Following another twitter debate with @dyslexic_trojan he led me to his blog post on FPTP and AV, and having read it I could only declare it as "stuck up nonsense". Now it would hardly be fair of me to leave it there without justifying my comment.
So here's my full analysis and response. It is a bit long. Perhaps best taken in a few paragraphs at a time.
First the link to his article: http://piemandmu.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-to-av.html
And here are my comments:
"in FPTP one is forced to make a choice for a single candidate or idea."
Forcing a voter to do anything is never good. You often talk about devaluing votes, well when a voter is forced to vote a certain way and ignore aspects of his/her views, that certainly does devalue the vote.
"AV on the other hand no one actually votes for a candidate they merely register vague sympathy for them."
Declaring your 1st preference on an AV ballot is very much voting and not registering vague sympathy at all. Given that FPTP doesn't allow you to do this, I'd say that AV 1st preferences are of far greater value than FPTP X votes (which could be any preference from 1st down to 2nd last, whatever is necessary to keep out the disliked candidate).
The remaining preferences are used so that a voter can express their full views, showing who they really like and who they really dislike. A voter can express who they really want to win, and also express their preferences between the most popular candidates, without having to guess before hand who the most popular candidates are likely to be. It allows voters to be completely honest, and removes the horrible choice forced upon many voters between a tactical vote and a wasted vote.
Forcing a voter to do anything is never good. You often talk about devaluing votes, well when a voter is forced to vote a certain way and ignore aspects of his/her views, that certainly does devalue the vote.
"AV on the other hand no one actually votes for a candidate they merely register vague sympathy for them."
Declaring your 1st preference on an AV ballot is very much voting and not registering vague sympathy at all. Given that FPTP doesn't allow you to do this, I'd say that AV 1st preferences are of far greater value than FPTP X votes (which could be any preference from 1st down to 2nd last, whatever is necessary to keep out the disliked candidate).
The remaining preferences are used so that a voter can express their full views, showing who they really like and who they really dislike. A voter can express who they really want to win, and also express their preferences between the most popular candidates, without having to guess before hand who the most popular candidates are likely to be. It allows voters to be completely honest, and removes the horrible choice forced upon many voters between a tactical vote and a wasted vote.
"I will not labour how many lives have been lost and how many bones broke to achieve the democratic ideal that within the democratic sphere and in particular in the voting booth all men have the right for a vote and each man has the same number of votes and that is one."
I'm glad you mentioned this as I would have mentioned it myself otherwise. Democracy is important for many reasons and Britian should use the most Democratic system available to us. In may we will have a choice between two, and one of those two, the current system is the least democratic system used anywhere in the world.
"Under AV those who vote for smaller parties (as the votes are redistributed upward) are allowed to votes at least twice and in some cases several times."
Everyone gets one vote. One voter, one ballot paper. Multiple preferences are declared, but the vote only ends up with one candidate. If you voted for a popular candidate your vote ends up with that candidate. If you voted for an unpopular candidate, your vote will end up with a different one, (quite possibly the same popular candidate), but it's one vote. Each vote is counted each round and everyone's vote gets counted the same number of times as everyone else's. It's simply not true to say that some people get more votes than others. When you go to buy a drink and your favourite beer is off, so you end up buying a different one, you still only come away with the one pint.
The difference between AV and FPTP is under AV you get a pint and you get to choose between the ones that are available. Under FPTP You don't get told "sorry that beer's off, now I have to serve the next gentleman and you have to join the back of the queue" (i.e. that's your vote used up, try again next election).
In democracy, everyone should get one vote that is worth as much as everyone else's. Everyone who queues up at the bar should walk away with a pint. (Please note, the pint in this analogy does not represent the winning candidate, it represents a vote going to a candidate, who may lose but would lose only to someone else who got a majority - i.e. 50% +1)
So as you recognise how important democracy is and the price paid for it I hope you will see now that choosing to keep First Past the Post is a terrible show of disrespect to all those who suffered so that all men (and WOMEN I should add) have a vote.
I'm glad you mentioned this as I would have mentioned it myself otherwise. Democracy is important for many reasons and Britian should use the most Democratic system available to us. In may we will have a choice between two, and one of those two, the current system is the least democratic system used anywhere in the world.
"Under AV those who vote for smaller parties (as the votes are redistributed upward) are allowed to votes at least twice and in some cases several times."
