Running a bit late for thoughts on this one, but for what itc worth here are some thoughts on Nick Clegg's proposed political reforms.
Fixed Term Parliaments - the proposals here seem to have been changed both to head off backbench opposition and to undermine Labour resistance. Gone is the idea of 55% to remove the government, instead a simple majority in a no confidence vote would remove a Prime Minister (this should satisfy the rebellious nutters on the Tory backbenches). Meanwhile for the government to dissolve parliament early would take 66% of MPs. Labour would struggle to have much objection to this as this is very close to the system they set up for the Scottish Parliament.
Reducing the Number of MPs. Its impossible to say without new boundaries being suggested who this would favour the most, but its very hard to argue against equal sized constituencies, so Labour need to watch out with their accusations of gerrymandering. The current system does have an inbuilt bias towards Labour and attempts to protect this look like self-interest and could play very poorly for them. Jack Straw's comments that this is an attack on Labour are absolutely incredible and unbelievable - to accept this is to accept that voters in small urban seats deserve more say than those in large rural seats. Our system is deeply unfair in many ways, such defences of the status quo should be avoided.
Of the exceptions, Orkney and Shetland are so remote that a separate seat is warranted. The geograhical cap size also seeems reasonable as for an MP to cover a vast area would make the job unfeasible. I'm less convinced about the Western Isles exception - historically it has been joined to the mainland in single seat and I see no particular reason it can't be again. Especially if you consider that rigid sticking to the size rules will produce a situation where the Isle Of wight is split into two constituencies with half forced into a seat straddling the Solent. Curiously the main beneficiary of this exception are the SNP.
The AV referendum. This is going to produce one of the most bizarre things in British politics that I can think of. The two coalition parties will introduce a referendum bill for something in neither manifesto. The one party who did have it in their manifesto (Labour) could well oppose it in the Commons. If it does get through parliament, the two coalition partners will then fight on different sides of the campaign.
I have mixed views about AV. I don't see it as a more proportional system. It could as its critics say, produce bigger swings to the bigger parties. I would hate to see a No vote for AV mean an end to the chances of electoral reform for another generation. But could a YES vote be a stepping stone to further change, or would we be stuck with AV for the foreseeable future.
Conventional wisdom suggests that its easier for smaller parties to break through under FPTP, but in close elections their vote tends to get squeezed in FPTP (as happened to the Greens is all but two or three seats thios time around). AV would provide some protection from this and enable a build up of votes election on election, but ultimately might make it harder to win seats. So I'm still torn as to which way I would vote should there be a referendum. I also think that somebody needs to pay attention to what Mr Salmond is saying about the timing producing a clash of focus in the campaigns for the referendum and Scottish elections to the detriment of both.
On more positive news, the announcement of a review into counter-terrorism measures is to be welcomed. Whilst I remain dubious about some of the coalitions decisions, the noises being made about civil liberties are rather more encouraging.
Showing posts with label Voting systems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voting systems. Show all posts
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Monday, 14 June 2010
What difference with AV?
In a recent online discussion somebody made the very valid point that people advocating different voting systems see elections as serving very different purposes. Those advocating a proportional system see the purpose of elections as producing a result which reflects the views of the electorate, whilst advocates of FPTP see elections as there solely to pick a winner. I'm not sure what proponents of AV see as the purpose of elections.
When I posted a few weeks back and mentioned estimates from a daily paper on the differences AV would have made in May I was challenged over how accurate these were. So over the past few weeks in spare moments, I've been having a look at things myself to come up with my own results. But first the challenges of working things out.
The problems of estimating vote re-allocations
Party-by-party some of the issues faced:
Lib-Dems - are perhaps the easiest party to figure based on the fact that there are polls among their supporters about who would they would have liked to be in coalition with. This would indicate second preferences of roughly one-third Conservative to two-thirds Labour. I would guess that these figures are roughly right, but what's less easy is how these balance out across the country. Are Lib-Dems voters in Scotland, for example, more left-leaning than those in the South-West. The MPs certainly seem to be. The other thing with Lib-Dems is that their voters are possibly the most likely to indicate second and third preferences, by nature of their political position.
