politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the 2017 general election result would have looked under d

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How the 2017 general election result would have looked under different voting systems

If Jeremy Corbyn does become Prime Minister I expect electoral reform, as part of wider constitutional reform, will happen, without the need of plebiscites on the matter. Whilst Labour leaders do say in opposition they favour electoral reform but then ignore it when they are elected, like a brilliant thought during an orgasm, it gets lost in the ecstasy of ‘victory’. I think Corbyn will not do a Blair on the topic of electoral reform.

Read the full story here

Sean_F

I'd have thought the Tories would be ahead under any system, given their lead in votes.

But, there's no incentive for the Tories to change the system, if they'd lose seats.

PClipp

The Tories need an improved voting system so that they know which strand of Conservatism is the one they want, as a party. At present, it is just a matter of "follow my leader" - and she is lost!

CopperSulphate

How do they know what people's 2nd and 3rd choices were to accurately predict AV and STV?

brendan16

In reality this wouldn't be the result in terms of the STV or AMS options. People would vote for the party they actually want to win not choosing the least worst out of the Tories or Labour that FPTP forces on people in most seats. UKIP, the Greens and perhaps even the LDs might do better - as is evidenced by the PR elections in London, Scotland and Wales - because those votes wouldn't be wasted.

JosiasJessop

PClipp said:

The Tories need an improved voting system so that they know which strand of Conservatism is the one they want, as a party. (Snip)

That's quite a funny comment, given the Liberal Democrats are just as diverse a grouping as the Conservatives! Which strand are they following at the moment?

dixiedean

Any result obtained under any system other than pure PR is, at best, a guess. You are assigning transfers on the basis of assumptions. Even pure PR assumes votes would be cast identically as in FPTP.
I voted Labour as it was the way to cut the majority of my complacent, arrogant, and ineffective Conservative MP, secure in the knowledge that there was the square root of f all chance he'd lose.
I decided to do so as soon as the election was called.
A different system may have led me to have totally different calculation and conclusions.

I realise, of course, that I am part of a very small subset who follow the details so closely.

EDIT: see this point has been made more succinctly already!

TheScreamingEagles

CopperSulphate said:

How do they know what people's 2nd and 3rd choices were to accurately predict AV and STV?

Projecting election results under different systems is tricky work. Electoral behaviour may change. We commissioned YouGov to run a post-election poll with a sizeable sample (13,273). In that poll we asked three questions designed to understand how voters would vote under AV, AMS and STV.

dixiedean

TheScreamingEagles said:

CopperSulphate said:

How do they know what people's 2nd and 3rd choices were to accurately predict AV and STV?

Projecting election results under different systems is tricky work. Electoral behaviour may change. We commissioned YouGov to run a post-election poll with a sizeable sample (13,273). In that poll we asked three questions designed to understand how voters would vote under AV, AMS and STV.

Ah, I see. An educated guess, then.

Morris_Dancer

An interesting idea for discussion, albeit necessarily laden with conjecture.

Sandpit

Woo, the AV thread!

glw

JosiasJessop said:

PClipp said:

The Tories need an improved voting system so that they know which strand of Conservatism is the one they want, as a party. (Snip)

That's quite a funny comment, given the Liberal Democrats are just as diverse a grouping as the Conservatives! Which strand are they following at the moment?

The rubbish one.

logical_song

AMS looks most interesting with the two big parties on equal number of seats - and with the smaller parties having quite a few. The DUP is missing and they would add to the merriment.
On a more serious note, is Corbyn committed to electoral reform, in which case what sort?

HYUFD

brendan16 said:

In reality this wouldn't be the result in terms of the STV or AMS options. People would vote for the party they actually want to win not choosing the least worst out of the Tories or Labour that FPTP forces on people in most seats. UKIP, the Greens and perhaps even the LDs might do better - as is evidenced by the PR elections in London, Scotland and Wales - because those votes wouldn't be wasted.

Indeed, the Greens have just won 6% in today's New Zealand general election and NZ First, their UKIP equivalent, 7% under their PR MMS (an AMS variant). The Nationals, the NZ Tories, still won most seats even if Labour made significant gains

RobD

FF43

FPT

tlg86 said:

I very rarely use taxis so I don't really care about Uber, but I did hear one interesting thing on the radio this morning. Apparently, the most dangerous place you can be at night in London is on the top deck of a London bus.

Which is why bendy buses are the way to go. Also real bus users don't like going up and down the stairs as the bus goes round corners.

HYUFD

AV benefiting the Tories in 2015 was only because UKIP won 13% and the Greens 4%, given the 1.8% UKIP got in 2017 was almost identical to the 1.6% the Greens got that advantage would have evaporated by then as shown by the chart with FPTP again benefiting the Tories most

logical_song

brendan16 said:

In reality this wouldn't be the result in terms of the STV or AMS options. People would vote for the party they actually want to win not choosing the least worst out of the Tories or Labour that FPTP forces on people in most seats. UKIP, the Greens and perhaps even the LDs might do better - as is evidenced by the PR elections in London, Scotland and Wales - because those votes wouldn't be wasted.

