Esk

This post was inspired by this rant by Tajasel.

There’s a lot of talk about AV being used only by 3 countries. This is true (if you don’t count Ireland’s president). What does that imply, though? Does it mean it’s not very good? Possibly. Does it mean it’s worse than FPTP? Definitely not. Voting systems by nation - here are the countries that use AV (IRV) for electing the house as per a Yes vote on Thursday:

Australia
Fiji
Papua New Guinea

Ok. So that’s not promising. But the thing is, have you looked at the list for who uses pure unadulterated First Past The Post for the house - as we have it now - as a No vote would guarantee remains our system for a generation?

Antigua and Barbuda
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belize
Bermuda
Bhutan
Botswana
Burma
Canada
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
India
Ivory Coast
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Liberia
Malawi
Malaysia
Mongolia
Nigeria
Palau
St. Kitts
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Kingdom
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe.

So, FPTP fans, if you like it so much why don’t you go live there?

“Where’s everyone else?”, I hear you ask. They all have one of the myriad ways of implementing proportional representation. Mixed-member, party lists (including D’Hondt and Sainte-Laguë methods), or STV.

Sorry to go all first-world on your ass, but CIVILISED COUNTRIES USE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
List of countries by democracy score gives this top 26 of countries that have full democracy, to which I have appended the voting system each country uses:

1. Norway, Modified Sainte-Laguë method (Open list) which is a kind of Proportional Representation
2. Iceland, President by FPTP, house by D’Hondt method, which is a kind of Proportional Representation
3. Denmark, D’Hondt method, which is a kind of Proportional Representation
4. Sweden, Modified Sainte-Laguë (Open list) which is a kind of Proportional Representation
5. New Zealand, MMP: Sainte-Laguë method (51+ seats) / FPTP (69 district seats which also includes 7 seats reserved for Maori) which is a kind of Proportional Representation
6. Australia, Senate STV, House IRV (Alternative Vote)
7. Finland, Presidential Runoff, House D’Hondt method, which is a kind of Proportional Representation
8. Switzerland, D’Hondt method, Runoff for cantons, D’Hondt is a kind of Proportional Representation
9. Canada, First Past The Post
10. Netherlands, D’Hondt method for both houses, which is a kind of Proportional Representation
11. Luxembourg, D’Hondt method, which is a kind of Proportional Representation
12. Ireland, President by IRV (Alternative Vote and houses by STV, which is a kind of Proportional Representation
13. Austria, President by Runoff and house by Largest remainder and D’Hondt, which are kinds of Proportional Representation
14. Germany, MMP: Sainte-Laguë / FPTP, Sainte-Lague is a kind of Proportional Representation
15. Malta, STV, whichs a kind of Proportional Representation
16. Czech Republic, D’Hondt method and runoff for Senate, D’Hondt is a kind of Proportional Representation
17. United States, FPTP with primaries for senate and house, Electoral college for President. A kind of First Past The Post.
18. Spain, D’Hondt for congress, Partial Bloc for Senate. D’Hondt is a kind of Proportional Representation
19. United Kingdom, First Past The Post Yeah, we’re 19th. Lower than you thought, isn’t it?
20. South Korea, FPTP for President, Party list + FPTP for house. Party list is a kind of Proportional Representation
21. Uruguay, D’Hondt method, a kind of Proportional Representation
22. Japan, D’Hondt + FPTP (house or representatives), D’Hondt + SNTV (Councillors), D’Hondt being a kind of Proportional Representation
23. Belgium, D’Hondt, which as we are aware by now, is a kind of Proportional Representation
24. Mauritius, FPTP + best loser system, a type of proportional representation to do with the ethnic makeup rather than the voting preferences of the populous. Doesn’t really fit anywhere, tbh.
25. Costa Rica, Presidential Runoff, Largest remainder method for house, a type of Proportional Representation
26. Portugal, runoff for president, D’Hondt for house, a kind of Proportional Representation.

