2010 Westminster General Election result:
Labour – 42% (41 seats) 70% of seats Diff – 28%
SNP – 20% (6 seats) 10% of seats Diff – 10%
Lib Dems – 19% (11 seats) 19% of seats Diff – 0%
Conservatives – 17% (1 seat) 2% of seats Diff – 15%
Total variance from true proportional representation = 53%
The experts (at Guardian's data blog) have predicted that under AV there would be one change to the election result, the SNP would lose a seat to the Lib Dems. I’m not entirely sure how they arrived at this conclusion, assuming only that Labour would pick up Western Isles from the SNP (!?) and the Lib Dems would pick up Edinburgh South from Labour.
Anyway, however the result was arrived at, it would give a final result under AV of:
Labour – 42% (41 seats) 70% of seats Diff – 28%
SNP – 20% (5 seats) 8% of seats Diff – 12%
Lib Dems – 19% (12 seats) 20% of seats Diff – 0%
Conservatives – 17% (0 seats) 0% of seats Diff – 17%
Total variance from true proportional representation = 57%
(Note that I would strongly suspect that, under AV, David Mundell would not have won his Dumfries and Galloway seat given the strong anti-Tory sentiment coursing through the rest of Scotland. I have not included this assumption in the above but, if I had, it would have pulled the variance even further away from a more proportional result)
So we are holding a referendum on a supposedly more representative voting system, adversely affecting the Scottish Parliament elections that will be held on the same day and the result would either be the status quo or a voting system that actually gives a less representative result?
It makes one wonder what the Lib Dems think about it all….
Note, under AV+ and STV, the results would be as follows -
AV+
Labour – 42% (36 seats) 61% of seats Diff – 19%
SNP – 20% (9 seats) 15% of seats Diff – 5%
Lib Dems – 19% (11 seats) 19% of seats Diff – 0%
Conservatives – 17% (3 seats) 5% of seats Diff – 12%
Total variance from true proportional representation = 36%
STV
Labour – 42% (28 seats) 47% of seats Diff – 5%
SNP – 20% (13 seats) 22% of seats Diff – 2%
Lib Dems – 19% (11 seats) 19% of seats Diff – 0%
Conservatives – 17% (7 seats) 12% of seats Diff – 5%
Total variance from true proportional representation = 12%
SNP Tax
11 minutes ago
13 comments:
AV is a sick joke of a system and one which is the first choice of very few people.
The supposed selling point is that every MP will be elected after the final count by more than 50% of those voting. To the person in the street this may sound like an improvement.
However, as you have pointed out,the system has the potentiality to be even less proportionate than at present-a result not even avid FPTP supporters are enthusiastic for.
I believe AV is likely to be defeated and therefore set back the cause of genuine electoral reform, perhaps for a generation.
I can't help but think that AV is a misunderstanding of 'compromise'. One party happy with another system, one party thinks it isn't good enough, so they compromise on a worse system. WTF?
A better compromise might have been to farm it out to a commission (again!) bring in STV at Local Govt level - thus softening up the Great British Public, or, frankly, to drop it completely.
AV is nothing more than a step in the vaguely right direction for me. It's better in that it does allow the voter to express a preference and have more of a chance of their vote counting to electing their MP.
It's not proportional and is in some cases worse than first past the post.
You won't find many Lib Dems wanting to die in a ditch for it. However, if that's all that's on offer, I will vote for it.
I think I understand the PRINCIPLE of voting preferentially until someone gets 50% of the votes cast.
What happens however if you vote for one person AND NO OTHER? Is your paper regarded as spoiled?
Personally I don't want to vote for anyone other than the SNP candidate in my constituency since they will ALL be opposed to my beliefs. Why should I have to give any of them my second or third vote?
Looks like under AV the experts from the Guardian would have one Scottish MP disappearing into thin air too, the numbers only total 58 - unless there is maybe now a Green or other MP they didn't mention.
Ye don't have tae compromise yersel Anon, ye can jist leave yer first choice as yer only choice. Everyone can. If everyone did though, it's unlikely that any candidate wid pass the post (50%), an' that election would presumably be nulled, right? An' if on yer votin paper there's say, 7 candidates right? an' everybody uses aw their choices, right? an' the votes split fairly evenly atween them, right? then it could take doon tae say, 4th, 5th, or even 6th choice votes afore there's an MP electit, right?
So let me get this straight, we could elect MPs whau're some fowks' 6th choice as MP, an' then let THEM tell US that they've got a 'mandate' cos they're elected by the Glorious 50%??!
No, this AV keich's whit it is, so it is.
Thanks Sophia.
I said I wouldn't give anyone else my vote because of their Unionist views, but could it work the other way, with Labour, Tory and LibDem voters refusing to vote for "the separatists"?
In a seat currently held by an SNP MP, could the other parties keep giving their preferential votes to anyone but the SNP, so that the SNP loses the seat?
Are the projections in Jeff's post suspect therefore because of the political situation in Scotland? Are they keich in fact?
Very interesting to note how before the election, Labour were in favour of an AV referendum.
Now all of of a sudden they are against it. At least they are consistent in being in favour of things one moment and against them the next when it suits them.
London Labour have been taking lessons from their colleagues behaviour in the Scottish Parliament.
There's nothing like opposition for the sake of opposition.
I fully support proper PR, but I disagree with Caron. Getting AV next year would put an end to any notion of real PR for at least a generation.
I think the Lib Dems have made a huge mistake in the coalition agreements. They should have traded some of their lesser policy successes for a referendum on full PR - probably STV. That really is the only way that they will be represented in future governments, and the only way that real democracy will be served. AV is a Labour policy which best serves Labour representation at parliament.
I guess another point in all of this which seems to have gone unnoticed is that this is yet another different type of voting system, used either in local, devolved or general elections. I can barely keep up with the details of all of them, and I believe I'm fairly well informed about matters political. The majority of folks out there won't know one from another and will probably wait until voting day to find out.
So, even though I fully support PR, I will be voting against AV.
Caron,
A step in the vaguely right direction it may be but won't taking that step make it more difficult to make a longer, better step at some time in the future?
How long are you and your party proposing having AV for? 5 years? 10 years?
Too soon and it is not a serious proposal, too long and you are holding back true progress.
Fight for what you believe in. AV is hardly revolutionary, radical stuff. SO much so that I actually think I'd vote against it to ensure the lawmakers went back to think again.
You say it's all that is on offer, it is only all that is on offer because Nick Clegg et al are fighting hard enough for a better proposal or a wider choice.
Who are we to blame for that?
The only advantage I can see to AV is that it might get people used to the idea of preferential voting; but the chance of getting STV or AMS or anything genuinely better than FPTP is lessened by this referendum.
To the other Anon, I doubt enough people in Scotland would vote as tribally unionist v nationalist as you describe. e.g. I do not support scottish independence, but do have a lot of sympathy for the SNPs other policies.
-(1st Anon)
Is there a single country in the world that uses AV? It appears to have been invented out of whole cloth by the Labour party.
Actually Anonymous in my experience the second preference of most Labour voters is SNP - and the second preference of most SNP voters is Labour. (That is excluding the tactical voters of course.) And people happily switch their vote according to the election - i.e. people who vote SNP for Holyrood will vote Labour at Westminster and switch back to the SNP at Holyrood.
It is something worth remembering. Although there is a vast gulf between Labour and SNP political activists, most voters do not see it that way.
Post a Comment