Daily Mail Questions I Should Answer

Are the 'swivel-eyed cranks and fruitcakes' about to take revenge?

Oh, I do hope so.

Not for the "swivel-eyed cranks and fruitcakes" line. It's always good to see petty insults as it shows an opponent has run out of coherent arguments.

I want to see the Conservatives lose office by UKIP splitting their vote because of the lies and disinformation they spread about AV. To see them defeated by a system of their own choosing (when AV would have given them an election win) will be absolutely fucking glorious.

And there's not really much Cameron can do until close to election time. He needs to keep the Lib Dems on side and making pro-referendum noises just isn't going to work.

Booker on AV and deeper thoughts about problems

Now the demeaning little farce of the AV referendum is over, we can appreciate just how absurd was the pretence that tinkering with our voting system might somehow have given us any greater degree of “democracy”. In no way did it address the real crisis of our politics, which is that any real semblance of democracy in how we are governed has all but drained away.
It is not just that the political class which has allowed us a referendum on this trivial sideshow has denied us one – despite its promises – on the far more significant abdication of our power to govern ourselves that is implicit in the Lisbon Treaty, aka the EU constitution.

As I seem to frequently have to say to people who talk in this tone "yes, and that's terrible, now what practical fucking solutions can you find to change it?".

The problem of blaming the political parties for being pro-EU is that it's as futile as blaming a lion for chasing you when there's no gazelle around for lunch. Blaming the lion isn't a solution. Running away, getting in a car or shooting it are.

The thing is that I've looked long and hard at politics and watched elections, and seen the vote share diminish over time, and I've looked at comparative facts, considered incentives, looked at how parties have acted and basically the ONLY way you'll get anything done about the EU was to have supported the AV referendum. 

Let me try to explain:-

1) Duverger's Law. This means that people will generally tactically vote which means that people will vote to keep the other side out.

2) Duverger's Law. Which means that parties focus their efforts on the voters at the centre because they know that the hardcore voters will vote for them anyway, even if they'd prefer the other guys. The result being that they pick watered down policies that are a fag-paper's width apart.

3) Duverger's Law. And because people tactically vote, it signals to people that other people would like that party, leading to people voting for those parties again and creating something of a vicious cycle.

At some point parties will grow enough that people might think it's worth backing them to try to push them up to win, because they have a chance. How long does this take? Well, it took the SNP about 33 years to get 1 seat. They now have 6 seats after being in existence for 70 years. The Green Party have 1 seat after 37 years. Plaid Cymru have 3 seats after 85 years. UKIP have 0 seats after 17 years.

I'm not going to make any claims that electoral reform will deliver an EU referendum. That would be dishonest. But I will say this: you absolutely, positively, definitely won't get an EU referendum without some form of electoral reform for half a century.

AV: A Post-Mortem, of sorts

So, sadly, AV was not won.

I've been pretty angry about it for about 48 hours, which is often my reaction to when the public do something that I class as brain-frying stupidity.

To understand why the public voted against AV, I'd like to try to recall another event, the fuel protests of  2000. The immediate reaction by the public was to support the fuel protests. Fuel was expensive and all that. What I discovered in the week after, sitting in pubs was people actually debating it and thinking more about it. And quite a lot of people started to realise that there were downsides to such protests. You won't see the same level of support for the ones happening now as happened in 2000.

The problem for AV is that going into it, most people didn't have a clue about it. The YouGov poll of June 2010 showed that 11% of people understood it well, and 27% of people understood it fairly well. The vast majority of people were blank canvasses, open to very easy influence by liars. Had people been kicking the subject around for a while, they might have voted differently and laughed at claims that "some people get to vote twice".

The Tories won't be fighting electoral reform now. But we can now not only debate it, but can do so by repeatedly pointing out the lies. And if people realise that they got cheated, perhaps we get another chance.

Local News

From the Advertiser

South Swindon MP Robert Buckland denied the poor turn-out spelled doom for local politics, but said more needs to be done to get people off their sofas and into polling booths.

From Wikipedia:-

Political scientists are divided on whether proportional representation increases voter turnout, though in countries with proportioanal representation voter turnout is higher.

And yet, the Swindon South MP thinks that FPTP is the least worst system.

