Lib Dem Voice’s own Ryan Cullen (and the man who gives us the great Liberal Democrat blogs aggregator) has put together a handy tool for generating your own No To AV campaign slogans, based on their recent advertising campaign. I suspect the No campaign may not like quite all the slogans you can generate at http://av.argh.tc/o-matic/ though…
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
LibLink: Ed Davey on Elon Musk and his malign powers (Mary Reid)
-
How do we defend free speech from absolutists and others? (Lord William Wallace)
-
Pension Funds and Economic Growth (Chris Perry)
-
Mark Pack’s January report to members (Mark Pack)
-
Consign Trump’s “God” to the dustbin of nonsensical religiosity (Geoff Reid)
-
Lib Dems beat Labour in a Liverpool by-election for first time since 1997
-
Little Wonders #dundeewestend
-
Will Labour kill off the landmark climate and nature bill?
-
Council by-election results scorecard 2024-2025
-
Lib Dems will continue to back 50 per cent cap on faith-based admissions to schools
-
Mystery over 200-year-old bottle of urine
-
Lord Bonkers' Diary: "It's just given a tremendous sneeze"
-
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
-
Major supermarket comes out against Labour's 'tractor tax'
Recent Comments
John Marriott
Some interesting comments. Glad I contacted LDV* again. And FINALLY …. to borrow a phrase that George W Bush used after the 2017 inauguration, there’s “so...
Steve Trevethan
Might government and professional investors have different purposes? Might one invest for the general good of citizens and their children and the other inves...
Nick Hopkinson
An important and excellent article from William and many valuable comments afterwards. This matter and discourse deserves a higher profile....
Craig Levene
I think it needs reminding that it's taken a judge and court proceedings to reiterate the right to free speach. Those in the dock from universities to political...
Nigel Jones
A great piece on the right wingers' twisted use of the term 'free speech'. One element in all this is what when someone expresses a view that needs challenging,...
45 Comments
Geez… kids are kids I suppose…
[under a photo of John Prescot et al]
We need jobs for life not a democratic voting system. No to AV.
The reason for the bulk of the opposition is that this is a system which is being described by the Lib Dems in our area as a ‘tool to achieve the voting system we want’ – that sort of thing really does irritate the public because it suggests that A, you’re not serious about the opinions of those who dont want the system, and B, that you are prepared to generate more referenda until you get the system you want – rather than calling for it when you had the chance. Personally I think STV would work in the Assemblies, but not for Westminster due to its size, – and I believe in AV, but I do not believe in it being used for a party’s own self interest hence why I’m undecided on the way to vote, leaning towards No
this one here’s even better… http://av.argh.tc/poster/
I was expecting something pretty dire, and I wasn’t disappointed.
“No2AV claim AV will cost the taxpayer £250 million. This figure is a complete lie.
Most of this would be for counting machines that we won’t actually be getting as they have been made redundant by the humble pencil.”
As already thrashed out ad nauseam, what you have to say is that there are NO PLANS to have counting machines. If you say there WON’T be counting machines, you run the risk of … well … telling a “complete lie”, I suppose.
When people on both sides of an argument are incapable of arguing honestly, something is very wrong.
P Bird
The reason for the bulk of the opposition is that this is a system which is being described by the Lib Dems in our area as a ‘tool to achieve the voting system we want’ – that sort of thing really does irritate the public because it suggests that A, you’re not serious about the opinions of those who dont want the system,
I am still waiting to hear the serious arguments against AV from the “No to AV” campaign. So far all I have heard from them shows either they are thick or they are liars. Since the “No to AV” were not prepared to give the serious technical argument for their case, I myself gave it some time ago in these columns.
Martin I object to your use of the word ‘thick’ and think that it is a word which has no place in a debate about av which should be about reasoned argument. I find the word an anti equality one.
@ Matthew Huntbach
Why I will vote NO
My fear is a perpetual coalition party state, where real accountability is lost because the coalition partners both say, “we only have 57” or “we are not in majority” and then do opposite to what you said you would do in the election. Instead of three party politics we will have a one party coalition state… no thanks
I think the Liberal democrats are playing a very dangerous tactical game which will either be on track or blown apart after the May referendum, if it goes well for them it could well produce the perpetual coalition party state, Is the Liberal Democrat goal to have that coalition state with the Liberal Democrats in power for perpetuity, the king makers, I don’t honestly know but it is a very disconcerting thought.