Conservatives. Conservative voters are possibly (my own opinion) the least likely to express second preferences. There's also a bit of guesswork as to how many would go Lib-Dem to keep Labour out or how many would prefer just to switch to Labour. Election results would indicate that many voters do switch from one to the other and are actually very dsmissive of the third party. In Wales and Scotland the picture is even more complicated - who would unionist Tories prefer in contests between the Nationalists and Labour.
Labour. Instinctively, I feel Labour voters are more likely to switch Lib-Dem to keep the Tories out than the other way round. Of course, there are still some who might switch Tory, but I'm guessing most who are likely to do, did so at this election (Outside Scotland at least.). Many Labour voters are maybe aready tactically voting Lib-dem - under AV these votes would come back to Labour on the first vote, before switching back to Lib-Dems on second preference. (Interestingly, polling just prior to the election indicated that this time round the Tories were going to be the main beneficiaries of tactical voting - presumably either from UKIP or right leaning Lib-Dems wanting to get Labour out.)
Nationalists. Theoretically, both SNP and Plaid Cymru are Centre-Left party, making their second preferences likely to tend that way. Certainly in urban Scotland the SNP seem to be competing for votes with Labour in the poorer regions. However, in some rural areas their supporters perhaps have more in common with the Tories.
Greens. The Lib-Dems are theoretically the most Green of the big three and there did seem to be a correlation between Greens doing well and Lib-Dems doing badly. Norwich South disproved that with Green advance being almost exclusively at the expense of Labour. Their policies are more left than right, but many Green voters might otherwise be Conservative, who are probably a toucher greener under Cameron than Labour.
UKIP It appears a no-brainer that most UKIP voters would go Tory on second preference. But even here there is a counter-argument that if that was the case, in situations where Euro-sceptic Tories faced tough opposition, why haven't they already? Some argue evidence from doorsteps in South-West that many UKIP supporters would be Lib-Dem if not for policy on Europe. Other than Europe, UKIP policies are a bit of a hotch-potch of progressive and reactionary, so difficult to call.
BNP Although a far-right party, BNP voters almost exclusively come from white working class areas that would traditionally support Labour.
English Democrats _ i really don't have a clue about where they get their votes from.
The impact of AV itself. AV, as already mentioned, would see an unwinding of tactical voting in the first preference, but those votes would end up back where they started on the second preference. Similarly, I would expect to see a first preference boost for the Greens and maybe other small parties, before again those votes ended back where they started.
All of which makes it rather hard to calculate, except there are a huge number of seats where the winning candidate got over 50% or close enough to 50% with a large majority that no change would be possible. Of the other seats, I reckon that, if I've got it wrong, its more likely that less would change due to voters not expressing a second preference than that more would change.
My estimate of the results under AV:
(I've not attempted to look at Northern Ireland)
Labour - 275
Conservatives - 273
Lib-Dems - 74
SNP - 5
Plaid Cymru - 2
Greens - 1
Independant - 1
To summarise, I think the system would help Labour to hold onto a large number of (mainly Middle-England) seats that they ended up losing to the Tories by 5% or thereabouts (such as Bedford, Carlisle,Colne Valley, Hendon, Ipswich). They might also have held ARfon from Plaid and re-taken Dundee East from SNP and held the Lib_dems off in Bradford East. The Conservatives on the other hand are the big losers, the only gains I see for them might be Wells from the Lib-Dems and Walsall South from Labour, with possibly Mid-Dorset as well. The might also have failed to take Wyre Forest from the independant. For the Lib-dems, they might have held on to few seats they lost to the Tories (Falmouth, Oxford West, Camborne) as well as coming through to take the likes of Bristol NW, Watford and St albans. But they actually benefit more against Labour in urban areas, taking seats in the likes of Swansea W, Rochdale, Sheffield C, Oxford E, Oldham, Newport, Hull and Edinburgh South.
Of course, even if AV does come in for the next election, its likely to be accompanied by boundary changes, larger constituencies and who knows what impact the coalition will have on all the parties fortunes.
