Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

[Mr Jack]

Pay particular attention to the Alternate vote example, and see just how unproportional Labour's preferred version is, and how much worse it is than FPTP.

Isn't Labour's preferred system AV+ not AV? Also, the BBC have to have made an assumption to create those figures since we don't have second choice vote preference records. Finally, the feature of AV that distinguishes it from other systems is that it models not just voter preference but also vote revulsion. Since the Tories are the party least of the populus want as the government and most really don't want as government (according to YouGov) AV would tend to reduce their seats.

I'm not a big fan of straight AV to be honest, negative preference has a certain air of "tyranny of the majority" about it, and it would do nothing to solve the larger problem of the two party system since it too tends to favour voting as a herd over principled voting. AV+ would be a bit better, but it still strikes me as a curious half way house which doesn't much advance matters and I'm not a fan of mixed member systems.

 

[Dolph]

Very interesting stuff, would like to see the BBC calculator extend to other elections to really gauge the bias of the system.

I always knew Labour were after AV because it suited them more than the electorate, but it's nice to see it written clearly. Even STV isn't as 'fair' as pure PR.

What do you Labour loyalists have to say to that eh?

Pure PR can only be done across the country as a whole while giving the electorate no say at all on individual candidates. It would have to be a pure party list thing (like the euro elections).

STV or AMS are much better alternatives.

Isn't Labour's preferred system AV+ not AV? Also, the BBC have to have made an assumption to create those figures since we don't have second choice vote preference records. Finally, the feature of AV that distinguishes it from other systems is that it models not just voter preference but also vote revulsion. Since the Tories are the party least of the populus want as the government and most really don't want as government (according to YouGov) AV would tend to reduce their seats.

The data was collated by the electoral reform society. They are pretty good normally at working it out with reasonable accuracy.

I'm not a big fan of straight AV to be honest, negative preference has a certain air of "tyranny of the majority" about it, and it would do nothing to solve the larger problem of the two party system since it too tends to favour voting as a herd over principled voting. AV+ would be a bit better, but it still strikes me as a curious half way house which doesn't much advance matters and I'm not a fan of mixed member systems.

No, Labour want to move to AV, that is what was in their manifesto, what Brown tried to pass legislation for before the breakup of parliament, and what he has offered another referendum on now.

AV+ has been mentioned, but not by Brown, only by others in the labour party.

 

[Mr Jack]

No, Labour want to move to AV, that is what was in their manifesto, what Brown tried to pass legislation for before the breakup of parliament, and what he has offered another referendum on now.

AV+ has been mentioned, but not by Brown, only by others in the labour party.

Oh, okay, I could have sworn it was AV+ Brown was pimping.

 

[Dolph]

Oh, okay, I could have sworn it was AV+ Brown was pimping.

There's an awful lot of people who think that, but it wasn't. Some people wonder why I don't always like referendums, and that's a classic example of why. People are easily manipulated, and they certainly have been by claims that Labour wants to go to a fairer electoral system and associating that with Clegg's PR movement for change, where the actual position is far less representative than the current FPTP system, especially as there was no plan to redraw any constituencies either...

http://www.labour.org.uk/manifesto/a-new-politics-renewing-our-democracy-and-rebuilding-trust

Referenda, held on the same day, for moving to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.

This is why those who think that the Lib dems should side with labour are misguided, not only would it decimate the party to be part of a coalition of losers, but Labour don't like PR, haven't supported PR and will not pass PR.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

This is why those who think that the Lib dems should side with labour are misguided, not only would it decimate the party to be part of a coalition of losers, but Labour don't like PR, haven't supported PR and will not pass PR.

It doesn't appear, at the moment, that the Conservative Party is any different in this regard.

 

[Dolph]

It doesn't appear, at the moment, that the Conservative Party is any different in this regard.

Indeed it doesn't, but it's important that the right message comes across.

It is not a choice between a lib/con coalition with no electoral reform and a lib/lab one with it, and people need to realise that. At least cameron is being honest about it. Brown would tell any lie to retain power.

 

[robgmun]

It doesn't appear, at the moment, that the Conservative Party is any different in this regard.

I have new found respect fot you mate. Before the election i pegged you as "anything but tories" ranter like some people i can mention here. But you are coming across a lot more reasonable and thoughtful since. And i have been agreeing with a lot of your comments recently. I apologise for getting the wrong end of the sick over you

 

[div0]

The data was collated by the electoral reform society. They are pretty good normally at working it out with reasonable accuracy.

