It seems an unbiased question. But whence our choice of STV instead?

Come, Douglas Carswell, and bring forth your amending pen.

erm – odd question perhaps – but why does the fixed term proposal appear in a seperate bill to the rest of the reforms?

After all, surely if it is deemed significant enough to need seperating off, so is AV from gerrymandering.

@2:

Different department. The fixed-term Parliament stuff is being handled by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

I would like to see the liberal left campaigning on a platform to reform the question itself, offering a properly proportional alternative to AV and FPTP. As it stands I will be spoiling my paper rather than voting to endorse either of the systems offered.

We should not be lying down and allowing the terms of the debate to be dictated to us in this way.

Andy: Please don’t spoil your ballot. Those who will benefit from your doing so would only be the Right.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/06/28/why-the-left-will-always-be-at-a-loss-without-vote-reform/

Rupert,

I take your point about AV enabling a more unified Left but the same is probably true of the Right as well. I cannot remember the exact figures or source, but someone post-election said that there were a significant number of seats where UKIP polled more votes than the Tories lost by. If UKIP voters had been able to give their second preferences to the Conservatives, the Tories might perhaps have won an overall majority. Obviously this doesn’t take into account progressive parties cross-endorsing one another but the potential is there for your ideas to take effect on both sides of the political spectrum.

My main concern with the support the Left has given for AV is that it is not what we wanted, and in some cases (not mine admittedly) voted for in the last election. It is a compromise, a half-measure, and whether it is adopted or not the referendum will close the debate on electoral reform for perhaps a generation.

In other words, we have one shot – one opportunity to reshape the political landscape for the forseeable future. Squandering that opportunity on a system that is barely better than the one we have now would be a tremendous waste. The Left seems to have given up on meaningful reform in order to take the meagre offer we have been given by this Coalition – we can, and should, be aiming higher than that.

The referendum question specifies AV would only be for General Elections. But why should local elections keep FPTP if it is rejected by the electorate?

Cutting the size of the HoC should not be banded in with a referendum on AV. Although I’m against referenda in general, and in favour of FPTP, I think Labour MPs should vote for a referendum on AV on the basis that it was in the manifesto (but then be free to campaign against it). But they shouldn’t vote for cutting the number of MPs. Putting the two together seems purely designed to make things difficult for Labour MPs.

Everyone needs to consider this.
Any change to the voting system will need to be approved in a referendum.
If the AV referendum says no, that will then be used as evidence that the electorate do not want to change the voting system.
A no vote will be a devastating defeat for any prospect of PR.
If you support PR, you must vote YES. simple as that.

Geoffrey,

If the AV referendum says No, that will be used as evidence that the public do not support electoral reform.

But if the AV referendum says Yes, that will be used as evidence that the public support AV rather than any other voting system.

So how do we voice the opinion that we support neither AV nor FPTP, and want a truly proportional alternative? The ballot paper will contain no option for this – which is why I am spoiling my paper.

Thanks Martin. I appreciate the answer.

Andy

We don’t. This isn’t a democratic election – It’s a referendum. Referenda only seek a very bland summary view of a very specific issue.

I won’t go into why I think the referendum will come out no again, but I have no faith that the uninspiring fig-leaf option of AV will win.

A “Yes” vote will demonstrate that the electorate prefers PR to FPTP.
A “No” will demonstrate the opposite, and that will be that.

AV isn’t such a bad place to start: it’s easy to understand (you have to get 50% + 1), and not so radical as to make people nervous. Including all of the other options is likely to be too complicated, and simply turn people off (particularly at a time when there are more pressing concerns).

Also don’t forget that an AV election would result in a greater number of PR-supporting MPs, or should do, and that would result in continued pressure for further change.

#13: A “Yes” vote will demonstrate that the electorate prefers PR to FPTP.
A “No” will demonstrate the opposite, and that will be that.

I agree that a “No” vote will demonstrate that there is no public demand for voting reform. I don’t think a “Yes” vote will demonstrate a preference for PR over FPTP, though, since AV is not a proportional system.

It might make it easier to get support for PR in the future, I agree.

#7 Duncan,

“The referendum question specifies AV would only be for General Elections. But why should local elections keep FPTP if it is rejected by the electorate?”

Locals are already held by STV in Scotland and Northern Ireland. You wouldn’t want to ask about whether STV would be repealed in those territories (and if you wanted to ask that, you’d have a longer and wordier question), so you’d have to ask about England specifically. But you couldn’t do that in a UK-wide referendum. You’d end up needing to have two referendum questions instead of one.

But I agree with you – we should definitely press for local elections to be held under a fairer system.

And the fact that PR is used for the London Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, Scottish local elections, etc, surely implies that even if people vote no to AV in the referendum, the government should still keep open the possibility of introducing AV or STV for English local government (and Welsh – though that should probably be a decision for the Welsh government, even if they don’t currently have the power).

Unfortunately political realities probably mean that if the referendum goes against AV, there is no way the Tories will allow AV or STV for English local government. I also suspect that even if the referendum goes in favour of AV, they may try to delay or even block its implementation for local government. After all, I notice that in NZ, where Parliament has been elected by AMS for 15 years or so, the majority of local councils are still elected through FPTP (though Wellington uses STV).

But regardless of whether or not my fears are correct, that’s no reason not to try. We should definitely push for a reformed voting system for local government.

A dilemma for PR supporters is that if we say during the referendum that AV isn’t such a brilliant system, the general public may be less likely to back it (even if they back PR). But if we say that AV is a brilliant system, the general public may be surprised after the referendum is passed when we say that actually it’s only the first step.

Regardless, my view is that once we have AV, we must push for PR.

STV and AV+ can each in different ways be presented as natural progressions from AV. (Note: AV+ as presented by Jenkins is only semi-PR, due to the small size of the top-up. But I believe the essential distinction between AMS and AV+ is the fact that the latter uses AV for the constituency votes. I personally favour a large top-up, though obviously the larger the top-up, the less natural the progression will perhaps seem. On the other hand, the disadvantage of STV is the large constituencies it creates – and obviously, the higher the level of proportionality you want, the larger they have to be.)