Political Question

[andrewducker]

At the moment the House of Lords are debating the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

I've heard numerous claims that this bill is incredibly unfair, and blatant gerrymandering by the Conservative Party.

Looking at the details, I'm feeling baffled. I can see a claim that the exemption for the three Scottish constituencies (Two Liberal Democrat, on Scottish National Party) are biased in their favour. But I can't see how a system whereby people are grouped together in what's going to be a massively arbitrary manner (each area must be within 5% of the national average, and are set up by independent bodies - the Boundary Commissions).

I don't really have a stake in this one - I'd just like someone to explain how this system would give an advantage to any one party. I can see that it could _remove_ advantage from a party if the old system with much less equal constituency sizes gave that party an advantage, but I'm totally failing to see how it's anything like gerrymandering.

Am I missing something obvious?

Comments

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

As far as the 'arbitrary' thing goes, see http://stephensliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2011/01/labour-lords-sleeping.html

"The real problem, though, is that sticking a complex programme of boundary change into a bill alongside a referendum for change to the voting system is something of an abuse - it allows the coalition to represet opposition to the bill overall on the basis of the boundary changes as a hypocritical retreat from Labour's manifesto support for AV. The answer is very simple - take the bill and split the two subjects into two bills. And then see what Labour does."
The problem with that is threefold. Firstly, the 'two subjects' are of a piece - without equalised constituencies, AV would create a greater bias in Labour's favour. Secondly, without the boundary changes being part of the bill, the Tories wouldn't vote for it and it wouldn't pass at all. And thirdly the bill has to be passed in less than a month if the referendum is to go ahead.

As for the comments about the Jenkins proposals, well, my own opinion is that AV+ is a horrible system - top up lists mean safe seats for life for leadership loyalists, create a two-tier system of MPs and remove choice from voters. It's a nasty fudge and I'd actually much prefer AV to it, though I'd prefer STV to either. But AV is a *very* small step away from either AV+ or STV, and can be easily modified into either without anything like as much change as the initial step to AV.

Also, if, as is being rumoured, we get a Lords elected by STV, then keeping plain AV for the lower chamber makes some sense - proportional elections for the upper chamber with MPs for smaller local areas elected by AV seems a pretty reasonable system to me.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

And at a slight tangent, this is where I have a problem. It all sounds so complicated, I have no real grasp on what the different systems mean, in real terms. And I consider myself pretty well informed on political matters.

Gods only know how Joe Bloggs on the street thinks and feels about it.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Well, the simple answer is that we've only got a choice between two systems in the referendum anyway. I (and the Lib Dems) may prefer STV, Andrew (and the Greens) may prefer AMS, Roz (and Labour reformists) may prefer AV+, but we've all got to choose between just AV and FPTP. And AV itself is a very, very simple system - see my explanation at http://andrewhickey.info/2010/08/22/the-alternative-vote-system

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Right, so it's not the best system, but it's the best we're ever likely to get?

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

The best we can get through a parliament elected by FPTP, at least. I have hopes that within fifteen years we'll have a better system, but even if not we'll be better off with AV.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

And I suppose it would have to go some to be any worse than the stupid system we have now.

[andrewducker]

Well, not ever. But the best we're being offered this time around.

[skington.livejournal.com]

AV is basically the way the French do it: a majoritarian system, but if nobody gets 50% of the vote at first you eliminate candidates until someone does. The French do it by having a first ballot one weekend, and then another the week (or is it fortnight?) after with only 2 (or in some cases 3 or 4) candidates; AV does it by having people rank candidates in order.

The advantage of moving to AV is that in a few elections' time, once people have got used to voting for candidates 1, 2, 3 rather than putting a cross in a box, you can then move to a more efficient form of voting (e.g. STV in multi-member constituencies). And, of course, once the LibDems have got over the drubbing expected for any junior coalition partner, they'll be in a stronger position to have significant numbers of MPs elected.

Meanwhile the Tories don't have to worry about UKIP costing them seats by splitting the right-wing vote. Assuming they can't convert the LibDems into a long-term junior coalition partner, that is.

[pete stevens (from livejournal.com)]

AV is basically the way the French do it:

there goes any hope of anyone in the Conservative party, UKIP or the BNP voting in favour of it then...

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Actually, amazingly enough, Racist UKIP are supporters of the Yes campaign. The BNP and Tories are, though, the only two parties that have actually come out against it, though Labour are doing everything they can to stop us ever getting to have a vote...

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Oh, I should think if the tories are deadset on this potentially catastrophic NHS reform, then they'll have difficulty holding into the LIbDems as even short-term junior coalition partners...