You are a faction within Labour. You are not even the largest one, on the basis of most evidence. Most Labour supporters will be fighting the Tories and Lib Dems this may, not the referendum campaign, and many of us will be hoping for a “no” vote, so that we can win the next election, not have our likely victory vetoed by the three main right-wing parties transferring their votes between each other to block Labour candidates.

Old Politics – you don’t really understand AV do you?

Interested to hear Tony Benn supports it, I always thought he was a FPTP man.

Yes Planeshift, I understand AV very well. What aspect of it do you think I’ve misunderstood, and what’s your strategy for attracting the second preferences on offer in marginal constituencies from UKIP voters, Tories, and their coalition partners?

“The three main right-wing parties”: NewLabour, LibDems, and Tories…
It really is the worst elements of Labour – tribal dinosaurs combined with some New Labour opportunists – who are opposing AV. Well done to LabourYes for mobilising just about all the pluralist intelligent voices within Labour to support AV…
And see liberalconspiracy.org/2010/06/28/why-the-left-will-always-be-at-a-loss-without-vote-reform/

“What aspect of it do you think I’ve misunderstood,”

You wrote:

“our likely victory vetoed by the three main right-wing parties transferring their votes between each other to block Labour candidates.”

First of all parties do not transfer their votes under the system, voters do. What you really mean by that is that you think lib dem, ukip and tory voters will express second and third preferences for each other and this will deny labour victory. This is unlikely in the extreme – do you really think that pro european lib dem voters will express a preference for UKIP? Bearing in mind a substantial number of lib dem voters did so as a tactical anti-tory vote as well this is blatantly absurd.

You are also forgetting that Labour can also benefit from second preferences, and most people think many greens, socialist type party voters etc will also go to labour in second and third rounds as well as lib dem voters who don’t like the tories. Indeed if you replace the words “right wing” with “left wing” and “labour” with “conservative” in your post, you’ll be left with exactly the kind of fears about AV expressed by tory supporters.

Furthermore you are also forgetting that not every vote gets re-allocated. If somebody gets over 50% of first preferences then no second round takes place. If not then it is only the votes of the lowest candidate that get re-allocated to second preferences each time until somebody is left with 50%. So – assuming first preferences remain the same – we’d expect it to be the second preferences of the small parties and the independants that get re-allocated. It’s far more likely that the greens would be eliminated and second preferences re-allocated than it is UKIP voters because UKIP are bigger than the greens at the moment. It’s unlikely that any of the 3 main parties would end up eliminated and their votes cast for second preferences.

This is actually the kind of argument I’d expect an intelligent opponent of AV to be making; that it creates an incentive for the parties to chase the second preferences of the core supporters of small parties, rather than the moderate middle. That it hasn’t been made much suggests that most opponents of AV don’t even know what it is they are opposing (Many think they are opposing a proportional system). There is also a counter-argument to it though which is that the AV system enables people to vote out of principle for a candidate that isn’t backed by a party machine, safe in the knowledge that they can express a second preference for one of the main contenders in order to prevent a party they hate winning.

@ oldpolitics

“Most Labour supporters will be fighting the Tories and Lib Dems this may, not the referendum campaign, and many of us will be hoping for a “no” vote, so that we can win the next election…”

That’s exactly the reason why a lot of us will be hoping and praying your DON’T win the next election (whatever system it is ultimately fought under!).

Why on earth should we believe that Labour will be any better then than they were under the nauseating New Labour rabble, most of whom are still in high positions within the party?

It’s not as if Ed and his mates have come out as shining beacons of radicalism and progress is it?

@ 1 oldpolitics

“Most Labour supporters will be fighting the Tories and Lib Dems this may, not the referendum campaign, and many of us will be hoping for a “no” vote, so that we can win the next election”

I think it’s very unfair to suggest that most Labour supporters are in favour of short-term, selfish, anti-democratic measures.

Cheers to the Yes to AV campaign. Jeers to the lies on the No to AV site.

I had another phone call, they are calling up members and ex members to get people to vote for AV. To gain my support they said Robert if we had AV Gordon Brown would still be the leader of the country.

They said can we count on your support, so I said you know that I’ve a disablity, and the phone went dead, I suspect a few disabled people have given the group a mouthfull.