Everyone gets one vote. One voter, one ballot paper. Multiple preferences are declared, but the vote only ends up with one candidate. If you voted for a popular candidate your vote ends up with that candidate. If you voted for an unpopular candidate, your vote will end up with a different one, (quite possibly the same popular candidate), but it's one vote. Each vote is counted each round and everyone's vote gets counted the same number of times as everyone else's. It's simply not true to say that some people get more votes than others. When you go to buy a drink and your favourite beer is off, so you end up buying a different one, you still only come away with the one pint.
The difference between AV and FPTP is under AV you get a pint and you get to choose between the ones that are available. Under FPTP You don't get told "sorry that beer's off, now I have to serve the next gentleman and you have to join the back of the queue" (i.e. that's your vote used up, try again next election).
In democracy, everyone should get one vote that is worth as much as everyone else's. Everyone who queues up at the bar should walk away with a pint. (Please note, the pint in this analogy does not represent the winning candidate, it represents a vote going to a candidate, who may lose but would lose only to someone else who got a majority - i.e. 50% +1)
So as you recognise how important democracy is and the price paid for it I hope you will see now that choosing to keep First Past the Post is a terrible show of disrespect to all those who suffered so that all men (and WOMEN I should add) have a vote.
"Another crime for which it is guilty is it drives votes toward the least disliked."
First Past the Post already does this. It forces voters to make a choice between what they want (a wasted vote) and their least disliked option (a tactical vote). They could go with their true preference but already know it would mean they don't make any contribution towards deciding between the disliked candidate and the next most disliked candidate - the only one who has a chance of beating the disliked candidate. They could vote for the least disliked and try to keep out the disliked, or vote for their first choice and know it's a waste as they'll have no say in the outcome.
" Think of the labour leadership election, it was not the most popular or the most controversial; it was the least offensive to both sides. They where not selected by first or even second preference votes but by fourth and fifth, they were elected by the “there okay I suppose” preference."
The Labour leadership outcome was skewed by a perculiar vote weighting between the different people eligible to vote in the election. The fact that Ed beat David had nothing to do with whether it was FPTP or AV. Ed would have won under FPTP as I understand.
HOWEVER: Let's suppose for a minute that it really WAS that simple. Let's suppose that David would have won under FPTP, but lost to Ed instead under AV. Think about what that would have meant. It would have meant that the majority of voters preferred Ed to David. Ones who put Ed 2nd would have put David 3rd or lower. Ones ho put Ed 4th would have put David 5th or lower and so one.
If it had been a head to head between Ed and David, Ed would have won. Even if it were true that FPTP would have meant David won instead, he could only have done so thanks to vote splitting between the other candidates. In situations where AV and FPTP would produce different winners, the winner under AV would always beat the winner under FPTP in a head-to-head, because the majority PREFER the AV winner to the FPTP winner.
That's the significance of AV requiring a majority. Even though it draws some of that majority from preferences that aren't 1st, anyone who is beaten by those preferences received even LOWER preferences from the same voter. That's democracy at work and First Past the Post just can't cope with such situations and produces winners that displease the majority of voters.
"As we know candidates follow and are pushed by electoral trends and if moving toward blandness and indecisiveness if the key to win on the great surge of “there okay I suppose” votes then this is exactly what they will do."
Candidates FOLLOWING what the voters want is exactly as things SHOULD be. If the majority of voters wanted a candidate who would make it law to wear pink hats every 3rd sunday of the month, then it is RIGHT that a candidate who would introduce that law should win. You may not like Pink hats, and I may not like Pink hats, but if that's what the majority want then that's how it should be, and you and I are free to go and live somewhere else.
Now take that Pink hat rule example and give it another name, such as the Iraq War, or Tuition Fee increase. In both cases, the majority didn't want it. But we got stuck with both because a government was elected with a minority of votes. It may have been the largest minority, but it was still a minority and resulted in the majority of voters being particularly unhappy. We need to replace First Past the Post with a system that rewards candidates who listen to the majority of voters if we want anything resembling democracy in Britain. AV goes some way towards doing that. At the very least it's a big improvement on the current system.
First Past the Post already does this. It forces voters to make a choice between what they want (a wasted vote) and their least disliked option (a tactical vote). They could go with their true preference but already know it would mean they don't make any contribution towards deciding between the disliked candidate and the next most disliked candidate - the only one who has a chance of beating the disliked candidate. They could vote for the least disliked and try to keep out the disliked, or vote for their first choice and know it's a waste as they'll have no say in the outcome.
