There is an Alternative ...

[Ghostmojo]

This is aimed at British members of this forum.

Please get involved in changing the stupid, outdated and grossly unfair electoral system we have in this country. It was designed (or rather just developed by itself) hundreds of years ago and only suits a situation where there are two parties. This was fine up until the end of the Victorian age when there had generally only been two (Whigs/Tories - Liberals/Conservatives) parties/factions; but this had not been the case for a long time now.

Some of you may be bored with politics, cynical, can't be bothered etc., but if this opportunity to change things slips by; it may well be another generation that passes before the opportunity arises again. As it happens all you have to do is turn out to vote as normal in May for the local elections - you can cast your vote for changing the voting system itself on the same day.

This is an opportunity to have your say and influence things. People in this country are always whinging about everything but can rarely be bothered to do anything about it. Saying you are not really interested in politics or the constitution is no excuse for the usual indifference.

The decline of this great nation of ours is very directly linked to our stupid voting system. First past the post produces governments with minority support. This has been the case since the end of the last war. Thatcher, Blair etc. - they all got big majorities based upon around 40%, sometime less. And power being wielded by minority administrations produces crazy stuff like the Poll Tax and the invasion of Iraq etc. Add to that the fact that about 60% of MPs (of all parties) sitting in the Commons at present are there as minority representatives, i.e. the majority of their consitituents did NOT want them - but they get in anyway.

No member of parliament should be sure of a safe seat. Make the buggers work for your vote and their position. They should have to get 50%+ to deserve to represent their locality. Nobody should feel their vote is wasted, or there is no point bothering. AV deals with all of that plus the business of tactical voting.

Sign up here, get involved (it doesn't take much) and make sure you vote for change when the day arrives:

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/content/

And visit here:

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/index.php

[PhilusEstilius]

I think I would prefer to stay with the system we have, for this AV idea is a Lib-Dem way of scratching their way into rule. It's a system that is open to all kinds of abuse and will cause more coalition governments, and that type of government never ever get's anything done.
I think that most every one in this country have had just about enough of Glegg, and this is his way of fixing the system so that his party that can't make it will get back into government again in the future.
What we have at this time is one lame duck propping up another one, for true coalition is all parties involved but as far as AV no thanks.

[Ghostmojo]

With the greatest respect that really is a heap of tosh. This has nothing to do with Clegg and everything to do with democratising an outdated system. Had the Liberals a totally mercenary approach to politics then they would have allowed the Tories to form a minority administration and then would have allowed it to collapse by voting against it at every possible opportunity.

It's also worth remembering that Labour use AV to vote for their own leader, and that the boy Milliband himself is in favour of it, whilst many dinosaurs in his own party are not. You may even get to see Clegg and Milliband on the same platform in this campaign. At least the majority of the Shadow Cabinet and the official Labour position seems to be positive:

http://labouryes.org.uk/

.. even if the old beasts of the establishment like Prescott, Blunkett, Reid and Beckett etc. are against it.

The single most disgusting aspect of this campaign so far is that the big unions (UNITE and GMB in particular) are throwing their weight behind the NO campaign and allying themselves with the Tories and the wealthy establishment to prevent change. That tells you everything you need to know about armchair socialists and the leaders of the common working man. It makes me sick.

Anyway, this needs to be depoliticised. We have to get away from any view that sees this merely as an opportunity to attack various parties or individual politicians. This is about systemic change:

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/

There are proponents for and against AV in all the main parties, and elsewhere. On the YES platform you will see Labour, Liberal, Green, Nationalist, UKIP and even the odd Conservative presenting a rainbow coalition for change. You will probably see much the same on the NO platform (but far more Tories). This is not about which party gets to benefit. It is about producing a clearer and fairer result.

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/av-myths

People need to understand what AV offers in terms of improving the position over FPTP. It's not about bashing Clegg or Cameron. AV is not as good as STV or indeed other forms of PR - but they are sadly not up for consideration. So you have to work with what you get.

Under AV, MPs of all parties will no longer be guaranteed by default safe seats. They will have to woo as many constituents as possible. A popular and clear favourite will still win. He or she could win outright if they get 50% in the first count. If they get close to it, then they will still almost certainly win with the top-up of second choicers falling to them. And so on...

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

The current system is ridiculous.