"People would vote for the party they actually want to win"
True, and the elected MPs would be freer to vote their conscience because there could be more parties and the power of whips would be lessened.

Sandpit

logical_song said:

brendan16 said:

In reality this wouldn't be the result in terms of the STV or AMS options. People would vote for the party they actually want to win not choosing the least worst out of the Tories or Labour that FPTP forces on people in most seats. UKIP, the Greens and perhaps even the LDs might do better - as is evidenced by the PR elections in London, Scotland and Wales - because those votes wouldn't be wasted.

"People would vote for the party they actually want to win"
True, and the elected MPs would be freer to vote their conscience because there could be more parties and the power of whips would be lessened.

And the compilation and programme of the government would be hammered out by the political parties after the election, rather than in their manifestos beforehand. This makes accountability much more difficult and gives more power to the parties.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

dixiedean

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

This is true. However, has that not also been the case after 2 of the last 3 FPTP results? Furthermore, there is no evidence that another hypothetical election in the near future would not be similar.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dean, highly debatable as the DUP deal is not something that was strictly necessary for May [and also occurred due to the worst campaign in modern history].

dixiedean

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Dean, highly debatable as the DUP deal is not something that was strictly necessary for May [and also occurred due to the worst campaign in modern history].

OK. Good point. Much of the manifesto has been voluntarily ditched, then.

Richard_Tyndall

dixiedean said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

This is true. However, has that not also been the case after 2 of the last 3 FPTP results? Furthermore, there is no evidence that another hypothetical election in the near future would not be similar.

But all you are doing is making sure it happens every time instead of just occasionally. PR is undemocratic as it takes power away from the electorate and also from the MPs and gives it to the parties. Those who claim otherwise are either dishonest or fools.

rottenborough

logical_song said:

AMS looks most interesting with the two big parties on equal number of seats - and with the smaller parties having quite a few. The DUP is missing and they would add to the merriment.
On a more serious note, is Corbyn committed to electoral reform, in which case what sort?

I doubt it. Coalitions under PR would remove the right to legislate for the workers paradise unfettered by centre ground types.

House of Lords though, that's a gonner under Jezza I would say.

rottenborough

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Richard_Tyndall

logical_song said:

brendan16 said:

In reality this wouldn't be the result in terms of the STV or AMS options. People would vote for the party they actually want to win not choosing the least worst out of the Tories or Labour that FPTP forces on people in most seats. UKIP, the Greens and perhaps even the LDs might do better - as is evidenced by the PR elections in London, Scotland and Wales - because those votes wouldn't be wasted.

"People would vote for the party they actually want to win"
True, and the elected MPs would be freer to vote their conscience because there could be more parties and the power of whips would be lessened.

No because the parties would claim that the seat was won by them rather than by the individual. They would tighten their grip on the political system and be able to ignore both the MPs and the electorate.

dixiedean

Richard_Tyndall said:

dixiedean said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

This is true. However, has that not also been the case after 2 of the last 3 FPTP results? Furthermore, there is no evidence that another hypothetical election in the near future would not be similar.

But all you are doing is making sure it happens every time instead of just occasionally. PR is undemocratic as it takes power away from the electorate and also from the MPs and gives it to the parties. Those who claim otherwise are either dishonest or fools.

I am doing no such thing. I am genuinely undecided on Electoral Reform. I am merely pointing out that one of the main arguments for FPTP (majority government) is becoming less common. (On an admittedly small sample).

TheScreamingEagles

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

What was the 1975 change to the electoral system?

Richard_Tyndall

dixiedean said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

dixiedean said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

This is true. However, has that not also been the case after 2 of the last 3 FPTP results? Furthermore, there is no evidence that another hypothetical election in the near future would not be similar.

But all you are doing is making sure it happens every time instead of just occasionally. PR is undemocratic as it takes power away from the electorate and also from the MPs and gives it to the parties. Those who claim otherwise are either dishonest or fools.

I am doing no such thing. I am genuinely undecided on Electoral Reform. I am merely pointing out that one of the main arguments for FPTP (majority government) is becoming less common. (On an admittedly small sample).

Sorry Dixie that wasn't a specific 'you' directed at you. It would have been better phrased as "All one is doing.. ."

Richard_Tyndall

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

What was the 1975 change to the electoral system?

The referenve is to the EEC vote

TheScreamingEagles

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

What was the 1975 change to the electoral system?

None. But the principle is if a party wins an election and it is in their manifesto, they can ignore/overturn a referendum result.

Sandpit

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

What was the 1975 change to the electoral system?

The referenve is to the EEC vote

Indeed, not a change to the electoral system. The recent precident for this is the AV referendum, and I think the public expect to get one if a change is proposed in the future - rather like we now expect to see a by-election when an MP defects to another party.

But legally @TSE is right, there’s no reason a government can’t legislate for whatever they wish.

Sean_F

FPT,

@HYUFD if it's a choice between allowing more housebuilding in your area, or getting a left wing government that will have you in its sights, that's not a difficult choice to make.

HYUFD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

Not quite, parties can only form a government under PR if the electorate have given them together 50%+1 of the seats

kle4

I wouldn't advocate retaining a system simply because it made a Corbyn premiership less likely, but I also wouldn't advocate a Corbyn premiership simply because it made electoral reform more likely. A high price.