" Think of the labour leadership election, it was not the most popular or the most controversial; it was the least offensive to both sides. They where not selected by first or even second preference votes but by fourth and fifth, they were elected by the “there okay I suppose” preference."
The Labour leadership outcome was skewed by a perculiar vote weighting between the different people eligible to vote in the election. The fact that Ed beat David had nothing to do with whether it was FPTP or AV. Ed would have won under FPTP as I understand.
HOWEVER: Let's suppose for a minute that it really WAS that simple. Let's suppose that David would have won under FPTP, but lost to Ed instead under AV. Think about what that would have meant. It would have meant that the majority of voters preferred Ed to David. Ones who put Ed 2nd would have put David 3rd or lower. Ones ho put Ed 4th would have put David 5th or lower and so one.
If it had been a head to head between Ed and David, Ed would have won. Even if it were true that FPTP would have meant David won instead, he could only have done so thanks to vote splitting between the other candidates. In situations where AV and FPTP would produce different winners, the winner under AV would always beat the winner under FPTP in a head-to-head, because the majority PREFER the AV winner to the FPTP winner.
That's the significance of AV requiring a majority. Even though it draws some of that majority from preferences that aren't 1st, anyone who is beaten by those preferences received even LOWER preferences from the same voter. That's democracy at work and First Past the Post just can't cope with such situations and produces winners that displease the majority of voters.
"As we know candidates follow and are pushed by electoral trends and if moving toward blandness and indecisiveness if the key to win on the great surge of “there okay I suppose” votes then this is exactly what they will do."
Candidates FOLLOWING what the voters want is exactly as things SHOULD be. If the majority of voters wanted a candidate who would make it law to wear pink hats every 3rd sunday of the month, then it is RIGHT that a candidate who would introduce that law should win. You may not like Pink hats, and I may not like Pink hats, but if that's what the majority want then that's how it should be, and you and I are free to go and live somewhere else.
Now take that Pink hat rule example and give it another name, such as the Iraq War, or Tuition Fee increase. In both cases, the majority didn't want it. But we got stuck with both because a government was elected with a minority of votes. It may have been the largest minority, but it was still a minority and resulted in the majority of voters being particularly unhappy. We need to replace First Past the Post with a system that rewards candidates who listen to the majority of voters if we want anything resembling democracy in Britain. AV goes some way towards doing that. At the very least it's a big improvement on the current system.
"Another crime for which it is guilty is it drives votes toward the least disliked."
First Past the Post already does this. It forces voters to make a choice between what they want (a wasted vote) and their least disliked option (a tactical vote). They could go with their true preference but already know it would mean they don't make any contribution towards deciding between the disliked candidate and the next most disliked candidate - the only one who has a chance of beating the disliked candidate. They could vote for the least disliked and try to keep out the disliked, or vote for their first choice and know it's a waste as they'll have no say in the outcome.
" Think of the labour leadership election, it was not the most popular or the most controversial; it was the least offensive to both sides. They where not selected by first or even second preference votes but by fourth and fifth, they were elected by the “there okay I suppose” preference."
The Labour leadership outcome was skewed by a perculiar vote weighting between the different people eligible to vote in the election. The fact that Ed beat David had nothing to do with whether it was FPTP or AV. Ed would have won under FPTP as I understand.
HOWEVER: Let's suppose for a minute that it really WAS that simple. Let's suppose that David would have won under FPTP, but lost to Ed instead under AV. Think about what that would have meant. It would have meant that the majority of voters preferred Ed to David. Ones who put Ed 2nd would have put David 3rd or lower. Ones ho put Ed 4th would have put David 5th or lower and so one.
If it had been a head to head between Ed and David, Ed would have won. Even if it were true that FPTP would have meant David won instead, he could only have done so thanks to vote splitting between the other candidates. In situations where AV and FPTP would produce different winners, the winner under AV would always beat the winner under FPTP in a head-to-head, because the majority PREFER the AV winner to the FPTP winner.
That's the significance of AV requiring a majority. Even though it draws some of that majority from preferences that aren't 1st, anyone who is beaten by those preferences received even LOWER preferences from the same voter. That's democracy at work and First Past the Post just can't cope with such situations and produces winners that displease the majority of voters.