Of course it is risky but the pay off if successful…
I think if the May referendum goes badly for Liberal Democrats they will be a ticking time bomb waiting to try and salvage anything they can.
All speculation on my behalf but if true?
the last is… breaking pledges and promises is that also lies?
Jim
But AV wouldn’t produce a “perpetual coalition party state.” According to the BBC’s projections, AV wouldn’t have produced a hung parliament in any of the six elections between 1983 and 2005. AV wouldn’t have a dramatic effect on election results. No doubt that’s why both camps are having difficulty scraping together valid arguments pro and con.
‘I am still waiting to hear the serious arguments against AV from the “No to AV” campaign. So far all I have heard from them shows either they are thick or they are liars. Since the “No to AV” were not prepared to give the serious technical argument for their case, I myself gave it some time ago in these columns.’
They are neither, and at least it appears dont go around insulting the undecided voters. – Remember that for the Lib Dems this is ‘a pathetic little compromise’ – if the Liberal Democrats dont believe in it? Then why on earth should I? – Dont use the argument that its a tool for your aid
@ Matthew Huntbach
Why I will vote NO
My fear is a perpetual coalition party state, where real accountability is lost because the coalition partners both say, “we only have 57” or “we are not in majority” and then do opposite to what you said you would do in the election. Instead of three party politics we will have a one party coalition state… no thanks
I think the Liberal democrats are playing a very dangerous tactical game which will either be on track or blown apart after the May referendum, if it goes well for them it could well produce the perpetual coalition party state, Is the Liberal Democrat goal to have that coalition state with the Liberal Democrats in power for perpetuity, the king makers, I don’t honestly know but it is a very disconcerting thought.
Of course it is risky but the pay off if successful…
I think if the May referendum goes badly for Liberal Democrats they will be a ticking time bomb waiting to try and salvage anything they can.
All speculation on my behalf but if true?
the last is… breaking pledges and promises is that also lies?
Jim, my cousin’s local councillor has just told him that a Yes to AV would produce a perpetual Liberal influence in government – that is what I mean by it being used as a tool
I’m still not sure which way I’ll vote if I vote at all, so I’m not part of the “No to AV” campaign.
But the main argument against it as far as I’m concerned is that – as the Electoral Reform Society website used to point out – it can be less proportional than FPTP.
Obviously FPTP tends to under-represent minority parties. In comparison AV benefits centre parties (or parties perceived as such) and penalises parties of the right and left. Because in the UK the third party is perceived as of the centre (or has been up until now), the bias of AV would tend to cancel out some of the under-representation of the Lib Dems by FPTP. But in relation to minority parties of the right or left, it would tend to make the problem of under-representation worse. And not just minority parties, either – according to the BBC’s projection the Tories would have ended up as the third party in parliament in 1997 under AV!
Now you can argue that because the representation of the Lib Dems would accidentally be brought closer to proportionality the net effect would be positive. But of course, things can change, and if there were a political realignment of some kind that accidental benefit might disappear, and we might find we’d been landed with an electoral system that was even less representative in practice than FPTP.
If the Lib Dems were a minority party of the right or left, I don’t believe they would be arguing in favour of AV. And AV is not a system they have advocated in the past. They are supporting this change in the electoral system out of narrow party interest, not out of principle. That makes me very uncomfortable.
patricia roche
Martin I object to your use of the word ‘thick’ and think that it is a word which has no place in a debate about av which should be about reasoned argument. I find the word an anti equality one.
You might object to it, tough. That’s what I think, what appalls me most about the “No to AV” campaign is how horrendously innumerate it is. Sorry, I’ll still think that way even if you’d prefer I didn’t say it.
P Bird
Remember that for the Lib Dems this is ‘a pathetic little compromise’ – if the Liberal Democrats dont believe in it? Then why on earth should I?