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Not as I recall - at least I don't think precedents are really set with such things> As Sandpit suggests it may be there is more expectation it would/should happen, as with a by-election if an MP defects to another party, but as with that one, I suspect it is not ingrained, and if a party thinks they could carry it through parliament without more than the usual amount of flak in the public, they would not feel bound to go to a referendum, nor should they in my view if they were elected on a promise to do so (though things get more complicated if they only get the numbers thanks to another party who made a promise to reform, but in a different way).

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

What was the 1975 change to the electoral system?

None. But the principle is if a party wins an election and it is in their manifesto, they can ignore/overturn a referendum result.

So where was electoral reform in the 2017 Labour Manifesto?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

AnneJGP

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

If there's one thing Mr Corbyn has demonstrated beyond all doubt, it's that he is self-confident enough to ignore all precedent when he believes he is on the right track.

Going by precedent, he would have been removed from the leadership several times over before we got as far as the GE.

Good evening, everyone.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

What was the 1975 change to the electoral system?

None. But the principle is if a party wins an election and it is in their manifesto, they can ignore/overturn a referendum result.

So where was electoral reform in the 2017 Labour Manifesto?

Chapter 10, page 104 of the pdf.

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour Manifesto 2017.pdf

stevef

You say that Corbyn would not do a Blair on the issue of electoral reform. Remember however that electoral reform would mean that there would never ever be a hard left government with a majority, that electoral reform would benefit mainly the centre. Corbyn is busy trying to gerrymander the Labour leadership rules in favour of the hard left. How ironic if he were to embrace electoral reform which would end the possibility of a hard left majority government forever.

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

FPT,

@HYUFD if it's a choice between allowing more housebuilding in your area, or getting a left wing government that will have you in its sights, that's not a difficult choice to make.

Which is why Javid has announced a big new housebuilding programme targeting councils with high local house prices-to-income ratios instead of population forecasts especially in London and the South.
http://www.cityam.com/268723/green-belt-expected-targeted-sajid-javids-house-building

However don't think that is without cost to the Tories either, in Epping Forest for example Javid has announced 9 000 new homes will have to be built by the council rather than the 5 000 planned by the council in the local plan. They cannot all be built on brownbelt land and some will have to be built on greenbelt land and green fields. As a result I could see the Tories losing wards to the LDs and Residents Association next year and possibly even control and the position will be similar across the Home Counties.

Therefore the Tories may save some marginal parliamentary seats from falling to Labour if they can get more young and middle aged people on the housing ladder but it will be at the cost of some Tory councils going to NOC or even falling to the LDs in the district council elections

Monksfield

Apologies if posted earlier but this summed yesterday up: more ineptness really..

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/911522699184414720

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

If the public decide to give no party a majority (or a clearly identified alliance of parties a majority) and returns a scenario like that, then it could well be argued, in a representative democracy, that we are asking for them to make the decision in that scenario. It can also be argued that is a better reflection of the public will than artificially forcing people into a binary choice.

Though I find as I age I am less opposed to FPTP than I used to be.

Sean_F

FPT that's disturbing news about Richard Willis. But then, a close friend of mine was convicted of a similar offence.

How well do you know anyone?

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

FPT,

@HYUFD if it's a choice between allowing more housebuilding in your area, or getting a left wing government that will have you in its sights, that's not a difficult choice to make.

Which is why Javid has announced a big new housebuilding programme targeting councils with high local house prices-to-income ratios instead of population forecasts especially in London and the South.
http://www.cityam.com/268723/green-belt-expected-targeted-sajid-javids-house-building

However don't think that is without cost to the Tories either, in Epping Forest for example Javid has announced 9 000 new homes will have to be built by the council rather than the 5 000 planned by the council in the local plan. They cannot all be built on brownbelt land and some will have to be built on greenbelt land and green fields. As a result I could see the Tories losing wards to the LDs next year and possibly even control and the position will be similar across the Home Counties.

Therefore the Tories may save some marginal parliamentary seats from falling to Labour if they can get more young and middle aged people on the housing ladder but it will be at the cost of some Tory councils going to NOC or even falling to the LDs in the district council elections

Again, if it's a choice between saving MP's and saving councillors, it's logical to go for the former.

Richard_Tyndall

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

Not quite, parties can only form a government under PR if the electorate have given them together 50%+1 of the seats

And in attaining that 50% +1 they can ignore any or all of their manifesto commitments in the name of forming a viable Government. It gives the parties the right to ignore the electorate and do what they want.

Sean_F

stevef said:

You say that Corbyn would not do a Blair on the issue of electoral reform. Remember however that electoral reform would mean that there would never ever be a hard left government with a majority, that electoral reform would benefit mainly the centre. Corbyn is busy trying to gerrymander the Labour leadership rules in favour of the hard left. How ironic if he were to embrace electoral reform which would end the possibility of a hard left majority government forever.

Oddly, 2017 is the first election since 1935 in which FPTP did not help Labour.

kle4

Monksfield said:

Apologies if posted earlier but this summed yesterday up: more ineptness really..