Don't forget that those predictions were for the 2005 election, and an AV system is always going to favour parties for which there is no strong negative feeling.

It would be interesting to see that same analysis applied to this election.

An AV system certainly wouldn't be my first choice for reform though.

 

[avec]

It's a shame that AV (even less proportional) is thrown around as PR in the same way that STV is when they are both very different and yield highly differing results when applied to previous elections.

The Conservatives might be against PR, but at least their system is clear and they are honest about their views on it. Labour are trying to deceive everyone by branding AV (which suits them considerably) as the same kind of PR that the Lib Dems are after.

 

[stockhausen]

Taking 2005 as a base, and based on the BBC website page a truly representative system would have resulted in the following approximate allocation of seats

• New Labour - 228
• Tory - 209
• Liberal Democrat - 143
• Others - 66

It seems to me that the PR system comes pretty close to that although the Additional Member System (AMS) isn't far off.

I have no doubt that any system has its faults and can be criticised; it just seems that the present First Past The Post (FPTP) system is manifestly unfair.

Continuing with the 2005 results, the only systems that would have resulted in a single party having a majority would have been FPTP and Alternate Vote (AV). The Additional Member, Single Transferable Vote and Proportional Representation systems would all have required two parties with a majority of the popular vote actually to cooperate - which seems like a VERY reasonable idea to me.


Constantly bleating on about the fact that New Labour disingenuously advocates the entirely unfair AV system proves absolutely Sweet FA about the unfairness of the existing FPTP system. The Tories favour the existing unfair system but modified so as to make it even more favourable to them - who would have thunk it?

 

[antijoke]

WTF is all this AV PR talk about?

 

[robgmun]

Downing Street has refused to say where Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson were heading after they left Downing Street earlier. A No 10 spokeswoman said of the prime minister: "We are not providing a running commentary of his movements."

What are they up to *suspect*

 

[avec]

Hague: "The negotiating teams are working really well together".

Positive signs, hopefully.

 

[Mr Jack]

This is why those who think that the Lib dems should side with labour are misguided, not only would it decimate the party to be part of a coalition of losers, but Labour don't like PR, haven't supported PR and will not pass PR.

Yeah, I've come round to that view myself. While I expect the Labour leadership would end up offering the Libs a pretty proportional system in the end, the simple fact is that with the utterly nominal majority that they could muster, even a dozen dissenting MPs on the Labour backbenches could easily sink any attempt to get PR through.

I don't believe that an alliance with Labour would harm the Libs on it's own -four years of successful coalition governance would put both in a stronger position than they are now, especially if Brown is swiftly dropped - but the reality is that any alliance would likely be weak, prone to being wagged by the backbenches and probably merely continue the downwards path that Labour have plotted for the last few years. Realistically, a stong, progressive government formed by Labour and the Liberals just isn't plausible; had they mustered another 30 seats between them it'd be a different story, but they didn't. No point crying over spilt milk.

So, having lost the election, Cameron is left with two choices. He can try minority government, or he can bring the Libs on-board in a coalition. I think it's pretty clear that a Lib-Con coalition is going to be better for the country than minority rule, so I hope Clegg and Cameron can deliver it. And whilst I heartily hope for proper electoral reform I cannot see it happening, however, I think there is still a realistic hope for an elected upper chamber established on a PR basis. Such a chamber would be a considerable step forward and, once established, might provide the impetus for further reform in the next few parliaments.

 

[Dolph]

Taking 2005 as a base, and based on the BBC website page a truly representative system would have resulted in the following approximate allocation of seats

• New Labour - 228
• Tory - 209
• Liberal Democrat - 143
• Others - 66

It seems to me that the PR system comes pretty close to that although the Additional Member System (AMS) isn't far off.

Agreed, AMS is my preferred system.

I have no doubt that any system has its faults and can be criticised; it just seems that the present First Past The Post (FPTP) system is manifestly unfair.

It is, especially with the constituency level bias towards Labour. However, fairness is a criteria, not the criteria when choosing a voting system. There is value in strong, decisive government, and if the choice was between FPTP and PR without suitable protection against back room politicking, I'll choose FPTP.

Continuing with the 2005 results, the only systems that would have resulted in a single party having a majority would have been FPTP and Alternate Vote (AV). The Additional Member, Single Transferable Vote and Proportional Representation systems would all have required two parties actually to cooperate - which seems like a VERY reasonable idea to me.

Me too, although you need to remove the option for two clear losing parties to make a government and shut out the party that got a plurality of votes, otherwise the public will lose a massive amount of the power over the state that they currently hold.

