Why we don't *need* AV (aka: I lost, of course I'm bitter)
I'm sure every no-voter has their own reasons, and obviously I'm disappointed by the result. But seriously? You actually *like* FPTP? What is *wrong* with you people?
I might have to concede: not all that much beyond preferring politics as it is, to an uncertain change.
Since any change is uncertain, I think that puts those who disapprove of politics as it is, but voted "No" anyway, in a bit of a bind, but that's for them to figure their way out of and suggest something they think would be an an improvement. Nothing so far.
With the possible exception of some rascally politicians, everyone would like the government to rule by the will of the people, but except at a time of widespread revolutionary fervor that's pretty difficult to achieve.
In fact, we'll settle for a government ruling by the consent of the people. There may be many possible governments that could gain consent, and by definition of "consent" we'll put up with any one of them regardless of what we'd prefer. Regardless even of whether a majority of people would all prefer some other particular government, were it offered. And that's exactly what FPTP delivers a lot of the time - a winning candidate and a government that would lose to some other candidate or some other government, were they the only two on offer.
68% of 42% of the electorate is at the least prepared to consent to the FPTP winner, and in many cases actively wants that person to win even when they voted for someone else. And 58% of the electorate doesn't give a stuff either way. Aside from a tiny number that doesn't vote because it doesn't consent to the whole damn system, they all consent to the FPTP winner too.
If over 85% of the electorate is satisfied or better with what we've got, it's pretty clear firstly that there's no democratic basis for a change, and secondly that there's to be no complaining from any of them that the system sucks. And this means Lord Owen too: you'd rather have FPTP than AV, and you've got FPTP. Well done you. By all means continue to campaign for PR, but recognizing that you no longer have any right to criticize the consequences of winners by plurality.
AV aims to choose as your parliamentary representative, someone who has the preference of as many voters as possible[*]. It is about challenging those who win a plurality in three-or-more-party constituencies, about encouraging more parties, with more manifesto suggestions and more points of view, to participate in elections, and about choosing a better, more representative MP for your constituency. Lord Owen and the mainstream No2AV campaign both pointed out that it doesn't solve all the problems that constituency FPTP creates at a national level. They won without really doing much more than that (well, making up some nonsense, but the people who believed that rubbish about "person in third wins" or "costs 250 million quid" essentially can't be reasoned with -- either they were voting "No" for other reasons and had no incentive to question it, which is fair enough, or else they'll vote for whoever runs the shinier campaign. Which is lamentable, but gullible people's votes have to count too or else where would it end?).
Even in countries that use PR, so that their parliament is representative of the electorate as a whole, many use closed or partly-closed party lists. This is back to consent, rather than expressing a preference between multiple options. Unlike No2AV, I'm a big believer in the citizen's ability to fill in a simple form[**], but even I'd admit that completely open lists and MTV start to get a bit taxing.
So there's the fundamental problem - why make the effort to choose a better candidate or a better electoral system, when the one you have is good enough to prevent violent revolution? 58% of the electorate, as referendum abstainers, think there's no reason at all, and that's a majority before you even count the "No"s. I'm not sure it can really matter whether the rest of us are rabidly pro-AV, pro-FPTP or pro- some form of PR. The whole debate and both campaigns may well be in minority opinion that political systems matter at all beyond a basic nod towards having some kind of election every now and again. That nod did Hosni Mubarak fine for very nearly 30 years, which is a decent run by any politician's standards. I don't claim that those who take no view on AV vs FPTP would consent to a one-party dictatorial police state, but I can't be sure they wouldn't.
I have a pretty strong hunch that unless held at the same time as a general election, no proposed electoral reform would attract a much better turnout than this one did. Even given that polling said it wasn't close, which tends to depress turnout a bit in any vote, I think that Britain broadly speaking doesn't care how MPs are selected. Or, I suspect, whether they're any good. So if the next lot are awful: that's why.
[*] well, perhaps not as many as possible, since you could accept Condorcet winners whereas the AV proposal here didn't. But I think as many as possible subject to the simplifying principle that everyone gets a single vote (which in AV is transferable from round to round, as in any runoff system) and the person with the most votes at the end wins. Condorcet violates this by considering all of your preferences simultaneously. AV doesn't.