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/911522699184414720

Hardly - just part of the negotiation, what benefit to them to being present and seemingly endorsing the contents, even if ultimately they end up agreeing it a good idea. Either side could come up with a fantastic idea, the other side won't acknowledge it without caveat lest they give up some initiative, and its not yet worth other leaders breaking ranks with the united front.

surbiton

HYUFD said:

AV benefiting the Tories in 2015 was only because UKIP won 13% and the Greens 4%, given the 1.8% UKIP got in 2017 was almost identical to the 1.6% the Greens got that advantage would have evaporated by then as shown by the chart with FPTP again benefiting the Tories most

I think you will find that if the election result was Lab 42%, C 40$, Labour would have won an absolute majority. The system still helps Labour but it should be changed.

The SNP are now the biggest beneficiary of FPTP. DUP comes next.

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

FPT,

@HYUFD if it's a choice between allowing more housebuilding in your area, or getting a left wing government that will have you in its sights, that's not a difficult choice to make.

Which is why Javid has announced a big new housebuilding programme targeting councils with high local house prices-to-income ratios instead of population forecasts especially in London and the South.
http://www.cityam.com/268723/green-belt-expected-targeted-sajid-javids-house-building

However don't think that is without cost to the Tories either, in Epping Forest for example Javid has announced 9 000 new homes will have to be built by the council rather than the 5 000 planned by the council in the local plan. They cannot all be built on brownbelt land and some will have to be built on greenbelt land and green fields. As a result I could see the Tories losing wards to the LDs next year and possibly even control and the position will be similar across the Home Counties.

Therefore the Tories may save some marginal parliamentary seats from falling to Labour if they can get more young and middle aged people on the housing ladder but it will be at the cost of some Tory councils going to NOC or even falling to the LDs in the district council elections

Again, if it's a choice between saving MP's and saving councillors, it's logical to go for the former.

From the party nationally's perspective probably but not if you are on the local council candidates list for next year as I am. Certainly if the plans go through it will be a battle to hold onto safe Tory wards let alone win the marginal ones and make any gains. Could be a bloodbath locally next May for the blues but longer term if it keeps Corbyn out I suppose it would be worth it

HYUFD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

HYUFD

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

Not quite, parties can only form a government under PR if the electorate have given them together 50%+1 of the seats

And in attaining that 50% +1 they can ignore any or all of their manifesto commitments in the name of forming a viable Government. It gives the parties the right to ignore the electorate and do what they want.

They obviously cannot ignore all their manifesto commitments they just each have to ditch some of them to get those they can get accepted

Essexit

@TSE - how did it end up with equal seats for Con/Lab under AMS? E.g. is it down to Con voters saying they'd vote UKIP or Lib Dem voters saying they'd vote Labour?

HYUFD

surbiton said:

HYUFD said:

AV benefiting the Tories in 2015 was only because UKIP won 13% and the Greens 4%, given the 1.8% UKIP got in 2017 was almost identical to the 1.6% the Greens got that advantage would have evaporated by then as shown by the chart with FPTP again benefiting the Tories most

I think you will find that if the election result was Lab 42%, C 40$, Labour would have won an absolute majority. The system still helps Labour but it should be changed.

The SNP are now the biggest beneficiary of FPTP. DUP comes next.

Yes it favours Labour just less so than the Tories and SNP. The biggest winners from PR would be UKIP, the Greens and LDs

Sandpit

Sean_F said:

FPT that's disturbing news about Richard Willis. But then, a close friend of mine was convicted of a similar offence.

How well do you know anyone?

Sadly true. I spent time canvassing with this guy back in 2010 and 2011.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tory-candidate-marcus-simpson-jailed-gun-smuggling-497496

HYUFD

Sandpit said:

Sean_F said:

FPT that's disturbing news about Richard Willis. But then, a close friend of mine was convicted of a similar offence.

How well do you know anyone?

Sadly true. I spent time canvassing with this guy back in 2010 and 2011.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tory-candidate-marcus-simpson-jailed-gun-smuggling-497496

I expect many Liberals feel the same about the late Sir Cyril Smith (who was also of course a former Labour councillor) though given the Nazis originally got elected being an election candidate or elected representative is no guarantee of sainthood

surbiton

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Sean_F said:

FPT that's disturbing news about Richard Willis. But then, a close friend of mine was convicted of a similar offence.

How well do you know anyone?

Sadly true. I spent time canvassing with this guy back in 2010 and 2011.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tory-candidate-marcus-simpson-jailed-gun-smuggling-497496

I expect many Liberals feel the same about the late Sir Cyril Smith (who was also of course a former Labour councillor) though given the Nazis originally got elected being an election candidate or elected representative is no guarantee of sainthood

Oh, the defence goes up straightaway. It's the guilty conscience. Tick-tock.

surbiton

TheScreamingEagles said:

CopperSulphate said:

How do they know what people's 2nd and 3rd choices were to accurately predict AV and STV?

Projecting election results under different systems is tricky work. Electoral behaviour may change. We commissioned YouGov to run a post-election poll with a sizeable sample (13,273). In that poll we asked three questions designed to understand how voters would vote under AV, AMS and STV.