If you want to see for yourself, IDEA have tables of electoral turnout: http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout4.cfm

More No2AV Drivel (Telegraph edition)

Robert Colvile

Want an example? Let’s invent a seat called, say, West Borsetshire. It was held by the Tories for ages, taken by Labour in 1997, and recaptured in 2010. There is, however, a strong Lib Dem presence, so any of the three parties could theoretically win it.
Now, let’s assume (taking the minor parties out of the equation) that Tory and Labour voters would probably tend to put the Lib Dems as their second choice, and Lib Dem second preferences would divide a bit more evenly. As a Tory candidate, one of your main priorities, under AV, would be to make sure the Lib Dems finished third, so that you got enough of their votes to take you over 50 per cent. If Labour were eliminated first, and all their votes given to the Lib Dems, the chances of keeping your seat would be far lower.
You can change the specifics, and the names of the parties, but the point remains – under AV, the order in which the candidates are eliminated can matter hugely, to the extent of determining the result. That turns the ballot into a species of game theory, in which party strategists come up with freakishly complicated scenarios that could deliver victory.

To vote to create such an outcome would require a Conservative voter to vote Labour 1st, Con 2nd. This would then push Labour up the vote, knocking the LDs down. Of course, it could also mean that if enough Conservatives did likewise, then Labour would secure a majority.

Quite simply, this just isn't going to happen, and it's yet another bit of No2AV drivel.

The consequence – in Australia, at least – has been the emergence ofparty voting cards, in which your chosen party asks/instructs you to list your voting preferences in a particular order, to maximise its chances in that constituency. Under AV, such cards would almost certainly become a common sight in British campaigns – further increasing the sway of politicians over voters.

You'd think he'd read the actual article he linked to. It says nothing about tactical voting and everything about preference voting. In other words, Big Party A cuts a deal with Small Party B that Small Party B asks its voters to put B first, A second, they'll give them something in return. It's about saying "these guys are a bit like us" to their followers. It has no effect whatsoever on tactical voting and certainly doesn't fit Colville's dumb as a pile of rocks example.

Ming Gets it Wrong on AV

From the Telegraph:-

Sir Menzies told BBC’s Radio 4 that he believed the public disagreement between Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg was part of a deliberate move by the Prime Minister to appease those who feared that the Coalition partnership had become to close.

It's got nothing to do with that. Cameron is opposing AV because it has the potential to put his party out of business in the long term, and cause quite a lot of damage in the short-term.


And because there's really little good reason for FPTP, he has to resort to the same combination of personal smears, scaremongering and confusion that the No campaign uses.


Incidentally, has anyone noticed how often the Conservatives and the official No campaign (despite being disconnected) seem to use the same themes about AV at the same time?

AV: The Major Attack

Has there ever been a dirtier campaign waged in British politics?

When the country “desperately needed to get rid of that [Labour] government” in 1979, they were able to elect Margaret Thatcher, he said.
“We also remember 1997 and I think we know in 1997 the country needed change. Again it was a decisive result,” he added. His criticism came as a surprise because Mr Cameron is close to Sir John Major and occasionally uses him to support specific policy ideas.

The funny thing is that if we'd had AV in 1992, the Conservatives might have lost the election to a Lib/Lab/SNP coalition. The result of the Conservatives getting another parliament was that people were really fed up with them by the time 1997 rolled around, and that as a result of 1992, voted far more tactically to make sure that they got the Conservatives out.

So, the Conservatives might have had 5 years of the likes of Kinnock, Hattersley and Ashdown running the country, and within 5 years, back in power for another decade or so. 

Incidentally, I think that the Major government was one of the best this country has had. It might have had a load of backbench sleaze, but actually delivered some good, steady economic growth.

So, why did Cameron do a deal, then?

From the Torygraph:-

Adopting the Alternative Vote system would do "permanent damage to British democracy," says David Cameron.

Perhaps David Cameron would like to explain why he was happy to do a deal with the LDs that included a vote on it, then?

B3TA AV Challenge

There's a few crackers in their challenge here, But I've included a couple here.

Cost of AV Elections

From The Telegraph:-

The Conservatives have claimed that the cost of a British general election to taxpayers will triple to almost £300 million under AV.

