for their biggest rivals in Labour.

    STV is a bit too complicated, and removes some of the accountability (however much you believe that to be currently )that MPs will have to their constituency.

    Out of those 3 (above 2 and FPTP), I'd go for AV. The article says there would have been minimal impact, but for the next election, the parties would try to address more issues in the hope of grabbing the votes that went to some of the smaller parties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    FPTP for stability and to stop more extreme parties from being in parliament. I unfortunately won't be old enough to vote I don't think
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Where the hell did you get those figures from? AV doesn't create that radical a change and TBH theres no system I know of which would have produced that under 2010 voting...

    Anyways I'll be voting for AV. ITs not perfect and is not my ideal system (AMS+) but its a massive step forward in terms of stopping wasted vote syndrome and electing more representative members of parliament.

    (Original post by lewis :D)
    FPTP for stability and to stop more extreme parties from being in parliament. I unfortunately won't be old enough to vote I don't think
    AV wouldn't let extreme parties in-its not PR and it is still a majoritarian system. It would still produce majority governmets (Indeed Australia adopted AV in 1920 and have had less coalitions since then than we have!) and it could well make it less likely radical parties get in.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    My preference would be some form of AMS, perhaps with MPs elected on a 50/50 basis - 50% elected through FPTP as constituency MPs, and another 50% elected proportionally on regional lists. Not dissimilar to what goes on in the devolved administrations, but with a larger proportional element to the elections. I certainly don't think a switch to AV would accomplish much.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No this election has already shown the weakness of a system that would lead to constant coalition governments. Its bad enough having one as rarely as we do let alone bringing in a sytem that will lead to more coalition governments.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    How on earth did UK elect get their figures? :lolwut:

    AV would probably hurt the Tories more than anyone, but to put them as the third party behind the Lib Dems? :lol:

    It seems to be the results of a proportional system, rather than a majoritarian one.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Where the hell did you get those figures from? AV doesn't create that radical a change and TBH theres no system I know of which would have produced that under 2010 voting...

    Anyways I'll be voting for AV. ITs not perfect and is not my ideal system (AMS+) but its a massive step forward in terms of stopping wasted vote syndrome and electing more representative members of parliament.


    AV wouldn't let extreme parties in-its not PR and it is still a majoritarian system. It would still produce majority governmets (Indeed Australia adopted AV in 1920 and have had less coalitions since then than we have!) and it could well make it less likely radical parties get in.
    I was surprised at the numbers, especially the Tories dropping down to 170 seats but I've put them in again, and exactly the same numbers have come up - and its using the same numbers from the Election in May. - Based on FPTP the numbers suggest 303 seats for the Tories and 249 for Labour with 65 for the LDs - 33 for the others. - The numbers like anything in this are based on uniform swings.

    Now I dont see that much radical change as surprising, remembering that the Lib Dems Challenge Labour in the North and the Tories in the South - which suggests that they could pick up a lot of seats in preferences.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    (Original post by Louis1991)
    How on earth did UK elect get their figures? :lolwut:

    AV would probably hurt the Tories more than anyone, but to put them as the third party behind the Lib Dems? :lol:

    It seems to be the results of a proportional system, rather than a majoritarian one.
    Well as I said that the results are based exactly on the Election percentages and that LDs are supposedly national nomads in that they have chances of seats all over the UK whereas the Tories nominally manage the South while Labour rules the north. - Interestingly enough using the Latest opinion poll figures of 39 LAB 38 CON 11 LD, Kennedy would be the only Lib Dem left.

    Based on the figures Labour would have a majority of 52. 351 271 LD 1 27
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be vote yes, for reasons already stated. It's not exactly confirmed that th election will take place next May though, it could get delayed going through the house.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    AV is probably worse than FPTP, but its a step towards STV so yes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    AV is probably worse than FPTP, but its a step towards STV so yes.
    I'm reserving judgement for now on the AV/FPTP debate, but I think your post suggests a very dangerous flow of logic.

    If you choose a less liked system simply because you want it as a stepping stone towards something you prefer you invite disaster. I can envision it being highly likely that if we went to AV we would be stuck with it for a very, very long time.

    If you want STV, then push for that - but don't consider AV as a progressive step towards it, like some kind of spectrum.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    I was surprised at the numbers, especially the Tories dropping down to 170 seats but I've put them in again, and exactly the same numbers have come up - and its using the same numbers from the Election in May. - Based on FPTP the numbers suggest 303 seats for the Tories and 249 for Labour with 65 for the LDs - 33 for the others. - The numbers like anything in this are based on uniform swings.
    It makes no sense with the system or any stats I've seen-are you simply assuming taht every Lib Dem voter would vote Labour as a second prefrance? And that every labour voter would vote Lib Dem? Where are you putting the numbers in at-I'd like to see the database as that simply makes no sense...
    Now I dont see that much radical change as surprising, remembering that the Lib Dems Challenge Labour in the North and the Tories in the South - which suggests that they could pick up a lot of seats in preferences.
    They could do if one assume people uniformly swing behind Labour or Conservatievs but remember a lot of minor parties will be eliminated first mean quite a few MP's would get over the line on BNP, UKIP, Green etc. votes before the Libs/lab/Tory are even eliminated. If you consider this and the margin of victory which many Mp's have over their rivals I find it high unlikely that they'd change.

    Lets take a swing seat but a'high list' one-say coventry south (number 68 on the list of closest seats.) Its a Lab-Con marginal held by Lab ATM with a majority of around 4000-a seat the Tories would target taking but not expect to take. Assuming everyone votes the same way under AV I can guess it'd go like this:

    Greens eliminated first with 640 votes. Guessing at where these would go I'd reckon 10% to conservatvie, 30% to Labour, 40% to Lib and 20% to Socalist alternative which would give us this:

    Labour Jim Cunningham 19,827 41.8
    Conservative Kevin Foster 15,412 33.4
    Liberal Democrat Brian Patton 8,618 18.0
    UKIP Mark Taylor 1,767 3.8 +1.8


    Next we eliminate Socalist alternative and I'd guess they'd go 60% Labour and 40% liberal(going into 3rd and 4th preference would be hard at this point and the greens have been eliminated who I reckon would be quite a few peoples 2nd choice. I very much doubt socalist alternative votes would be going Tory)

    Now we've got Cunningham slowly moving towards 50% but not quite there-he needs 22812 votes to win. We eliminate UKIP and I'm going to allocate them 10% Labour 5% Lib Dem and 85% Tory.

    Labour Jim Cunningham 20,003 41.8
    Conservative Kevin Foster 16,908 33.4
    Liberal Democrat Brian Patton 8,706 18.0

    Finally we eliminate the Lib Dems and allocate them 65% lab and 35% Tory

    Labour Jim Cunningham 25,658 41.8
    Conservative Kevin Foster 19,045 33.4

    And labour win-essentally it had no effect. Now lets do it on a similar Tory marginal-one of the seats that would have to fall for your result to work. I've chosen high peak which has a similar majority to coventry south...

    Conservative: 20587 (40.9%)
    Labour: 15910 (31.61%)
    Liberal Democrat: 10993 (21.84%)
    UKIP: 1690 (3.36%)
    Green: 922 (1.83%)
    Independent: 161 (0.32%)
    Others: 74 (0.15%)


    To win an MP needs to get 25168 votes. Eliminating the two independents Alves ran on a right wing platform and Launce Dowson who ran on a 'local MP' platform and appears not to be ideological. I've split their votes along the same lines as voting intention-41% Tory, 32% Lab, 21.8% Lib Dem and so forth which gives us


    Conservative Andrew Bingham 20,889 40.9 +3.6
    Labour Caitlin Bisknell 16,144 31.6 -9.5
    Liberal Democrat Alistair Stevens 11,154 21.8 +2.4
    UKIP Sylvia Hall 1,705 3.4 +1.2
    Green Peter Allen 926 1.8 +1.8

    I'll eliminate the greens on a similar basis as before 40% Lib, 40% Lab 10% Tory and 10% UKIP:

    Conservative Andrew Bingham 20,982
    Labour Caitlin Bisknell 16,476 31.6
    Liberal Democrat Alistair Stevens 11,522
    UKIP Sylvia Hall 1,798

    And UKIP on a 80% Con, 15% Lab, 5% Lib basis

    Conservative Andrew Bingham 22,442
    Labour Caitlin Bisknell 16,476 31.6
    Liberal Democrat Alistair Stevens 11,882

    Lib Dem on a 65% Lab and 35% Con split

    Conservative Andrew Bingham 26,600
    Labour Caitlin Bisknell 24,198 31.6


    And the Tories win. Its closer but a comfortable win-and I was being very generious to Labour with those splits. The fact is that if a seat like high peak doesn't fall then your guesses simply don't work unless you assume things like all Libs voting labour as second preferance etc. which have no empirical basis.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Happy to vote for keeping FPTP. Like Aj12 said, I wouldn't want any more coalition Governments.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Happy to vote for keeping FPTP. Like Aj12 said, I wouldn't want any more coalition Governments.
    wouldn't produce more coalition governments-look at Australia. Since they brought in AV in 1920 they've had 2 coalitions, we've had 4.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    13
    Australia has Supplimentary Vote for elections to their Lower House But that has a 2 group polarisation - and 2010 was the first hung House in 70 years. - Strictly speaking Wharfdale they've had a fair few coalitions - as the Liberals and Nationals are two different parties. But your point remains the same.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I'm a supporter of PR, since I think that is the most purely democratic voting system. But obviously there are problems with it in terms of local representation, extreme parties etc... But I will vote for AV as hopefully a first step towards it - although I doubt we will ever get there!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flob)
    Personally I'm a supporter of PR, since I think that is the most purely democratic voting system. But obviously there are problems with it in terms of local representation, extreme parties etc... But I will vote for AV as hopefully a first step towards it - although I doubt we will ever get there!
    I really don't think seeing AV as a 'step' towards PR is entirely wise...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.