ICM poll: 48% want PR; YouGov: 62% want "more proportional" system

I haven't found the exact questions asked yet.

Parties such as BNP of getting seats in Westminster. I voted for a big party in the hopes of keeping BNP out and we were successful for this election. With PR it'd be impossible to keep them out.

What do you think of this negative towards PR?

That can't be guaranteed, of course; but if you had STV, with 5 or 6 member constituencies, then they need a bit more support than they got in the European elections to break the barrier. One advantage with STV is that if there's a good bloc of "any of the main parties, but never BNP" voters, they can distribute their 2nd etc. choice votes to the main parties (or Greens etc.).

With AV+, it's a little more difficult to keep the BNP out totally; they wouldn't get any constituency seats, but they might qualify for top-up seats in a few areas, because that doesn't allow a voting pattern from people of "anyone but the BNP". Again, the smaller the area in which you count top-up seats, the higher the hurdle over which they have to get.

I'll see if I can work up some numbers in an example.

One good bit of news in this election has been that Griffin got less votes in Barking than the BNP would have got in the nominal 2005 result. So it looks as though the infighting in the BNP will increase. The BNP kept 72 deposits (ie got at least 5% of the vote in that constituency), which is worrying, but lost 266. If those held deposits are concentrated in a few areas, they're still a danger.

Large regional areas do not help, just look at MEP's. Within your region all of your MEP's are your MEP, which in effect means none are.

"will need to" retain a strong constituency link ?

	C	L	LD	SNP	PC	Other
FPTP	307	258	57	6	3	19
STV	246	207	162	13	4	18
AV	281	262	79	5	3	20

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=469

AV (as opposed to AV+) would benefit Labour very slightly, and the Lib Dems a bit more - enough for them toe be able to be a coalition government without other parties (if the ERS's model is correct, of course). STV (they say they've done the constituencies at 3, 4 or 5 seats each, based on county boundaries and "areas likely to have common interest of characteristics") would end up with numbers pretty close to the national vote we had this time.

Which of these systems would most closely resemble the system we have in Australia?

http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/single/by_category/preferential.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting#Australia

The single transferrable vote is the system used to elect members to the Australian Senate; the alternative vote (also called preferential voting) is the system used to elect members to the Australian House of Representatives.

It's almost impossible for 3rd parties to the House, that being a Green candidate from Sydney a few years ago.

AV (or having a second-round of voting) is a very good system for electing executives (i.e. Presidents) because plurality voting in a presidential can lead to very unrepresentative results (especially when one ideology's factions are more divided than another's, the 2000 Taiwanese election coming to mind in this instance ), but it leads to some very unfair results in legislative elections.

We have the two systems operating, but a revised British system would have one or the other.

In practice, it's pretty impossible for anyone outside the two major parties to gain a seat in the Lower House,
but in the Senate, it's much more open, so that's where parties like the Greens can have an influence. I'd
imagine that the system we have in the Lower House would make more sense for your House of Commons, otherwise
you might end up with the kind of situation you have now.

I live in a blue-riband Liberal (Conservative) seat, held by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, and it's almost a waste
of time to cast a vote for the Reps, except to make a statement, because he's always going to get in. It's the
Senate vote that counts in our electorate.


Edited for clarity

This was the system recommended by the Jenkins Commission in the late 90s - Roy Jenkins being an ex-Labour politician who then co-founded the SDP, which was a forerunner of the Lib Dems. Having set up the commission, Tony Blair said "well, thank you for your work" and then ignored it. It has the advantage, for these negotiations, of being fairly flexible on how truly proportional it is - the more seats you use for the party lists, the more proportional it becomes. Labour proposed AV before the election; it's possible they might accept a small top-up portion as the price for the coalition.

it's the extraordinary number of ways there are of recording votes. I never realised before that there are so
many different systems. I thought there was basically either first-past-the-post or preferential, but it seems
there are almost endless permutations on these systems.

There's Approval Voting, where you say for each candidate "OK" or "not OK", and the candidate with the most OKs wins; or even a version called range voting of that where you rate each candidate on a scale of 0 to 10 (or whatever), and combine the results somehow. Or weighted voting, where each voters has a maximum number of points to distribute as they see fit among candidates. Or ...

People can't manage even a simple cross any more?

it took me a couple of decades to find out just how our voting system works.

For years, I thought my vote would be invalid if I didn't follow the party's "How to Vote" card - these are handed
out to voters at polling stations, and each party tells the voters what order to place candidates in according to
the preference deals done by each party. Nobody told me I could make up my own mind so, election after election,
I just followed the card. When my kids were old enough to vote, I made sure I explained to them all I knew about
the system, at the risk of boring them silly.

But I wonder how many other people have an imperfect understanding of how their particular system works?

and that's the kind of thing I can see a lot of people assuming - that their preferred party has explained the system fully, when in fact they explain it to their advantage. Certainly, the STV system, where you can order candidates in your own preference, insert independents or people from other parties in the middle of a 'run' of candidates from one party if you want, only vote for a part of the candidates from one party if you want, and so on, needs a good explanation. I think the vast majority of people are up to understanding it fully, as long as they pay attention - they understand far more complicated processes in everyday life - but I can see it's a concern in a system.

It's when people simply vote from no. 1 on down the list in order - in other words, they don't know and don't care
who they're voting for, hence "the donkey vote". So where a candidate is listed on the ballot paper is very
important - I believe it's drawn by lot, which is the only fair way, given the number of donkeys out there.

Hurrah!

The Skin