Is the AV referendum badly timed

I happen to think that holding the Alternative Vote verses First Past the Post referendum in May is bad timing. Surely it is too early to get the campaign going on winning this Alternative Vote. Is it not too soon after the general election to start running a campaign especially when there are elections in Wales and Scotland.

I'm not sure the public or the campaigners are going to be ready for it. I think people need time to consider these elections and we should not only hold this vote later (at least two years later) but to get the voters out that really care about FPTP or AV or voting reform (and therefore understand the arguments) would it not be best to hold this possible change in our voting system in a completely separate vote.

Is it not better to let the coalition settle so as to not pressure the coalition if David Cameron or Nick Clegg is seen to of lost a public vote? I of course do not believe that the result of this vote will be devastating for Nick Clegg or indeed David Cameron but it does offer more pressure and sticks to beat them with by Labour and others.

I understand the above would include a cost but democracy does cost money (at least a delay also delays the cost). A compromise would be to hold the vote during council elections in later years instead of the same time as the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections.

Another problem as I see it is that this issue will appear on many Lib Dem Leaflets and therefore may appear to be more of a Liberal Democrat campaign then a vote "Yes" on AV campaign. This could cloud the result as some voters may think their voting/siding with the Lib Dems on this rather than for say better democracy. The vote will be more party political then it needs to be.

Of course there are others who believe that an early referendum would be a good idea see Five reasons to cheer the timing of the AV referendum for example. I find myself disagreeing with Mark Reckons.

His first point on 'referendum has not been kicked into the long grass'. This is true but it is also true if a date is set for 2012 or 2013 that we know it coming and hey all the more reason for the Liberal Democrats to stay in a coalition.

2nd point. Mark believes that having the vote 'coincide with the local and Scottish/Welsh elections will increase turnout'. Well yes but will it improve the quality of the voter understanding? Will there be more votes just choosing an option because they have to?

3rd point 'easier for the Lib Dems to get out the vote for a "Yes" vote'. Well Lib Dems would be out campaigning in either case for a yes vote anyway and maybe less Tories? Also Labour people who support the 'Yes' vote and infact others like UKIP will also beable to concentrate on helping the "Yes" campaign. I dont see this as a plus point.

4th point ' It will ensure that the Labour leadership candidates have to properly address what they would do and whether they will support a change'. Yes this point I do agree with. But then again Labour as a party would still have to address this later and I don't see this as a key factor in the Labour leadership selection, althought it is interesting to know their views.

5th Point 'It will give us 4 years to get the necessary changes in place if there is a "Yes" vote'. Again a very good point so we should not leave it too late. But surely this can be organised in two or three years, so not a major issue.

I guess the date is not going to change now and I will be campaigning for AV but I will also be helping in local elections and this will make the AV look for like a party issue (i.e. a pro Lib Dems one) which may make the "Yes" vote a little less popular with some.

SNP Tactical Voting Gives More Reason for Tory PR Support

Snptacticalvoting is living up to its name with this post on Anti Tory Tactical Voting. The idea behind it is that if there are no Tories in Scotland then it would “Arguably offer up an ideal platform for the SNP to advance its arguments that Scotland should govern itself”. I agree with Jeff of Snptacticalvoting that it would.

But this does brings up a different question. Why do the Tories still not support Proportional Representation?

I don’t know if it’s because I have always lived in Tory territory in the south and now in Bracknell Berkshire. But it feels as if tactical voting is mostly directed against the Conservatives then the other parties. Tactical voting exists because we have the First Past the Post System. Under a proportional representation voting system there would be no need for it.

The Tories need a massive swing to win the next general election of an extra 117 seats. As shown in the table on the left using the swing-o-meter found at http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/. This example would result in a hung parliament (obviously this does not allow for all the local issues and variation which will be part of this election.).

If I were a Tory then I would see this as being very unfair and I would support Proportional Representation like Single Transferable Vote.

A good explanation of which is provided here by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland were STV is used for local council and Assembly elections.

Thoughts on Iain Dales Thoughts on Candidate Selection from Bracknell

Iain Dale has posted an article on his Blog here about his thoughts on candidate selection after his experience at Bracknell’s primary. Katy Lindsay also applied for Woking and Sleaford (conservative Majority over 6000). Rory Stewart applied and won selection for PPC in Penrith (a very safe seat with a majority of over 10,000).

The discussion on a local or non local candidate is just one of the issues. I prefer a local candidate but I do understand that this is not always possible and if the quality of candidates is not there locally then not always the best option. I believe most electorates prefer a local candidate however.

Can you really concentrate on more than one constituency at a time? A number of the Bracknell candidates put a lot of hard work into learning about Bracknell and not just doing the arranged meetings but also have done their own work to find out about the local issues. But if your trying to win in consecutive seats without any break in-between, how can you do the work needed to understand an area when those constituencies are as far apart as say Bracknell and Penrith are.

But the real problem is in parachuting candidates into safe seats. Granted an open primary gives the electorate a chance to select their candidate. But unless this is a postal vote how many of the electorate actually turn up to a Primary. Bracknell’s was less than half a percent of registered voters these candidates for the most part are still selected for what is essentially a safe seat. The actual election almost becomes a rubber stamp on the PPC already chosen in the Primary. Is this really good for our democracy or is this hiding the real problem of safe seats.

We all know that with a majority of over 10,000 in Penrith, Rory Stewart will almost certainly win in the upcoming general election unless something amazing happens. I have no doubt that Rory Stewart could be a good MP and he could be cabinet material. I just worry that we are kidding ourselves that this is democracy, when what we really need is full reform of our whole electoral system so that seats are no longer so safe. I wish the incoming conservatives would consider the Single Transferable Voting system as it is fairer then First Past the Post. It gives voters more choice and puts power in the hands of the voters rather than the party.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=103

Mr 10 Percent can I have some more Please!

David Cameron has proposed a number of reforms that he plans to implement if the Conservatives are elected.

I am not going to go over all these reforms here as they have been well reported on. However one of the proposals is reducing the number of MP's by 10 percent from 650 to 585. This on the face of it appears to be a good idea however;

This would result in ever more people not being represented unless we change the voting system to a proportional one. This is because at the moment under the first past the post system we have way too many safe seats (see Mark Reakons report here) Since the 1970 some 50% of seats have never changed hands. If the constituencies are bigger then it follows that they could have even bigger majorities surely the same will happen again. We will still have way too many safe seats. Safe seats that allow career politicians allow the parachuting in of party leaders chosen few and were a contribution element to the expenses scandal.

If the number of MPs are to be introduced then surely its best to actually reduce the size of the government too in line with this change, Do we need so many junior ministers, should we have party whips? Can the senior civil servants be reduced, Do we need so many ministers in-fact we now have around 120 including whips while during world war two we only had 74 how did we win the war with only (almost) half as many!

I believe the Single Transferable Vote or STV would remove these safe seats and should be introduced as part of a reduction of MP's. Of course the Lib Dems have always believed in proportional representation, as it is a fairer system.

STV would also have other benefits of giving more representation to people of candidates they actually voted for, Less wasted votes, balanced list of candidates to win your vote, more competition and more choice, no need for tactical voting,

We should have a PR system anyway but there is an even bigger requirement for STV with less MP's.

An explanation of STV can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote


Also see http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=104

And http://www.stvaction.org.uk/