But the thought of having Brown still in charge of this country is a nightmare, not something to brag about.

@ 8

“To gain my support they said Robert if we had AV Gordon Brown would still be the leader of the country.”

Which genius thought that one up?

It’s not as if Ed and his mates have come out as shining beacons of radicalism and progress is it?

Credit where due – Ed is opposing the government primarily from left-liberal grounds, not from Blunkett/Woollas “you’re not being arseholes enough” grounds.

I’m baffled by oldpolitics’s viewpoint, though. Under FPTP:

1) nobody in England votes for parties other than Con, Lab or Lib, unless they live in constituencies where everyone’s a student, or a constituency so safe that the Con or Lab vote is just weighed.

2) everyone in England who thinks they’re right-wing votes Tory, unless they live in a weigh-the-Tory-vote constituency in which case they might vote for UKIP or the Hunting Party or the Kick Out The Darkies But Not In A Nasty Way Like That Griffin Prole party.

3) everyone in England who thinks they’re a centrist dilly-dallies and shilly-shallies, and eventually votes for the party that they hate the least out of the two that might win wherever they live.

4) everyone in England who thinks they’re leftwing either votes for Labour having spent the last five years ranting in the comments here that Labour are a bunch of right-wing arseholes, or votes for the LibDems because they believe they’re a progressive alternative to Labour (PREDICTION: THIS WILL HAPPEN LESS NEXT TIME). If they live in a Labour/Tory marginal, they vote Labour.

Under AV:
1) almost everyone will at least second-preference the Tories, Labour or Lib Dems. 2) right-wing people might put UKIP first and Tories second, but that won’t make any difference to us (it will help split the Tories, but that’s neither here nor there).
3) centrists will actually have to make their bloody minds up, especially regarding whether the party they support that isn’t the LDs is Labour or Tory.
4) left-wing people will be able to preference *actual* leftwing parties, whilst still keeping Labour as their second choice.

Unlike 2010, *nobody* will feel they need to vote LD because they’re an alternative to Labour – you can vote for a real socialist, but then put Labour second to make sure something terrible doesn’t happen.

I can just about understand why Tories don’t support AV – at the moment, the split in the left-ish vote suits them well, whilst the fact that UKIP types hate Labour almost as much as they hate Stalin keeps them in line – so AV would both disadvantage the Tories at the ballot box and increase the “moderate” vs “raving far-right loony” split in the party. But for lefties, not supporting it is frankly baffling.

I was quite shocked by the NOtoAV campaign and adverts that are appearing on the internet now like this:
http://votemay5th.notoav.org/images/maternity-unit.jpg
and this:
http://votemay5th.notoav.org/images/bulletproof-vests.jpg

What a horrible attempt at misdirection that will only appeal to Sun and Daily Mail readers which sadly are not a minority.

“To gain my support they said Robert if we had AV Gordon Brown would still be the leader of the country.”

FFS, sometimes the labour party really is its own worst enemy. Concentrate on arguing why AV would be better for the country, not your own party.

They said can we count on your support, so I said you know that I’ve a disablity, and the phone went dead, I suspect a few disabled people have given the group a mouthfull.

OK, I don’t think “if we had AV then GB would still be leader” is a good strategy for The Wider Public. But I’m actually perplexed why your disability comes in here:

1) GB is disabled, got a lot of shit for being disabled, and stood up for disabled people’s rights;

2) the Coalition, in the last year, have done masses to utterly shaft, fuck over, remove benefits from, and generally ruin life for disabled people.

If the Labour guys had raised your disability, they’d have been arseholes. But saying “as a disabled person, I hated Gordon Brown and am glad about the 2010 election result” is like saying “as a Jew, I hated von Schleicher and am glad about the 1933 election result”.

“I can just about understand why Tories don’t support AV ”

I don’t. A great deal of them are pissed off at Cameron’s attempt to de-toxify the party. Under AV, Cameron would have to appeal to get second preferences of UKIP voters just as much as the proverbial floating voter in middle england. It would also enable the tory right to vote UKIP and then put the tories down to stop labour, thus boosting UKIP and increasing the pressure for a more anti-european line.