Skim the list of most democratic countries, and you find Proportional Representation nearly everywhere, and D’Hondt method prominent. What also becomes apparent is that there are nearly as many ways of electing representatives as there are countries doing it, but this doesn’t give them equal merit. We can learn from our neighbours what works for them, and decide what would work for us given our similarities and differences.

This has not been an argument for AV. This was an argument against No to AV’s campaign strategy, against FPTP, and for Proportional Representation. Here’s an argument for AV: Our best chance of getting PR is to elect MPs who will try to implement it. Our best chance to do *that* is by voting Yes to AV on 5th May.

This has been original and slightly rushed research using solely Wikipedia as a source. Rely on it at your own peril. Pointing out mistakes will be appreciated.

Sitting on the fence eventually gives you splinters. If you already know how the systems work but you aren’t voting yes, skip to the end.

Problems with our current system are numerous and varied. We probably can’t solve them all in a single change. Certainly I’d prefer proportional representation with Single Transferrable Vote, but that’s not on offer here. What’s on offer is a simple binary choice between First Past The Post (FPTP) and Alternative Vote (AV). Fortunately, that means the system by which we choose the voting system is fair - 2 choices makes FPTP and AV equivalent.

What is FPTP?

You pick the candidate you prefer. At least, that’s what you’re supposed to do. After the vote, the candidate with most votes gets in. In a close 3-way election, this can be as little as 34% of the vote. In a close 10-way election, it could be as little as e.g. 11%. Obviously, there aren’t very many 10-way close races. Those whose candidate doesn’t win often perceive their vote to be wasted, since it had no direct effect on the outcome.

What is AV?

You rank candidates 1, 2, 3, etc. until you no longer care about the order. At the end, if one candidate has >50% of the “1″ votes, they win. If that isn’t the case, the lower preference votes get used to top up their levels, but not until the last place candidate is removed from the running. This is important, as it makes certain that your later preferences cannot be used against your earlier ones. So, in AV the last place candidate’s ballots are redistributed according to their second preferences. If this pushes some candidate over the 50% line, they win. Otherwise, the process is repeated.

If you don’t understand how the counting works, it doesn’t matter. All you need to know is that:

• When you vote, you get to pick a second choice and a third choice, etc. if you so choose
• In no circumstance can a later preference affect an earlier one.
• In some circumstances, your later preferences can make a difference to the final outcome.

Why is AV better?

• If you voted for the winner as your first choice, it’s exactly the same as FPTP - your vote is counted exactly once.
• If you didn’t vote for the winner, but you didn’t care about the rest, it’s exactly the same as FPTP - your vote is discarded.
• If you *do* have a second preference, tactical voting (e.g. a vote for Labour cos the Lib Dems can’t win in your constituency) is unnecessary - you can vote for your true preference, sure in the knowledge that if your second preference is required, it will be used. You still get a maximum of one vote that is counted. It may not be required, though.

Let’s look at some examples:

A constituency where Lab Lib and Con only stand:
Lab gets 40% of the votes. Con gets 45%. Lib gets 15%.

Now, it all hangs on the second preference of the 15% Lib voters. It’s therefore pretty likely that Lab will win here. FPTP would have had Con win. This means that similar parties would no longer be disadvantaged by separating voters.

A more comprehensive example:
Lab gets 34%, Con gets 34%, Lib gets 15%, Green gets 7%, BNP gets 6%, Independent candidate gets 4%.

No single minor group could be the kingmaker here. The FPTP answer is probably going to require a recount and a very slim victory for either Lab or Con. But it could be resolved before that were necessary with AV.

First, the independent candidate’s 2nd prefs are redistributed. Let’s say they all go to the Green party. Green now has 11%.
Now, the BNP votes get redistributed. Let’s say they all go to the Tories. Now we have Lab 34%, Con 40%, Lib 15%, Green 11%.