Do people in England understand the different systems ?

PClipp

JosiasJessop said:

PClipp said:

The Tories need an improved voting system so that they know which strand of Conservatism is the one they want, as a party. (Snip)

That's quite a funny comment, given the Liberal Democrats are just as diverse a grouping as the Conservatives! Which strand are they following at the moment?

Absolutely right, Mr Jessop. All parties are a diverse mixture of ideas and priorities, which is why we need a voting system that will allow voters to rank candidates in their order of preference. That is, STV.

If you top priority was to end up with more women MPs, presumably you would vote first for all the female candidates (in order of party preference, of course), before going on yo the male candidates.

Or, sticking to the case of our deeply divided Conservative Party, you might vote first on the question of Remain/Leave for the candidates of all parties, before continuing with the Conservative candidate who were not so strong on the EU.

Sean_F

Sandpit said:

Sean_F said:

FPT that's disturbing news about Richard Willis. But then, a close friend of mine was convicted of a similar offence.

How well do you know anyone?

Sadly true. I spent time canvassing with this guy back in 2010 and 2011.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tory-candidate-marcus-simpson-jailed-gun-smuggling-497496

In prison, I would rather be Marcus Simpson than Richard Willis.

AnneJGP

PClipp said:

JosiasJessop said:

PClipp said:

The Tories need an improved voting system so that they know which strand of Conservatism is the one they want, as a party. (Snip)

That's quite a funny comment, given the Liberal Democrats are just as diverse a grouping as the Conservatives! Which strand are they following at the moment?

Absolutely right, Mr Jessop. All parties are a diverse mixture of ideas and priorities, which is why we need a voting system that will allow voters to rank candidates in their order of preference. That is, STV.

If you top priority was to end up with more women MPs, presumably you would vote first for all the female candidates (in order of party preference, of course), before going on yo the male candidates.

Or, sticking to the case of our deeply divided Conservative Party, you might vote first on the question of Remain/Leave for the candidates of all parties, before continuing with the Conservative candidate who were not so strong on the EU.

Is STV the one where the candidate who gets 100% of second preferences is eliminated in the first round, due to being nobody's first preference?

HYUFD

surbiton said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

Sean_F said:

FPT that's disturbing news about Richard Willis. But then, a close friend of mine was convicted of a similar offence.

How well do you know anyone?

Sadly true. I spent time canvassing with this guy back in 2010 and 2011.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tory-candidate-marcus-simpson-jailed-gun-smuggling-497496

I expect many Liberals feel the same about the late Sir Cyril Smith (who was also of course a former Labour councillor) though given the Nazis originally got elected being an election candidate or elected representative is no guarantee of sainthood

Oh, the defence goes up straightaway. It's the guilty conscience. Tick-tock.

It was a factual statement, though of course to even stand for election now you have to have had no criminal convictions for the past 5 years.

Sean_F

surbiton said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CopperSulphate said:

How do they know what people's 2nd and 3rd choices were to accurately predict AV and STV?

Projecting election results under different systems is tricky work. Electoral behaviour may change. We commissioned YouGov to run a post-election poll with a sizeable sample (13,273). In that poll we asked three questions designed to understand how voters would vote under AV, AMS and STV.

Do people in England understand the different systems ?

At the moment, no. Many people would learn how to play a system that was introduced. But even in Northern Ireland and the Republic, many people vote for just one party, rather than making use of all their preferences.

surbiton

AnneJGP said:

PClipp said:

JosiasJessop said:

PClipp said:

The Tories need an improved voting system so that they know which strand of Conservatism is the one they want, as a party. (Snip)

That's quite a funny comment, given the Liberal Democrats are just as diverse a grouping as the Conservatives! Which strand are they following at the moment?

Absolutely right, Mr Jessop. All parties are a diverse mixture of ideas and priorities, which is why we need a voting system that will allow voters to rank candidates in their order of preference. That is, STV.

If you top priority was to end up with more women MPs, presumably you would vote first for all the female candidates (in order of party preference, of course), before going on yo the male candidates.

Or, sticking to the case of our deeply divided Conservative Party, you might vote first on the question of Remain/Leave for the candidates of all parties, before continuing with the Conservative candidate who were not so strong on the EU.

Is STV the one where the candidate who gets 100% of second preferences is eliminated in the first round, due to being nobody's first preference?

Yes. The lowest one is eliminated in each round unless the bottom "n" cannot reach the candidate above them, in which case the n's are eliminated.

n=1,2,....

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

Hmm. I agree that there is nothing to stop sovereign parliament enacting on PR.

I suggest the political reality may be different.

dixiedean

Richard_Tyndall said:

dixiedean said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

dixiedean said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, precisely. PR is a wonderful way to shift the power to choose governments from the electorate to the political class. Not only that, manifestos become entirely optional, as promises (which won votes) are jettisoned to appease potential partner parties, the electorate's preference no longer having any impact on the composition of government.

This is true. However, has that not also been the case after 2 of the last 3 FPTP results? Furthermore, there is no evidence that another hypothetical election in the near future would not be similar.