When I posted a few weeks back and mentioned estimates from a daily paper on the differences AV would have made in May I was challenged over how accurate these were. So over the past few weeks in spare moments, I've been having a look at things myself to come up with my own results. But first the challenges of working things out.
The problems of estimating vote re-allocations
Party-by-party some of the issues faced:
Lib-Dems - are perhaps the easiest party to figure based on the fact that there are polls among their supporters about who would they would have liked to be in coalition with. This would indicate second preferences of roughly one-third Conservative to two-thirds Labour. I would guess that these figures are roughly right, but what's less easy is how these balance out across the country. Are Lib-Dems voters in Scotland, for example, more left-leaning than those in the South-West. The MPs certainly seem to be. The other thing with Lib-Dems is that their voters are possibly the most likely to indicate second and third preferences, by nature of their political position.
Conservatives. Conservative voters are possibly (my own opinion) the least likely to express second preferences. There's also a bit of guesswork as to how many would go Lib-Dem to keep Labour out or how many would prefer just to switch to Labour. Election results would indicate that many voters do switch from one to the other and are actually very dsmissive of the third party. In Wales and Scotland the picture is even more complicated - who would unionist Tories prefer in contests between the Nationalists and Labour.
Labour. Instinctively, I feel Labour voters are more likely to switch Lib-Dem to keep the Tories out than the other way round. Of course, there are still some who might switch Tory, but I'm guessing most who are likely to do, did so at this election (Outside Scotland at least.). Many Labour voters are maybe aready tactically voting Lib-dem - under AV these votes would come back to Labour on the first vote, before switching back to Lib-Dems on second preference. (Interestingly, polling just prior to the election indicated that this time round the Tories were going to be the main beneficiaries of tactical voting - presumably either from UKIP or right leaning Lib-Dems wanting to get Labour out.)
Nationalists. Theoretically, both SNP and Plaid Cymru are Centre-Left party, making their second preferences likely to tend that way. Certainly in urban Scotland the SNP seem to be competing for votes with Labour in the poorer regions. However, in some rural areas their supporters perhaps have more in common with the Tories.
Greens. The Lib-Dems are theoretically the most Green of the big three and there did seem to be a correlation between Greens doing well and Lib-Dems doing badly. Norwich South disproved that with Green advance being almost exclusively at the expense of Labour. Their policies are more left than right, but many Green voters might otherwise be Conservative, who are probably a toucher greener under Cameron than Labour.
UKIP It appears a no-brainer that most UKIP voters would go Tory on second preference. But even here there is a counter-argument that if that was the case, in situations where Euro-sceptic Tories faced tough opposition, why haven't they already? Some argue evidence from doorsteps in South-West that many UKIP supporters would be Lib-Dem if not for policy on Europe. Other than Europe, UKIP policies are a bit of a hotch-potch of progressive and reactionary, so difficult to call.
BNP Although a far-right party, BNP voters almost exclusively come from white working class areas that would traditionally support Labour.
English Democrats _ i really don't have a clue about where they get their votes from.
The impact of AV itself. AV, as already mentioned, would see an unwinding of tactical voting in the first preference, but those votes would end up back where they started on the second preference. Similarly, I would expect to see a first preference boost for the Greens and maybe other small parties, before again those votes ended back where they started.
All of which makes it rather hard to calculate, except there are a huge number of seats where the winning candidate got over 50% or close enough to 50% with a large majority that no change would be possible. Of the other seats, I reckon that, if I've got it wrong, its more likely that less would change due to voters not expressing a second preference than that more would change.
My estimate of the results under AV:
(I've not attempted to look at Northern Ireland)
Labour - 275
Conservatives - 273
Lib-Dems - 74
SNP - 5
Plaid Cymru - 2
Greens - 1
Independant - 1
To summarise, I think the system would help Labour to hold onto a large number of (mainly Middle-England) seats that they ended up losing to the Tories by 5% or thereabouts (such as Bedford, Carlisle,Colne Valley, Hendon, Ipswich). They might also have held ARfon from Plaid and re-taken Dundee East from SNP and held the Lib_dems off in Bradford East. The Conservatives on the other hand are the big losers, the only gains I see for them might be Wells from the Lib-Dems and Walsall South from Labour, with possibly Mid-Dorset as well. The might also have failed to take Wyre Forest from the independant. For the Lib-dems, they might have held on to few seats they lost to the Tories (Falmouth, Oxford West, Camborne) as well as coming through to take the likes of Bristol NW, Watford and St albans. But they actually benefit more against Labour in urban areas, taking seats in the likes of Swansea W, Rochdale, Sheffield C, Oxford E, Oldham, Newport, Hull and Edinburgh South.
