Rik Mayall arguing against AV

June 26th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

as Alan B’stard lauds the virtues of the Alternate Voting system, for the No to AV campaign a couple of years ago. This follows on from his characters’comment that the beauty of proportional voting is that even if they don’t vote for you, you’ll probably still get in.

Tags:

12 Responses to “Rik Mayall arguing against AV”

  1. Manolo (13,580 comments) says:

    Closer to home, the bastard politicians sounds very much like Silent T. It cannot be a coincidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,283 comments) says:

    This follows on from his characters’comment that the beauty of proportional voting is that even if they don’t vote for you, you’ll probably still get in.

    AV is not proportional voting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. James Stephenson (2,153 comments) says:

    AV is not proportional voting.

    1) AV (or strictly speaking AV+ as was being pushed in the UK) is more proportional than FPP.

    2) MMP is proportional and the statement certainly stacks up in the NZ experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    Exactly, AV just gets you the least disliked candidate. It’s better than FPTP, but not by much

    There’s nothing wrong with MMP that couldn’t have been fixed by implementing the recommendations of the electoral commission, the obvious flaws of coat tailing and the 5% threshold should be gone.

    We should have had the world finest voting system, but the one we have it still pretty good by international standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nigel Kearney (984 comments) says:

    AV is not proportional voting.

    No, but the same criticisms apply even more strongly to a proportional system such as MMP.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Changeiscoming (184 comments) says:

    Yes very good – This certianly applies to NZ. I can remember one of the first MMP elections National promising tax cuts and several of my friends voted for them for that reason only. Post Election they they did a deal with Winston and said they couldn’t now do tax cuts.

    To be fair to proportional system that this really does apply to it can also apply to FPP. The current UK parliment is FPP and a 3 party system so deals had to be done to get into Govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Griff (7,517 comments) says:

    MMP allows the man YOU didn’t vote for to get in.
    This is called democracy.
    FFP is the party’s elites voting for your representation behind closed doors.
    Hence many who are happy with the Status Que want a return to an undemocratic system.
    National is to big to represent all on the right . the left has a range of viable choices for representation.
    Colon Crag’s confused party has a place in the electoral landscape.
    Even if it is at the loony fringe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    @Nigel, but those criticisms are counteracted by the benefits of having a political system where majorities can’t be constructed with 40% of the vote and where all votes count equally, parties can’t just focus resources on a few marginal seats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Fentex (937 comments) says:
    AV is not proportional voting.

    No, but the same criticisms apply even more strongly to a proportional system such as MMP.

    But they don’t apply similarly to STV.

    It’s a matter of choice, what does one want from an electoral system and how will the choice sit with the culture in which it is deployed?

    Wanting to be able to spite a person is not a particularly worthy ambition for an electoral system, while gifting power without strong constitutional protections to minority governments would be a foolish thing.

    Would the UK be better off with a proportional system? It would blunt the case for Scottish Independence, have given the Lib-Dems more authority and discouraged their self immolation and delivered superior policy success to their constituents.

    It would also give increased voice and power to UKIP. I would imagine someone’s opinion on the worthiness of that depends on their attitude to the European project.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Graeme Edgeler (3,283 comments) says:

    But they don’t apply similarly to STV.

    How can these criticisms of AV not apply to STV?

    They’re basically criticisms of non-majoritarian electoral systems. If you have a system that means the winner is unlikely to have half of the seats in Parliament, they won’t actually be able to enact what they campaigned on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Floyd60 (92 comments) says:

    All electoral systems result in people that you didn’t vote for getting in. I didn’t vote for a number of electorate MPs who are now in parliament. Ashilly the notion of a constituency is rather antiquated – the regions of NZ get what Key, English and Joyce say they will get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ChardonnayGuy (1,199 comments) says:

    Ironically enough, many Liberal Democrats and UK electoral reform organisations also opposed the AV referendum, because they backed the Single Transferable Vote, the form of proportional representation used in Ireland, Tasmania, Australian Senate elections, several New Zealand local body and DHB elections. One wonders if there’ll be an STV v FPP replay if Labour win the next UK election, as seems likely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.