But all you are doing is making sure it happens every time instead of just occasionally. PR is undemocratic as it takes power away from the electorate and also from the MPs and gives it to the parties. Those who claim otherwise are either dishonest or fools.

I am doing no such thing. I am genuinely undecided on Electoral Reform. I am merely pointing out that one of the main arguments for FPTP (majority government) is becoming less common. (On an admittedly small sample).

Sorry Dixie that wasn't a specific 'you' directed at you. It would have been better phrased as "All one is doing.. ."

Fair enough. I understood you would never be so unkind

Richard_Tyndall

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Sean_F

surbiton said:

AnneJGP said:

PClipp said:

JosiasJessop said:

PClipp said:

The Tories need an improved voting system so that they know which strand of Conservatism is the one they want, as a party. (Snip)

That's quite a funny comment, given the Liberal Democrats are just as diverse a grouping as the Conservatives! Which strand are they following at the moment?

Absolutely right, Mr Jessop. All parties are a diverse mixture of ideas and priorities, which is why we need a voting system that will allow voters to rank candidates in their order of preference. That is, STV.

If you top priority was to end up with more women MPs, presumably you would vote first for all the female candidates (in order of party preference, of course), before going on yo the male candidates.

Or, sticking to the case of our deeply divided Conservative Party, you might vote first on the question of Remain/Leave for the candidates of all parties, before continuing with the Conservative candidate who were not so strong on the EU.

Is STV the one where the candidate who gets 100% of second preferences is eliminated in the first round, due to being nobody's first preference?

Yes. The lowest one is eliminated in each round unless the bottom "n" cannot reach the candidate above them, in which case the n's are eliminated.

n=1,2,....

However, if a candidate has won a quota, he's elected, and his second preferences are distributed, before any candidate is eliminated.

HYUFD

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Elections can only produce governments that attempt to satisfy the largest number, not everybody. In any case the UK electorate have already rejected AV so the chances of their voting for PR in a referendum anytime soon is pretty small but if there were to be a referendum on electoral reform and they did endorse it that would be their choice

brendan16

surbiton said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CopperSulphate said:

How do they know what people's 2nd and 3rd choices were to accurately predict AV and STV?

Projecting election results under different systems is tricky work. Electoral behaviour may change. We commissioned YouGov to run a post-election poll with a sizeable sample (13,273). In that poll we asked three questions designed to understand how voters would vote under AV, AMS and STV.

Do people in England understand the different systems ?

We manage to cope fine with three different ballot papers and three different electoral systems - SV, FPTP and party PR list - in London when we elect the Mayor and Assembly. You just follow the instructions!

Richard_Tyndall

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Elections can only produce governments that attempt to satisfy the largest number, not everybody. In any case the UK electorate have already rejected AV so the chances of their voting for PR in a referendum anytime soon is pretty small but if there were to be a referendum on electoral reform and they did endorse it that would be their choice

I would agree with you on that. But a binary decision in a referendum is not the same as voting for an MP proposing particular set of legislative positions in Parliament and then seeing them evaporate as a result of the need to create a coalition.

OldKingCole

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

rottenborough said:

Hasn't the precedent been set that a change to electoral system needs a referendum?

Nope. If it is in a party’s manifesto and they take power, Parliamentary sovereignty and all that jazz.

Cf If Labour had won in 1983 they would’ve overturned the 1975 referendum through Parliament.

Hmm. I agree that there is nothing to stop sovereign parliament enacting on PR.

I suggest the political reality may be different.

It is now. Could have got away with it in Blair’s first term if Prescott hadn’t thrown a massive wobbly.

HYUFD

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Elections can only produce governments that attempt to satisfy the largest number, not everybody. In any case the UK electorate have already rejected AV so the chances of their voting for PR in a referendum anytime soon is pretty small but if there were to be a referendum on electoral reform and they did endorse it that would be their choice

I would agree with you on that. But a binary decision in a referendum is not the same as voting for an MP proposing particular set of legislative positions in Parliament and then seeing them evaporate as a result of the need to create a coalition.

Well as I said if a majority of the electorate were willing in a referendum to accept the dilution of manifesto commitments and legislative positions in order to ensure a government comprising parties which over 50% had voted for that would be their choice

calum

John Curtis on the recent Scottish polling

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2017/09/raising-an-anniversary-glass/

OldKingCole

surbiton said:

HYUFD said:

AV benefiting the Tories in 2015 was only because UKIP won 13% and the Greens 4%, given the 1.8% UKIP got in 2017 was almost identical to the 1.6% the Greens got that advantage would have evaporated by then as shown by the chart with FPTP again benefiting the Tories most

I think you will find that if the election result was Lab 42%, C 40$, Labour would have won an absolute majority. The system still helps Labour but it should be changed.

The SNP are now the biggest beneficiary of FPTP. DUP comes next.

It’s not FPTP that helps Labour but the fact that not all constituencies are the same size. And Labour happens to have more smaller ones.

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Elections can only produce governments that attempt to satisfy the largest number, not everybody. In any case the UK electorate have already rejected AV so the chances of their voting for PR in a referendum anytime soon is pretty small but if there were to be a referendum on electoral reform and they did endorse it that would be their choice

The proportionality of electoral systems seems to be:

AV < FPTP < STV

So why you think that the electorate rejecting AV makes them less willing to support STV? I voted against AV, but would choose STV (assuming it was to be sensibly organised) over FPTP.

