Best case scenario for UK voting reform?

[LancyIain]

If AV or some form of it were to pass in 2011 would that mean that the Liberal Democrats then back the constituency-resizing and reduction in the number of MPs program? IIRC they backed out by stating that it and the AV issue were linked so since they didn't get what they wanted they wouldn't support the other. Have there been any studies on what the combination of the two might of meant for future general elections?

Not quite accurate. They were willing to go along with redrawing the boundaries to try and equalise the size of constituencies while reducing the number of MPs until it became clear that there were enough Tories opposed to changing the House of Lords to scupper the reform of the second chamber. It was at that point that the LibDems pulled the plug on boundary reform, not when AV failed. At least, that was the case in public, and I doubt that it was any different in private. What surprised me a bit about that was that when the LibDems went through on their promise to not vote for boundary changes in the absence of a reformed Lords there were plenty of surprised Tories, despite the LibDems having made this position clear before Lords reform was shelved. I suppose they either felt the LibDems were poodles who would do whatever the Conservatives want or they believed the LibDems wouldn't keep any of their promises.

Having said that, I suspect that the LibDems would have gone through with the boundary changes if AV had succeeded, whether or not the Lords was reformed. How AV and boundary changes would effect the 2015 election is anybody's guess.

 

[Meadow]

With all due respect, but if you really believe that then I suspect you're wildly overestimating the level of engagement of the electorate with the minutiae of voting reform (are you sure you're not a Liberal Democrat?). I do consider myself fairly engaged, and had to google AV+ and only know what AMS is because I live in Wales and it's the system used for the Assembly.

In particular, I think you're being naive if you don't believe the No campaign would not have a huge amount of fun with the party list element - if people voted no because they thought AV was an undemocratic transfer of power away from the people and towards the professional political class (and I know some did, because I'm one of them) then the party list would turbo charge this sentiment - in theory at least you can always vote out a constituency MP, how the heck do you vote out someone who's wangled a place at the top of a major party's regional list? His loyalty is only ever going to be to the party, not to his voters.

Oh, when I said 'game changer' I didn't necessarily mean the result would be different on a binary level. But I do believe the campaign would've been unrecognisable compared to OTL if some form of PR was involved - Yes would've been infinitely more energised, there would've been a lot more meat behind the idea that 'this makes everyone's votes count' and those Independent graphs showing vote share IOTL compared to seat outcome would become a mainstay of the Yes adverts. No, as you say, would have different ammunition to play with, too.

Yes would probably still lose, as the GBP almost always vote for the status quo. But I think Yes would be more united campaign and it'd be closer. Perhaps not by much, but it's hard to estimate with a completely different campaign. I certainly don't mean to give the impression the GBP are going to ever take to the streets on electoral reform, though!

 

[AndyC]

Ironically, I'd have voted against AMS if that had been on the ballot. Mainly because I think that that is crap

I see AV as simply FPTP with a bugfix, but one that enhances competition (in my cynical viewpoint, that might have been a contributing factor to the reason that most politicians seemed to oppose it )

 

[Will Lucky]

Can't remember if I voted FPTP or spoiled the ballot, AMS though I would have voted for.

But yes, that Yes2AV campaign was quite possibly one of the most incompetent campaigns I've ever witnessed.

 

[Blackadder mk 2]

Oh, when I said 'game changer' I didn't necessarily mean the result would be different on a binary level. But I do believe the campaign would've been unrecognisable compared to OTL if some form of PR was involved - Yes would've been infinitely more energised, there would've been a lot more meat behind the idea that 'this makes everyone's votes count' and those Independent graphs showing vote share IOTL compared to seat outcome would become a mainstay of the Yes adverts. No, as you say, would have different ammunition to play with, too.

Yes would probably still lose, as the GBP almost always vote for the status quo. But I think Yes would be more united campaign and it'd be closer. Perhaps not by much, but it's hard to estimate with a completely different campaign. I certainly don't mean to give the impression the GBP are going to ever take to the streets on electoral reform, though!

I'd say that STV wouldn't have done that much better, about 5% at the most, since a lot of the problems the public had with AV (it's complicated (a lot more could be done with STV compared to AV), Nick Clegg likes it, it's not that important in the grand scheme of things and BNP Voters Influencing Outcome) would have been with STV and more. All that it would have done is pull in a few more Labour voters.

I've mentioned before that one large problem that YES had was that it was for the Guardian, by the Guardian and made it clear that even considering voting Tory was a moral failing. Remember Chris Huhne accusing the Conservatives of Gestapo tactics, Ed Miliband claiming that every vote would count but not Tory ones, the rumour of Gove and Farage offering to give support and then being told how evil they were?

I'm not in the camp that says that a Farage-run campaign would have won, far from it. It would have, however, provided YES with a bit more variety in winning over voters, seeing as NO had John Reid, Margaret Beckett and David Cameron all working together fine while YES had Miliband refusing to even look at anyone right of Vince Cable (somewhat understandable but it doesn't exactly help with the impression that YES was for the discontent LibDems). Having Gove, Miliband, Cable and Farage on the same platform at least may have allowed for YES to be forced to expand their horizons and would have made it tricky for Cameron to okay too sharp attacks if his own close ally is on the other team rather than a bunch of LibDems.

Of course, that would have only changed things by 10% at the most, when the real issue is in providing a reason for bipartisan consensus on the matter. You'd need the two main parties to see the alternate voting system (whether AV, STV, AMS or D-I-S-C-O) as preferable to FPTP enough to make such a large change, which could happen if the Conservatives face an insurgent party similar to the Liberals with Labour after WWI.

 

[LancyIain]

Of course, that would have only changed things by 10% at the most, when the real issue is in providing a reason for bipartisan consensus on the matter. You'd need the two main parties to see the alternate voting system (whether AV, STV, AMS or D-I-S-C-O) as preferable to FPTP enough to make such a large change, which could happen if the Conservatives face an insurgent party similar to the Liberals with Labour after WWI.

Now why couldn't they have proposed the DISCO method? A Dance In Street Creative Operation (i.e., a dance off) is surely the best method put forward so far to elect our politicians!