Yes, it is “a pathetic little compromise”, it’s a minor tweak which resolves only a few of the problems with the current system. But the only choice we’re being offered is the current system or AV, we don’t have anyting else on offer. I go for AV only because it’s a little better than the current system, not because it’s in any way ideal.
P Bird
My fear is a perpetual coalition party state, where real accountability is lost because the coalition partners both say, “we only have 57” or “we are not in majority” and then do opposite to what you said you would do in the election. Instead of three party politics we will have a one party coalition state… no thanks
So, to put it another way, you prefer representation to be distorted so that one party wins a majority of the seats even if it does not have anyting like a majority of the votes? If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be better to have a system that guarantees such a result, rather than the current sytsem which tends to give it only as a geographical accident?
I’m happy if you say that’s your line, because then we can agree to disagree. If that’s your line also, a corollary is that you should be urging Nick Clegg and the LibDems just to vote as David Cameron and the Conservatives tell them rather than to try and negotiate any changes to Tory policy. One of the things I find REALLY hypocritical about the “No to AV” campaign is the way there are people there who simultaneously moan at Nick Clegg for “propping up the Tories” and who support the current electoral system on the grounds it distorts representation in favour of the largest party i.e. currently, the Tories. So they hate Nick Clegg for not doing enough to stop the Tories, and they say the best thing about the current system is that it usually twists the Tory representation up so that it usually rules out the possibility of the Tories needing any sort of “propping up”.
Depressed Ex
If the Lib Dems were a minority party of the right or left, I don’t believe they would be arguing in favour of AV. And AV is not a system they have advocated in the past. They are supporting this change in the electoral system out of narrow party interest, not out of principle.
I supported electoral reform before I supported the Liberals. I started off as a Labour supporter living in “true blue” Sussex, but I came to see that Labour couldn’t give a toss about people like me because of the cosy compromise whereby they were over-represented in the north and inner cities at the cost of being almost absent in the southern and rural parts which they left with almost 100% Tory MPs who never spoke up for the likes of us poor low-waged Sussex folk. They gave the utterly false impression that the south was all rich people like them.
I could see only proportional representation would give us a voice in Parliament, and I saw only one party offering it, which is why I joined the Liberal Party. So DON’T you insult me by acusing me of “lacking principles”. My support for electoral reform has been a big part of the principles I have held since I was a young teenager, and I’m in my 50s now.
As I’ve already said, AV is only a weak compromise, it isn’t proportionmal representation, it just stops the “got to vote for X to avoid splitting the voteand letting Y in” argument which is FUNDAMENTALLY anti-democratic, but forced on us because of the mechanics of the current system.
P Bird
Is the Liberal Democrat goal to have that coalition state with the Liberal Democrats in power for perpetuity, the king makers
No, that would be my worst fear.
Oh I see. Righteous indignation and all that.
Just two little quibbles, though. As you say, AV is no more “proportional representation” than FPTP is. And “Matthew Huntbach” is far from being synonymous with “the Lib Dems.”
But if it makes you feel happy – and, perhaps, if it allows you to sidestep the arguments against AV and carry on claiming you’ve never been presented with them – carry on being righteously indignant regardless.
“things I find REALLY hypocritical about the “No to AV” campaign is the way there are people there who simultaneously moan at Nick Clegg for “propping up the Tories” and who support the current electoral system on the grounds it distorts representation in favour of the largest party i.e. currently, the Tories.”
I dont moan about the propping up of the Tories, I moan because of the abandonment of the principles which many Lib Dems try and blame t
The referendum as I’ve said is a difficult sticking point because I believe in AV and believe that it is a fair system (50% support etc) but I do not like to see it used as a tool for personal gain. If the yes vote wins in May we are going to have 1 General Election under the system before the pressures to hold another one under a suitable system for the Lib Dems will inevitably happen. Nobody in the LDs has ever supported the system before – all of a sudden its the best thing since slice bread, it is ridiculous to go out there and encourage the public to vote for a system they dont believe in – the councillor who told me it would lead to perpetual Liberal government has really put me off, as it appears it is only seen as something that you want to help you. -Without trying to be cynical remember the Lib Dems have never had a problem with FPTP for council elections? I cant think why
STV on a national scale wouldnt work in the UK
P Bird
My fear is a perpetual coalition party state, where real accountability is lost because the coalition partners both say, “we only have 57” or “we are not in majority” and then do opposite to what you said you would do in the election. Instead of three party politics we will have a one party coalition state… no thanks
So, to put it another way, you prefer representation to be distorted so that one party wins a majority of the seats even if it does not have anyting like a majority of the votes? If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be better to have a system that guarantees such a result, rather than the current sytsem which tends to give it only as a geographical accident?