Sean_F

OldKingCole said:

surbiton said:

HYUFD said:

AV benefiting the Tories in 2015 was only because UKIP won 13% and the Greens 4%, given the 1.8% UKIP got in 2017 was almost identical to the 1.6% the Greens got that advantage would have evaporated by then as shown by the chart with FPTP again benefiting the Tories most

I think you will find that if the election result was Lab 42%, C 40$, Labour would have won an absolute majority. The system still helps Labour but it should be changed.

The SNP are now the biggest beneficiary of FPTP. DUP comes next.

It’s not FPTP that helps Labour but the fact that not all constituencies are the same size. And Labour happens to have more smaller ones.

Why would Labour kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

In most elections, Labour wins more seats than a more proportionate system would give them.

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Elections can only produce governments that attempt to satisfy the largest number, not everybody. In any case the UK electorate have already rejected AV so the chances of their voting for PR in a referendum anytime soon is pretty small but if there were to be a referendum on electoral reform and they did endorse it that would be their choice

The proportionality of electoral systems seems to be:

AV < FPTP < STV

So why you think that the electorate rejecting AV makes them less willing to support STV? I voted against AV, but would choose STV (assuming it was to be sensibly organised) over FPTP.

AV ensures that each MP gets over 50% in their constituency rather than ensuring proportionality as such. If a party gets elected on a manifesto commitment for PR and calls a referendum and wins it so be it, Germany, New Zealand etc all work perfectly well under PR systems

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Elections can only produce governments that attempt to satisfy the largest number, not everybody. In any case the UK electorate have already rejected AV so the chances of their voting for PR in a referendum anytime soon is pretty small but if there were to be a referendum on electoral reform and they did endorse it that would be their choice

The proportionality of electoral systems seems to be:

AV < FPTP < STV

So why you think that the electorate rejecting AV makes them less willing to support STV? I voted against AV, but would choose STV (assuming it was to be sensibly organised) over FPTP.

AV ensures that each MP gets over 50% in their constituency rather than ensuring proportionality as such. If a party gets elected on a manifesto commitment for PR and calls a referendum and wins it so be it, Germany, New Zealand etc all work perfectly well under PR systems

Agreed.

I'd go further; I don't see any evidence that PR produces governments with less democratic legitimacy than FPTP. (Or rather, they both have their faults. No system is perfect.)

Theuniondivvie

Sean_F said:

FPT that's disturbing news about Richard Willis. But then, a close friend of mine was convicted of a similar offence.

How well do you know anyone?

Indeed.
Though if it's a SCon elected member there appears there may be a higher than average chance they'll be a wrong un.

'Perth councillor charged over child abuse images'

http://tinyurl.com/y98o5qjk

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Elections can only produce governments that attempt to satisfy the largest number, not everybody. In any case the UK electorate have already rejected AV so the chances of their voting for PR in a referendum anytime soon is pretty small but if there were to be a referendum on electoral reform and they did endorse it that would be their choice

The proportionality of electoral systems seems to be:

AV < FPTP < STV

So why you think that the electorate rejecting AV makes them less willing to support STV? I voted against AV, but would choose STV (assuming it was to be sensibly organised) over FPTP.

AV ensures that each MP gets over 50% in their constituency rather than ensuring proportionality as such. If a party gets elected on a manifesto commitment for PR and calls a referendum and wins it so be it, Germany, New Zealand etc all work perfectly well under PR systems

Agreed.

I'd go further; I don't see any evidence that PR produces governments with less democratic legitimacy than FPTP. (Or rather, they both have their faults. No system is perfect.)

I don't disagree either

logical_song

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

The decision nowadays lies in the hands of electors in a few swing constituencies.
Even then in 2010 and 2017 in also lay in the hands of the parties.

tlg86

I prefer FPTP as it allows the electorate to kick out a bad government. Whether or not FPTP is more likely to produce bad governments in the first place, I don't know.

Morris_Dancer

Meanwhile, near the Korean peninsula:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41375302

Sunil_Prasannan

How would STV have given Jezza more seats when he got fewer "first preference" votes in June?

Sunil_Prasannan

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, so if three parties get 33% or five 20% each, the decision lies in the hands of the politicians, not the electorate.

Well the electorate will have given them those voteshares, if they gave 1 party 51% that party would form the government without the need for a coalition partner

Not at all. 'The electorate' does not exist as a sentient entity so the idea that a particular result under PR iscthe result of some calculated decision is as daft as claiming divine right for kings.

Elections can only produce governments that attempt to satisfy the largest number, not everybody. In any case the UK electorate have already rejected AV so the chances of their voting for PR in a referendum anytime soon is pretty small but if there were to be a referendum on electoral reform and they did endorse it that would be their choice

The proportionality of electoral systems seems to be:

AV < FPTP < STV

So why you think that the electorate rejecting AV makes them less willing to support STV? I voted against AV, but would choose STV (assuming it was to be sensibly organised) over FPTP.