Of course, even if AV does come in for the next election, its likely to be accompanied by boundary changes, larger constituencies and who knows what impact the coalition will have on all the parties fortunes.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
AV vs STV
I've been asked on a facebook thread to blog on the differences between AV - being dangled as a carrot by both Labour and Conservatives before the Lib-Dems and STV, which is what the Lib-Dems actually favour.
AV or the Alternative Vote System is a majoritan system. The aim here is not for the number of seats to reflect proportionally the number of votes cast, but the winning candidate in each case to be supported by the majority of voters (even of they weren't the first choice for some).
The way it works is quite simple - we would keep the current constituencies and voters would rank all the candidates they wish to (leaving out ones they wouldn't want to vote for) from one downwards. Then all the first preferences are counted and if a candidate has over 50% of the vote, they are elected. If not, the lowest ranking candidate is eliminated and their votes re-allocated to second preference and so on until one candidate would have over 50%. This is roughly the system used for the London Mayoral elections.
What difference would it make and who wins? In reality, it would make not all that much difference. Last Thursday's results would have been different in about 20 seats - Tories losing out mainly to the Lib-Dems. (Which would move them both proportionally closer to their share of the vote, but still a long way off and Labour would have more seats when they already have far too many proportionally). It certainly makes life harder for the Tories - with not many other votes on the right they can pick up.
PROS:
- It eliminates the need for tactical voting
- It enables the elected members to claim a greater mandate
- It maintains constituency links for MPs
CONS:
- It makes it much harder for smaller parties to break through
- It re-enforces the problem of safe seats
- It does not reflect the votes cast proportionally or fix any of the real problems in the current system.
Single Transferrable Vote (STV) (as used in the last Scottish council elections) confusingly works in a similar way, in terms of ranking all the candidates you would vote for in order of preference. The difference being that it would work with larger multi-seat constituencies so the result is much more proportional. You would have several candidates from the main parties in each constituency and could choose between them (as opposed to the List system (as used in the European elections), where the party chooses their preferred candidates). The voting is actually very simple, as with AV, (this is not what caused the problems at the last Scottish elections), but the calculations become very complicated:
In a five seat constituency, a candidate would need about a fifth of the votes to be elected. If no candidate reaches this on first preference, then votes of the lowest candidate are re-assigned as with AV. Once a candidate has reached the required winning post, then the number of votes he has received over the required number are re-assigned proportionally to the second preferences of all the votes he has received. So, if somebody needs 1000 votes to be elected and gets 1200, then 200 votes are reallocated proportionally to the second preference of all 1200 votes.
PROs:
- It is a much more proportional system
- It gives a real opportunity to the smaller parties
- If there's a bad MP/candidate you don't like from a party you would otherwise support, you can still vote for the party in the shape of other candidates.
- Thus, there are no more safe seats, etc...
- The big parties get broader geographical representation, although less seats - for example would lead to more Conservative MPs from Scotland and North-East, but more Labour in the South-West and South-East than currently.
CONs:
- Will produce a hung parliament every time (argue amongst yourself whether thats good or bad)
- the calculations are very complicated, but most voters don't need to understand exactly how that works, as long as they understand how to vote.
An Edinburgh Example
In the 5 Edinburgh seats combined last week, the totals for the 4 main parties were:
Labour 82,623 votes (37%)
Lib-Dems 63,544 (29%)
Conservatives 42,682 (19%)
SNP 27,700 (12%)
The seats won were 4 for Labour and 1 Lib-Dem. Under AV I reckon the Lib-Dems would probably have taken Edinburgh South, but could well have lost Edinburgh West to Labour. Net result, no change.
