No to No to AV
Apr. 26th, 2011 10:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
webofevilSo, like many others, I received my “No to AV” leaflet and, like many others, I found that it immediately tipped me over into the “Yes to AV” camp. Rarely have I been so powerfully persuaded of the rightness of an argument by the paucity of the case put by its detractors. Charlie Brooker is right to castigate the Yes campaign for its recent “war veteran” advert, but its timing rather suggests that it was produced as an incredulous kneejerk reaction to any credence at all having been given to the barrel of old pigs’ tits that the No camp is attempting to pass off as reasoned arguments.
Yes, the smears have been diverting, from the subtle (“None of your taxes have been used to print this leaflet”, which smartly implies that the other side is running on taxpayers’ money) to the blatant (George Osborne saying that the Electoral Reform Society supports the change only because it stands to make money out of vote-counting machines, which, if true, would be the world’s dullest ever scam). And it is quite entertaining to contemplate the damage that the coalition partners MIGHT face; since voting reform is what they appear to have abandoned many of their principles for, the Lib Dems would face total wipeout in the face of a no vote—but, while that would be amusing and quite gratifying, more meaningful in the long term (if less immediately apocalyptic) would be the damage done to the Tories by a yes.
But just shelve these considerations for a moment and chew on the basic question: should an MP have to aim to win the votes of more than 50 per cent of their constituency’s voters? If you think they probably should, then AV would be a fairer system than what we have now.
Some opponents of AV have used the analogy of an election being like a race—under first-past-the-post, the person who gets most votes wins, so it’s like a winner winning a race, and that’s the fairest system. I could get caught up in finer points of detail here—perhaps you could see the 50 per cent barrier as the winner’s tape, so the “race” is still “won”?—but ultimately there’s a broader objection, one that I haven’t seen expressed anywhere more concisely and effectively than in the words of my own dear mother:
If you’re more bothered about how we are all represented in Parliament than by how much the new MP on election night feels like a “winner”, AV is the only option available right now that would address that. The reason why my mother is so exercised about this topic is that she has spent 30 years watching her vote fail to count for anything, as she lives in a seat that couldn’t be safer for a party she bitterly opposes. Brain-damaged sportsmen gargling on about “fairness” are advised to stay the hell away from her door.
Yes, the smears have been diverting, from the subtle (“None of your taxes have been used to print this leaflet”, which smartly implies that the other side is running on taxpayers’ money) to the blatant (George Osborne saying that the Electoral Reform Society supports the change only because it stands to make money out of vote-counting machines, which, if true, would be the world’s dullest ever scam). And it is quite entertaining to contemplate the damage that the coalition partners MIGHT face; since voting reform is what they appear to have abandoned many of their principles for, the Lib Dems would face total wipeout in the face of a no vote—but, while that would be amusing and quite gratifying, more meaningful in the long term (if less immediately apocalyptic) would be the damage done to the Tories by a yes.
But just shelve these considerations for a moment and chew on the basic question: should an MP have to aim to win the votes of more than 50 per cent of their constituency’s voters? If you think they probably should, then AV would be a fairer system than what we have now.
Some opponents of AV have used the analogy of an election being like a race—under first-past-the-post, the person who gets most votes wins, so it’s like a winner winning a race, and that’s the fairest system. I could get caught up in finer points of detail here—perhaps you could see the 50 per cent barrier as the winner’s tape, so the “race” is still “won”?—but ultimately there’s a broader objection, one that I haven’t seen expressed anywhere more concisely and effectively than in the words of my own dear mother:
“It’s not a fucking race.”Indeed it isn’t; it’s meant to be about fairness of representation. I’m not aware of that being a critical aspect of racing, but then I don’t follow sport. Mind you, by the same token I wouldn't have expected rowing champion James Cracknell to have known a great deal about AV, but he has announced that “AV is so complicated it will put off voters”, although the No campaign might have cast a bit further afield to find a spokesman to argue that AV was difficult to understand who wasn’t hampered by (a) being a sports personality and (b) a colossal brain injury.
If you’re more bothered about how we are all represented in Parliament than by how much the new MP on election night feels like a “winner”, AV is the only option available right now that would address that. The reason why my mother is so exercised about this topic is that she has spent 30 years watching her vote fail to count for anything, as she lives in a seat that couldn’t be safer for a party she bitterly opposes. Brain-damaged sportsmen gargling on about “fairness” are advised to stay the hell away from her door.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-27 11:40 am (UTC)1. It's more complicated than AV, or STV, and thus will be harder to explain and harder to get people to support.
2. As I understand it, there's about half a dozen different 'tie breaker' resolution systems for it, and no particular agreement on which is best.
3. Most importantly: My understanding (which may be flawed) is that if you do not fill out a full list of preferences, then your vote has significantly less effect on the end result than someone who does rank everyone on the ballot paper.
Under AV, if you put just one preference down, if that preference is one of the final two, your vote is still making as much of a difference as if you put down full preferences. Ditto if you only mark two or three candidates, if one of them is in the final pair, your vote is as effective (if not necessarily as true a picture of your full preferences) as ranking everyone.
And given that a lot of people who are voting don't care about politics as much as you or I do, I think something that means they don't have to number every last candidate is a good thing.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-27 12:47 pm (UTC)(the probability of the need for tie breaking drastically reduces as the electorate size increases)
no subject
Date: 2011-04-27 02:14 pm (UTC)