@ 10 john b

“Credit where due – Ed is opposing the government primarily from left-liberal grounds, not from Blunkett/Woollas “you’re not being arseholes enough” grounds.”

Hmnn..I’m still not convinced, not by a long chalk. Remember he did appoint Woolas to his front bench team before he got booted out. His progressive credentials shouldn’t rest on the fact that he’s “Not New Labour”, they should be grounded in the conviction that he actually believes in a radical, progressive alternative.

I for one am just not convinced that he does. Even if it’s true, the inertai withing the Labour party, the New Labour cling-ons, and the old Labour authoritarians seem a pretty big obstacle for him to sweep aside or go round.

I’ll be voting in favour of AV becaude altho it isn’t great, it’s better than what we have, and will at least serve to give all the usual suspects a good kick up the jacksy. Not sure how much difference it will make here, as the Tory got 55% of the vote last election

Since the AV vote will probably be determined by how Labour voters vote, and Labour is in an excellent place to influence their opinions, I hope that Labour Yes is able to do well.

Planeshift/5: that it creates an incentive for the parties to chase the second preferences of the core supporters of small parties, rather than the moderate middle.

I’m not sure that it does. Small parties further from the centre than a major party will probably transfer to it rather than its opposite-of-centre rival anyway. There might need to be some work to get them to transfer at all rather than just going “UKIP 1, no 2″, but that’s not likely to be significant.

Small parties (or indeed medium-sized Lib Dems) between the two major parties, yes, their voters’ second preferences breaking the right way might be crucial – but that would tend to lead to more moderation rather than less.

The factor that might lead to less moderation, I think, is trying to get the first, not second, preferences of potential voters for side parties, like Greens or UKIP, so that there’s no risk of them becoming the obvious challengers in an ultra-safe Labour/Conservative seat.

It’s unlikely that any of the 3 main parties would end up eliminated and their votes cast for second preferences.

I would expect in any seat that wasn’t a first-round victory, the 3rd party votes would get transferred and how they transferred would be significantly more important than how the 4th-etc party votes transferred.

@ 14 Planeshift

Too complex. The simple fact is that FPTP gives an unfair advantage to the Tories and Labour and screws everyone else over. Many Tories are not about to let go of a biased system that keeps them in power two thirds of the time.

“do you really think that pro european lib dem voters will express a preference for UKIP?”

Oh come on, now you’re being disingenuous. Obviously I mean that UKIP voters will back the Tories, are there many constituencies where UKIP are ahead of the Lib Dems so that this even becomes an issue, and are they ones where Labour are in contention but the Tories aren’t? No. Exactly. So AV is a direct subsidy of almost a million votes from UKIP to Cameron. In any event, Lib Dem voters aren’t particularly pro-European, that’s just the activists.

Sure, there are left-wing votes, but ultimately UKIP and the far right polled five times as many votes last year as the Greens and the far left. It’s as simple as that. As to the claim that Lib Dem voters are often voting anti-Tory, I can only point to the polling evidence. Of those in January’s YouGov expressing a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, 76% went for the Conservatives, and 24% went for Labour. Another massive vote subsidy for the coalition.

Galen10 – if you really believe that a continuation of this coalition would be better than a return to a Labour Government – even if it would be a Blairite Labour government, which it won’t be, then I’m not sure what you’re doing here, to be honest. Perhaps you have been in hibernation for the last year?

Chaise,

How does FPTP give the Conservatives an unfair advantage? I can’t see any advantage inherent in the system, apart from that which pertains to large parties (whoever they are) at the expense of small ones – which I can only see AV perpetuating (as the main parties aim to sweep up the votes of smaller ones on second or subsequent preferences).

Anyway, if you haven’t noticed the post-war duopoly in FPTP systems is at its weakest now – not only is there a large third party and several regional parties, but the Greens have won their first seat, independents have won recently and the size of majorities is generally smaller. Not sure why you think you need AV to bring this about…

How does FPTP give the Conservatives an unfair advantage?

Because almost everyone who’d vote Tory in a 2PP run-off votes Tory in FPTP elections, whereas many people who’d vote Labour in a 2PP run-off vote Lib Dem in FPTP elections. This is obvious – if you don’t get it, you haven’t paid *any attention at all* to the debate.

