Douglas Carswell MP: Who'd be toast under AV?

Who'd be toast under AV?

Ever since the coalition announced that they intended holding a referendum on the election system, the media has been full of speculation about the implications.

It’ll mean permanent coalition, say some. It’ll further insulate MPs in safe seats, pronounce others. Now is the time for some cool-headed analysis.

The Electoral Reform Society published findings on May 10^th, immediately after the General Election, which told us the headline results that:

1. Tories would have done even worse at the last election under AV than we did. With AV, we’d have been even further from a majority – with 25 fewer seats. Which ones? The ERS said at the time “data down to constituency level will be circulated shortly”.

I’ve now had that data passed on to me, and can reveal what it shows.

2. The following list of 25 Conservative candidates would not be MPs today if we had had AV.

3. In addition, the following list of 78 Conservative MPs would have been highly vulnerable on May 6^th had we AV, given that they each had less than 45% of the vote.

That’s 25 + 78 current MPs who’d either definitely or likely lose out. And the winners would be ?.....

As a supporter of electoral reform, I still don’t see why we signed up to AV. Am I missing something?

Posted on 6 July 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

At least there will be some socialist representation in Essex under AV (Thurrock).

With the reduction in MPs announced yesterday, Essex loses one seat - which of your colleagues will we lose?

Posted on 6 July 2010 16:14 by Julian Ware-Lane

Make AV an irrelevance.

Give the electorate the power of veto over taxation and borrowing.

If you want to borrow, you have to ask the electorate.

If you want to increase taxes, you have to ask the electorate.

What do you think they will say?

Posted on 6 July 2010 16:23 by Nick

Incredibly poorly thought out system, and likely to confuse a lot of people, too. Watch the number of 'spoiled votes' go up as people cast both their votes for the same person...

Any true political reform must start by making sure all political parties are funded wholly and solely through blind trusts, to prevent the buying of influence.

Past that, the obvious answer is to use FTTP for the Commons and PR for the Lords, which gives you the best of both worlds: a clear majority and ability to govern in the primary chamber, and a proper check that represents everyone in the nation as the second house.

I'd also add that for the PR section, all actual members should be drawn by lottery rather than using a party preferred list, as that will severely limit the number of poor candidates any party would put up. Any seat gained past the end of the list would fall to other parties, so there could be no cheating by adding party lists for unclaimed seats, either.

That little lot should set many MPs to screaming I have no doubt, but I'm pretty sure it would be good for the UK rather than just good for the politicians.

Posted on 6 July 2010 16:43 by Elliot Kane

Surely we can't tell what the vote would have been had we had AV seeing as we can't predict what the people who voted would have placed as second preferences.

Not sure why AV but i think its because its what the rest of your colleagues and Labour can stomach.

Posted on 6 July 2010 16:52 by Nic

Julian - Bob Russell?

Posted on 6 July 2010 16:54 by Henry Quisling

I think the point of electoral reform is that voters benefit, isn't it? In the case of AV, the benefit is the ability to better express their views.

Posted on 6 July 2010 16:56 by Ian Eiloart

Anything that gets David Tredinnick out of the House of Commons has got to be a good thing, hasn't it?

Posted on 6 July 2010 16:59 by David Cross

So, chaos at the ballot box? How do Londoners cope with AV?
And then there are the other hypothetical questions you have not asked:
How many Labour or Lib-Dem MP's would not have got in under AV?
How many MORE Conservative MP's would have got in under AV?

Posted on 6 July 2010 17:06 by JohnP

This ignores changes in voting intention since the election (strongly moved from Lab to Con as second preference for Lib Dem voters for example) as well as the redrawn boundaries, so is pretty useless.

Posted on 6 July 2010 17:07 by Andrea Gill

I didn't realise a prerequisite for changing the electoral system is that the number of Conservative MPs has to go up, Carswell. Surely just making it easier for people to have their say is enough?

Posted on 6 July 2010 17:26 by GF

As far as I can see, and forgive me if I am wrong, but we have to have a winning party who gets over 50% of the populist vote.

The smallest party gets knocked out, and their second votes are spread to their other choices.

Then the next smaller party gets knocked out and the same thing happens.

This goes on until there is a winner.

This means the winner will always be one of the three main parties. The smaller parties will never get a look in.

I try, but I cannot see anything fair in that.

Unless, when we have a winner, the actual makeup of the seats left over from the winning party is pread proportionately amongst all the parties taking part.

Is this going to happen?

Ampers.

Posted on 6 July 2010 17:39 by Ampers Taylor

Your`ve convinced me. Definately voting for AV in the referendum!

Posted on 6 July 2010 17:50 by Jack Stone

Posted on 6 July 2010 18:39 by Ampers Taylor

UKIP would have benefitted for sure. Under a AV you could see a result like with Germany where there is a main right of centre party (CDU) and it has a "sister" party in Bavaria.

Posted on 6 July 2010 19:03 by Andrew Ian Dodge

"It'll mean permanent coalition, say some".
This, I think is the most important prediction, and for good solid reasons.
Can anyone name any country which has any form of proportional representation, and which does NOT have a coalition government?

I've been asking this question for some time, particularly of LibDems who want PR, but who seem to be strongly opposed to the idea of coalition government!

Of course, PR does give the extreme and one-issue groupings a chance to get some representation in parliament, and often their ideas have to be accepted by one of the other parties in order to be able to form a majority government.
I wonder if I could get a seat on the single issue of bringing back Capital Punishment?

