AV vs FPTP
Apr. 3rd, 2011 02:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackThe 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-04 11:33 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-04 11:43 am (UTC)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*).
no subject
Date: 2011-04-04 11:57 am (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2011-04-04 01:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-04-04 04:44 pm (UTC)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.