I’m going to divide the possibilities here.
a) Green gets redistributed. By now some of these are onto their third preference, and some people haven’t given one. So let’s say only 10% instead of 11% get reallocated, because that 1% put Independent 1, Green 2, and then nothing else. So that 1% is lost. Yes, lost votes can still happen in AV. The rest of the Greens voted for the Lib Dems. Lab 34%, Con 40%, Lib 25%.
Lib dems are redistributed, but many of those greens didn’t want Lab or Con so they left it. So only 20% goes to Lab, but it still pushes them over the line, Lab win.

b) Green gets redistributed. All their votes go to the Conservatives, because their logo is a tree. This makes the Conservatives win with 51%, and the Lib Dem votes are never counted. BTW, STV might fix this - it redistributes from top and bottom.

c) None of the Greens had a second/third preference. All their votes are discarded. All the Lib Dem votes go to Labour - Lab have 49%, Con have 40%. I *think* in this situation the Con votes are redistributed, and then if *none* of them voted Labour as a second, presumably the election has no clear winner? Or do Labour default win? I’m unclear on this very unlikely point.(See comment 4 - Labour win) Even this unlikely outcome is only as bad as FPTP in the same situation.

Still, AV gives you the chance that a second preference might be counted. This is inversely proportional to the chance of your first choice getting in. What I would suggest is that you put all your preferences in, as that maximises your chance of being counted. Australia mandates this, but they also mandate voting, and that’s an argument for another day.

One of the main problems of FPTP is that tactical voting is sometimes the logical thing to do. Tactical voting is where your preferred choice is unlikely to win, which under FPTP is a wasted vote. What you end up doing is voting for your second choice if they are one of the big 2, which still wastes your real preference and perpetuates a 2-party system. The whole system expects there will be 2 major parties — look at how the House of Commons is laid out! The idea is that this creates a strong government who can get lots of bills passed (non-majority wins can lead to a large majority of seats), but I’d rather have a representative government. Change should be difficult if over half the country is against it.

The Tories are against AV. This is because it offers them no advantage and may reduce their voter share. The Lib Dems are for AV, because it gives them a huge advantage. Labour are for AV, I hope because it’s actually a fairer system. Please vote for a fairer system by saying Yes to AV on 5th May. This isn’t about party politics, it’s about making the system better represent what all the voters want.

To those who are so jaded by politics that they don’t see the point:
We can actually fix one reason that you don’t think your vote is worth giving. It’s small, but it’s a start and it’s in the right direction.

As to the arguments against AV, Here are some myths about AV debunked. The only reason I can see to keep FPTP is if your party will lose from AV and you’d rather your party win unfairly than lose (more) fairly. That, or you’d rather the wrong party was in charge than that no single party had a majority. Let me know if, after checking out the myths, you have others.

Apologies for the length of this, I haven’t blogged for ages and all my thoughts have come out at once. Lots of my friends have got / are getting married, and it leaves me wondering about my own feelings about it.

(TL, DR? Open to all, all religions treated equally, civil marriage is the legal part, no tax advantage, yes maybe someday)

Marriage always looks a bit odd to me. Any kind of attempt to pin down a definition of marriage gets you tied up in knots as you try to decide whether the legal, or the religious bit is what makes it marriage rather than “partnership”, and whether historically marriage mean two lovers, or a financial arrangement between families, or about ensuring the right lineage. It’s all a big mess of differing and changing social norms across places and times.

Having said that, I’m not *against* marriage, and I think it could do with an actual definition. I don’t think it should be ok to marry a dog or a child or the Eiffel Tower, whether that’s a religious or legal experience, but that’s mainly because none of these things can consent to be married. I believe marriage should always be consensual! I don’t see a problem with multiple marriages in any configuration provided all are consenting. And I don’t see any reason it should be denied to same sex or divorcee couples, though if a particular church/religious-building-of-indiscriminate-faith/religious-leader doesn’t want to perform those ceremonies that should be their right.

Marriage the religious ceremony
If you are in a religion that doesn’t approve of your relationship, it’s probably not the best religion for you. Some religions have different status to others in this country, i.e. their ceremonies count as marriage without a separate civil licence - this we should be rid of. It’s discriminatory against all the other religions. Make the civil part the legal part, and the religious part the ceremonial part - I presume your God(s) will still let it count. Other than that, not much to say, I don’t personally anticipate having one of these.

