| Part of the Politics series |
| Electoral systems |
|---|
 |
 Politics portal |
The alternative vote plus (AV+), or alternative vote top-up, is a semi-proportional voting system. AV+ was devised by the 1998 Jenkins Commission which first proposed the idea as a system that could be used for elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.[1]
As the name suggests, AV+ is an additional member system which works in two parts: the 'AV' part and the 'plus' part. As in the alternative vote system, candidates are ranked numerically in order of preference. The important difference is that an additional group of members would be elected through regional party lists to ensure a degree of proportionality; in typical proposals, these members are 15–20% of the whole body. More specifically, each voter would get a second vote to elect a county or regional-level representative from a list of candidates of more than one person per party. The number of votes cast in this vote would decide how many representatives from that county or region would go on to parliament. In systems with an electoral threshold on regional seats, votes are transferred in order of voters' numerical preference until it puts a party above the threshold, or reaches a party already above.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:3 874 678905 0534 784 5702 746 5611 147
-
The Alternative Vote Explained
-
Which voting system is the best? - Alex Gendler
-
Politics in the Animal Kingdom: Single Transferable Vote
-
Simulating alternate voting systems
-
Debate on Alternative Voting Systems
Transcription
Queen Lion of the Animal Kingdom is displeased. She recently introduced elections for the office of king using the first post the post voting system. While her Realm started out as a healthy democracy with many parties running candidates for king, it quickly devolved into two party rule, with the citizens not liking either one but trapped within the system because of a problem called the spoiler effect. However, one of Queen Lion’s subjects from a distant land, Wallaby, has a solution: The Alternative Vote. What’s the difference? To find out, lets follow one voter on election day, Red Squirrel, under both systems. There are five candidates running for king, two members of the big parties Gorilla and Leopard and three other candidates, Turtle, Owl and Tiger. Under first-past-the-post Red Squirrel gets a ballot where he picks just one candidate. Red Squirrel Really likes Turtle and even campaigned for him. However he knows that his new neighbor, Grey Squirrel, is voting Gorilla. And what, starts to wonder Red Squirrel, about all the other animals? Who are they going to vote for? The debates on Animal News Network only had the big parties, so Red Squirrel thinks it’s going to be a close race between Gorilla and Leopard. While he’s indifferent toward Gorilla he is deathly afraid of Leopard. Because he can only pick a single candidate, he gives his one vote to Gorilla in hopes of preventing Leopard from becoming king. This is strategic voting, and it’s a necessity under First Past the Post. But now it’s time to look at the Alternative Vote, which wallaby explains to Red Squirrel. Instead of picking one and only one candidate, he can rank them in order of his most favorite to his least. He goes into the voting both and gets the same ballot as before, but now puts Turtle as his first choice, Owl as his second and Gorilla, third. He dislikes Leopard and Tiger equally so he stops filling in his ballot and drops it in the box. At this point, Red Squirrel doesn’t care exactly what happens, he has other things on his mind and heads off. But you, dear citizen, want to know how the votes are counted so here goes: Turtle, beloved though he is with some of the citizenry, comes in last place with only 5% and he is eliminated from the race. Because the voters ranked their candidates in order, we can know what would have happened if Turtle didn’t run. Without Turtle, voters like Red Squirrel, would have picked Owl instead, so their votes are transferred to her as though Turtle was never in the race at all. This is why Alternative Vote is sometimes called Instant Runoff Voting. It’s able to simulate a bunch of elections where the least popular candidate is eliminated after each round without all the time and expense it would take to run a bunch of campaigns, one after another. The Alternative Vote method keeps eliminated the least popular candidate until someone either wins a majority or is the only one left. As no one has a majority yet, the next lowest candidate, Tiger, is eliminated. Tiger voters listed leopard as their second choice, so she gets Tiger’s votes. In the last round, Gorilla is eliminated. Gorilla voters listed Owl as their second choice, so Owl gets those votes, wins a majority, so is crowed king. The alternative vote is a better system because it produces winners that a larger number of voters agree on. While the Alternative Vote does have flaws it’s important to note that any problem AV has, first past the post shares. They’re both susceptible to gerrymandering, they aren’t proportional systems, they can’t guarantee a Condorcet winner (which math geeks hate but there isn’t time to explain here), and over time they both trend toward two main parties. That being said, Alternative Vote has a huge advantage that first past the post lacks and makes it a mathematically superior method: no spoiler effect! Imagine this election: the two big candidates are running, Gorilla and Leopard, and Leopard looks set to win 55% to 45%. But then a third party candidate, Tiger, enters. Tiger manages to convince 15% of the Leopard voters to back him. Now the results are: Under first past the post, gorilla now wins even though a majority of the voters didn’t want him. Under the Alternative Vote, because all Tiger voters put Leopard as second choice, Leopard still wins because a majority of the citizens of the animal kingdom would rather have her in charge than gorilla. With AV citizens can help support and grow smaller parties that they agree without worrying they’ll put someone they don’t like into office. After examining the differences, Queen Lion decrees that the Alternative Vote is to be the rule of the land for electing the king and everyone is happier. …well almost everyone. The two big parties can’t be complacent and need to campaign harder for their votes. This has been The Alternative Vote Explained by me C. G. P. Grey. Thank you very much for watching.
