AV vs FPTP

[jack]

The more I learn about stuff, the more jaded I get with conflating "going ON and ON debunking stuff that ought to be obvious, but everyone still believes" and "trying to talk through points of genuine contention". Both are good and necessary, but in rather different ways.

The referendum on voting system has a collection of completely spurious fears (indeed, ones that would be fraudulent if the advertising for them was making any money directly) like "AV is hellishly expensive and will kill babies[1]" and "AV will make rainbows and puppies"[2]. Not as many as many elections have, perhaps, which is great, but still, several. So maybe deciding the issue is completely pointless, if it will be determined solely by who has the best propaganda, but I optimistically hope not.

And there's also a few minor issues, which are important, but I don't think are a sticking point, like "will an average voter comprehend the idea of a first choice, second choice, etc", which I agree is a problem, but I think is surmountable.

As far as I can see, there seem to be a couple of big issues:

1. AV will instantly shift the balance of power between the current three major parties. And no-one actually ADMITS this is a reason to vote, but it's a big source of bias for people in some places on the political spectrum to be positive about the change, and others to be negative. If I felt the change would massively disadvantage parties I generally supported, I would be a lot more reluctant (but still in favour).

2. AV will have a long-term effect on what parties are viable where. Well, this is what it's SUPPOSED to do. And I think most people I know are cautiously (or enthusiastically) in favour of it, on hope it'll produce parties more directly reflecting their views for them to vote for. But most of the argument seems to be about the OTHER points.

3. Adopting AV now may affect the chances of some other voting reform later. This seems to be a giant question mark. It seems obvious to me that people are naturally very reluctant to change the underlying voting system, but that once we already have, then that reluctance will be less entrenched, and the possibility of changing it further, with good reason, even if only in 50 years time, will be easier. But it seems obvious to other people that it's better to change only once? I literally don't see that. I don't imagine politicians in westminster saying "oh dear, look, AV, wasn't the right answer, let's try PR" but "oh dear, that didn't work, well, changing the voting system is probably dead" and to me people who like voting system change, and are not implacably opposed to AV, seem to be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they don't vote yes, and yet, I have absolutely no evidence I'm right. So this question seems like one that less depends on philosophical impoderables, and more about facts that might possibly be uncovered, so why haven't we reached some consensus on it?[3]

So in general, to me, "yes" seems obviously desirable. But I know the the something-something report, and many intelligent friends, have OTHER reasons for definitively opposing it, but I'm a bit fuzzy on what they are. What am I missing?

[1] I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! EXPLETIVE! EXPLETIVE!
[2] OK, that wasn't the exact wording, but...
[3] Also, I quite like the AV compromise, because while I like the positives (representation of everyone's views, even if they're non-geographical), I'm scared by the negatives (shifting of emphasis completely towards the central party and away from the possibility of independent-ish MPs at all). And I agree there are probably good ways forward, but I'm not certain what I'd recommend, whereas -- to me -- AV seems like a good idea and I'm not worried about the downsides.

Comments

[pseudomonas]

Are you using STV in this post to refer to AV or STV-in-multi-membered-constituencies-type-PR?

[jack]

Doh! Thank you. I meant AV throughout, I was just talking out of my hat...

[pseudomonas]

Re your footnote 3, do look through the different kinds of electoral systems that are both preferential and proportional. They're not all party-list based (AMS is, STV isn't, for example). I realise this post isn't actually *about* that though, so forgive this discursion.

[jack]

Yeah, I generally like AMS, I just don't know enough about the pros and cons of voting systems to be able to unambiguously say "this is best. vote for this". (But I'd probably vote for it if it were on the referendum).

[rmc28]

I just wanted to add that STV quite clearly doesn't prevent independents (just look at Ireland's election last month).

[hoiho]

Nor do list systems, as shown by Dennis Canavan and Margo Macdonald both being elected twice to the Scottish Parliament as regional list MSPs.

But I don't think AV discourages, or mitigates against. them either, as the choice to vote for an independent becomes a far less risky choice than under FPTP.

[rmc28]

On point 3, we have some evidence that if you rerun a referendum too soon you get accused of "asking until you give the right answer" (see Ireland on Lisbon treaty; a certain Oxford College going co-ed). When Scotland lost a referendum on devolution, it took 20 years to get another one.

We have plenty of evidence from the various publications on last year's coalition negotiations that anything more than AV is anathema to the Conservatives, and probably undeliverable by Labour. So I would love to know how Lords Owen & Alton think it would be done in sooner than 20 years if we get a No in May.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you. That sounds plausible to _me_, yes.

[naath]

I think a lot of people are genuinely tied to the "FPTP is the fairest way". I think it's bollocks, but I think that's because I have a fundamentally different understanding of the word "fair". And really I don't know how to convince people like my Dad that if 48% of your constituents love their Tory MP and 52% of them hate his guts with fire as of the seventh circle of hell that *it might be fair if those 52% are heard, and some other bugger gets elected* even if they can't all agree on which other guy they love most.

[jack]

Yeah. I mean, I can at least understand that -- if you are used to the idea of a two or three party system, then "whichever of the candidates is most popular" _is_ reasonable, and even if you can intellectually image the alternative, I can see why it would take a lot to make you believe that the 48% case you describe is actually happening in real life in most constituencies rather than an abstract ivory tower quibble with what might theoretically be wrong with the system.

But I think many people have much better reasons for dispreferring AV, or much better reasons why they think "winner takes all" is right, but I'm unsure what.

[naath]

Well, my Dad's real, actual MP won with 46% of the vote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a99.stm

I think under AV Chelmsford would be an even closer call than it is now between the Tories and the LDs (unless it turns out all the Tories are closet UKIP supporters). But I don't think "we might loose under AV" is a good argument for not having it. Democracy ought to run so the world is FAIR not so the world is run how I want it (no matter how right I obviously am *grin*).

[jack]

Well, yeah, but presumably he doesn't think that the other 54% DO hate the incumbent, he presumably would assume libdem votes would be equally split between lab and con, or something.

The "but we'll lose" problem is what I talked about in the first point. I agree it's a problem, and I agree I'd prefer to see a fair system in general (although, in fact, I am biased towards a system which produces a good government in _my_ opinion).

I did wonder about the obvious compromise -- moving to a new system, but with weightings to preserve the current standings, which slowly automatically decay. So no MPs have to vote for their own doom right now, but the system will eventually correct to something fair in 50 years...

[naath]

I think the obvious assumption is that it's such a close Tory-LD marginal that all the Tory sympathisers are voting Tory to ensure a Tory win so the LD voters are all Lab-leaning rather than Tory-leaning LDs. Which is possibly correct. Dunno.

[pseudomonas]

Re the "but we'll lose" problem, it's sooo difficult to find what people actually want at the moment, we'll probably have at least a few parliaments before things settle down into a new shape.

At the moment you have things like the Pirate Party not running a candidate in Cambridge (somewhere they might get a fair amount of support) because they didn't want to split the vote away from the Lib Dem candidate whom they broadly regarded as a Good Thing. I think it's reasonable to expect UKIP and the Greens to do particularly well out of AV, but besides that I'd really not like to guess.