In article 
, 
guy.barry@blueyonder.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:

> On Oct 1, 12:21 pm, rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <_V%wm.277050$_Q3.226...@newsfe20.ams2>,
> >
> > guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:
> > > Yesterday's Guardian reported Labour's commitment to hold a
> > > referendum on electoral reform if it wins the next election as a 
> > > new pledge. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it in their 1997 
> > > manifesto?  As I recall, they commissioned a report from Roy 
> > > Jenkins, then shelved the report and reneged on their manifesto 
> > > commitment, although no one seemed to care too much at the time.
> >
> > > I think the alternative system being proposed this time is the
> > > Alternative Vote rather than the hybrid system proposed by 
> > > Jenkins. (Not that it matters much, given Labour's chances of 
> > > winning the next election.)
> >
> > All true. This "new" promise isn't even for a Proportional system
> > which was in the 1997 promise.
> >
> > AV is a snare and a delusion, which could well be less proportional
> > than FPTP. Until we end the single-member constituency monopoly at 
> > least to some extent (and Jenkins' proposal did that to least extent 
> > yet proposed by any official or semi-official body) then most voters 
> > will continue to be unrepresented in Parliament by MPs they choose.
> 
> Is that right?  I thought the point of AV was that each MP had the
> support of a majority of voters in his/her constituency, so if only a 
> minority of voters go unrepresented in each constituency, then only a
> minority will be unrepresented overall.  (It may still be a very
> large minority of course.)

Sadly not true, hence my "snare and delusion" comment. The best practical 
evidence is Australia which sues AV for its lower House and gets less 
proportional results than FPTP would deliver (making some assumptions as 
always about voting patterns if FPTP were actually used. The other example 
is the election that delivered apartheid to the government of South Africa 
in 1948. Although by FPTP, every MP had over 50% of the vote in their 
constituency yet the party with a majority of the vote nationwide lost.

> I'm a supporter in theory of STV in multi-member constituencies, but I
> can see the drawback in terms of constituency size, especially in rural
> areas. I'm not sure if somewhere like Bath (where I live) would want to 
> give up having its own MP to be lumped in with the rest of Somerset, or 
> (even worse) the former county of Avon.

The ingenuity of the Jenkins proposal was that everywhere would be more or 
less guaranteed some representation for local minority parties but the 
number of non-constituency MPs would be limited. Still not ingenious 
enough for New Labour.

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Council member, Electoral Reform Society
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
mailto:ers@electoral-reform.org.uk

wrote in message
news:lNCdnQtSbe4-SFnXnZ2dnUVZ8madnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In article
> ,
> guy.barry@blueyonder.co.uk (Guy Barry) wrote:

> > I thought the point of AV was that each MP had the
> > support of a majority of voters in his/her constituency, so if only a
> > minority of voters go unrepresented in each constituency, then only a
> > minority will be unrepresented overall.  (It may still be a very
> > large minority of course.)
>
> Sadly not true, hence my "snare and delusion" comment. The best practical
> evidence is Australia which sues AV for its lower House and gets less
> proportional results than FPTP would deliver (making some assumptions as
> always about voting patterns if FPTP were actually used. The other example
> is the election that delivered apartheid to the government of South Africa
> in 1948. Although by FPTP, every MP had over 50% of the vote in their
> constituency yet the party with a majority of the vote nationwide lost.

I'm still a little confused here.  You said that "most voters will continue
to be unrepresented in Parliament by MPs they choose".  If every MP has over
50% of the vote, then surely most voters *will* be represented by MPs they
choose.  The party with an overall majority of the vote may still not win
the most seats of course, but I'd have thought that purely in terms of
constituency representation (rather than the overall composition of
Parliament) AV was a fairer system than FPTP.

--
Guy Barry

Guy Barry wrote:

> I'm still a little confused here.  You said that "most voters will 
> continue
> to be unrepresented in Parliament by MPs they choose".  If every MP has 
> over
> 50% of the vote, then surely most voters *will* be represented by MPs they
> choose.

Well first off turnout is not compulsory, but assuming you mean "those 
voting"...

I haven't seen the detail of this proposal (if there is any) but there are 
variants of AV depending on how many candidates a voter has to give 
preferences to in order for their vote to be valid. In Australian *federal* 
elections a voter has to give preferences to *every* candidate otherwise 
their vote is ruled out, in some state elections voters can only preference 
some or even just one (it varies in detail). Now it is very possible if 
preferencing is optional for so many votes to become exhausted that the 
elected winner has less than 50% of the total number of first preferences.

And even if full preferencing is compulsory, does a voter's ballot paper 
ending up on the victor's pile at the back end of their preferences mean 
that they really did choose that candidate? At the last borough Mayoral 
election my ballot paper finished the count on the Labour candidate's pile. 
This was because I didn't want "RESPECT" to win. But I don't in any way 
think that I "chose" our Labour Mayor because of it.