18/oldpolitics: As to the claim that Lib Dem voters are often voting anti-Tory, I can only point to the polling evidence. Of those in January’s YouGov expressing a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, 76% went for the Conservatives, and 24% went for Labour.

Which poll was this? I haven’t seen a second-preference poll from YouGov for a while.

(see: the Coalition’s impact on expected Lib Dem votes in opinion polls. Specifically: the fairly small fall in the Tory vote; the massive fall in the Lib Dem vote; the roughly equivalent rise in the Labour vote…)

As to the claim that Lib Dem voters are often voting anti-Tory, I can only point to the polling evidence. Of those in January’s YouGov expressing a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, 76% went for the Conservatives, and 24% went for Labour.

I ain’t seen this poll either, but if it’s as Oldpolitics says, it supports my point. They’ve lost over half their vote since this time last year, and that’s going to consist almost entirely of Labour voters…

cim, It wasn’t a second preference poll as such, it was a forced choice “would you prefer a Labour Government or a Tory Government” question in the standard poll. Came out with 51% Tory, 16% Labour, 33% don’t know. 12th January? Linked to from my most recent blog post anyway.

John B, I have to say the argument “almost everyone who’d vote Tory in a 2PP run-off votes Tory in FPTP elections, whereas many people who’d vote Labour in a 2PP run-off vote Lib Dem in FPTP elections” is, what’s the phrase again? “So two thousand and late”?

Old Politics – well if that is your assesment of the preferences of voters for other parties, then you would also have to conclude the country prefers not to have a labour government. So if this happened it would be the democratic wish of the country. Also have a look at the history of elections, tactical voting last time was against labour. In 1997 it was against the tories. Under some similuations of the 97 election were it to have occured under AV, labour ends up with a majority of over 200, and the lib dems and tories neck and neck. AV reflects national swings in opinion more than FPTP – which is one reason why it isn’t a proportional system.

Besides which “AV prevents labour from winning with 35% of the vote (2005)” doesn’t strike me as a principled reason to vote against it, any more than conservatives arguing against it on the grounds they want to continue to have exclusive executive power on minority shares of the vote. It’s undemocratic.

“I would expect in any seat that wasn’t a first-round victory, the 3rd party votes would get transferred ”

I think 3rd party votes would probably only get transfered in situations of 3 way fights (oldham east last election). What of course is the great unknown is how many voters are purely tactical anti-tory or anti-labour, and how many voters are for genuine preference of those parties above others.

@ 19 Watchman

“How does FPTP give the Conservatives an unfair advantage? I can’t see any advantage inherent in the system, apart from that which pertains to large parties”

Exactly. That one.

“which I can only see AV perpetuating (as the main parties aim to sweep up the votes of smaller ones on second or subsequent preferences).”

But the large parties currently do that anyway, at least in seats where the outcome isn’t predetermined. Smaller parties could see their first- and second-preference votes grow over a few elections until they won the seat. That can’t happen with FPTP.

“Anyway, if you haven’t noticed the post-war duopoly in FPTP systems is at its weakest now – not only is there a large third party and several regional parties, but the Greens have won their first seat, independents have won recently and the size of majorities is generally smaller. Not sure why you think you need AV to bring this about…”

I don’t specifically want AV to bring that about, I want it to end the unrepresentative lock that Labour and the Tories currently have on Number 10. Yes, FPTP the post has made very, very slow progress towards this. How is that a reason to reject voting reform that would a) be far fairer and b) make this progress happen a lot faster?

Your argument seems to be “it’s better than it was 50 years ago, so let’s not bother improving it any more”.

john b,

Because almost everyone who’d vote Tory in a 2PP run-off votes Tory in FPTP elections, whereas many people who’d vote Labour in a 2PP run-off vote Lib Dem in FPTP elections. This is obvious – if you don’t get it, you haven’t paid *any attention at all* to the debate.

So the unfair advantage is an assumption about voting patterns? Are you sure (oldpolitic’s unreferenced poll seems to suggest this may not be as clear cut as you think)?

Also, an unfair advantage this is not – it is simply the case that the most popular candidate (not the most compromised upon candidate) wins the election, with everyone only having one vote to use.