Matthew,
I was quoting what somebody else said – my point remains – why should I endorse a system that the Liberal Democrats dont believe in?
P Bird
I was quoting what somebody else said – my point remains – why should I endorse a system that the Liberal Democrats dont believe in?
Well, I am apparently not allowed to use the word which is the opposite of “thin”, but here’s a demonstration of it.
I have already given you the answer, the case is very clear and logical. But try as I might I just CAN’T get people who are say they would oppose AV to argue their case in a clear and logical way. Underneath this is an issue of algorithms, so why is it that we can’t talk about it in that way? Or at least I can, but the anti-AV people can’t. That is why I say they are the “opposite of thin” or at least giving the impression they are. The anti-logical and opposite-of-thin nature of the “No to AV” campaign offends me to the point where even if I were tempted to go their way for tactical reasons, I would not, because I would be ashamed to be associated with people who clearly cannot understand, or pretend not to be able to understand, a simple algorithm, and to argue their case in those terms – which is how it ought to be argued as we are talking about two different algorithms for the allocation of representatives.
The Liberal Democrats, as the official position of the party and in the viewpoint of almost every member of the party I know “don’t believe in AV” because they would prefer a system of proportional representation, STV being the favoured form. However, that does not mean they regard AV as worse than the current system (misnamed, but we’ll keep to that name) “First-past-the-post”. In other words, in order of preference STV is better than AV and AV is better than FPTP. So, given that we only have a choice of AV or FPTP we will support going for AV, which does not mean we prefer AV to everything else that could possibly be used.
What is so difficult about this argument that you affect not to understand it?
Look, here it is in abstract:
A < B C as you are implying.
Why are you so opposite-of-thin that you cannot understand this simple piece of mathematical logic?
I’ll try again, as I had forgotten this system treats the less than and greater than characters as tag markers, so it did not come out as I typed it. I’ll use “less than” instead.
Here it is in abstract:
A is less than B and B is less than C.
So pick the greatest from A and B (we are not permitted to pick C). The answer is B isn’t it? Saying that does not mean a conversion to the belief that B is greater than C, which is what you are suggesting.
Why are you so opposite-of-thin that you cannot understand this simple piece of mathematical logic?
Depressed Ex
perhaps, if it allows you to sidestep the arguments against AV
On the contrary, I would be very happy to talk about the arguments against AV is someone would actually give them to me. Indeed, I have made them myself, given that the “No to AV” people won’t make them. I have see NOTHING from “No to AV” which is neither innumerate (i.e. an argument based on misunderstanding or affecting to misunderstand how the system works) nor a rant about current politics rather than about electoral systems.
P Bird
Without trying to be cynical remember the Lib Dems have never had a problem with FPTP for council elections?
That is simply untrue. Liberal Democrats policy has always been to introduce STV for local elections and well as national elections.
Local elections show many of the disastrous effects of FPTP, in particular the one-party states where a significant opposition vote is reduced to almost no or in some cases literally no representation. I saw this in the almost 100% Tory councils in Sussex when I was a youth – people like me denied fair representation, denied a voice of our own thanks to FPTP. We see it the other way round in some inner city boroughs, look at LB Newham for example, EVERY single coucillor there is Labour, which does not mean every single person voted Labour.
And to show a distortion in favour of the Liberal Democrats, see:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/generate-your-own-no-to-av-argument-23195.html#comment-167026
at least they have the honesty to give the share of the vote alongside the distorted number of seats.
