Referendum on Voting Reform to be held on May 5th 2011

[plekhanov]

Nick Clegg unveils voting and constituency reforms

By Daniel Bentley, Press Association

 

Sweeping reforms to parliamentary constituencies will be introduced alongside moves to change the voting system, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced today.

 

The Government's proposed boundary review, equalising the size of all but two constituencies, would be in place in time for its planned 2015 general election, he said.

 

Mr Clegg also confirmed that a referendum on replacing first-past-the-post Westminster elections with the Alternative Vote (AV) will be held on May 5 next year.

 

He said that legislation on the boundary review would pave the way for the process to be completed by 2013, in time for the selection of candidates ahead of a poll on May 7 2015.

 

"That means that, in the event of a vote in favour of AV, the 2015 general election will be held on the new system and according to new boundaries," Mr Clegg told MPs.

 

The boundary review would result in the number of MPs being cut from 650 to 600. Mr Clegg said that would save £12 million a year in pay, pensions and allowances.

 

The Boundary Commission will be required to bring all but two constituencies within 5% of a target number of registered electors.

 

The two exceptions were the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland because they are "uniquely placed, given their locations".

 

Mr Clegg also overhauled the Government's plans to enshrine fixed-term parliaments in law, renouncing a previous plan requiring 55% of MPs to vote for a dissolution.

 

Under a Bill to be introduced within the next few weeks, Parliament would be dissolved and an election held if no Government could be formed within 14 days of a simple majority vote of no confidence.

 

There would also be the power for MPs to call an "early and immediate" dissolution, but a majority of two-thirds would be needed in those circumstances.

 

In a statement to the Commons, Mr Clegg said: "Together these proposals help correct the deep unfairness in the way we hold elections in this country.

 

"Under the current set-up, votes count more in some parts of the country than others, and millions feel that their votes don't count at all.

 

"Elections are won and lost in a small minority of seats.

 

"We have a fractured democracy, where some people's votes count and other people's votes don't count, where some people are listened to, and others ignored."

 

Shadow justice secretary Jack Straw said Labour backed a referendum on AV, which it promised in its own manifesto.

 

But he said the party would oppose the legislation because of the "outrageously partisan" boundary changes designed to "gerrymander" constituencies.

 

Six of the 10 largest constituencies and only three of the 10 smallest were Labour-held, he pointed out.

 

He also described the decision to move away from the 55% confidence threshold as "the first major U-turn of this Government - and in less than two months".

 

"Why didn't you think before about the impossibility of a government hanging on after it had lost a vote of no confidence by a simple majority? It would have saved you a great deal of embarrassment," he told Mr Clegg.

It would seem like unlike recently deposed government the current one actually intends to stand by its commitment to giving the population a chance to vote on proposed changes to the way the UK is governed. Shame it's not on PR but AV will be a nice start.

[Rupert_Baehr]

How will the AV system work? Is it really fair?

 

Consider a seat with 3 candidates. Conservative, Lib-Dem and Labour.

 

If, under the First past the post system, 40% of the candidates would have voted Labour, 30% would have voted Conservative and 30% would have voted Lib-Dem, then the seat would have been won by Labour, although they only got 40% of the vote.

 

From what I've heard, under the AV system, the electorate would vote '!st, 2nd 3rd etc'.

 

So in this seat:

 

The 40% who would've voted Labour would probably vote Lib-Dem as 2nd choice - they'd hardly be likely to vote Conservative.

 

The 30% who would've voted Conservative would probably vote Lib-Dem - they would hardly be likely to vote Labour.

 

Let's assume that half of the Lib-Dems gave their second-place vote to Labour and half to the Conservatives.

 

Nobody got more than 50% of the first place votes, but the Lib-Dems got 70% of the 2nd place votes. - So - with only 30% of the first choice, they get elected? - Why?

[BritPat]

How will the AV system work? Is it really fair?

 

Consider a seat with 3 candidates. Conservative, Lib-Dem and Labour.

 

If, under the First past the post system, 40% of the candidates would have voted Labour, 30% would have voted Conservative and 30% would have voted Lib-Dem, then the seat would have been won by Labour, although they only got 40% of the vote.

 

From what I've heard, under the AV system, the electorate would vote '!st, 2nd 3rd etc'.

 

So in this seat:

 

The 40% who would've voted Labour would probably vote Lib-Dem as 2nd choice - they'd hardly be likely to vote Conservative.

 

The 30% who would've voted Conservative would probably vote Lib-Dem - they would hardly be likely to vote Labour.

 

Let's assume that half of the Lib-Dems gave their second-place vote to Labour and half to the Conservatives.

 

Nobody got more than 50% of the first place votes, but the Lib-Dems got 70% of the 2nd place votes. - So - with only 30% of the first choice, they get elected? - Why?

 

 

I believe that the last placed candidate is discarded and the second choices of those that voted for the last placed candidate are distributed amongst the relevant remaining candidates the process continues until such time as a candidate breaks the 50% mark.

[esme]

I believe that the last placed candidate is discarded and the second choices of those that voted for the last placed candidate are distributed amongst the relevant remaining candidates the process continues until such time as a candidate breaks the 50% mark.

 

correct

 

so with Rupert_Baehr's example if we discard the lib dems and take their second place votes this would give another 15% to labour in this example making their total 55% so they would win

 

if we discard the conservatives however, with their second choice being lib dem the lib dems suddenly get boosted to 60% so they would win

 

but how often have you seen a tie for votes in a contituency ? if there's even a single vote difference then whoever got less would be discarded

[Meaks]

It would be a drop in the ocean, but better than nothing.

[Stoatwobbler]

And if the British people vote "No" in a referendum on electoral reform, then it's difficult to see much of a future for the Liberal Democrats.

[llamatron]

maybe it would result in all of the parties coming closer to centre as instead of appealing to people they would have to not disappeal-if that makes sense. Labour would have to be less left and the tories would have to be less right. It might be a bad thing as there would be less diversity on the other hand it might stop the ridiculous pendulum of both parties taking it too far

[Rupert_Baehr]

Thanks for the explanation & confirmation Brit Pat and Esmé.

 

I'd still prefer a system where I could vote for somebody to represent me - somebody who lives near where I do (wasn't sent there just for the election), somebody who knows the local area and its problems, somebody who is accountable to me, not to a party.

[plekhanov]

Thanks for the explanation & confirmation Brit Pat and Esmé.

 

I'd still prefer a system where I could vote for somebody to represent me - somebody who lives near where I do (wasn't sent there just for the election), somebody who knows the local area and its problems, somebody who is accountable to me, not to a party.

The relationship between elected representatives and voters under AV is identical to that we currently have under FPTP.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Precisely. That's why I wrote what I did. Changing to AV, STD or whatever isn't going to alter the fact that the voter elects a member of a party, not a representative.