Marriage the legal document
A legal agreement covering your assets, what happens with the children if you die, and who your next of kin are in a medical emergency are all a very good idea, and if you’re sharing a house and contributing towards a mortgage but one person’s name is on it, being married is a great way to ensure you don’t get kicked out on your arse with a month’s notice. But, all these things can be obtained separately in wills, etc. through solicitors. Marriage is one convenient, possibly even cheaper, way to get these legal reassurances, and that’s not a bad reason in itself, if you are committing to relevant things together.

I think state-sponsored tax breaks for people who have had the good fortune and desire to pair up and the intention to remain that way are a bad thing. You can’t (yes, can’t, it’s proven not to work) incentivise marriage, and why would you want to? What is so commendable about pairing up? Why should people be treated differently because they are or aren’t in a state-sponsored committed relationship?

Marriage the party
I think the amount of money people spend on weddings, which is at most 1 day of your marriage, is mental. I’m sure there’s a lower limit for having a *nice party* with *many of your friends and family*, but I can tell you from Q party that that limit is very much below £1000, including food, venue, music and outfits. Presumably the actual legal wedding bit costs something, but I still find it incredible that the average wedding costs anywhere between £13,000 to £16,000. Especially given that the average after-tax income is £18,740. Somewhere in here is a law of diminishing returns. I like the party, obviously, and it’s as good an excuse as any to get all your friends around for a big knees-up, but don’t spend what could be a first-home deposit on it.

Marriage the environment for bringing up children
I do believe in a stable home environment for children, and I think there are a myriad of ways to achieve that. I don’t think being married or not makes one iota of difference to you being a good parent. I do think that *at least* 2 parents is ideal (it’s a lot of work), I don’t think their gender matters. I do think that if 2 or more people are committing to bringing up a child, there should be indications that they have been able to get on and function as a team, that their finances are ok, that the child will have enough room in the house. I *don’t* require that the parents be in a sexual relationship. I realise that this is how children *come about*, but that doesn’t mean that only people having sex with each other can raise a child. So, in conclusion, marriage as a “stable environment” is meaningless - it ensures nothing that isn’t already ensured by circumstances. And nothing is ever totally secure. So any advantages afforded to married couples because of this function should be only given to homes with children in, regardless of marital status. Simply register the parents at the birth / adoption, and these are the people who receive the benefits. Treat a persistently absent parent like they have divorced the child, and update legal docs accordingly. Tax breaks for child rearers in this age of mass overpopulation are another issue, but I’ll leave that for another time.

Marriage the public statement of your love and/or commitment
This can be lovely, and as I said above, a great excuse for a party, but some people may prefer to commit and love in private or outside of religious or legal trappings, and that should be ok. There is an inherent problem in the assumptions of what it is you’re committing to, as well. Not everyone who loves and commits is monogamous, wants/can have children, wants to live together, wants to consummate their love. This can be fixed with vows, somewhat, but of course you can’t circumvent the bigamy laws and adultery is still grounds for divorce, annulment still possible without consummation, and estrangement cause for dissolution after (I think) 6 years. So, it works for those it works for.

Marriage the tradition
I’m not one for traditions but I can see why people might like it, and that’s fine, as long as you’re not getting government favouritism for being traditional.

Marriage the “our parents want us to”
Linked to the party and the tradition, I think. I sympathise but would hope that most adults could make life decisions separately from their parents. I accept that keeping your inheritance may be an important consideration.

Marriage the “all my friends are getting married, I’m going to die alone, ooh you’ll do”
Self-evidently stupid.

Marriage the permanent gluing of yourself to one other person for the rest of your life
Painfully naive, have you seen the statistics? But moreover, it’s a bad idea to draw your self-worth from another person or from who you are within that couple. A promise to love forever cannot be honestly made - you do not know your future self. A hopeful statement of love and future plans is the best that anyone can get. I’m not being patronising here, I think most people getting married do realise this, but the words of the ceremony should reflect it!