Try again:
http://sutton.moderngov.co.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=6&RPID=8596
P Bird
I dont moan about the propping up of the Tories, I moan because of the abandonment of the principles which many Lib Dems try and blame t
I myself have very fiercely argued against Nick Clegg and the way he has led the party since the coalition was formed. I do not think you could find a member of the Liberal Democrats more open in his wish to get rid of Nick Clegg as leader than I have been. But that does not mean I would vote against AV in the referendum, because that would be daft. It is a referendum on the algorithm to choose Parliamentary representatives, not a referendum on Nick Clegg.
On the “abandonment of principles” what do you think the Liberal Democrats could have done that you would not count as such? Remember, the balance of MPs after the May 2010 election was that a Conservative-LibDem coalition would have a clear majority, but a Labour-LibDem coalition would not have a majority. The FPTP electoral system gave the Conservatives over five times as many MPs as the Liberal Democrats, even though they got less than twice as many votes. So that distortion very much weakened Liberal Democrat influence in the coalition. Liberal Democrats did not get a majority of seats in Parliament so quite obviously could not push through what was in their manifesto. What you write is as daft as saying Labour has “abandoned its principles” because it too has not been able to push its policy through. Look, the Conservatives WON the election, and they won it thanks to the electoral system you support, which twists the representation of the largest party upwards, and which stops alternative parties from having a chance due to the savage “split the vote” penalty.
To square the daftness, you moan about the Liberal Democrats “abandoning their principles” and then argue in favour of the distorting effect of the FPTP electoral system which so weakened the negotiating power of the Liberal Democrats in the balance-of-power situation.
Voting against electoral reform as a protest about the Liberal Democrats being weak in coalition is like kicking the cat as a protest against cruelty to animals. It’s really opposite-of-thin, isn’t it?
Depressed Ex
In comparison AV benefits centre parties (or parties perceived as such) and penalises parties of the right and left.
Well, we have seen a lot of claims from the “No to AV” people along these lines, but most of them show how innumerate “No to AV” is, unable to follow through a simple algorithm.
AV is of no benefit to third parties. Despite the claims of “No to AV” campaign, the algorithm CANNOT elect “everyone’s second choice” as MP. Candidates are eliminated in order of number of votes, and thus everyone’s second choice gets eliminated and ruled out of a chance of being elected before s/he can receive any transfers. That is how the algorithm works. When I get a “No to AV” person who actually shows a capacity to understand something like that, and who thus argues in terms of logic and algorithms rather than innummerate and illogical waffle, I’ll take “No to AV” seriously. Until then, even if I agreed to the true case against AV I’d be ashamed to vote against for the way it would link me to “No to AV” and the shamefully false arguments it uses.
It is no wonder this country is in a mess when so many people who run it or who aspire to run it are so wiling to demonstrate an incapacity to understand a simple piece of mathematical logic.
Well Matthew look at this from a neutral (which I am) – you’ve insulted folk who dont share your opinion, come April though we will have a sudden change when the elections come around- if you look at the posts I have made I’ve never moaned about the Lib Dems entering a coalition, what I am not happy with is how anything pledged by the Liberal Democrats swiftly lost its place on the agenda, – things that you are still defending as party policy – the concern being what the party will do to achieve it. This is the problem many have with your party – the revelations of what was planned and agreed in March have done your party no favours.
I challenge a respectful and logical argument which gets rid of the repeated influences and inferences of ‘whats in it for us?’ if you support it. – As said STV wont work on a national scale, the size of the chamber settled that issue out immediately – but I would (if insult was removed) consider it from neutral perspective)
Matthew
That’s one of the feeblest “straw man” arguments I’ve ever seen. Obviously I didn’t say anything about parties that are “_everyone’s_ second choice.” As imaginary concepts go, that’s a particularly ludicrous one.
If you really don’t understand why AV benefits centre parties, I suggest you get a friend to explain it to you privately, to save yourself further embarrassment. But I think you do understand it, don’t you?
Anyhow, don’t say the argument against AV hasn’t been put. In a nutshell, the argument is that AV is even more unfair to minor parties of the right or left than FPTP. If you can’t understand that – or if you pretend not to – it’s your problem, not anyone else’s.