That's odd, because according to Hansard, Mark Harper, Parliamentary Secretary (Political and Constitutional Reform), Cabinet Office on 4th April 2011 said:-

Based on the information set out in the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Charges) Order 2010, the estimated cost of the conduct of the UK parliamentary election in Great Britain which was held under the first past the post system on 6 May 2010 is £82.1 million. This figure takes into account the reduced costs of holding the UK parliamentary election on the same day as local government elections. The estimated cost of the 2010 UK parliamentary election in Northern Ireland was £2.5 million. The overall figures will be finalised once all claims from acting returning officers in Great Britain and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland (who are statutorily responsible for running the poll) have been received and finalised. The estimated cost of holding a stand-alone UK parliamentary election across the whole of the UK under the first past the post system is £92.1 million.
The features of a general election using the alternative vote system would broadly be the same as under the existing system: for example, in terms of the provision of ballot papers and polling stations. However, it is not possible to quantify with certainty what the extra cost of counting votes under the alternative vote system would be: this will be dependent to a significant extent on the preferences expressed by voters.

If you're going to lie about the costs of AV, it's probably best to check that one of your own Ministers hasn't already said something that blows your claim out of the water.

In light of the YouGov Poll

What I would say to anyone who is blogging about AV, don't waste too much energy on the BNP attacks, or what the No campaign is saying.

Focus on getting the message out about how people won't have to tactically vote, how the seat will be a candidate that most people are at least reasonably happy with. That's how to win this.

Royal Observer comes out against AV Reform

A major royal observer, is urging people to vote against AV reform.

"If AV goes through, it's entirely possible that Prince William could have a terrible bollock-tearing accident with a combine harvester, ending the lineage, and causing the country to be descended into the sort of Communist Hellhole depicted in 1984".

Mr Tory Boy of the NO2EndingOurGripOnPower campaign says that he has strong evidence for this, despite everyone else considering it to be nonsense.

"Furthermore, the arrival of AV will lead to a direct attack on our planet by Ming the Merciless, the US defence computers becoming sentient and Gozer the Gozerian trying to take over the earth."

Sportsmen Come out Against AV

From the Daily Hate

Major sporting figures, including James Cracknell and David Gower, are urging people to vote ‘no’ in the May 5 electoral reform referendum.
They insist that the principle of the winner being the person or team that comes first must apply to Britain’s voting system as much as it does in sport.

Right. So, do we decide who wins a cricket game or a rowing race by asking the crowd which team they want to win? No, we don't, do we? We have a contest, based on rules, and the winner wins, regardless of how popular they are. So, trying to apply sports analogies to electoral systems is just monumental fuckwittery.

Really, is this the best that the No2AV camp have got? I suspect it is.

The Sun Says... on AV

Today's Sun poll shows that although there is already a majority against it, opposition is greater once the details are spelled out.
So let The Sun explain again why AV is such a risk.

It would mean dumping our traditional first-past-the-post system for a mind-boggling set-up where losers could become winners.

Mind-boggling = a system that Australians manage just fine, and is a variation of STV which lots of countries manage just fine

It could open the door to extremists. It would end strong party government and usher in permanent coalitions. 

It would spell the end of strong policies and condemn us to half-baked compromises. 

No, it won't open the door to extremists. It might open the door to the sort of parties that aren't liked at dinner parties, but hardly extremists. The only way extremists can win is if the majority of people want extremists, unlike FPTP where extremists could win with around 1/3rd of the vote (if the mainstream parties split).

As for "strong government", well good. Strong government does some downright fucking stupid things because they can, because they have enough careerist footsoldiers that even if they get some rebels, will still win. And to paraphrase Mark Wadsworth, compromise would actually be good as rather than wrenching from one government to the next, we'd see government shift slightly at elections. Most of Europe runs just fine on coalitions (except Belgium which has its own unique problems about being two peoples).

It would squeeze out conviction politicians in favour of duds whose only talent was for clinging to office.

Oh, get real. There's maybe half a dozen MPs I'd count as conviction politicians: Kate Hoey, Frank Field, John Denham and IDS (more suggestions welcome). The rest are careerist little bastards doing anything to climb the greasy pole of power.

In fact, AV is more likely to give you conviction politicians, because people don't have to climb the party ladder for years, don't have to keep their nose clean with the grandees. They can just appeal to the people on a policy forum and if enough people like them, can get elected. That's how the One Nation Party shook things up in Australia, standing on the sort of ticket that Sun readers would quite like (anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism).

Cameron on AV

From the BBC

He said: "It's a system - AV - so undemocratic that you can vote for a mainstream party just once, whereas someone can vote for a fringe party like the BNP and it's counted three times...
"It's so unfair that the candidates who come second or third can end up winning."