Posted on 7 July 2010 09:37 by English Pensioner

Douglas, while it is fair enough for Conservatives to seek to understand the effect on themselves personally, there are a few more factors at play here which should give Tory MPs reason to be more cheerful.
(1) every kind of prediction about how FPTP votes translate into another electoral system are at best educated guesswork, based on an assumption that every FPTP vote would be an AV first preference, and second preferences would follow polling data of how voters for each party nationally would split their support. Can I count the ways in which these assumptions are both flawed in each constituency?
(2) If different electoral systems show us anything, it is that different systems subtly change voter behaviour. Under AV there will be no more of the "two-horse race" tactical voting arguments, and gradually people will learn that they can give their first preference to who they want, which will show us real levels of support for each party.
(3) The second preferences of LD voters in the South-West will not split the same way as second preferences of LD voters in the North-East. Ditto for Scottish Conservative supporters vs the urban south, Labour voters in the Midlands vs the South East, etc. etc. The distribution of second preferences will depend upon local factors and, yes, even the candidates selected.
(4) the real victory for Conservatives is that AV is reform which makes all votes count and encourages participation, yet still preserves the dynamic which pushes towards a two-party system (e.g. see Australia, where almost every final run-off, or two-party preferred result as they call it, involves the Labor Party and the centre-right Liberal/National coalition).
(5) MPs with a 45% share of the vote or less, and with small majorities over the second-placed party (i.e. all of the 25 you list) will also be vulnerable at the next election under the existing FPTP system. AV doesn't change that political context.
(6) We're not going to re-run the last election next time around, we're going to have a new one. The context will be coalition government, which should encourage more LD voters to think about Conservative second preferences than would otherwise be the case. Plus the electorate will be different: in each constituency some voters will have moved out and others in; some will have died and some will have become 18. And if the Conservative MPs listed do a good job, then their incumbency will count for something.

Posted on 7 July 2010 09:59 by Derek Young

I certainly think that in limiting it to AV rather than PR the Tories, as individuals, are showing a lack of imagination, in respect of their best interests.

The real effect of AV & PR will be that people don't feel forced to vote for somebody they don't like on the grounds they aren't as awful as the other lot. The ultimate losers are thus those who control party organisation & the ultimate winners the individuals of all parties who feel "their2 party doesn't really represnt them - ie almost everybody.

Gad either AV or PR been in place many more people would have put UKIP as their first choice. My opinion is that many fewer would have voted LibDem because, removing their role as representing protest & representing those who like a more honest electoral system they are attractive only yo people who want windmills, smoking bans, the EU & an immigration amnesty. I think PR would lead to government by a coalition of people currecntly supporting the Conservatives & UKIP (though possibly not under those party labels).

Posted on 7 July 2010 11:03 by Neil Craig

I think it's all backwards. Surely we should rate the candidates from worst to best. The one with the highest "worst" rating gets dropped, with the votes being assigned to the second-worst category. This continues until there are two candidates left, one of whom is disliked by the least number of voters and so is elected.

Posted on 7 July 2010 12:57 by David Hough

Why do you think that any party should be able to govern as a majority party while receiving well under 40% of the vote? The winners, most likely, would be the Lib Dems to an extent, but this could also lead to complete polarisation of some areas e.g. Scotland losing its only tory MP and the southeast losing the few Labour MPs left outside London.

Posted on 7 July 2010 23:00 by Calum W

As I understand it, the preferences of the parties are (or were): Conservative: no change; LibDems: PR; Labour: AV (as proposed by them before the election). So why are we having a referendum on a system preferred by the party that LOST? Scuse me? Who lives at Number 10? Not Gordon Brown, last time I checked. Hell's bells.

Besides, when I vote, I know who I want, thanks very much, I don't have a second preference, I don't want a second preference. I am not a baby.

AV sucks.

Posted on 8 July 2010 09:06 by assegai mike

Dear Douglas,

Surely as Conservatives we should be actively campaigning for county or regionally based full PR.

AV is just a political stitch up. It only benefits the 3rd party, not the electorate or democracy.

Posted on 9 July 2010 08:28 by Marco Forgione

I'm not sure if that list is trustworthy. The one constituency I knew about had Labour and Libdem results mixed up. Carswell should be dragged before the house to apologise!

Posted on 9 July 2010 08:45 by Jamie

It's difficult to say who would lose out or benefit with AV as we have no idea how else people would have voted in the election. I would suspect, however, that such a change would benefit the Tories. If someone is a Labourite who will they vote for after Labour? Not Lib Dem anymore. So they may vote SNP second if they are in Scotland. But otherwise their votes will be split amongst "the Real Labour Party", "The Socialist Workers" and dozens of tiny do-nothing lefty parties. And the Greens too may gain. But the Tories would have a large number (a million plus) of the UKIP votes as their second choice. They would possibly receive a large chunk of the Unionists' collective as second votes, too. And people like myself (who voted UKIP) may well have put the Tories first and UKIP second and been happier with that than being forced to make a decision between the two, as with FPTP. In reality I suspect AV would benefit the smaller parties like UKIP and the Greens. Of course how it would affect the Lib Dems now they're working with the Tories, who can say?

Posted on 10 July 2010 15:04 by Mr A

AV encourages the major parties to pander to the whf those who vote for the minority parims o

Posted on 11 July 2010 17:46 by It doesn't add up...

hello im wondering if you can help with some council housing issues iam having if u can please repley to this email with a number i can contact u on and discus it more that would be very helpfull thank you . miss sarah marshall

Posted on 12 July 2010 21:40 by sarah marshall

Ok, AV is not that good, but it is a lot fairer than FPTP. I think it is wrong to look along the lines of what is better for a party - we should be supporting the population and allowing the populations wishes to be expressed in government. STV or something similar is of course the best way of achieving this but AV is better than FPTP . Please support democracy and support the yes vote next year. I've read so much rubbish and half truth about AV already because of 'selfish' party politics it is making me sick. Lets care about what the people really want and not what is good for individual parties.

Posted on 9 August 2010 22:28 by dave thawley