Marriage to get into the country
Why don’t we just grant every UK citizen a “+1″? It’s an awful lot fairer and no-one comes round your house checking if you’re actually a “real” couple or a “fake” couple. United Kingdom invites you to a *citizenship party*, you may bring one guest but we reserve the right to kick them out if they throw up on the carpet.

Conclusion
Marriage as a legal document and civil ceremony should be available to all. Get married if you want but don’t expect it to change anything except your bank balance. Have a good party but don’t spend like you’re Richard Branson, unless you are actually Richard Branson. Will I get married? Maybe. Don’t go looking for the John Lewis list just yet, though.

On election night itself, I was painfully disappointed. The Lib Dems had lost seats, of all things, which struck me as yet another indication of a broken system. We held Ceredigion with a huge margin (>8000 votes) which made me feel like my vote counted for a lot less than it did in 2005, when we won it from Plaid by a mere 200 or so.

As the final result of a hung parliament emerged, I was unsurprised. Evey poll for the last month had pointed at it, and the exit poll was equally sure. What I didn’t expect was the LibCon (or ConDem for haters) coalition that we now have. Going back over the last few days, I first expected a Con minority government, no deals, because the numbers didn’t really allow for a LibLab majority unless they cobbled together some sort of fragile rainbow which, to me at least, seemed much more unstable than a simple minority goverment. And of course, there was no way the Tories could work with the Lib Dems, was there?

Talking to other people convinced me of at least a chance that a progressive alliance could work, but I fairly consistently pointed out that whilst the party similarities might allow for it more easily, the balance of seats just did not.

Many Lib Dem voters, especially those who voted for the Lib Dems for reform rather than because they actually supported their other policies, may be angry at Nick Clegg. He’s done a deal with the devil, in their eyes. But to those who wanted reform, as has surely been pointed out by now: this type of government is exactly what you are asking for! This is a test run of what you will get if we reform the system to be more proportional — even AV will make some headway towards it. If you don’t like it, you should have voted for whichever party would oust the party you don’t like. Tactical voting is much less of an issue in AV or STV. More equally sized constituencies will also help a bit. No, we’re probably not going to get Proportional Representation. But isn’t any electoral reform that genuinely comes from within the system going to be an impressive step forward?

From the sounds coming from the media and more importantly the Lib Dems, Labour never really had a serious plan for coalition. What was it that you wanted Nick Clegg to do, exactly? Go back on his word and refuse to deal, resulting in a Conservative minority government and no hope of reform? This way the policies of each party to be implemented are set out in a manifesto-like way at the beginning. It remains to be seen whether the promises will be kept. But I tell you what, surely if you’ve got yourself a deputy prime minister and another 4 cabinet positions, Lib Dems, haven’t you won? Surely this was the best possible outcome?

No, I don’t really like David Cameron. He’s smarmy. His general attitude galls me. But if more people voted Tory and more Tory seats were claimed than for any other party, he deserves a bit of a say-so, doesn’t he? And what, so do Labour? Yes, and they’ll get to have their say as the opposition, which ought to be fine. I don’t want to say they’ve had their turn, but they have had a very long go at running the country, outcomes have been some good, some bad, and now the country wants someone else or some other system, ideally both.

It’s not going to be an easy ride for anyone. What the Lib Dems have achieved is to make David Cameron’s job really really hard whilst not giving him much option to avoid doing it. He’s going to be unpopular within and outside his party, most of the time. There’s a chance it’ll lend him a bit more humility, and it’s certain that he won’t be able to run sweeping conservative changes across the country in the manner he would have if he’d got a majority.

If all my other arguments have failed, then just remember this: the coalition Nick Clegg and David Cameron secured was possible because they were able to compromise and behave decently. That they were able to do this despite glaring differences in ideology is a glimmer of hope for fair and honest government. Just a glimmer, but at least a glimmer, of hope.