Constantly bleating on about the fact that New Labour disingenuously advocates the entirely unfair AV system proves absolutely Sweet FA about the unfairness of the existing FPTP system. The Tories favour the existing unfair system but modified so as to make it even more favourable to them - who would have thunk it?

Actually, the Tories favour the existing system modified so each constituency has equal value and each vote has equal value across them. The current system is heavily, heavily biased against both the Tories and the Lib dems in terms of what vote percentage gives them what number of seats.

Labour did worse in this election than the Tories did in 1997, and yet have come out much stronger. Is that not a system in need of reform even in the absence of a move to PR?

 

[Dolph]

Yeah, I've come round to that view myself. While I expect the Labour leadership would end up offering the Libs a pretty proportional system in the end, the simple fact is that with the utterly nominal majority that they could muster, even a dozen dissenting MPs on the Labour backbenches could easily sink any attempt to get PR through.

I don't believe that an alliance with Labour would harm the Libs on it's own -four years of successful coalition governance would put both in a stronger position than they are now, especially if Brown is swiftly dropped - but the reality is that any alliance would likely be weak, prone to being wagged by the backbenches and probably merely continue the downwards path that Labour have plotted for the last few years. Realistically, a stong, progressive government formed by Labour and the Liberals just isn't plausible; had they mustered another 30 seats between them it'd be a different story, but they didn't. No point crying over spilt milk.

So, having lost the election, Cameron is left with two choices. He can try minority government, or he can bring the Libs on-board in a coalition. I think it's pretty clear that a Lib-Con coalition is going to be better for the country than minority rule, so I hope Clegg and Cameron can deliver it. And whilst I heartily hope for proper electoral reform I cannot see it happening, however, I think there is still a realistic hope for an elected upper chamber established on a PR basis. Such a chamber would be a considerable step forward and, once established, might provide the impetus for further reform in the next few parliaments.

I also believe (as do many commentators) that even if they got a PR referendum through parliament, it would fail if brought by a lib/lab coalition when put to the public, due to resentment for their behaviour.

 

[stockhausen]

WTF is all this AV PR talk about?

It is a distraction designed to prove that we should all be entirely happy with the FPTP system - the sort of trick used all the time by snake oil salesmen

 

[div0]

It's a shame that AV (even less proportional) is thrown around as PR in the same way that STV is when they are both very different and yield highly differing results when applied to previous elections.

I'm against an AV system, but I think it's unfair to say it's 'even less proportional'.

It's a system that's meant to allow voters to not just vote for their first choice, but also to prioritise candidates in order of preference.

This should mean that winner would be the person who the least people object to.

The Conservatives might be against PR, but at least their system is clear and they are honest about their views on it. Labour are trying to deceive everyone by branding AV (which suits them considerably) as the same kind of PR that the Lib Dems are after.

Too many people seem to let their personal preference cloud their judgement on a particular system. AV is clearly a system that would have benefited Labour in 2005, but I suspect it would have been less beneficial to them this time. Although, I doubt any party is going to try and promote a system which they feel will not favour them at all.

I don't think either the Conservatives or Labour would be keen to give the Lib Dems the exact type of PR that they would like.

We should be considering each type of system on it's individual merits, and not worrying about which particular party it may, or may not favour.

 

[robgmun]

Labour did worse in this election than the Tories did in 1997, and yet have come out much stronger. Is that not a system in need of reform even in the absence of a move to PR?

LOL, i can't see any lefty here agreeing to that!

 

[Dolph]

I'm against an AV system, but I think it's unfair to say it's 'even less proportional'.

It's a system that's meant to allow voters to not just vote for their first choice, but also to prioritise candidates in order of preference.

This should mean that winner would be the person who the least people object to.

It's less proportional when you consider first choice votes, which should be the ones that matter.

That you might end up with a candidate you can tolerate does not mean you end up with anything approaching what you wanted.

Too many people seem to let their personal preference cloud their judgement on a particular system. AV is clearly a system that would have benefited Labour in 2005, but I suspect it would have been less beneficial to them this time. Although, I doubt any party is going to try and promote a system which they feel will not favour them at all.

I don't think either the Conservatives or Labour would be keen to give the Lib Dems the exact type of PR that they would like.

We should be considering each type of system on it's individual merits, and not worrying about which particular party it may, or may not favour.

I agree, that's why I support AMS (which isn't currently supported by any party despite Labour using it for the scottish parliament).