P Bird
Well Matthew look at this from a neutral (which I am) – you’ve insulted folk who dont share your opinion,
Well, sorry if asking you to give a logical argument for your opinion insults you.
come April though we will have a sudden change when the elections come around- if you look at the posts I have made I’ve never moaned about the Lib Dems entering a coalition,
Plenty of others have.
what I am not happy with is how anything pledged by the Liberal Democrats swiftly lost its place on the agenda, – things that you are still defending as party policy – the concern being what the party will do to achieve it.
This is one of those cases where it is unfortunate that English has lost the singular/plural distinction in the second person. When you write “you” do you mean “Matthew Huntbach” or do you mean “The Liberal Democrats as understood by the media” i.e. Nick Clegg and a few of his cronies? If you mean the latter, I am neither Nick Clegg nor one of his cronies, so please don’t include me in that “you”.
This is the problem many have with your party – the revelations of what was planned and agreed in March have done your party no favours.
I agree. Just because I am a member of it does not mean I agree with what its leader has done since last time the party had the opportunity to express its opinion on the matter using its democratic forums. If you could stop making assumptions about me and arguing on that basis, we may be able to talk abut these things in a more logical way.
Depressed Ex
That’s one of the feeblest “straw man” arguments I’ve ever seen. Obviously I didn’t say anything about parties that are “_everyone’s_ second choice.” As imaginary concepts go, that’s a particularly ludicrous one.
Why is it “ludicrous” when it’s a common argument put against AV by “No to AV” people? For example, the person quoted in these columns only recently who used some argument about a shed being painted yellow when no-one wanted it to be yellow as a supposed argument against AV.
If you really don’t understand why AV benefits centre parties, I suggest you get a friend to explain it to you privately, to save yourself further embarrassment. But I think you do understand it, don’t you?
Your claim (whatever you mean by “centre”, I myself am somewhat to the left of the current Labour Party, so I do not regard myself as “centre”) is that centre parties will pick up a lot of the transfer votes in AV, therefore AV benefits them.
The point I am making is that they will only benefit from this if they are not eliminated before they can pick up those transfers. The Liberal Democrats will not benefit from this in most of the country, because in most seats they are in third place, and their candidate will be eliminated under AV before s/he gets a chance to pick up any second preferences. If youcan’t see this, then you are falling for what you above dismiss as “straw man”.
The centre parties that will benefit from AV will be the Labour and the Conservatives parties, because they will pick up transfers from small parties to their left and right. However, AV also allows voters to give their first choice to these small parties without fear it will “split the vote” and therefore if they are to the left let in the centre-right party, or of they are to the right let in the centre-left party. So the REAL argument against AV is that by taking away this big “you could split the vote and let in your least favoured of the major party candidates” argument, it may lead to more people voting for new parties on the right and left instead of voting for Labour or Conservative, because they feel safe to do so because if their first choice party gets nowhere their vote gets used on the second choice for Labour or Conservative. This, the REAL anti-AV line would go, is a bad thing, because some of them might start winning seats, and that would mean thee chances of having an overall Labour or an overall Conservative majority are reduced.
So the REAL argument against AV is that FPTP first forces people to vote for either Labour or Conservative for fear that doing anything else would “split the vote”, and secondly after that distorts representation even further so that Labour or Conservative will generally have a majority of seats in Parliament. This is the nub of the argument that “FPTP is good because it generally gives single-party government”. I am just explaining the mechanism by which it does that. Why can’t the “No to AV” people be honest enough to explain that mechanism? Is it because, perhaps, people would be horrified to have it spelt out what their REAL argument is?
Matthew, before I commented you referred to those opposed in the referendum as thick and stupid – regardless of what your opinions are, you are a representative of y
‘you’ means Matthew – to clarify,
I dont know whether its just me but the only arguments I see made by LDs for the AV is because it aids them – the councillor on the doorstep saying it will lead to a perpetual liberal government – he is a Lib Dem councillor – its that what makes it so hard to divulge because repeatedly it would appear that the reason why the LDs support it is because it will aid them, and help them, – thats what is so fundamentally wrong – assure me that the Lib Dems would not be racing off to get another referendum in 2015?