Under STV the voting patterns would probably have been different, but I would guess the result would have been Alastair Darling and Mark Lazarowicz for Labour, Mike Crockart for the Lib-Dems, Jason Rust for the conservatives and then either Fred McKintosh (Lib-Dem) or one of the SNp candidates, which would have been a much fairer reflection of the votes cast.
If there were to be a referendum on AV, I'm not sure I would go for it, especially if it was put across as the final step in voting reform.
AV or the Alternative Vote System is a majoritan system. The aim here is not for the number of seats to reflect proportionally the number of votes cast, but the winning candidate in each case to be supported by the majority of voters (even of they weren't the first choice for some).
The way it works is quite simple - we would keep the current constituencies and voters would rank all the candidates they wish to (leaving out ones they wouldn't want to vote for) from one downwards. Then all the first preferences are counted and if a candidate has over 50% of the vote, they are elected. If not, the lowest ranking candidate is eliminated and their votes re-allocated to second preference and so on until one candidate would have over 50%. This is roughly the system used for the London Mayoral elections.
What difference would it make and who wins? In reality, it would make not all that much difference. Last Thursday's results would have been different in about 20 seats - Tories losing out mainly to the Lib-Dems. (Which would move them both proportionally closer to their share of the vote, but still a long way off and Labour would have more seats when they already have far too many proportionally). It certainly makes life harder for the Tories - with not many other votes on the right they can pick up.
PROS:
- It eliminates the need for tactical voting
- It enables the elected members to claim a greater mandate
- It maintains constituency links for MPs
CONS:
- It makes it much harder for smaller parties to break through
- It re-enforces the problem of safe seats
- It does not reflect the votes cast proportionally or fix any of the real problems in the current system.
Single Transferrable Vote (STV) (as used in the last Scottish council elections) confusingly works in a similar way, in terms of ranking all the candidates you would vote for in order of preference. The difference being that it would work with larger multi-seat constituencies so the result is much more proportional. You would have several candidates from the main parties in each constituency and could choose between them (as opposed to the List system (as used in the European elections), where the party chooses their preferred candidates). The voting is actually very simple, as with AV, (this is not what caused the problems at the last Scottish elections), but the calculations become very complicated:
In a five seat constituency, a candidate would need about a fifth of the votes to be elected. If no candidate reaches this on first preference, then votes of the lowest candidate are re-assigned as with AV. Once a candidate has reached the required winning post, then the number of votes he has received over the required number are re-assigned proportionally to the second preferences of all the votes he has received. So, if somebody needs 1000 votes to be elected and gets 1200, then 200 votes are reallocated proportionally to the second preference of all 1200 votes.
PROs:
- It is a much more proportional system
- It gives a real opportunity to the smaller parties
- If there's a bad MP/candidate you don't like from a party you would otherwise support, you can still vote for the party in the shape of other candidates.
- Thus, there are no more safe seats, etc...
- The big parties get broader geographical representation, although less seats - for example would lead to more Conservative MPs from Scotland and North-East, but more Labour in the South-West and South-East than currently.
CONs:
- Will produce a hung parliament every time (argue amongst yourself whether thats good or bad)
- the calculations are very complicated, but most voters don't need to understand exactly how that works, as long as they understand how to vote.
An Edinburgh Example
In the 5 Edinburgh seats combined last week, the totals for the 4 main parties were:
Labour 82,623 votes (37%)
Lib-Dems 63,544 (29%)
Conservatives 42,682 (19%)
SNP 27,700 (12%)
The seats won were 4 for Labour and 1 Lib-Dem. Under AV I reckon the Lib-Dems would probably have taken Edinburgh South, but could well have lost Edinburgh West to Labour. Net result, no change.
Under STV the voting patterns would probably have been different, but I would guess the result would have been Alastair Darling and Mark Lazarowicz for Labour, Mike Crockart for the Lib-Dems, Jason Rust for the conservatives and then either Fred McKintosh (Lib-Dem) or one of the SNp candidates, which would have been a much fairer reflection of the votes cast.
If there were to be a referendum on AV, I'm not sure I would go for it, especially if it was put across as the final step in voting reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