First Past the Post already does this. It forces voters to make a choice between what they want (a wasted vote) and their least disliked option (a tactical vote). They could go with their true preference but already know it would mean they don't make any contribution towards deciding between the disliked candidate and the next most disliked candidate - the only one who has a chance of beating the disliked candidate. They could vote for the least disliked and try to keep out the disliked, or vote for their first choice and know it's a waste as they'll have no say in the outcome.
" Think of the labour leadership election, it was not the most popular or the most controversial; it was the least offensive to both sides. They where not selected by first or even second preference votes but by fourth and fifth, they were elected by the “there okay I suppose” preference."
The Labour leadership outcome was skewed by a perculiar vote weighting between the different people eligible to vote in the election. The fact that Ed beat David had nothing to do with whether it was FPTP or AV. Ed would have won under FPTP as I understand.
HOWEVER: Let's suppose for a minute that it really WAS that simple. Let's suppose that David would have won under FPTP, but lost to Ed instead under AV. Think about what that would have meant. It would have meant that the majority of voters preferred Ed to David. Ones who put Ed 2nd would have put David 3rd or lower. Ones ho put Ed 4th would have put David 5th or lower and so one.
If it had been a head to head between Ed and David, Ed would have won. Even if it were true that FPTP would have meant David won instead, he could only have done so thanks to vote splitting between the other candidates. In situations where AV and FPTP would produce different winners, the winner under AV would always beat the winner under FPTP in a head-to-head, because the majority PREFER the AV winner to the FPTP winner.
That's the significance of AV requiring a majority. Even though it draws some of that majority from preferences that aren't 1st, anyone who is beaten by those preferences received even LOWER preferences from the same voter. That's democracy at work and First Past the Post just can't cope with such situations and produces winners that displease the majority of voters.
"As we know candidates follow and are pushed by electoral trends and if moving toward blandness and indecisiveness if the key to win on the great surge of “there okay I suppose” votes then this is exactly what they will do."
Candidates FOLLOWING what the voters want is exactly as things SHOULD be. If the majority of voters wanted a candidate who would make it law to wear pink hats every 3rd sunday of the month, then it is RIGHT that a candidate who would introduce that law should win. You may not like Pink hats, and I may not like Pink hats, but if that's what the majority want then that's how it should be, and you and I are free to go and live somewhere else.
Now take that Pink hat rule example and give it another name, such as the Iraq War, or Tuition Fee increase. In both cases, the majority didn't want it. But we got stuck with both because a government was elected with a minority of votes. It may have been the largest minority, but it was still a minority and resulted in the majority of voters being particularly unhappy. We need to replace First Past the Post with a system that rewards candidates who listen to the majority of voters if we want anything resembling democracy in Britain. AV goes some way towards doing that. At the very least it's a big improvement on the current system.
Candidates FOLLOWING what the voters want is exactly as things SHOULD be. If the majority of voters wanted a candidate who would make it law to wear pink hats every 3rd sunday of the month, then it is RIGHT that a candidate who would introduce that law should win. You may not like Pink hats, and I may not like Pink hats, but if that's what the majority want then that's how it should be, and you and I are free to go and live somewhere else.
Now take that Pink hat rule example and give it another name, such as the Iraq War, or Tuition Fee increase. In both cases, the majority didn't want it. But we got stuck with both because a government was elected with a minority of votes. It may have been the largest minority, but it was still a minority and resulted in the majority of voters being particularly unhappy. We need to replace First Past the Post with a system that rewards candidates who listen to the majority of voters if we want anything resembling democracy in Britain. AV goes some way towards doing that. At the very least it's a big improvement on the current system.
"Added to this the fact that I very much doubt that AV will alter the electoral landscape, indeed I believe it will reinforce the dominance of the two party system."
If Labour and the Tories continue to dominate British Politics under AV it can only mean that they deserve to. If they're still winning the lion's share of seats once everyone's stopped voting tactically and each seat is won with majority support then it proves that all those Labour and Conservative MPs deserve to be there.
Furthermore there'll be no comfortable jobs for life for MPs of any party. They'll only continue to win and keep their seats if they work hard for it. Any sign of sleaze, promise-breaking, expenses fiddling, warmongering and the like can easily be punished because the majority of preferences will end up going elsewhere. Everyone's accountable. And I include the Lib Dems here. Rightly or wrongly, they are rather unpopular at the moment, but it'll be just as easy to punish them under AV as anyone else. They even, may find themselves making way for Greens or UKIP as the third party, IF it's what the people want.