This seems to me, along with a number of other contributions to this thread, to be a fairly wishful idea that Labour should support AV because it is guarenteed to work to its benefit, and the fact that the current system does not is seen as unfair. In fact unfair is when an aspect of a system presents an advantage to one party regardless of situation, and I cannot see that your analysis above holds true in say 1997 or in Labour-Liberal Democrat marginals…

Actually I suspect that a lot of people wouldn’t use their second preferences at all; political obsessives (and if you’re posting comments on this site then you are, by definition, a political obsessive) tend to underestimate quite how bored ordinary people are by technical aspects of elections. Back in 2007 I remember being surprised at quite how many intelligent, political informed people seemed very surprised that they had two different types of vote to cast in the Assembly election.

“if that is your assesment of the preferences of voters for other parties, then you would also have to conclude the country prefers not to have a labour government.”

Fine, that’s a respectable position – but let’s be honest about it.

Labour supporters of a yes vote who want to vote yes because they believe in a particular form of procedural justice, and value that more than the actual political outcome, are welcome to vote yes.

My worry is that by repeatedly lying about the actual political impact of AV, the Labour Yes campaign are brainwashing those Labour supporters who are far more interested in substantive than procedural outcomes, and who would vote No if they were in possession of the full facts.

Chaise,

You do realise that the opinion polls generally show support for the main parties around the level of votes cast don’t you (indeed, at locals and European elections the small parties get higher shares of the vote than their opinion poll levels suggest they should)? I think the assumption that people are not voting for parties they really support needs to be proven (accepting this as a fact without evidence seems to be rather strange).

AV only changes the system if people are in fact not only voting against their instincts but also against the opinion polls, which seems quite unlikely. Whilst AV would reduce the need for tactical voting, this generally takes place in two-horse races, where the winner often gets over half the vote (and the loser over 40%), the odds are that this will make no difference, and indeed tactical voting will still be encouraged.

AV works if you assume voters are really not interested in voting for the big parties. I need to see the evidence for this.

@ 27 Watchman

“Also, an unfair advantage this is not – it is simply the case that the most popular candidate (not the most compromised upon candidate) wins the election, with everyone only having one vote to use.”

You can use phrases like “simply the case” all you like, but that doesn’t make you right. Under FPTP, it is possible for candidate A to win even though more people would have preferred to see B win, because a lot of potential B supporters liked C even better.

This is easy enough to understand. Blithely saying that FPTP “simply” allows the “most popular” candidate to win is at best facetious.

“indeed, at locals and European elections the small parties get higher shares of the vote than their opinion poll levels suggest they should)”

“I think the assumption that people are not voting for parties they really support needs to be proven”

Euro election results (and devolution elections) are the proof. As euro elections are held using a proportional system, small parties do better because their supporters can vote for who they support not tactical anti votes. In local elections small parties can do well because low turnout and a small area makes it possible for a party to concentrate a campaign where it is geographically strong, and win a seat with about 500 votes.

In nationals most of their supporters see it as a wasted vote and switch to the lesser evil.

“, the Labour Yes campaign are brainwashing those Labour supporters”

We’ve established the labour campaign is shite, and focusing on the wrong arguments. But if the reason you are voting no is also based on your assesment of labour’s prospects, rather than which system is the better one for democractic outcomes then I put it to you that your tribalism doesn’t inspire confidence you care about the concept of a democracy. The labour party would also do well in a one party state – provided it was the one party – doesn’t mean you should support a one party state.

Chaise,

You can use phrases like “simply the case” all you like, but that doesn’t make you right. Under FPTP, it is possible for candidate A to win even though more people would have preferred to see B win, because a lot of potential B supporters liked C even better.

This is easy enough to understand. Blithely saying that FPTP “simply” allows the “most popular” candidate to win is at best facetious.

Chaise, this is unusually weak thinking from you – if people prefer C to B, C is the most popular candidate with those people, not B, regardless of their second preference (the clue is in the word second). More people who had C as their most popular candidate might prefer B to A, but A is the most popular candidate of A, B and C in the first place (the only point where this can be fairly measured). Simple maths.

