UK AV Referendum Poll

[You kip if you want to...]

Labour launch their 'no' campaign. Ed, once again, doesn't have the support of the PLP.

Labour launch their 'yes' campaign.

Crick on Miliband's refusal to share a platform with Clegg

[minionofmidas]

Labour launch their 'no' campaign. Ed, once again, doesn't have the support of the PLP.

Labour launch their 'yes' campaign.

Crick on Miliband's refusal to share a platform with Clegg

Link fixed. Though the original "yes campaign? Site can't be found." was funny.)

[Smid]

Just to know, how many spoilt votes you get in Australia due to this silly rule ? I wouldn't be surprised if they reached 5%.

Which silly rule? There are some good reports into informal voting, and I could possibly find you an answer, but to which rule are you referring? Optional Preferential and Above-the-line voting both help prevent votes from being spoilt, although may have an effect on other elections (eg, people who just place a single preference on a House of Reps paper because they only need to number one box above-the-line), however it could then be argued that OPV in the House of Reps would prevent those votes from being spoilt...

[minionofmidas]

He presumably means having to preference everybody, ie the not optional kind.

[Smid]

He presumably means having to preference everybody, ie the not optional kind.

In that case, he has quite a strong argument - the VEC has some information in  Section 8 (Analysis of Results) from its Report into the 2006 Election.

Pages 91-93 deal with informal (spoilt) votes cast in the Legislative Assembly (which is Compulsory Preferential). Page 91 of the Report is page 5 of the PDF. In its report, the VEC questions whether informal voting has increased since the introduction of Above-the-line voting for the Legislative Council (which in turn was introduced due to reform of the voting system there - from single member provinces comprised of four lower house districts, to multi-member regions comprised of eleven lower house districts - if you want further info, I'm happy to elaborate, or you could read this fact sheet). Anyway:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, for the 2006 election, Optional Preferential Voting would have allowed at least 41.47% of informal votes in the nine regions studied (Ferntree Gully, Gippsland East, Melbourne, Mildura, Northcote, Richmond, Rodney and Shepparton). The rate of informality generally increases in line with lower levels of education, a higher proportion of people born overseas (generally), and a higher proportion of people who do not speak English. One would assume that these people are more likely to accidentally vote informal, so OPV may lead to them being more likely to have their vote count.

To bring this back to the thread topic, I believe that the system being considered by the UK is Optional Preferential, not Compulsory Preferential.

[Antonio the Sixth]

He presumably means having to preference everybody, ie the not optional kind.

Yeah, indeed. I can't understand the point of this law except to disqualify votes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

pwned

[You kip if you want to...]

This has been talked up quite a bit, but what would a 'No' vote, coupled with inevitably horrific local results actually do to Clegg's position as Leader/Deputy PM and the Liberals' position in the government?

I could see it being the start of serious calls for Clegg's head, concluding with a leadership challenge at conference, but I can also see it as just more water of a duck's back to the LDs.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

This has been talked up quite a bit, but what would a 'No' vote, coupled with inevitably horrific local results actually do to Clegg's position as Leader/Deputy PM and the Liberals' position in the government?

Isn't it mostly you monologuing about it?

A bad result in the local elections (basicly a garantee by now I'd say) coupled with a No-victory on the AV-referendum could indeed lead to the end of Clegg's career. It wouldn't do the LibDems any good though. Their new leader would have to continue the coalition either way, or leave it and thus cause a general election, in which they would be destroyed (wouldn't surprise me if they lost all their seats) If they're smart they won't rock the boat, but politicians are unrational beings...

LibDems problem was building all of their support and attraction on not choosing sides. Obviously a party like that will be destoryed once they actually do choose a side.   

[Phony Moderate]

To be honest, I've always viewed this as a win-win scenario, so I'm not all that bothered about the outcome. I am looking forward to Al's maps on this though.

[RodPresident]

In my opinion, this can be a great moment to Green Party take a leadership spot. Greens can inherit many LD-left-wing votes and nuclear crisis give a moment. Caroline Lucas would be a better leader for Yes-side than Milliband or a LibDem.

[You kip if you want to...]

In my opinion, this can be a great moment to Green Party take a leadership spot. Greens can inherit many LD-left-wing votes and nuclear crisis give a moment. Caroline Lucas would be a better leader for Yes-side than Milliband or a LibDem.