Results of the first round of voting in the last Conservative Leadership Election:-

First Ballot: 18 October 2005
Candidate		Votes	%
	David Davis	62	31.3
	David Cameron	56	28.3
	Liam Fox	42	21.2
	Kenneth Clarke	38	19.2
Turnout		198	100
Kenneth Clarke eliminated

So, the result of that election was that David Davis was elected leader, right? Oh, no.

You see, for some reason, people could vote more than once for a Conservative leader (with candidates being removed in each round) and candidates who come 2nd or third can end up winning.

Yet Cameron hasn't stood down for being elected in such an undemocratic manner. This makes him a hypocrite.

As for the "people who vote for the BNP get multiple votes", this is just lies, designed to scare you. You get 1 vote. The choice you get is like someone in a pub asking you if you fancy some nuts and saying "I'll have dry roast, or salted if they don't have them". When you get salted, how many packets of nuts do you have? You don't have two, do you?

Cranmer's Comments on the AV Letter

From Cranmer:-

Of course, if this reform passes, it is unlikely that the Conservative Party will ever again form a government: we will have perpetual coalition, with the Liberal Democrats forever cast as king-makers.

I couldn't care two hoots if the Conservative Party gets elected again or not. They're one of the 3 elite parties in this country that I want to see respond more to what the people in this country want, rather than just doing as they please. And AV will bring more players to the table and force them into doing so.

Secondly, we have no idea what would happen under AV because voting behaviour changes, because tactical voting almost evaporates. In some seats (like in the South West) it may even be that the LDs are beneficiaries of FPTP, as they're either the main or 2nd candidate.

The fact is that AV would mean that most general elections would result in hung parliaments, which take power away from voters and deliver it into the hands of politicians, who then proceed to negotiate deals behind closed doors, resulting in a government and a programme for which not a single person voted.

And of course, parties always deliver what's in their manifesto, never meet with their backers behind closed doors or pass legislation to keep certain wings of their party happy. Right...

That Letter By Historians on AV

From The Times (paywall)

The referendum on 5th May which threatens to introduce a system of ‘Alternative Voting’ – a voting system which will allow MPs to be elected to Parliament even if they do not win the majority of constituents’ first preference votes – also threatens to break this principle.

For the first time since 1928 and the granting of universal suffrage, we face the possibility that one person’s casting ballot will be given greater weight than another. For the first time in centuries, we face the unfair idea that one citizen’s vote might be worth six times that of another. It will be a tragic consequence if those votes belong to supporters of extremist and non-serious parties.

Twice in our past, the nation has rejected any threat to the principle of one citizen, one vote. The last time, in 1931, Winston Churchill stood against the introduction of an Alternative Vote system. As he argued, AV would mean that elections would be determined by “the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”. He understood that it was simply too great a risk to take.

Well, except for the London Mayoral Elections which are decided by AV.

Oh, little me, with my E in History, fisking a load of well-known Historians.

Barnsley Central, UKIP, AV and Duverger

I've been giving some thought to the result in Barnsley Central, and what it all means.

One important fact is that turnout was way down on the election. This perhaps reflects the fact that by-elections are often protests against the sitting government and that it wasn't going to affect the math in parliament.

The reason I think that UKIP came 2nd was partly that they worked so hard, but also that people knew that they didn't have to vote tactically because it wouldn't change the status of the government. Win or lose, the LD/Con coalition was going to remain in place. So they could vote freely. UKIP doubled their vote and nearly tripled their share of the vote.

And if you look at EU elections, UKIP also score highly because with the PR system, people can vote freely.

This is, of course, why the 2 main parties are so against it. If they ever dramatically screw up (and the expenses scandal was such a screw up), people won't just think "he's a scumbag, but I'll vote for him because I don't want the opposite guy's party in", they'll find another party that they find nearly as agreeable and vote for them.

AV: Duverger's Law

OK, so I've been looking for a name for this thing where people graduate towards 2 parties under FPTP and I've discovered there's a law called Duverger's Law (Duverger was a French sociologist).  I feel better now as I have a name for it.

If you want to know more, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law. It explains why I have such a passionate hatred of FPTP (because it means that politics remains the reserve of existing players rather than working more like a market).

It's also why nearly all the anti-AV writing out there is by people connected with the 2 main parties.

Boris Johnson on AV

From The Daily Telegraph:-

First-past-the-post has served this country well, and served dozens of other countries well. We would be mad to go to a great deal of trouble and expense to adopt a system that is less fair than the one we have.

As it works so well, why don't the Conservative Party use it to elect their leader?