What the people want by the way is the key issue here. Under AV voters get more say. They express their views fully with a full spectrum of positive and negative opinions of candidates. No-one can hide, or sit comfortably with their core vote alone.
"Let us use the Ed Balls seat as an example. Labour where only defeated by UKIP votes from the Tories, had AV been used those preferences would have transferred to the Tories."
Ok, what happens here is that people who prefer UKIP to Tories will vote UKIP first. All of them. And it'll be clear how many of them there really are. They'll see it, and the UKIP candidate will see it, and all of the other voters will see it as well. And they'll think, "Hang on, it may only take so much more to overtake some of the other parties in this constituency over time." As a result you'll see UKIP working really hard to build a momentum. Their chances will instead of being impossible, will just be rather difficult. They'll push hard to turn that "rather difficult" into "not particularly easy" and so on. Meanwhile all the other candidates will be working hard too. Everyone will be under pressure, to stay ahead of the game, or to make ground on others who don't do so well.
Under FPTP you have people who can't win, people who can't lose, and very occasionally people with even chances between them.
You'll get the least effort from people who can't lose. They know whatever they do, they're in a job for life and they'll be coming back. All they have to do is dress smartly and not say anything overtly racist. They certainly won't have to do much between elections. Just a bit of campaigning before an election and then once they're in office they can relax.
The next least amount of effort comes from people who can't win. They don't have any chance of winning but they're there and it's the taking part that counts and they at least can try and beat their personal best in share of the votes.
The only time you see people firing on all cylinders is when they've got a fair chance of winning but also a fair chance of losing. They can win if they really go for it, but if they don't they won't. AV makes that situation the most common one for candidates across the country. And that's how AV makes our MPs work harder to win and keep their seats.
If Labour and the Tories continue to dominate British Politics under AV it can only mean that they deserve to. If they're still winning the lion's share of seats once everyone's stopped voting tactically and each seat is won with majority support then it proves that all those Labour and Conservative MPs deserve to be there.
Furthermore there'll be no comfortable jobs for life for MPs of any party. They'll only continue to win and keep their seats if they work hard for it. Any sign of sleaze, promise-breaking, expenses fiddling, warmongering and the like can easily be punished because the majority of preferences will end up going elsewhere. Everyone's accountable. And I include the Lib Dems here. Rightly or wrongly, they are rather unpopular at the moment, but it'll be just as easy to punish them under AV as anyone else. They even, may find themselves making way for Greens or UKIP as the third party, IF it's what the people want.
What the people want by the way is the key issue here. Under AV voters get more say. They express their views fully with a full spectrum of positive and negative opinions of candidates. No-one can hide, or sit comfortably with their core vote alone.
"Let us use the Ed Balls seat as an example. Labour where only defeated by UKIP votes from the Tories, had AV been used those preferences would have transferred to the Tories."
Ok, what happens here is that people who prefer UKIP to Tories will vote UKIP first. All of them. And it'll be clear how many of them there really are. They'll see it, and the UKIP candidate will see it, and all of the other voters will see it as well. And they'll think, "Hang on, it may only take so much more to overtake some of the other parties in this constituency over time." As a result you'll see UKIP working really hard to build a momentum. Their chances will instead of being impossible, will just be rather difficult. They'll push hard to turn that "rather difficult" into "not particularly easy" and so on. Meanwhile all the other candidates will be working hard too. Everyone will be under pressure, to stay ahead of the game, or to make ground on others who don't do so well.
Under FPTP you have people who can't win, people who can't lose, and very occasionally people with even chances between them.
You'll get the least effort from people who can't lose. They know whatever they do, they're in a job for life and they'll be coming back. All they have to do is dress smartly and not say anything overtly racist. They certainly won't have to do much between elections. Just a bit of campaigning before an election and then once they're in office they can relax.
The next least amount of effort comes from people who can't win. They don't have any chance of winning but they're there and it's the taking part that counts and they at least can try and beat their personal best in share of the votes.
The only time you see people firing on all cylinders is when they've got a fair chance of winning but also a fair chance of losing. They can win if they really go for it, but if they don't they won't. AV makes that situation the most common one for candidates across the country. And that's how AV makes our MPs work harder to win and keep their seats.
"Added to this the fact that I very much doubt that AV will alter the electoral landscape, indeed I believe it will reinforce the dominance of the two party system."
If Labour and the Tories continue to dominate British Politics under AV it can only mean that they deserve to. If they're still winning the lion's share of seats once everyone's stopped voting tactically and each seat is won with majority support then it proves that all those Labour and Conservative MPs deserve to be there.