AV does not tell us who the most popular candidate is. In our example, A and B are more popular than C, so C is eliminated. More people in the resultant straight competition between A and B prefer B, so B wins. But (to add in a new fact) actually the person who got the most second preferences was C, as all of A and B’s supporters supported him or her second. So by the logic that C’s second preferences can be counted to show B was more popular, A and B’s second preferences can be counted to show C was most popular. But C did not win the election under any system that makes democratic sense.

You will not be able to claim AV, which only counts certain people’s opinions on each recount, gives a picture of popularity. The example above also shows it does not elect the least unpopular candidate (a possible but rather negative justification). I am actually now quite intrigued to know who it does elect?

“I am actually now quite intrigued to know who it does elect?”

Usually the candidate who has both (1) a susbtantial base of supporters willing to give him or her first preferences, and (2) the ability to attract second preferences from less popular candidates.

Planeshift,

Euro election results (and devolution elections) are the proof. As euro elections are held using a proportional system, small parties do better because their supporters can vote for who they support not tactical anti votes. In local elections small parties can do well because low turnout and a small area makes it possible for a party to concentrate a campaign where it is geographically strong, and win a seat with about 500 votes.

Lets take the BNP as an example here – they manage to get basically the same number of voters out at any sort of elections, but therefore get a much smaller percentage of the vote at general elections. The Greens do get more voters at general elections, but outside of Brighton their vote share falls (I think it did even in Norwich?). The reason for this is not some complex thing to do with concentration by small parties (although that does explain picking up seats – it worked at national level for Brighton) but rather the simple fact that most supporters of relatively extreme parties (minor parties are by definition extreme in that they are outside the political consensus – this is not taken as a criticism) have the commitment to vote in all elections, whereas many people who vote in general elections do not.

But the opinion polls consistently show these people who vote less frequently are not distributed across political parties in the same way as those who vote frequently – perhaps because they are less interested (or simply more tribal but less motivated) they simply chose between the easy options. The European and local elections are not proof of anything other than the fact that the less people vote the more the votes of the committed party members and followers count. The advantage the large parties have is that they can ultimately count on the votes of lots of people who would hate this site because it talks politics (interestingly, many younger versions vote Green or UKIP or the like (or possibly BNP, although I don’t know any personally) in the same way…) or who just vote by habit. And the disinterested or vaguely habitual voters are the missing percentage of the turnout at locals and European elections.

I may be wrong, but my explanation is actually more economic – it explains away the voting discrepancy by noting the change in voting patterns relative to the changing turnout. Your explanation seems to require me to believe that people will only back a party that has a chance of winning, which ultimately also requires me to ask you why does anyone support Huddersfield Town FC?

Planeshift,

Usually the candidate who has both (1) a susbtantial base of supporters willing to give him or her first preferences, and (2) the ability to attract second preferences from less popular candidates.

So rather than a parliment consisting of the most popular candidates in each constituency, we’d have a parliament consisting of (usually the) candidates who has both (1) a susbtantial base of supporters willing to give him or her first preferences, and (2) the ability to attract second preferences from less popular candidates (which ignores the point that by second preference the candidate eliminated may be more popular than the candidates remaining…).

If that is the logical underpinning, I worry about what it will produce…

@18 oldpolitics

“Galen10 – if you really believe that a continuation of this coalition would be better than a return to a Labour Government – even if it would be a Blairite Labour government, which it won’t be, then I’m not sure what you’re doing here, to be honest. Perhaps you have been in hibernation for the last year?”

That rather depends on the nature of the Labour government we’re talking about no? If it was a return to New Labour, I’d be hard pushed to see the difference to be frank, and much as I hate the Coalition it’s hard not to agree that they have actually outflanked New Labour from the left on some areas of policy.

If you actually think being a Blairite has anything to do with being progressive or radical, I’d suggest it is your political compass is a tad off. What the last year has shown us (apart from the fact that the LD’s are toast) is that Newer Labour has a hell of a lot to do to attract disillusioned people on the left back.

Whether it had been a Blairite, Brownite or Milibandite Labour administration, do you seriously believe they would be acting all that differently?! The cuts would still be happening, it would simply be a matter of degree and speed. They might be doing some things better, but we all know they’d still be pulling the same authoritarian, illiberal crap they did for 13 years.

If anyone has been sleepwalking, it appears to be you.

