tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48573302577762645.post874761577649762236..comments2014-04-03T21:45:09.217+01:00Comments on Pragmatic Government: AV, yes or no?Zakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15551624501176429723noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48573302577762645.post-19002318329799323412011-05-03T14:53:08.169+01:002011-05-03T14:53:08.169+01:00I hope you do go into politics, and that you can m...I hope you do go into politics, and that you can maintain your idealism. Great blog, I like what you're doing here.Captain PhingerSpexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01021111010978218511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48573302577762645.post-15589435741250434772011-05-03T14:29:09.154+01:002011-05-03T14:29:09.154+01:00You say a safe seat is one where people vote overw...You say a safe seat is one where people vote overwhelmingly for the same party. This is not true. Where I live is considered a safe seat and far less than 50% of people voted for the incumbent in the last election. Seats can be considered safe if the opposition to the incumbent is highly fractured between two or more parties. AV will go some way towards giving the voters in these kinds of constituencies more say, so I am voting YES.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48573302577762645.post-23913574138450267882011-04-30T21:14:44.299+01:002011-04-30T21:14:44.299+01:00You may have a point there. I guess AV might mean ...You may have a point there. I guess AV might mean that some of the seats which are relatively safe now might not be as safe under AV but generally, I would suspect that very safe seats are safe mainly because they have a very high proportion of supporters who would still vote for the party regardless of which system was used. <br /><br />As to higher turnout, I find it difficult to believe people would feel they had more of a say under AV, mainly because it's still one vote at the end of the day but I suppose it cannot be ruled out.Zakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551624501176429723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48573302577762645.post-50367387550547163552011-04-30T15:50:54.481+01:002011-04-30T15:50:54.481+01:00You point out that AV won't end safe seats but...You point out that AV won't end safe seats but appear to buy into some of the more subtle myths perpetuated by the No campaign in your explanation of this point.<br /><br />Firstly, two-thirds of MPs don't currently get 50% of the vote, but many of these may currently be regarded as safe. For example, an MP may have 40% of the vote, with other candidates at 20% or below. Under FPTP, this would probably be regarded as a safe seat, such is the lead, but may well not be under AV. As you say beforehand, MPs will have to broaden their appeal.<br /><br />Secondly, and perhaps more crucially, that an MP currently gets more than 50% of the vote in no way means that their seat would be safe under AV since many of their votes might be tactical rather than genuine first choices. Given the freedom to vote for their first choice candidate knowing that it won't be wasted, it may be that the candidate with the most votes won't get 50% initially. Although they may still get elected, it may not be with the same majority as when people felt they had no choice but to vote tactically, second-guessing others' votes in the process.<br /><br />Finally, given that people may feel they have more of a say with AV, if not with their first choice then with their second or third, this may increase turnout, particularly among those who dislike their safe-under-FPTP MP.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14789820742271547020noreply@blogger.com