From the play Jumpers by Tom Stoppard
Subtitle:Will the system of AV change anything for me?
Before the last election I wrote this on the discussion boards about how irrelevant it is to be voting in the General Election because as a Harringay resident it couldn’t affect shape of the government we end up with.Then, like now, I understood all the implications of not voting but there was – from my point of view – no point.
Of course I did vote – and it turned out I voted to put Mr Cameron in power which was and still is a surprise. So lesson learnt I guess.
The New Economics Foundation have done a follow up on the tool I used in the previous post to take into account the Alternative Vote (AV) method we are going to vote on May 5th. It is called :
The voter power index AV edition.
You input your postcode and this is the result for Tottenham.
However that is not the whole story.
The system will not change the electoral makeup of Tottenham. Not that I think it should of course as Mr Lammy clearly has the strong support of his constituents under any system.
In my previous post I noted that my vote was worth 83 times less than my mate in ISLINGTON SOUTH & FINSBURY. Under this system it is only about 40 times less. So that is progress.
But having chosen to live in an “ultra safe” constituency the effect of the AV system here is insignificant.
I have faith in adults to actually put candidates in preference order, so I still support AV.
*Added later.
Got a reply from David Lammy. He supports AV as well.
Tags for Forum Posts: AV, AlternativeVote, Harringay, Tottenham, election, vote
I accept part of this: people will certainly be more likely to give their first preference to a minor party, safe in the knowledge that when the inevitable happens, and their preferences are re-allocated, their choice of the lesser of two evils will get their vote-that-counts.
But I don't see how this makes it any less of a miserable little compromise. If I were a Green supporter, my vote in Tottenham, or pretty much any electorate in the country with the exception of Brighton Pier, would count no more than it does now, in the sense of securing representation at Westminster.
As for the possibility you suggest, that David Lammy may be moved by the fact that a certain proportion of his voters gave their first preferences to the Greens, Monster Raving Looney Party etc and only then ticked Labour, as the images above indicate, I don't think this will give him too many sleepless nights. (Unless the wind changes, cats and dogs start living together, and Green voters start giving their subsequent preferences to Tory en bloc, that is). Green voters will still give their preference to Labour, and UKIP voters to the Tories "just to be sure", and under AV, it is these which are determinative, not the first preferences, which are then ignored.
I think the argument for incremental change is hopeful in the extreme. This referendum was only offered up by the Tories on sufferance because of the position they found themselves in the day after the election. It is most unlikely to be repeated, and, from the tenor of the discussions and the strength of the resistance that even this trifling change has met, I doubt it will recur.
This is why I am so disappointed at Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem negotiators. I supported them because of his loudly and publicly expressed policy before the election that he would push for AV+ (itself a compromise, but less miserable than AV). Then voters would then have had the option of a partially proportional electoral system.
For a good overview of what AV will/will not do, I recommend this document from the Political Studies Association. Not affiliated with either campaign, just setting out the facts clearly (page 2's a good summary).
Oh but it was dreadful discussion! That tory was awful and trotting out the usual: its too complicated, people can't choose and people who dont get their first choice get more votes.
Mark B, I was struck by your comment:
"Of course I did vote – and it turned out I voted to put Mr Cameron in power which was and still is a surprise. So lesson learnt I guess."
So I'm wondering what you think the lesson was. That a 'hung' Parliament did not, after all, produce moderate centrist policies?
I once saw a cartoon where a smiling man is saying: "Power corrupts. Oh, yes! I can feel it working."
I am an optimist Alan - so I like to believe that what we have is better than what it was looking like a month before the election. But in terms of percentage vote I am sure Mr Clegg used votes like mine to justify his place at the top table.
As to your question. Interesting! I hadn't thought about it. I never experienced a coalition before and I see now that if you make something a red line issue then you can be very extreme - whilst claiming you are moderating thing overall.
To put it another way I am continually stunned about how the Lib Dems continue to justify their position. And I cannot believe whatever the voting system (and I hope we get AV) that at the next election there will not be a fallout based on what happened.
(not relevant here but I firmly blame Mr Brown for failing to discuss the deficit before the election. It gave whoever got elected essentially a free hand).
© 2024 Created by Hugh. Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh