One of the advantages of shift work is that I occasionally get a day off during the week, this week it is “Thursday.” Although it would usually be a good opportunity for some blogging I am more inclined to enjoy the sunshine so I thought I …

Yep, ticks most of the boxes for fairness. Requires a computer to churn through the results so this would have to be accredited, safe open source. This won’t happen for some time, if ever.

Coowell!

AV gives you a preferential vote and (almost) completely removes tactical voting.

AMS is more proportional and helps smaller parties more.

I’d like to draw a little flow chart, but that isn’t an option so you’re going to get a “choose your own adventure” answer.

A * means you’re finished; + means you’ve found a PR system.

1. How big are the constituencies?
a. single member. Go to 2
b. multi-member. Go to 4
c. regional lists. Go to 5
d. national list. Go to 6

2. When you vote in your constituency, how many choices do you have?
a. Just an X. Your constituency is First Past the Post (FPTP), go to 3
b. first choice and second choice. Your system is Supplementary Vote; you’re done. *
c. As many as I like. Your constituency is Additional Vote (AV), go to 3

3. Is there a top-up?
a. yes. You have an additional member system; if your constituency is FPTP, then you have AMS, if it’s AV, you have AV+. *+
b. no. You have a single-member constituency system, per your answer in 2 *

4. When you vote, how many choices do you have?
a. As many Xs as there are representatives. You have multi-X FPTP, also know as multi-member plurality. *
b. 1,2,3,4,5, etc. You have STV. Lucky you. *+

5. When you vote on the lists, do you just pick the list you want, or can you pick a candidate within the list?
a. Just choose the list. You have closed regional lists. *+
b. I can pick a candidate or order the list. You have open regional lists. *+

6. When you vote on the lists, do you just pick the list you want, or can you pick a candidate within the list?
a. Just choose the list. You have a closed national list. *+
b. I can pick a candidate or order the list. You have an open national list. *+

Top-up systems (AMS and AV+) can have regional lists (e.g. Scotland and Wales) a single “national list” (e.g. the London assembly) or both (e.g. Germany).

AV would let you filter your results better…i.e your first choice could be an independent, but if they didn’t get through the Greens, and if not them the Lib Dems and then if not them Labour, for example. You can still say you’d prefer Labour over the Tories, but only if three of your other higher preferences don’t get enough votes.

Neither guarantees that every single person has their view catered for, but STV is obviously better at doing it by far.

The greens are not placed to even make any significant gains under FPTP. At least under AV they would have the chance of picking up other minority votes and, if they’re strong enough, beat a party in to third place and cross their fingers. AV is at least a step up for them, and certainly the alternative for them of sulking and saying no isn’t going to fare them any better.

It isn’t PR, no, but does it leave opinion unrepresented? It really depends on your perspective. If more than 50% of people in each constituency are happy to put any number beside the winning MP then that MP has to be representative of that area. It’s not ideal but then as myself and Sunder have said, it would have to be coupled with reform of the Lords to be something that would approach workable and fair.

I don’t think either the Tories or Labour are going to put STV on the table, I think we have to be realistic. That means, realistically, accepting reform that at least gives the opportunity of a party or coallition of parties to push the reforms a step further in the future.

If we get stuck with FPTP we will not get meaningful reform for a long time. At least if we get AV in the short term it means that STV is more than a pipe dream.

Sunder’s proposal to combine AV for the Commons with PR for the second chamber makes little sense to me. This would create a situation in which many people, quite reasonably, would regard the second chamber as having more democratic legitimacy than the Commons. What would happen then? Either the second chamber would retain its current subordinate status, and people would ask why what they saw as the less democratic Commons gets to overrule the second chamber. Or else the second chamber would gain equal status, and we would have a situation in which the majority in one chamber would not necessarily match the majority in the other. In a system where the executive is chosen from the legislature, this would create a constitutional crisis of the first order.

Sunder is certainly right, though, that the issues are complex. All the proposals have pluses and minuses and reform needs careful deliberation. This is why it would be quite inappropriate for the Brown government to go into a huddle and rush out a set of proposals. Instead the government should step back from offering immediate proposals and should instead initiate a nation-wide, popular consultative process, culminating in a citizens’ convention which would be able to offer a set of recommendations for reform. The danger otherwise is that we get rushed proposals – and proposals which, like AV, have more to do with serving a narrow party interest than genuine democratic renewal.

“We are extremely sorry that it has taken this long to discuss electoral reform seriously. As you may know it was an integral part of our 1997 election manifesto that swept us to such great popularity and yet we lost focus on its implementation. As such, and especially because of the public concern over expenses and the credibility of MPs, now is the right time to finish the debate that has been ongoing since we made that first pledge 12 years ago. This is not opportunism, it is delivering on the promises we made as the public expect us to do, involving them in the process of decision making through the power of a referendum; handing the public the opportunity to reform our political system if they wish to, and gain back some trust in their representatives.”

It’s slightly masochistic, but then I guess they should be happy that the opposition parties aren’t drumming them for the fact that this is another example of a “broken promise”

AV is not PR, and so leaves vasts swathes of opinion unrepresented in parliament.

The value of single member seats (on arbitrary boundaries which are often absurd in places, remember) is not worth the price paid in terms of failure to represent constituencies of opinion properly.

AV+ is the only possible compromise from full STV, and that’s because Jenkins has already reported.

The Tories are trying to avoid engaging with the substantive issue by accusing Brown of doing something like this – when it is clear that there would be a referendum, and no change for this election. On framing it, I think the government’s view is that this has to be clear to get a hearing for the arguments. “You are going to lose so are trying to change the system’ is obviously a silly argument, so the question is why the Tories (committed to the massive redistribution of power as they are) are unable to discuss the issues in a serious way.

On technical as opposed to political barriers …. As AV+ involves redrawing all constituencies, I doubt it could technically be done for an election after a referendum within 6 months or so. (Parties must then select candidates, etc after boundaries are published; and boundaries would be open to consultation/appeal, etc. No doubt it could be sped up somewhat, but perhaps not enough, and in any event not without what would appear unseemly haste, which takes us back to the political/framing issue.

I disagree. Opinion polls show a majority favour PR. Most of the people who voted for minor parties in the Euro eletion would do so for westminster too if we had PR, and these people would all benefit from PR.

If I was Brown I’d have a quick referendum on whether to change the voting system to AV+; this would take place within the next month or two. At the same time, there would be simultaneous referenda on other constitutional issues such as fixed term parliaments and recall elections.

Brown would have to be careful to frame it right, otherwise he would be accused of wanting to change the system purely for Labour’s benefit. To get round this, he could say something like “Cameron wants to keep FPTP, because it helps the Tories, Clegg wants PR, becausxe it helps the Lib Dems. This demonstrates that politicians will always favour the voting system that benefits them, and that’s why politicians shouldn’t choose the voting system. Instead, you the people should choose the voting system, which is why I’m giving you a referendum.”

This might not work, but so what if it doesn’t — Labour have nothing to lose, because if they do nothing they are going down for their worse defeat ever (it’ll be worse than 1983).