The Lib Dems are the wrong people to be engineering support because it appears more and more to the public, that this referendum is aimed in self interest rather than national interest? But regrettable as it may seem, the country has asked that since May 12th. You know my opinions on that matter
Depressed Ex
In a nutshell, the argument is that AV is even more unfair to minor parties of the right or left than FPTP.
Well this argument is bogus. How many minor party to the right or left MPs do we have? Excluding the special case of Northern Ireland, we have one – the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion. For decades we had none.
Under FPTP people who want to vote for a minor party of the left or right face the heavy penalty that voting for a minor party of the left may split the left vote and let the major right party in, and voting for a minor party of the right may split the right vote and let the major left party in. So therefore people feel forced to vote for the major parties of the left and right.
Under AV, people can feel free to vote for minor parties of the right or left because they know it will not “split the vote”, they can use their second choice for the major parties of the left and right. So while it’s not a proportional system so it doesn’t actually give MPs for the minor parties according to their share of the vote, it does enable people to demonstrate a support for them and so give a better estimate of their true support. It makes it easier for new parties of the left and right to come up through gaining some electoral support because there is no “don’t split the vote” argument, and therefore to mount an effective challenge against the complaceny of the major parties of the left and right who under FPTP can assume “people round here will always vote for us” in their “safe seats”
No one is suggesting the Lib Dems will benefit in “most of the country.” Obviously, they’ll benefit in seats where they are already in contention!
How on earth could that affect the validity of the argument?
Anyhow, I already addressed this point in my post at 3:43, and perhaps it’s better if there’s only one of us going round and round in circles.
P Bird
Matthew, before I commented you referred to those opposed in the referendum as thick and stupid – regardless of what your opinions are, you are a representative of y
So far the arguments I have seen from the “No to AV” campaign have been thick and stupid, or have at least contrived to be. It is shameful to see people who suppose themselves to be serious political commentators or to be politicians who could be running the country writing stuff that clearly shows they do not understand the simple algorithm that is AV. It may be that these people understand their arguments are stupid, but are clever enough to see that stupid arguments may win support to their cause better than the real ones which actually engage with how the algorithms of AV and FPTP work. That is why I said the people running this campaign are either thick or liars.
I would be very happy to engage with people who argue against AV on the grounds of actually showing an understanding of how it works, but I have yet to come across any.
Depressed Ex
Quoting me: “Well this argument is bogus. How many minor party to the right or left MPs do we have?”
How on earth could that affect the validity of the argument?
Because its the exact opposite of what you were claiming in that argument.
Anyhow, I already addressed this point in my post at 3:43
Here’s what you wrote in your post at 3:43
But in relation to minority parties of the right or left, it would tend to make the problem of under-representation worse.
What could be worse than just 1 MP in 50 years? I suppose you could say 0 MPs, but your line that FPTP is good to small parties to the left and right seems a little weak if one looks at what it actually delivers. As I have explained, AV by removing the “don’t split the vote” argument helps small parties because it stops people feeling they can’t vote for them for fear of “splitting the vote”.
perhaps it’s better if there’s only one of us going round and round in circles
We would not be going round in circles if you were able to respond to my point above in a way that shows an understanding of how AV and FPTP work, both as algorithms and in terms of voter psychology.
P Bird
I dont know whether its just me but the only arguments I see made by LDs for the AV is because it aids them – the councillor on the doorstep saying it will lead to a perpetual liberal government – he is a Lib Dem councillor
I have never come across Liberal Democrats who support AV over FPTP (as I have tried to argue, but you don’t seem top understand – that does not mean they don’t support STV over AV, but STV is not in offer) on the grounds of personal benefit to the Liberal Democrats. The arguments are always that it is fairer, giving the people more control over the politicians. As I tried to explain earlier, many of us started off with a belief in the need for electoral reform first, and then came to support the Liberal Democrats after that because the Liberal Democrats were the only party who supported electoral reform.
Regarding the councillor in question, don’t vote for him if he stands again, he is obviously very stupid. We most certainly DON’T have Liberal government now, and we will not have it as a perpetual junior coalition partner. We have a tiny bit of influence on government policy, that is all. Campaigning for AV on the grounds “it will help us Liberal Democrats” is very, very silly, appallingly bad tactics, I don’t think even Calamity Clegg would be stupid enough to make that presentational mistake.
