Campaigners against changing the way MPs are elected have claimed a "resounding" victory as the No camp gained an unassailable lead in the UK-wide referendum.
With 403 of 440 results declared, more than 11.4 million people had rejected a switch to the Alternative Vote, with 5.2 million in favour - a margin of around 69% to 31%.
Senior political figures on the No campaign said the scale of the victory meant it was not simply a vote against AV but a firm endorsement by the public of the first-past-the-post system
The vote wasn't even close, a complete drubbing. I pose a few open questions. Do we tend to overstate the electoral reform sentiment within the electorate? Now I realize this is a foreign example, but we've had our own votes, with similar failures. Amongst the engaged, I sense an overwhelming desire for reforms, but I still wonder if there isn't a disconnect with the public at large. There is no clearer verdict than a vote, it lies at the heart of any process, so that judgement can't simply be dismissed. Is it the form of the reforms? Is it that people don't like the current system, but alternatives seem risky by comparison? Is there a general want of reform, that evaporates when faced with practical implications? I have no real answers, but once again the purest expression of democracy has rejected reforming itself, and that requires some acknowledgement.
12 comments:
I am glad they did... i can't see it as meaningful solution just diluting the party lines...
lets get the ideas flowing and strangten the ideologies what makes the most senses in our time.
Fair seat distribution would mean agood reform.
Well if it was like Ontario, the papers were filled with "pizza parliaments" and dark musings about ethnic ( read Muslim) parties taking over. In other words, the establishment did what it always does, it scared the shit out of the middle classes. Referenda are a dead end.
Ontario and British Columbia each had their own referendums on proportional representation, and likewise both voted to keep the FPTP system.
I think the same result would be seen here should it ever go to a national referendum. Conservatives would overwhelmingly vote no along with Quebec. