As the debate begins in earnest over the relative merits of the Alternative Vote and First Past The Post voting systems I thought it would be interesting to see what effect it might have locally.
The Newbury constituency was created in 1885, since then there have been 30 parliamentary elections.
Of those 30 elections, 24 were won by a candidate gaining over 50% of the vote - and hence the result would be the same whichever voting system was in use.
Of the six remaining elections took place between 1964 and 1974 the Conservatives winning them all with a vote share of between 42.4 and 48.8%. The sixth being Richard Benyon's first win in 2005 with 49% of the vote. If the AV system was used what would have been the likely outcome?
Taking 2005 first it would appear likely that Benyon would have won the seat on the second count - on the assumption that the majority of the UKIP voters (1.5%) would chose the Conservatives as their second preference. As Benyon only need to glean 1% more of the vote to reach 50% the UKIP voters alone would probably have swung it for him.
Between 1964 and 1974 there were no fringe parties involved, in all cases it was a three way race between Conservative, Labour and Liberal. The period is also notable for the collapse of the Labour vote in the area and a corresponding rise in the Liberal vote, in effect they swapped places as the main opposition. The relatively low Conservative vote (traditionally their vote share was around 10% higher) suggests that the shift was not simply Labour voters shifting to Liberal but that past Conservative votes were also switching to the Liberals. This is not surprising as the Liberals had not contested the seat in the previous three elections, prior to which their share had fallen to around 10%, so some of the votes would have come from their traditional voters returning from the Conservatives now they had a candidate again. Therefore it seems likely that, were AV in use, the second preference votes of the third party in 1964 to 1970 (the Liberals) would have included sufficient Conservative votes to ensure that their candidate (John Astor) would have held on to the seat.
The only elections in which AV is likely to have made a difference were the two elections of 1974 when Labour support had dwindled to the point where they had become the third party. In both elections the share of the vote was very similar - the Conservatives on 42.4% in both elections, the Liberals 40.3 and 40.6% and Labour 17.3 and 16.7. It seems likely that, under AV, the results would have been different as the Liberals were more likely to gain the 9-10% they needed for victory from the Labour voters' second preferences than the Conservatives would have got the 7.6% they required.
Well researched. Interesting how the labour vote peaked and then declined. There seemed to have been a clear post war vote for them which of course was the major disappointment for Churchill when he lost the government to Clement Attlee. A clear vote by the masses against the 'them and us' class divide after years of war and oppression by the upper classes perhaps.
Is that the best the No campaign come up with - sow confusion and hope people will settle for the familiar?
The film shows a horse race in which the third place finisher is declared the winner. In reality AV will very very very rarely award the seat to the third placed candidate in the first count. This could only happen if there was a really competitive fourth or more candidates. In general it will be the second preference votes for the third candidate that will settle the election and decide which of the top two wins the seat.
First past the post has ensured that the minority have ruled the country for most of the last 100 years - when did the ruling party last gain more than 50% of the public vote?
It would be interesting to see how the current parliament would be made up if AV had been used - back to the spreadsheet.
Mind you the current coalition did get 59.1% between them.
Is that the best the No campaign come up with - sow confusion and hope people will settle for the familiar?
The film shows a horse race in which the third place finisher is declared the winner. In reality AV will very very very rarely award the seat to the third placed candidate in the first count. This could only happen if there was a really competitive fourth or more candidates. In general it will be the second preference votes for the third candidate that will settle the election and decide which of the top two wins the seat.
First past the post has ensured that the minority have ruled the country for most of the last 100 years - when did the ruling party last gain more than 50% of the public vote?
It would be interesting to see how the current parliament would be made up if AV had been used - back to the spreadsheet.
Mind you the current coalition did get 59.1% between them.
I've found the election results in Excel form and had a quick shufti.
212 of the 650 seats were won with an overall majority - so 438 MPs are representing constituencies where more people voted against them than for them.
Looking at the results it seems to me that AV will have the biggest effect in Scotland and Wales - where there are many seats with four strong (>10%) candidates. I suspect Labour and the SNP will do better out of it than the Conservatives or LibDems as they are, in general more likely to second preference each other. A similar effect may be seen in Wales, but Plaid Cymru are not as strong as the SNP so it may be less pronounced. However the Conservatives and LibDems have so few seats in Scotland and Wales that any effect will be minor in the make up of the Commons.
So I have discarded the non-English seats for now.
The data I have does not include minor, local candidates - so all I have is the vote share for the main parties and the Greens, BNP and UKIP. In all cases but one these are minor candidates that would be eliminated - none would gain any seats. The single exception is Brighton Pavillion - which the Greens won with 31.3% of the vote (Con 23.7, Lab 28.9, Lib 13.8, UKIP 1.. It is very possible that AV would cost them the seat as they would need to pick up almost 20% in preference votes - however they could well be saved if enough LibDems kept them in the running for a two way fight with either of the Con or Lab candidates (on the basis that voters for either would vote a preference for Greens rather than each other).
If I share out the other Green, BNP and UKIP votes as follows: BNP and UKIP to Conservative, Green to Lab and LibDem 50:50 there are 299 seats that would be decided without recourse to the main event - elimination of one of the three main parties. In all cases the result would be as per the FPTP election.
When it comes to the final round - elimination of the third place there are 55 Conservatives who would go, 45 Labour and 228 LibDems. This is why the LibDems want AV! If we assume that the Conservatives will prefer LibDem to Labour and Labour will prefer LibDem to Conservative they could pick up as many as 100 extra seats. If we also assume that the LibDems will split 50:50 between Con and Lab there would be no change in the results in the 228 seats were they are eliminated.
The current seats for the main parties: Conservative 306 Labour 258 Liberal Democrat 57
With AV (accoding to my admittedly dodgy assumptions): Conservative 251 Labour 213 Liberal Democrat 157
And the popular vote was: Conservative 10.8m Labour 8.6m Liberal Democrat 6.8m
From where I'm standing the share of seats under AV seems much fairer in terms of the number of voters who support them as their main parties.
Interestingly the real losers from AV seem to be the minor parties - UKIP got almost a million votes and must be hoping to get a seat somewhere soon - AV may make that harder. They and the BNP are firmly in the NO camp for the forthcoming referendum. Its not that they love First Past the Post, both would probably rather have Proportional Representation (as would all minor parties) - I suspect it's more that they fear that adoption of AV would set back any chance of us getting PR in their lifetimes.
So self interest rules - Conservatives and Labour want the status quo to continue because they end up ruling turn and turn about. LibDems want AV because, in the short term, they should be the big winners, and the minor parties don't want AV because it won't help them much - they want to hang on for PR.
Longer term we could well see a change in voting patterns with fewer opting for the big parties as their first preference as tactical voters shift to lesser parties knowing that their dislike of a specific party will still be counted if necessary through their preference votes. Perhaps that will help minor parties.
AV is very much a compromise - Clegg gets a chance at the kudos of introducing a fairer system while Cameron keeps PR off the ballot.
Is that the best the No campaign come up with - sow confusion and hope people will settle for the familiar?
The film shows a horse race in which the third place finisher is declared the winner. In reality AV will very very very rarely award the seat to the third placed candidate in the first count. This could only happen if there was a really competitive fourth or more candidates. In general it will be the second preference votes for the third candidate that will settle the election and decide which of the top two wins the seat.
First past the post has ensured that the minority have ruled the country for most of the last 100 years - when did the ruling party last gain more than 50% of the public vote?
It would be interesting to see how the current parliament would be made up if AV had been used - back to the spreadsheet.
Mind you the current coalition did get 59.1% between them.
But under AV, you can vote with a cross too. If that happens, or people only put a first preference, there is a strong argument that not every MP would be elected by more than 50% of the vote.
I keep changing my mind about what I'd like to see happen, it's time the yes and no campaign stopped the various claims about the ideaology and started to concentrate on the facts of the situation.
Blackdog, I'm not champpioning either campaign, but on the one hand you say that the smaller parties like UKIP lose out with AV so how can it be fair? Everyone should have an equal chance, right? Ed Miliband and a lot of Labour people actively want AV, including most of my colleagues in Newbury, so how can you say we want to continue the current status quo?For me, it's not just about how it will possibly help Labour in Newbury, but the damage it can cause to other parties and independents. We are supposed to live in a democracy, and AV will pretty much cement the top three parties and lock everyone else out. That's why I have concerns about supporting it.
But excellent work with all the data and calculation!!! I won't be too upset if we get AV as I believe it could help Labour here. I just think we need to look at the bigger picture.
I got an idea: we are not looking at this the right way. What we should do is do away with one of the 'left-wing' parties. Problem solved! Two horse race like the Yanks. Doves v Hawks!
Blackdog, I'm not champpioning either campaign, but on the one hand you say that the smaller parties like UKIP lose out with AV so how can it be fair?
It's not 100% fair - just fairer. PR is evidently the fairest system in that the Commons would be as representative as practicable of the electorate.
FPTP is evidently unfair as the majority of the electorate usually get an MP and/or a governing party they voted against.
As I said it seems to be unfair on parties like UKIP and the BNP who would each pick up a number of MPs in a PR system but would remain seatless under AV. AV looks like it might give us a more representative share out of seats amongst the big three parties, but would be no fairer than FPTP for smaller parties. Of course this is all based on the 2010 voting pattern - smaller parties could benefit if AV changes the voting pattern - and it may well do so as many may be prepared to give thier first preference to a small party knowing that, if they are eliminated, their second preference would still count.