The case for AV is that it enables people to express through the ballot box what their REAL first choice is politically, without fear that doing so may “split the vote:” and thus damage the chances of their second choice. So it stops the way FPTP forces people to give electoral allegiance to a party they don’t really like but can tolerate for fear of helping elect a party they detest.
Matthew
Stone the crows – on this showing you really aren’t entitled to describe anyone else as thick!
Obviously I’m saying that AV depresses the representation of minor parties of the left or right IN PRINCIPLE. Clearly the reason that hasn’t happened IN PRACTICE in the UK in recent history is that the third party has been of the centre (or perceived as such), and THERE HAVEN’T BEEN ANY MINOR PARTIES OF THE RIGHT OR LEFT WITH ENOUGH SUPPORT TO GET ELECTED UNDER EITHER SYSTEM! (Sorry to shout, but for some reason it seems to be necessary.)
But – as I said in the earlier comment I referred you to – things can change, and it may not be wise to saddle ourselves with a botched fix of an electoral system which under different circumstance could turn out to be even less proportional than FPTP.
On top of that, I have given you the example of the Tories in 1997, who weren’t even the third party in terms of electoral support, but who – according to the BBC’s projection – would have come a poor third in terms of MPs under AV, with little more than 10% of the House of Commons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm
Frankly I’m baffled by the fact that anyone can try to deny these very well-known features of AV, which follow in an entirely clear and straightforward way from its operation. I’m even more baffled by the fact that you keep complaining that it’s OTHER PEOPLE who don’t understand how it works!
Up here in Scotland we have people, Tories who would never have got in on a first past the post system,we have Liberals who are really Tories, and are in the main just local councillors with no experience or the wit (apart from as the Leader of the liberals have done to buy a house/flat at my expense). Wish we could go back to the FPTP system and get rid of the lot who scraped in sneakily.
Depressed Ex
THERE HAVEN’T BEEN ANY MINOR PARTIES OF THE RIGHT OR LEFT WITH ENOUGH SUPPORT TO GET ELECTED UNDER EITHER SYSTEM!
Yes, and as I said, a contributing factor to that is that FPTP penalises small parties, so they don’t get a chance to take off and demonstrate and grow their support. AV ends that by removing the “don’t split the vote” fear.
Depressed Ex
On top of that, I have given you the example of the Tories in 1997, who weren’t even the third party in terms of electoral support, but who – according to the BBC’s projection – would have come a poor third in terms of MPs under AV, with little more than 10% of the House of Commons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm
Yes, and so?
It distorts the representation. So does FPTP. As I’ve already said several times, I would prefer a proportional system, but that is not on offer. The choice is between two disproportional systems. If the Tories think the AV system is particulary unfair to them, they ought not to have offered it as the only choice against FPTP in the referendum.
Depressed Ex
Frankly I’m baffled by the fact that anyone can try to deny these very well-known features of AV, which follow in an entirely clear and straightforward way from its operation.
I’m not denying them, I’m simply saying I find the AV system better than FPTP because it takes away the “don’t split the vote” fear which is a major barrier against small parties developing a vote base.
Matthew
Of course you denied them – in your comment of 1st March 2011 at 12:54 pm!
What a waste of time.
There is something not quite right with AV its followers conveniently always fail to tell us.
Something that can’t readily be described in few words. It requires complex formulations about how votes are worth different things to different people, in different places, and under peculiarly different circumstances. How that complexity is somehow fairer, yet the more one digs into it the more one comes beguiled, then confused, and then disgusted…
It is the end of democracy in Britain, it is the beginning of permanent LibDem dominated coalition government; the floodgates to the slippery slope to a smooth easy patch-in to the EU-superstate.
And what we would actually lose with it? Forever the ability for us to vote out an entire political class or entire political ideology.
It is not a stepping stone to PR. No party will give us that. And certainly not the LibDems.
The LibDems love AV precisely because AV crushes the other small count parties at first count; counter to what the loving public perceive of it.
AV is nothing but the LibDem CUCKOO’s egg in the nest of British democracy.