AV is not PR - vote no on 5 May: SO WAS IT WORTH IT?

Monday, 30 May 2011

SO WAS IT WORTH IT?

Paul Anderson writes:

I set up AV is Not PR as a straightforward contribution to the anti-AV campaign, but I was also trying out blogging and social media. My hunch was that straight 2003-style blogging was a waste of time these days but that you could get a bit of purchase by putting everything out on social networking sites too.

Which is what I did.

Results:

1. Lots of people looked at it and turned away.

2. Hardly anyone bothered to comment or engage dierectly on the blog, though they did on the linked social networking sites. Without Facebook and Twitter, blogging is dead.

3. I felt completely bonkers because I was going on about something no one gave a toss about, and Tweeting and FBing to all your contacts about something they don't care about is, ah, totally uncool.

But -- there is a but, honest -- a lot of the arguments I put forward were taken up by the commentariat. OK, they might have reached their own conclusions without any intervention from me, but they nicked stuff too. You know who you are.

What the hell. The point is that blogging on big national issues is, if not pointless, about as effective as a leaflet drop on a suburban street. Old-style stand-alone-site blogging is over unless you get it perfect. I didn't. Getting social network blogging right is a skill I need to acquire. I haven't done it.

It was worth the effort, but now forward to the next time. Er, and the arguments agaist the alternative vote still stand, just in case.

This blog is now on standstill.

2 comments:

Paul E.30 May 2011 at 21:53
I was tempted to do a 'referendums are anti-democratic - boycott them' project of a similar nature. I suspect my conclusions would have been the same as yours, though mine may have been a bit more durable - it could gradually build up into a compendium of the argument that will come up again in other forms.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Madam Miaow31 May 2011 at 00:23
At least you got it out there. And it's better than shouting at the telly. Which you do very well, by the way.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

VOTE NO FOR PR

FIRST PAST THE POST
The electoral system currently used in UK general elections is first past the post. The candidate winning the most votes in each constituency is elected as an MP.

The main problem with first past the post is that it yields grossly disproportionate results except when the overwhelming majority of voters support one of two big parties (as they did in Britain from 1945 until the mid-1970s).

The last UK general election was not a particularly bad one for proportionality. Even so, the Conservative Party won 36 per cent of the vote and 47 per cent of seats in the House of Commons. Labour won 29 per cent of the vote and 40 per cent of seats; and the Liberal Democrats won 23 per cent of the vote and just 9 per cent of seats.

FPTP regularly delivers massive parliamentary majorities to parties that have won less than 50 per cent of votes – as it did in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1997, 2001 and 2005.

WHY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION?
The basic case for changing to a system of proportional representation is simple: parties’ representation in parliament should broadly reflect their level of support in elections.

PROPORTIONAL SYSTEMS
There are many different systems of proportional representation, but two have widespread support in the UK, the single transferable vote and the additional member system.

Under STV, traditionally favoured by the Liberal Democrats and used for local elections in Northern Ireland, electors in multi-member constituencies mark their ballot papers ‘1, 2, 3’ and so on in order of preference. Candidates reaching a certain proportion of the vote on first preferences are declared elected, then second preferences of the candidate with least first preferences are redistributed. The process continues until all seats are filled.

Under AMS, traditionally backed by most of Labour’s proportional representation lobby and used in Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly elections, electors vote once for a constituency candidate and once for a party. Successful constituency candidates are ‘topped up’ from party lists to ensure proportionality.

The single-member constituency element in an AMS system can be either FPTP or AV, and in most existing versions there is a threshold of a certain number of constituency seats or percentage of the vote (in Germany, where AMS is used for general elections, three seats or 5 per cent) before a party wins seats from regional lists.

A version of AMS using AV for constituency seats topped up regionally to ensure greater proportionality ("AV-plus") was recommended by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead’s Independent Commission on the Voting System, set up by Tony Blair in 1997, when it reported in 1998.

AV IS NOT PROPORTIONAL
Without regional top-up seats, the alternative vote is not a system of proportional representation. AV, used in Australia, retains single-member constituencies from first past the post but changes the marking of ballots to ‘1, 2, 3’ and so on in order of preference. If no candidate gets 50 per cent of first preferences, the second preferences of the candidate with the fewest votes are added to the other candidates’ totals. This process continues until one candidate has more than 50 per cent of the vote.

It is impossible to tell exactly what effect AV would have on British politics – but there is no reason to believe that it would yield more proportional results than FPTP. Indeed, in certain circumstances – in particular when one of the two biggest parties is particularly disliked – it would almost certainly deliver even more spectacular landslides than FPTP to parties with much less than 50 per cent of first-preference votes.

AV IS NOT A STEP TO PR
The alternative vote could be used as part of an additional member system of proportional representation (as recommended by the Jenkins commission) – but this is not what is on offer in the referendum, and nor is it likely to be introduced as a ‘second stage’ of electoral reform. If we vote ‘yes’ on 6 May, we are likely to be stuck with AV for the foreseeable future.

Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.