The minor parties find it difficult to keep their head above water. They don't attract any media attention unless they do something seriously controversial (i.e. Nick Griffin and the BNP). I do think the Greens have a massive opportunity to gain a bit more grounding the disillusioned left-wing youth and if Labour end up in coalition with them in Scotland, they'd be a bit more noticeable. Alas, they'll never do well under non-PR systems like FPTP and AV

[Filuwaúrdjan]

From what I understand of certain things, I don't think the Green Party (of England and Wales) would actually want much greater media attention than they get at present. There's some messy stuff that needs cleaning up before they're ready for primetime; not an issue the Scottish Greens have, btw.

[You kip if you want to...]

It's unbelievable how much of a crap, the country doesn't give.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's unbelievable how much of a crap, the country doesn't give.

Not really. We are in an economic slump, we have mass unemployment, the government is making large cuts to services (whether directly or indirectly) and is proposing/implementing troubling changes to various public institutions. Given that, why should it be surprising that most people don't care about a referendum on a technical issue?

[You kip if you want to...]

It's unbelievable how much of a crap, the country doesn't give.

Not really. We are in an economic slump, we have mass unemployment, the government is making large cuts to services (whether directly or indirectly) and is proposing/implementing troubling changes to various public institutions. Given that, why should it be surprising that most people don't care about a referendum on a technical issue?

No, I understand that. I meant more of how little coverage there's been on the referendum.

[Leftbehind]

Not only that, but the people who'd be most enthusiastic about it, just can't be bothered. "Miserable compromise", "it's not what we want, but it's a stepping stone" etc. The type of people wanting a new voting system, want proportional, and most have realised that it's non-proportional by now. Even this talk of smaller parties gaining more prominence is unassured, as in most constituencies (read English) they come nowhere near the major parties, so they'll simply be knocked out and reallocated, used as ammo for the main three (or is it simply main two now?).

[minionofmidas]

a referendum on a technical issue?

Not exactly.

[You kip if you want to...]

I got the electoral commission information booklet today. I see it is on optional preferencing, so "an election can be won under the 'alternative vote' system with less than half the total votes cast", which really defeats the point. Now I really don't see the point in the referendum. I also see that we only use AV if the next election happens after the boundary review in 2013, so if there's an election in the next two years, it'd be under FPTP even with a Yes vote.

AV is such an awful system, the only thing actually worse than FPTP.

[minionofmidas]

I got the electoral commission information booklet today. I see it is on optional preferencing, so "an election can be won under the 'alternative vote' system with less than half the total votes cast", which really defeats the point.

Uh, so having to decide on the order of 7th to 31st preference for joke independents is the point now? Or is it to have more invalid ballots?

[You kip if you want to...]

I got the electoral commission information booklet today. I see it is on optional preferencing, so "an election can be won under the 'alternative vote' system with less than half the total votes cast", which really defeats the point.

Uh, so having to decide on the order of 7th to 31st preference for joke independents is the point now? Or is it to have more invalid ballots?

Yeah, but it still means that candidates can win with under 50%, so it really defeats the whole arguement for AV.

[minionofmidas]

...to the unthinking retard.

Oh wait. Damn. That's the bulk of the electorate.


You can get elected with less than 50% if and only if enough* of one of your major opponents' supporters have no preference between you and another major opponent.
In other words, you can't get elected with more than 50% of the electorate against you. Which is the point.

*how much is enough is of course dependent on a number of factors, including just how close the election is.
There'll always be some idiots who only vote for a candidate with no chance, whether you include them in the tally as valid exhausted votes or exclude them as invalid votes, and thus whether a very narrow win is 50.1-49.9 or 49.7-49.5 is entirely a matter of definition and has no effect on the result's legitimacy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A very high percentage of people (perhaps a majority? Certainly a large minority) will only use one preference anyway. I'm reasonably sure that AV would have less of an impact than its advocates and detractors presume.

[minionofmidas]

A very high percentage of people (perhaps a majority? Certainly a large minority) will only use one preference anyway.

A very high percentage of people - anyone who can be reasonably certain that their preferred candidate will end up among the top two - will have no reason whatsoever to use more than one preference, so, yeah.

[jimrtex]

You can get elected with less than 50% if and only if enough* of one of your major opponents' supporters have no preference between you and another major opponent.
In other words, you can't get elected with more than 50% of the electorate against you. Which is the point.

*how much is enough is of course dependent on a number of factors, including just how close the election is.
There'll always be some idiots who only vote for a candidate with no chance, whether you include them in the tally as valid exhausted votes or exclude them as invalid votes, and thus whether a very narrow win is 50.1-49.9 or 49.7-49.5 is entirely a matter of definition and has no effect on the result's legitimacy.

Why not simply hold a runoff when no candidate commands majority support of the electorate?

When the number of continuing ballots is reduced to below 50% of the electorate, back up a count and hold a new election with any remaining candidates.