Reaction in the UK
Then Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a statement, saying that the report "makes a well-argued and powerful case for the system it recommends"[2] and that "it is very much a modification of the existing Westminster system, rather than any full blown PR system as practised in other countries." He also praised Lord Jenkins for his work and gave the recommendations a cautious welcome, pointing out in particular that change would help address the "complete absence of Conservative representation in Scotland", a reference to the then most recent election in which the Conservatives failed to win a single seat in Scotland, despite winning 17.5% of the Scottish vote.[3]
However, leading figures in the Cabinet at the time (e.g. Home Secretary Jack Straw, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Chancellor Gordon Brown, and Margaret Beckett) and the Labour NEC, all strongly opposed reform of the voting system, and blocked the chance of change at that time.
The report was welcomed by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, although at the time the Liberal Democrats remained largely committed to STV, but preferred AV+ to first-past-the-post.[4] The report was heavily criticised by the Conservative party, with leader William Hague branding its proposals "a dog's breakfast".
In a May 2009 article in The Times, Health Secretary Alan Johnson called for a referendum on the adoption of this system as part of the response to the 2009 parliamentary expenses scandal. In this piece he praised the system as "an elegant solution".[5] David Cameron, Leader of the Conservative Party, declared on May 26 that his party did not support the AV+ system, or any other form of proportional representation, as it would end up choosing a government "on the basis of secret backroom deals".[6]
In June 2009, it was reported by the BBC that the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was considering changing the electoral system as part of a package of constitutional reform.[7] In February 2010, the Labour government under Gordon Brown offered a Commons vote on a referendum for an alternative vote system, possibly manoeuvering for political positioning in case of a hung parliament following the general election on May 6.[8] In a BBC interview on Election Night 2010, Home Secretary Alan Johnson suggested he would like to see the AV+ system introduced if a deal with the Liberal Democrats became necessary.[9]
A national referendum on the Alternative Vote system was granted as part of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement,[10] but not AV+. The Jenkins Commission rejected plain AV on the basis that it did little to relieve disproportionality,[11] but favoured it over first-past-the-post as the basis for AV+.[12]
The referendum on AV was held on 5 May 2011. Voters rejected the proposed AV voting system by a vote of 68% to 32% in favour of retaining First Past the Post. The turnout of registered voters was 42%.
Properties
AV+ has several properties which may be considered advantages or disadvantages based on ones views on how an electoral system should work and what effects it should produce. Common arguments in favour or against are similar to those relating to its component systems, AV and AMS.
- Single-member constituencies would exist under the scheme, so every voter would have a local MP, but not all MPs would be elected in an SMD.
- Because of compensation (additional seats), results would be more proportional result than FPTP or AV, but would still give a built-in advantage to the largest party and allow one-party rule during landslide years.[citation needed] Coalition governments, which include the opinions of multiple movements of the people, are more likely.
- Would lessen the problems of 'split voting' and the necessity of tactical voting[citation needed].
- Decreases the chances of 'safe seats' and MPs holding seats for life.[citation needed]
- MPs will have to secure 50% of votes to win a constituency seat - making them more accountable and working harder to win over a broader appeal.[citation needed] Limits the chances for extremists to gain power scraping in with minority support.[citation needed] The AV part shuts down the ability for local candidates to slip in with just a minority of the votes.
- It is more complex than FPTP for voters and it might cost more to count the votes
- It will lead to "two types of MP", as a majority would be linked directly to a constituency with a minority with a larger area overlapping the first group. This might weaken the psychological link between voters and their representatives.[citation needed]
See also
References
- ^ "Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System". Archived from the original on 31 January 2014. Retrieved 25 May 2009.
- ^ "BBC News - The Jenkins Report - Cautious reaction on voting reform". 29 October 1998. Retrieved 25 May 2009.
- ^ "THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION IN SCOTLAND: AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS" (PDF). Summer 1997. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 October 2011. Retrieved 22 April 2011.
- ^ "Liberal Democrat proposal from TakeBackPower.org". Archived from the original on 31 May 2009. Retrieved 26 May 2009.
- ^ "The Times: There is an alternative to our damaged system - Alan Johnson MP". London. 25 May 2009. Retrieved 25 May 2009.
- ^ "BBC news: Cameron in 'people power' pledge". BBC News. 26 May 2009. Archived from the original on 26 May 2009. Retrieved 26 May 2009.
- ^ "BBC news: Brown to propose electoral reform". BBC News. 10 June 2009. Archived from the original on 10 June 2009. Retrieved 9 June 2009.
- ^ "BBC news: MPs set for electoral reform vote". BBC News. 1 February 2010. Archived from the original on 4 February 2010. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- ^ Ashley, Jackie; Glover, Julian; Kettle, Martin; Perkins, Anne (1 February 2010). "Guardian Election Night Live". Guardian. London. Retrieved 1 February 2010.
- ^ Oliver, Jonathan (6 June 2010). "Cameron won't lead campaign to save first-past-the-post voting". The Times. London. Retrieved 6 June 2010.
- ^ "The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System". Archived from the original on 17 December 2002. Retrieved 16 April 2011.
- ^ "The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System". Archived from the original on 12 October 2009. Retrieved 16 April 2011.
External links
- Alternative vote - what is it? Simple animation explaining Alternative Vote system (not AV+)
- Electoral Reform Society page on the AV+ system
This page was last edited on 7 February 2024, at 16:41