Everyone should have an equal chance, right? Ed Miliband and a lot of Labour people actively want AV, including most of my colleagues in Newbury, so how can you say we want to continue the current status quo? For me, it's not just about how it will possibly help Labour in Newbury, but the damage it can cause to other parties and independents. We are supposed to live in a democracy, and AV will pretty much cement the top three parties and lock everyone else out. That's why I have concerns about supporting it.
Fair enough mea culpa - the NO camp in Labour had brought themselves to my attention more than the YES - a bit of googling and I see they are split (200 MPs & Lords saying No while many front benchers are going for YES).
However, if we want everyone to have an equal chance we should ban parties from spending money advertising during the campaign and pass laws forcing newspapers to be unbiased. Small parties are at a massive economic disadvantage today and will be whether we use FPTP or AV.
Below is the latest graph of Newbury results since 1885 - corrections made (thanks for pointing them out User). If I can I will delete the second one with just the one correction. It's perhaps worth noting that the 1923 result was a win for the Liberals with 50.1% v 49.9 for the Tories - it's not clear who won from the graph.
This worthy candidate, according to the graph above was returned to parliament by Newbury's worthy voters. Richard, perhaps a similar style of photograph might get you a seat on the council.
Just heard some 'expert' on the BBC news say that an analysis of the last election suggests that AV would have given the Lib Dems 32 more seats (a long way short of the 100 my guesswork approach suggested). But he did make an interesting point - that this would have made a Labour/LibDem coalition practicable.
Returns from the doorstep tonight: only one in ten favour a switch to AV. That was in Clay Hill ward, and what seems to be happening is support is quickly moving to the No camp.
Returns from the doorstep tonight: only one in ten favour a switch to AV. That was in Clay Hill ward, and what seems to be happening is support is quickly moving to the No camp.
Maybe poeople have been reading the leaflets falling through the letter box?
Maybe poeople have been reading the leaflets falling through the letter box?
Possibly, I personally feel that the Yes camp have not been able to convince people of the need to change. The No argument is very simple. The Yes campaign needs something equally as simple and effective.
Possibly, I personally feel that the Yes camp have not been able to convince people of the need to change. The No argument is very simple. The Yes campaign needs something equally as simple and effective.
I think you'll find that having looked at the two options, people have realised FPTP is the better system of the two.
I think you'll find that having looked at the two options, people have realised FPTP is the better system of the two.
That may well be the case. I said from the outset that I was probably going to back the no to av campaign, simply because I believe that the person with the most votes first time around should win. If we get AV, Labour will gain from it in places like Newbury, but for me it should be what is the fairer system, not what you can get from it.
If you had to keep FPTP or change it to something else, what would you like to see? I think FPTP is probably my preference of the various sytems based on what I have seen when browsing online. I like the concept of one vote, one person and the fact that whoever gets the most votes wins.
I also believe that the fairer system is the better system - but I think that AV is fairer than FPTP. Not as fair as PR, but fairer.
I believe that parliament as the representative assembly that governs our country should better reflect the political support from the electorate - no more governments elected by only 40% of those voting.
If I didn't already prefer AV I would be swung towards it by the dreadful scaremongering tactics of the NO campaign - all this b*****ks about the 4th place candidate winning the seat and the tearing up of manifestos as soon as the election is over (as if this doesn't happen already).
Cameron's support for FPTP would also push me towards AV - this is the man that is so convinced by democracy that he has created 117 peers in a year in order to pad out the House of Lords with his yes men.
Sure, AV is more likely to result in coalition governments - is that really so bad?
Sure, AV is more likely to result in coalition governments - is that really so bad?
Some might argue is it fair for a coalition to exist between the team that won and the team that come third.
I'm one of those that think considering all the crap that went on, Labour, in terms of share of the vote, didn't do as bad as they might have deserved. I think had people not seemingly deserted Labour for Lib Dem, it would have been close.
Some might argue is it fair for a coalition to exist between the team that won and the team that come third.
Following the FPTP argument I guess you could say that the Tories should have been allowed to run the country because they won more votes and more seats than anyone else. I happen to think it is better that MPs representing 59.1% of the electorate are running the country than the previous government where Labour won complete control with only 35.2% of the electorate supporting them (less than the Tories got in the last election).
Coalitions form around parties that find they can work together on a compromise programme - it so happens this means 1st and 3rd this time, if the Tories had managed to win another dozen seats it would probably have been the Tories and the DUP in charge.
Logged
Male
. It is very possible that AV would cost them the seat as they would need to pick up almost 20% in preference votes - however they could well be saved if enough LibDems kept them in the running for a two way fight with either of the Con or Lab candidates (on the basis that voters for either would vote a preference for Greens rather than each other).