[**] On which subject, is it even faintly consistent to believe firstly that AV is too complicated, and secondly that at least one member of every residence in the country must fill in the census on pain of a 1000 pound fine? I don't really see how it could be.
I might have to concede: not all that much beyond preferring politics as it is, to an uncertain change.
Since any change is uncertain, I think that puts those who disapprove of politics as it is, but voted "No" anyway, in a bit of a bind, but that's for them to figure their way out of and suggest something they think would be an an improvement. Nothing so far.
With the possible exception of some rascally politicians, everyone would like the government to rule by the will of the people, but except at a time of widespread revolutionary fervor that's pretty difficult to achieve.
In fact, we'll settle for a government ruling by the consent of the people. There may be many possible governments that could gain consent, and by definition of "consent" we'll put up with any one of them regardless of what we'd prefer. Regardless even of whether a majority of people would all prefer some other particular government, were it offered. And that's exactly what FPTP delivers a lot of the time - a winning candidate and a government that would lose to some other candidate or some other government, were they the only two on offer.
68% of 42% of the electorate is at the least prepared to consent to the FPTP winner, and in many cases actively wants that person to win even when they voted for someone else. And 58% of the electorate doesn't give a stuff either way. Aside from a tiny number that doesn't vote because it doesn't consent to the whole damn system, they all consent to the FPTP winner too.
If over 85% of the electorate is satisfied or better with what we've got, it's pretty clear firstly that there's no democratic basis for a change, and secondly that there's to be no complaining from any of them that the system sucks. And this means Lord Owen too: you'd rather have FPTP than AV, and you've got FPTP. Well done you. By all means continue to campaign for PR, but recognizing that you no longer have any right to criticize the consequences of winners by plurality.
AV aims to choose as your parliamentary representative, someone who has the preference of as many voters as possible[*]. It is about challenging those who win a plurality in three-or-more-party constituencies, about encouraging more parties, with more manifesto suggestions and more points of view, to participate in elections, and about choosing a better, more representative MP for your constituency. Lord Owen and the mainstream No2AV campaign both pointed out that it doesn't solve all the problems that constituency FPTP creates at a national level. They won without really doing much more than that (well, making up some nonsense, but the people who believed that rubbish about "person in third wins" or "costs 250 million quid" essentially can't be reasoned with -- either they were voting "No" for other reasons and had no incentive to question it, which is fair enough, or else they'll vote for whoever runs the shinier campaign. Which is lamentable, but gullible people's votes have to count too or else where would it end?).
Even in countries that use PR, so that their parliament is representative of the electorate as a whole, many use closed or partly-closed party lists. This is back to consent, rather than expressing a preference between multiple options. Unlike No2AV, I'm a big believer in the citizen's ability to fill in a simple form[**], but even I'd admit that completely open lists and MTV start to get a bit taxing.
So there's the fundamental problem - why make the effort to choose a better candidate or a better electoral system, when the one you have is good enough to prevent violent revolution? 58% of the electorate, as referendum abstainers, think there's no reason at all, and that's a majority before you even count the "No"s. I'm not sure it can really matter whether the rest of us are rabidly pro-AV, pro-FPTP or pro- some form of PR. The whole debate and both campaigns may well be in minority opinion that political systems matter at all beyond a basic nod towards having some kind of election every now and again. That nod did Hosni Mubarak fine for very nearly 30 years, which is a decent run by any politician's standards. I don't claim that those who take no view on AV vs FPTP would consent to a one-party dictatorial police state, but I can't be sure they wouldn't.
I have a pretty strong hunch that unless held at the same time as a general election, no proposed electoral reform would attract a much better turnout than this one did. Even given that polling said it wasn't close, which tends to depress turnout a bit in any vote, I think that Britain broadly speaking doesn't care how MPs are selected. Or, I suspect, whether they're any good. So if the next lot are awful: that's why.
[*] well, perhaps not as many as possible, since you could accept Condorcet winners whereas the AV proposal here didn't. But I think as many as possible subject to the simplifying principle that everyone gets a single vote (which in AV is transferable from round to round, as in any runoff system) and the person with the most votes at the end wins. Condorcet violates this by considering all of your preferences simultaneously. AV doesn't.
[**] On which subject, is it even faintly consistent to believe firstly that AV is too complicated, and secondly that at least one member of every residence in the country must fill in the census on pain of a 1000 pound fine? I don't really see how it could be.