UK voting

On the 5th of May the UK is voting on reform of their electoral system. This resulted from an agreement the Conservatives had when forming the coalition with the LibDems. Back when we all sang 'i'm with nick'. 

Currently UK MPs are elected using first-past-the-post, a situation common to a lot of democracies, even if it results in:

* a two-party system

* election of MPs who may not have 'won' (earned?) a majority of the vote. 

It's the latter that the LibDems have emphasised and used to demand the referendum, obviously it's impossible to know how many seats would have changed under a different system at the last election. Some press reports have suggested 35 seats (mainly to libdems or labour), but it's still guesswork. But to explain this, lets assume there's 100 votes in an electorate, and 10 candidates. 8 of those candidates get 10 votes each, one gets 9, and the winner has 11. That's 11% of the vote, and they are now an MP, simplistic yes, but it happens that way. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

So what are the options? Obviously the status quo, and a form of proportional representation termed 'AV', or Altenative Vote. This system allows voters to rank the candidates (but no party vote as in NZ MMP) in order of preference. When counted, if no candidate gets above 50% of the votes cast, then the lowest polling candidate is dropped off, and the votes for them reallocated on the basis of second choices. This continues until one candidate achieves 50% of the votes. 

One thing to note, and it's something that hasn't been made too obvious, is that you are under no obligation to provide alternatives, if you only like one candidate, just vote for that one.

The campaigns, both yes (to AV) and no (to change), has been hampered by some nuptials next Friday. 

Unusually there's no campaigning under party lines, leading to some interesting meetings on the campaign trail. Although the toxicity of Clegg means he's been effectively banned, which is somewhat ironic.

The No campaigners point to hung parliaments, unstable coalitions (more irony!),  a lengthy parliamentary tradition, and generally appealing to the inherent conservatism of most people.

The Yes campaigners point to the unfairness to smaller parties of FPP, and how AV will help engage the voting public, and provide a more balanced and open electoral process.

My concerns are that:

* voter turnout will be low, as it's not linked with anything, not even (in most cases) local elections. Optimistic estimates are saying 20% of the enrolled voters, I'm not sure it'll reach 15%. That means that the electoral system change will be decided on by those who are passionately for/against (which is fine), and old people. Sadly old people are more likely to vote conservatively. 

* even at this late stage there is a huge level of ignorance within the populace. Not only concerning the subject of the referendum, but also, incredibly, when it's being held.

Most people agree that AV isn't the best option, but then again when referenda are held, when is the best option ever selected? I seem to remember, that MMP wasn't the best option either...

So my views? I think AV is a better option that FPP, if only as it should focus politics back, slightly, on the electorate. That maybe slightly optimistic, but the current system where you've effectively got two parties, local interests are often subsumed into party views.

That doesn't always hold, and I'm well aware of the blanket nature of my comment. The libdems came from no-where in the last election, based largely on disgust of the other two, and that Clegg came across very well in the debates. But even at the time, knowledge of who the rest of the libdems were was low. Cult of personality?

I have problems with AV,MMP etc that although they encourage more involvement in political awareness (sometimes) - at least initially - I don't think they're sustainable. NZ, with MMP, has been held to ransom by petty grandstanding politicians (ahhh Winnie, you idiot), although it has brought more of a voice to smaller niche views (eg. Green's). 

But when I've flicked through results in electoral systems that have some form of proportional representation, the impression I'm left with is after a period, the system reverts to a two party race. 

That makes sense from a systems viewpoint, where you'd expect things to move back to a normal distribution. I dare say there's some study out there demonstrating this in political systems. I might even try and find one later.

It's fair to say I'll be turning up to vote, and will probably go for AV. I have no time for people who a) do not enrol to vote, and b) do not exercise their democratic right, so if I'm going to be all wankerish about that, I do have to make the effort myself :)

Will it change things? I don't think it will get through, there's more money in the No team, and conservatism is the default english approach (from what I've seen). And any momentum the Yes team had after the election, has been nullified by the public perception of Clegg, and the number of competing interests at this time of year (Easter, wedding, even FA cup finals).

A lot of this is my thinking, so those of you who have Pols degrees...go forth and rip !

B