Furthermore there'll be no comfortable jobs for life for MPs of any party. They'll only continue to win and keep their seats if they work hard for it. Any sign of sleaze, promise-breaking, expenses fiddling, warmongering and the like can easily be punished because the majority of preferences will end up going elsewhere. Everyone's accountable. And I include the Lib Dems here. Rightly or wrongly, they are rather unpopular at the moment, but it'll be just as easy to punish them under AV as anyone else. They even, may find themselves making way for Greens or UKIP as the third party, IF it's what the people want.
What the people want by the way is the key issue here. Under AV voters get more say. They express their views fully with a full spectrum of positive and negative opinions of candidates. No-one can hide, or sit comfortably with their core vote alone.
If Labour and the Tories continue to dominate British Politics under AV it can only mean that they deserve to. If they're still winning the lion's share of seats once everyone's stopped voting tactically and each seat is won with majority support then it proves that all those Labour and Conservative MPs deserve to be there.
Furthermore there'll be no comfortable jobs for life for MPs of any party. They'll only continue to win and keep their seats if they work hard for it. Any sign of sleaze, promise-breaking, expenses fiddling, warmongering and the like can easily be punished because the majority of preferences will end up going elsewhere. Everyone's accountable. And I include the Lib Dems here. Rightly or wrongly, they are rather unpopular at the moment, but it'll be just as easy to punish them under AV as anyone else. They even, may find themselves making way for Greens or UKIP as the third party, IF it's what the people want.
What the people want by the way is the key issue here. Under AV voters get more say. They express their views fully with a full spectrum of positive and negative opinions of candidates. No-one can hide, or sit comfortably with their core vote alone.
"Let us use the Ed Balls seat as an example. Labour where only defeated by UKIP votes from the Tories, had AV been used those preferences would have transferred to the Tories."
Ok, what happens here is that people who prefer UKIP to Tories will vote UKIP first. All of them. And it'll be clear how many of them there really are. They'll see it, and the UKIP candidate will see it, and all of the other voters will see it as well. And they'll think, "Hang on, it may only take so much more to overtake some of the other parties in this constituency over time." As a result you'll see UKIP working really hard to build a momentum. Their chances will instead of being impossible, will just be rather difficult. They'll push hard to turn that "rather difficult" into "not particularly easy" and so on. Meanwhile all the other candidates will be working hard too. Everyone will be under pressure, to stay ahead of the game, or to make ground on others who don't do so well.
Under FPTP you have people who can't win, people who can't lose, and very occasionally people with even chances between them.
You'll get the least effort from people who can't lose. They know whatever they do, they're in a job for life and they'll be coming back. All they have to do is dress smartly and not say anything overtly racist. They certainly won't have to do much between elections. Just a bit of campaigning before an election and then once they're in office they can relax.
The next least amount of effort comes from people who can't win. They don't have any chance of winning but they're there and it's the taking part that counts and they at least can try and beat their personal best in share of the votes.
Ok, what happens here is that people who prefer UKIP to Tories will vote UKIP first. All of them. And it'll be clear how many of them there really are. They'll see it, and the UKIP candidate will see it, and all of the other voters will see it as well. And they'll think, "Hang on, it may only take so much more to overtake some of the other parties in this constituency over time." As a result you'll see UKIP working really hard to build a momentum. Their chances will instead of being impossible, will just be rather difficult. They'll push hard to turn that "rather difficult" into "not particularly easy" and so on. Meanwhile all the other candidates will be working hard too. Everyone will be under pressure, to stay ahead of the game, or to make ground on others who don't do so well.
Under FPTP you have people who can't win, people who can't lose, and very occasionally people with even chances between them.
You'll get the least effort from people who can't lose. They know whatever they do, they're in a job for life and they'll be coming back. All they have to do is dress smartly and not say anything overtly racist. They certainly won't have to do much between elections. Just a bit of campaigning before an election and then once they're in office they can relax.
The next least amount of effort comes from people who can't win. They don't have any chance of winning but they're there and it's the taking part that counts and they at least can try and beat their personal best in share of the votes.
The only time you see people firing on all cylinders is when they've got a fair chance of winning but also a fair chance of losing. They can win if they really go for it, but if they don't they won't. AV makes that situation the most common one for candidates across the country. And that's how AV makes our MPs work harder to win and keep their seats.
No comments:
Post a Comment