Wot he said - I would have gone for STV too, but voted against AV

Sean_F

Sunil_Prasannan said:

How would STV have given Jezza more seats when he got fewer "first preference" votes in June?

The assumption is that Labour would have been very transfer-friendly, and the Conservatives would not.

rcs1000

Sean_F said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

How would STV have given Jezza more seats when he got fewer "first preference" votes in June?

The assumption is that Labour would have been very transfer-friendly, and the Conservatives would not.

I think that's one of those assumptions like "the decline of UKIP is good for the Conservatives" that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Sunil_Prasannan

India, the world's largest democracy, has FPTP

The USA, the world's most powerful democracy, also has FPTP

YellowSubmarine

The convention that major constitutional changes go to referendums is now well established. It's why we had a referendum on AV in the first place. Since then we've had #indyref #euref and the 10 referendums on elected Mayors. I need need more persuading than the article offers that a future Labour government could just ignore the body of precedent going back to the 1970's on the topic. But especially on voting reform as the last referendum on AV voted for the status quo. It would open up a second line of attack. Not only was Corbyn denying voters a say but he was reversing their decision to " keep " FPTP in 2011.

In addition a referendum clause in any reform bill is such an obvious poison pill for Labour opponents to insert. In effect a Labour government would need a double majority for the reform and to impose the reform without a referendum. I'm unpersuaded.

YellowSubmarine

Then there is the question of whether even Labour MPs who favoured voting reform would want to do it without referendum. It's a hell of a modern precedent to set. What else could we now do without referendum ? Rejoin the EU ? Scottish independence ? Alter or revoke the GFA ? All three of those were last answered by referendum just as AV was.

And Corbyn has already spoken on this. He's protected his own Euroscepticism recently by defering to the EU referendum result.

Richard_Tyndall

YellowSubmarine said:

Then there is the question of whether even Labour MPs who favoured voting reform would want to do it without referendum. It's a hell of a modern precedent to set. What else could we now do without referendum ? Rejoin the EU ? Scottish independence ? Alter or revoke the GFA ? All three of those were last answered by referendum just as AV was.

And Corbyn has already spoken on this. He's protected his own Euroscepticism recently by defering to the EU referendum result.

I am a big fan of referendums and I do like the Swiss system but I think that a good rule of thumb for the UK would be that matters which have major constitutional implications should be decided by referendum rather than by MPs themselves. If only because MPs are not generally elected on a single issue and changes to the constitution should be decided explicitly by the electorate.

not_on_fire

YellowSubmarine said:

Then there is the question of whether even Labour MPs who favoured voting reform would want to do it without referendum. It's a hell of a modern precedent to set. What else could we now do without referendum ? Rejoin the EU ? Scottish independence ? Alter or revoke the GFA ? All three of those were last answered by referendum just as AV was.

And Corbyn has already spoken on this. He's protected his own Euroscepticism recently by defering to the EU referendum result.

Changing the voting system without a referendum would surely be a worrying precedent. What would stop a future government from changing it to a system completely rigged in their favour?

Also, if a Labour govt thought it could change the voting system to STV without a referendum, presumably a Conservative government could change it back to FPTP, also without a referendum.

PClipp

Sunil_Prasannan said:

India, the world's largest democracy, has FPTP
The USA, the world's most powerful democracy, also has FPTP

And their political systems are rubbish.... So...?

not_on_fire

A final point -it’s wrong to assume that in a STV system the parties would be the same as they are. Now. FPTP encourages parties to be broad churches, eg the Labour Party is basically an alliance between social liberals and people with left wing economic views who may be quite socially conservative. This is because niche points of view are crushed in a FPTP system. Under STV the barriers to going it alone are much lower. I can see both the Conservatives and Labour splitting under a non FPTP system.

kle4

Sunil_Prasannan said:

India, the world's largest democracy, has FPTP

The USA, the world's most powerful democracy, also has FPTP

Biggest and most powerful does not mean they are the best at this particular issue.

kle4

Richard_Tyndall said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Then there is the question of whether even Labour MPs who favoured voting reform would want to do it without referendum. It's a hell of a modern precedent to set. What else could we now do without referendum ? Rejoin the EU ? Scottish independence ? Alter or revoke the GFA ? All three of those were last answered by referendum just as AV was.

And Corbyn has already spoken on this. He's protected his own Euroscepticism recently by defering to the EU referendum result.

I am a big fan of referendums and I do like the Swiss system but I think that a good rule of thumb for the UK would be that matters which have major constitutional implications should be decided by referendum rather than by MPs themselves. If only because MPs are not generally elected on a single issue and changes to the constitution should be decided explicitly by the electorate.

It's not a terrible rule of thumb, however I think the problem is defining those issues explicitly, as if you do not then people will always argue and you will get referendum creep.

dixiedean

We could have a referendum about whether to have FPTP, STV, AMS, or AV.
But which voting system would we use to decide?

kle4

YellowSubmarine said:

The convention that major constitutional changes go to referendums is now well established.

All you need is one party to win a majority with the wording ' we will implement x change' and that so called precedent will disappear (so long as their majority is sufficient to get it through).