Cleggy Goes to Hollywood

stefan

I don't disagree with what you're saying Nick. But when I lived - and voted - in Australia I didn't feel AV short-changed me democratically. At least, no more so than voting in the UK.

Maria

"The second calculation is that when presented with a star, most journalist [sic] will go weak at the knees and forget to ask hard questions."
Well if they do surely that is their fault for being so think?
I'm in favour of AV so I don't mind who supports it. Although it seems some notorious Labout luvvies have come on board.

Kimpatsu

"The first calculation is that the public are fools. Glamour sways the plebs' minds and determines their votes. Let us hope they are wrong on that.
The second calculation is that when presented with a star, most journalist will go weak at the knees and forget to ask hard questions."
Is that why at the last election the Tories had Michael Caine and Zanu-Labour had David Tennant as spokespeople?

Fiona

Great post Nick. Personally I'm disappointed that Eddie Izzard is in the "yes" camp as he's a favourite of mine, but depending on the outcome I may be able to forgive him.

The image of Clegg hiding behind Bonham-Carter's skirts is one I will cherish.

One name I am surprised not to see on the list is Jeanette Winterson, who was so ecstatic about Nick Clegg on Newsnight with Paxo after one of the leaders' debates. I wonder if she still is?

Baron

Nick, first explain, if you will, how does AV deliver more unrepresentative governments than the FPTP.

on the point of celebrities taking sides on matters political, one cannot deprecate from your take one iota, they should stick to what they do so well – being celebrities.

Maria

re post at 3.44
Sorry. Retribution for picking up on other people's errors.
Should of course be thick and Labour.

Nick Cohen

@Baron. AV is not a proportional system, but relies on second choices. Suppose at the next election Ed Miliband is popular, he won't just be popular with people who put Labour as their first choice, people who are voting Lib Dem, Tory etc may still quite like him and give him their second preferences thus turning a Labour majority under FFTP into a Labour landslide under AV.
If you remember back to 1997, Tony Blair was very popular. Lord Jennkins inquiry into constitutional reform in 1998 said:

"AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional that FPTP. Simulations of how the 1997 result might have come out under AV suggest that it would have significantly increased the size of the already swollen Labour majority. A 'best guess' projection of the shape of the current Parliament under AV suggests on one highly reputable estimate the following outcome with the actual FPTP figures given in brackets after the projected figures: Labour 452 (419), Conservative 96 (165), Liberal Democrats 82 (46), others 29 (29). The overall Labour majority could thus have risen from 169 to 245. On another equally reputable estimate the figures are given as Labour 436, Conservatives 110, Liberal Democrats 84 and others 29, an overall majority this time of 213. On either basis an injustice to the Liberal Democrats would have been nearly two-thirds corrected (their strictly proportional entitlement was 111 seats) but at the price of a still greater injustice to the Conservatives. The Conservative 30.7% of the votes should strictly have given them 202 seats. Instead FPTP gave them 165 or 25% of the seats, whereas AV would have given them on one estimate only 96 (or 14.6% of the seats), and on the more favourable one from their point of view 110 seats (or 16.7% of the total)."

Baron

Nick, kind of you to explain, am still rather unconvinced. On the Jenkins’s rejection of AV, one would need to know what method of re-jigging the FPTP outcomes did those producing the reputable estimates for AV versus FPTP used as there’s no mention whether the conversion was done assuming the AV was ‘full or optional’ preferential. As you know, the former requires every voter to assign a number to all candidates on the ballot paper for the vote to be valid. The outcome under one or the other is hugely different, I believe.

also, it may be largely because my Alzheimer infected brain finds it hard to make sense of, I cannot fathom how the conversion can be done in the first place. How could anyone figure what would the preferences be under AV of someone ticking off just one name under FPTP.

Ron Todd

Just because somebody is an air head celebrity multi millionaire off the telly who has not lived or worked in the real world parroting the latest trendy right on left wing views. Does not mean that they do not have the right to be heard.

Mark2

Nick

The problem is that these people WON'T be bowled any fast balls. It always happens that way and may even be part of the calculation beind the decison to deploy them. They get a free pass - just the same as people (often representing horrid factions, ideas etc whose English somehow is just good enough to make some anti Western/democratic/semitic/US etc etc point but somehow fails them under fire from a time bound questioner who soon gives up trying - assuming he ever started in the first place.

Hexhamgeezer

Nick,

Are you sure you wouldn't be swayed if the fragrant HBC pitched up on your doorstep canvassing for AV? If she asked me for a vote I'd give her one.

Edward McLaughlin

Hexhamgeezer

HBC: back of the queue mate please.

Graphite

I cast my first vote in a parliamentary election in 1966, in New Zealand, at that time using FPTP. I spent most of the 1970s in Australia, where I voted in, from memory, three federal elections and two state elections, using the AV system. Back in New Zealand since the late '70s, I've voted in 11 parliamentary elections, six FPTP and five MMP.

There is no question in my mind — FPTP is a shocker. Every FPTP election was decided by a handful of swinging voters in a handful of seats. Because of ingrained voting habits, which are perfectly understandable, the result in virtually every electorate was a foregone conclusion.

This led to the worst sort of carpetbagging or, occasionally, excellent candidates fighting for their political lives every three years because they lived on the wrong side of the tracks.

The introduction of MMP saw some oddballs enter parliament (not so many these days), but none could have been odder than the fellow Scotsman of the 1920s my father told me about. From a safe Tory seat, this guy's maiden speeech consisted of, "I'm no much of a speaker, so I'll gie ye a verse or two o' Annie Laurie." Which he did.

Of the three systems, I'd put AV (known in these parts as single transferable vote and used in local body elections) marginally ahead of MMP with FPTP a distant last.

And I've got to agree with Baron — how anyone could work out AV voting patterns from FPTP results is incomprehensible.

Graphite

I guess I should comment, too, on the celebrity issue.

Nobody takes a blind bit of notice of political endorsements by celebrities. If anything, they'd be a turn-off.

dave smith

Are there any other studies that bear your statistical dislike of AV out? that one relies on an awful lot of hypotheticals.

Is that report your main reason for opposing AV?

steve

Graphite mentioned the single transferable vote system; this is not the same as AV as under stv members represent multi-member constituencies and so a plurality of parties may be represented whereas in AV it is still winner takes all. It would not be inherently less proportional than fptp but then neither would it be inherently better, the eveidence such as it is has been based on twenty years of preference polling data conducted on the eve of elections rather actual voter outcomes.