An average parliamentary seat is based upon about 100,000 people. Of that only about a half to two thirds would be able to vote (due to age). So you are looking at a electoral mass of about 65,000. Out of that - because turn outs are often so pitifully low over here - perhaps only 48,000 will bother. Let's say (as will be the case in many places) there are 6 main candidates (ignoring for arguments sake the minority and looney candidates): Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, Green, UKIP, (and in Scotland and Wales) Nationalist. If they all got a similar poll of 8,000 there would be a real problem deciding what to do next. However, what usually happens is one of them gets slightly more than the next and the next and so on. Let's say the results are:

Conservatives - 12,000
Labour - 11,500
LibDem - 7,000
Green - 3,000
UKIP - 5,500
Nationalist - 9,000

In this instance the Conservatives win even though they only get 25% of the vote. This happens all too often. It disenfranchises all the other voters who voted for other parties. The centre-left vote (Labour, LibDem, Green) is nearly twice the Tory centre-right figure, but it matters not. The Conservative chap enters Parliament with only 500 more people voting for him than the Labour candidate had, and with 36,000 of his constituents not wanting him. In some cases the margin has been even narrower than that. We have had cabinet minsters in with only a whisker of a margin. It is unfair, disproportionate and deeply unrepresentative.

This has led to tactical voting in order to try and keep unpopular choices out. In that respect you get Labour voting Liberal, Liberal voting Green, Green voting Labour etc. in order to keep out a Tory. AV takes that into account because ultimately you are not only being asked who your primary preference is for - but also who you would be prepared to settle for if you couldn't have him or her. I see nothing wrong with that. We all know that people often vote negatively rather than positively. They vote to stop somebody rather than to support somebody else.

How many times have you heard people say, "I wouldn't have voted for Smith if I knew Jones was going to win. I would have given my vote to Williams instead. He had the better chance of stopping Jones..."?

Also, it is actually completely untrue to say AV (or indeed PR) will always produce coalitions. In the case of PR it is nearer the mark. In the case of AV there is every prospect of single-party majority government with people feeling that their vote actually counted.

If the YES lobby wins, then hopefully we will see a change in the culture of politics too. I see that as a good thing. We also need to change the seating plan in the House of Commons. The one side facng the other creates this sense of division rather than a spectrum of opinion which is actually more realistic. The only reason the seating is like that is because the former chamber (in the old Parliament buildings) was originally a chapel and the members were actually sitting where the choristers would have sat. This nonsensical situation was perpetuated when the new Palace of Westminster was built in the mid 19th Century - and sadly, much of our politics still belong in that period ...

[PhilusEstilius]

If my views upset anyone I can only say well you have yours I have mine, but then a wise man once told me there are two things that one should not get into discussion over they are politics and religion. Amen.

[Ghostmojo]

Of course and you are quite right to quote that age old epithet, but when it comes down to it - what is wrong with discussing politics? History (the reason we are here) is often about political change and the need for it. Whether in ancient Rome or modern day Britain. I mean - it has to happen, it has to have a voice - there has to be change ... that's what history is.

[Paullus Scipio]

Whilst I believe that Proportional Representation is a much fairer electoral system, at the risk of throwing cold water on the idea, it is not a panacaea for all that's wrong with politics.

Here in Oz we have PR, but we are still stuck with the essentially 'two party' system of 'conservative/republican' and 'labour/democrat' as exists elsewhere in the English-speaking world - giving you simply the usual choice between Bad and Worse. Nor does PR do away with 'safe' seats. ( Mind you, our former Prime Minister a few years ago was dumped from one of the 'safest' seats in the country, achievable only because of PR).

[Ghostmojo]

Well Paul, I understand Australia uses AV and believe me, much is being made of that right now over here. But AV is not PR. It is an improvement upon FPTP - but only marginally. But it is progress. Sort of ...

AV allows for the transfer of secondary and tertiary etc. choices to top up a primary candidate, but it is not proportional or proportionate. STV is the closest you can get to PR.

[Paullus Scipio]

We actually have both systems, Howard !. For all 'upper house' elections ( we have an elected upper house rather than a House of Lords) nationally and in most states,and some lower house elections, we have an STV system.

For the National lower house elections we have a 'preferential' system whereby you rank candidates in order of preference. The one with the least number of [1]votes is eliminated, and those votes are then distributed to the voters [2] selection and so on until a candidate achieves an absolute majority.

Both systems are fairer than the FPTP system in use in the UK, but like I said they don't cure the usual ills of politics....... not least that we don't get a "democratic" result.

Those who live in 'safe' seats are stuck with that candidate, and the only voters who have any real say are the few who live in 'marginal' ( i.e. seats that could elect any one of several candidates) and who are 'swinging' voters ( i.e. who vote on actual issues, not just party loyalty.

Of course, what none of the parties will tell you is that in the electronic/computer/handheld device age, we no longer need 'representatives' ( who in fact represent party interests, not voters interests) to vote in parliament for us - we can all potentially vote electronically ourselves on every issue.

For the first time in history since ancient Athens, when the citizens were rounded up with a red-painted rope to go to the Agora, listen to debate, and then vote on an issue, we actually have the potential ability to take part in a REAL democracy !!!!