If there is any sincerity at all in the move to have a referendum on our voting system, then we need to get away from the false dichotomy of First Past The Post vs Alternative Vote (FPTP vs AV).
The whole point of having the referendum is to let the public decide what system they feel they want to have, not to have this narrow choice between two compromises that might suit the incumbents.
The options are wider than just these two. The implications are broader, too.
We have STV, STV+, AV and potentially other variations.
Do you want Communism or Socialism? Neither? Not allowed. Sound familiar? What is the point of going through all the process of education, explanation and voting if we are only limited to the two systems?
Some people protest that to be against AV just because it is not perfect enough is to miss the point, that any move forward should be grasped. Yes and no.
We are not talking about some kind of fait acompli, some hard-wired option that cannot be broken no matter what. Yes, if we have FPTP, people wanting to change the voting system must get it changed by building a power base voted in via the existing system. That I understand, but now the genie of voting system reform is uncorked, the idea you should shackle it into just two flavours is rather odd.
Still, even then, we have a problem, for the voting referendum will, itself, be FPTP. When you have a straight two horse race between incumbent and replacement, it is going to be a simple FPTP event and that is logical.
When one introduces multiple alternatives, then the vote becomes more complex.
It raises the question of what mechanism do you use to determine the preferred and even least worst alternative?
We, in truth, need to decide what system we use to determine the outcome of the referendum itself.
We need a referendum on the voting system used to determine the referendum. Ad infinitum.
Maybe this is why they decided to only have a straight battle.
However, if the AV system wins, is it viable to accept the premise that what is being voted on is, in fact, "change"? "change" is a dangerous concept. We need to get away from blind "change". That got us New Labour and Obama.
So, to mitigate the danger of this blind "change", to lance the boil, why not have a secondary part of the vote using AV to determine what might be the final alternative? Why not do this on the same day?
As AV is to be the winner for "change", according to the assertion above, then could we not make the referendum into "Keep or Change, and if Change wins, Change to what?", with alternatives laid out with an AV mechanism to decide them.
People voting against change can then still vote on what poison they will have to swallow. People who want to vote for change away from FPTP will not have to accept the false dichotomy that gives them AV.
Maybe there are flaws in this plan, but the current trajectory risks another "change" and not necessarily what people actually want.
Why is it?
1 day ago
4 comments:
The ideal way to do it would be to have a referendum saying "Do you want to change our voting system to something other than FPTP" with simple Yes/No options. If the Yes vote wins, then have a proper vote to determine which system people want - of course the question is how to do the proper vote...
"We need a referendum on the voting system used to determine the referendum. Ad infinitum."
Yes, and you've answered the question as to why we have to go through AV first: the muddying of the water through any other route.
Try arguing for FPTP against AV, it's impossible; impossible on any principled basis anyway. Now try arguing against the specific reform proposals in any other way...
LabourList: The coalition's reforms are a great threat to our cause
...it becomes frankly hilarious.
Excellent article.
The problem here is that there may be people for whom FPTP is their second choice, so the two-step "Change/No Change" followed by "What sort of change?" is actually biased against FPTP.
It might be fairer to just go straight to an AV referendum including all of the choices. It would be more complicated, though.
It's depressing that what we're striving for is tyranny of the majority, as an improvement on tyranny of a politically elite minority. It might even give worse results, though I hope not.
As the Libertarian Alliance puts it:
"What we want is a Government so small, that it doesn't matter where it is, what it does, who's in it,
or how they got there"
Of course, we must not only convince the public that this is what they want, but remain ever vigilant to ensure they don't forget.
A long hard road ahead. Keep up the good work.
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
Post a Comment