Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc323)
    FPTP is a bad system, but AV is worse. This isnt the first time recently that electoral reform has been considered. In 1998 the Jenkins commission reported on which system was best, deciding that was AV+, Labour decided not to implement it but the report still makes interesting reading.

    Amoung the choice statements from the report on AV:

    "Simulations of how the 1997 result might have come out under AV suggest that it would have significantly increased the size of the already swollen Labour majority. A 'best guess' projection of the shape of the current Parliament under AV suggests on one highly reputable estimate the following outcome with the actual FPTP figures given in brackets after the projected figures: Labour 452 (419), Conservative 96 (165), Liberal Democrats 82 (46), others 29 (29). The overall Labour majority could thus have risen from 169 to 245"

    so with 42% of the vote a majority of 245. Another simulation on the 2005 election indicates that with only 3% higher share of the votes than the Conservatives Labour would have got another triple figure majority under AV. AV section conclusion:

    "First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives"

    once again: "disturbingly unpredictable"...

    Finally on the idea that AV is a stepping stone to PR: it has never happened before in any other country. If people like AV we stick with it, if we dont like it its back to FPTP.

    So personally agree with the No 2 AV yes to PR campaign
    QFT.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    Tricky situation, if the nation doesn't accept AV then there won't be seen to be a desire for electoral reform and if the nation does accept AV then there won't seen to be a desire for more electoral reform.
    agreed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc323)

    Finally on the idea that AV is a stepping stone to PR: it has never happened before in any other country. If people like AV we stick with it, if we dont like it its back to FPTP.

    So personally agree with the No 2 AV yes to PR campaign
    See here's where you're wrong.

    Our own history suggests that moderate reform comes before radical reform. Universal suffrage didn't come all at once. And voting no on VERY moderate reform is not going to make the Tories and Labour think 'well gee, I guess everyone wants even more radical change, let's do that instead'

    At any rate, applying a new voting system to previous elections won't work, since those elections were held under FPTP, and people voted accordingly (ie, tactically)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Yes that makes sense, if you want the system to get better, vote for it to get worse.


    I don't think AV is worse. Its not proportional, but it is more proportional and in my mind tht makes it better.

    However, I don't think its anywhere near far enough. We need STV.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    See here's where you're wrong.

    Our own history suggests that moderate reform comes before radical reform. Universal suffrage didn't come all at once. And voting no on VERY moderate reform is not going to make the Tories and Labour think 'well gee, I guess everyone wants even more radical change, let's do that instead'

    At any rate, applying a new voting system to previous elections won't work, since those elections were held under FPTP, and people voted accordingly (ie, tactically)
    Please give an example of a country which has gone in small steps from majoritarian to PR.

    Meanwhile, we have Australia as an example of a country which adopted AV and then stopped dead.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lessthan0)
    Whilst AV is by no means perfect, we need to get it if we're to get anywhere near PR. FPTP is entirely rubbish; what's really needed is Single Transferable Vote, as we use in sunny Northern Ireland.

    Hilariously, in Northern Ireland we'll be voting on whether we should use AV in national elections, whilst simultaneously using STV to vote for our MLAs.:rolleyes:
    I always found it particularly amusing how Westminster thought it appropriated that every other vote in the UK, from London Mayor to European Parliament elections, should be under some form of PR.

    But that the most important election of all was fine under a system that didn't work in the Middle Ages.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    I don't think AV is worse. Its not proportional, but it is more proportional and in my mind tht makes it better.
    ...but it's not?

    However, I don't think its anywhere near far enough. We need STV.
    Have you seen the proportionality stats from the last Irish election? Not very good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    I don't think AV is worse. Its not proportional, but it is more proportional and in my mind tht makes it better.

    However, I don't think its anywhere near far enough. We need STV.

    I strongly disagree, and so does the Jenkins report as quoted above.

    STV is barely any better. By far the two best systems are the pure ones: FPTP and PR. Everything else is just an undemocratic fudge.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Please give an example of a country which has gone in small steps from majoritarian to PR.
    Very few have, because very few places have Majoritarian systems. It's literally only in countries we used to own. The difference with Britain is that we have a third party which has consistently pushed for reform and will push it in any coalition talks.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    I always found it particularly amusing how Westminster thought it appropriated that every other vote in the UK, from London Mayor to European Parliament elections, should be under some form of PR.
    Some in Westminster did, but not all. Doesn't mean we all agree with that method!

    Anyway, Labour, who instigated that policy, are supporting it.

    But that the most important election of all was fine under a system that didn't work in the Middle Ages.
    Argument by Arbitrary Calendar is not an argument.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    Very few have, because very few places have Majoritarian systems. It's literally only in countries we used to own. The difference with Britain is that we have a third party which has consistently pushed for reform and will push it in any coalition talks.
    I'm referring to countries which currently have PR. So that would be most of Europe, for example.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I want AV for the simple reason that I could vote for who I really wanted, and then put one of the big three parties as my second choice.

    It's about time that The Pirate Party UK got an MP or two
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    I strongly disagree, and so does the Jenkins report as quoted above.

    STV is barely any better. By far the two best systems are the pure ones: FPTP and PR. Everything else is just an undemocratic fudge.
    PR encompasses many systems, of which STV is one of the more proportional, you do know that right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    See here's where you're wrong.

    Our own history suggests that moderate reform comes before radical reform. Universal suffrage didn't come all at once. And voting no on VERY moderate reform is not going to make the Tories and Labour think 'well gee, I guess everyone wants even more radical change, let's do that instead'

    At any rate, applying a new voting system to previous elections won't work, since those elections were held under FPTP, and people voted accordingly (ie, tactically)

    Yes, but to continue your metaphor, trying to get PR by voting for AV is like trying to get women the vote by removing it from gay men. Making things less democratic is very rarely the best method of making them more democratic. AV is a complete farce of a system.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    PR encompasses many systems, of which STV is one of the more proportional, you do know that right?
    Ireland, 2011.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    PR encompasses many systems, of which STV is one of the more proportional, you do know that right?
    No. PR is PR and STV is STV. STV is not proportional, and hence to call it PR is a misrepresentation of the truth (aka a lie).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I'm referring to countries which currently have PR. So that would be most of Europe, for example.
    Most of them went straight from dicatatorships/monarchies to PR.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    Most of them went straight from dicatatorships/monarchies to PR.
    So...you have no examples of your theory?

    (you're wrong, of course; there's Belgium and Holland, for example, or Scandinavia).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    No. PR is PR and STV is STV. STV is not proportional, and hence to call it PR is a misrepresentation of the truth (aka a lie).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proport...representation
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    So...you have no examples of your theory?

    (you're wrong, of course; there's Belgium and Holland, for example, or Scandinavia).
    I do have examples. Britain (and most other countries) went from a very limited suffrage to universal suffrage over several small reforms. It's pretty much impossible to verify either of our positions empirically because there's only a handful of examples (of which one supports your position).

    It's far better to look at broader trends of political reform, rather than simply majoritarian to PR.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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