@ 30 Watchman

“You do realise that the opinion polls generally show support for the main parties around the level of votes cast don’t you (indeed, at locals and European elections the small parties get higher shares of the vote than their opinion poll levels suggest they should)?”

Would these be true opinion polls or voting intention polls?

“I think the assumption that people are not voting for parties they really support needs to be proven (accepting this as a fact without evidence seems to be rather strange).”

But there is evidence – personal testimony. Unless you’re claiming that a certain percentage are doing so, that’s all you need.

“AV works if you assume voters are really not interested in voting for the big parties. I need to see the evidence for this.”

Um, no, AV works regardless. You’re conflating the desire for a fairer voting system with the desire to see smaller parties get better representation. I want the former – and hope it would lead to the latter.

Also, I have yet to see any reasons NOT to back AV. Why not allow people to vote for the parties they want and see what happens?

@ 33 Watchman

“Chaise, this is unusually weak thinking from you – if people prefer C to B, C is the most popular candidate with those people, not B, regardless of their second preference (the clue is in the word second). More people who had C as their most popular candidate might prefer B to A, but A is the most popular candidate of A, B and C in the first place (the only point where this can be fairly measured). Simple maths.”

Yes, C is more popular than B among those people who vote for C. But among all voters, B is more popular than A, but A still gets in. That’s not weak thinking, it’s logic.

Your mistake is to discount those who voted for C when deciding the relative popularity of A and B. So your maths fails due to poor handling of statistics.

“I can just about understand why Tories don’t support AV”

Because they would have been slaughtered by it in 1997. The belief is that Lib and Lab voters will combine to lock out the Tories.

39/Chaise Guevara: Yes, C is more popular than B among those people who vote for C. But among all voters, B is more popular than A, but A still gets in.

You might be looking for Condorcet, not AV, if you want to guarantee that the most popular candidate by that measure gets in. Consider:

10 votes: A B C
5 votes: B C A
6 votes: C B A

Under FPTP, A wins. Under AV, B’s votes transfer to C, and C wins 11:10.

But 11 out of 21 voters prefer B to A, and 15 out of 21 voters prefer B to C. B is the “most popular” candidate by that measure, but doesn’t win under either system.

“Your explanation seems to require me to believe that people will only back a party that has a chance of winning, which ultimately also requires me to ask you why does anyone support Huddersfield Town FC?”

Well actually glory hunting supporters have been a major problem in football for years

“Under FPTP:

1) nobody in England votes for parties other than Con, Lab or Lib, unless they live in constituencies where everyone’s a student, or a constituency so safe that the Con or Lab vote is just weighed.

2) everyone in England who thinks they’re right-wing votes Tory, unless they live in a weigh-the-Tory-vote constituency in which case they might vote for UKIP or the Hunting Party or the Kick Out The Darkies But Not In A Nasty Way Like That Griffin Prole party.”

As a counter example, Sittingbourne and Sheppey 2005:

Labour beat the Tories by 79 votes, UKIP got 926 and Veritas got 192.

@ 41 cim

“You might be looking for Condorcet, not AV, if you want to guarantee that the most popular candidate by that measure gets in. ”

I’m not familiar with that system, but I suspect what I’m ultimately looking for is PR with a local mayoral system to cover constituencies. However, neither are on the cards… as you know, it’s currently AV or bust.

“To gain my support they said Robert if we had AV Gordon Brown would still be the leader of the country.”

Which genius thought that one up?

The Labour party…….

@ 45 Fred

“The Labour party…….”

In fairness, I really doubt that the AV-supporting Labour party has issued a message telling campaigners to use the “AV would have got us Brown for another 5 years” line. I suspect you spoke to a rather committed Brownite with little idea of the bigger picture.

I’ll give people like Watchman the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t being wilfully obtuse, I’m not quite sure why they can’t understand that popularity isn’t like binary, a 0 or 1…
If there were three candidates in an election, two similar but factionally divided on one side commanding 30% of the vote each (A,B) and one diametrically opposed on 40% (C) but all those supporting A or B would rather tear their own eyelids out than see C elected could C realistically be said to be the most popular? Given that nearly a third of the population absolutely despise them?

A more extreme example of this is basically what happened in my constituency (the tory candidate got in on 36%).

(I meant two thirds, clearly)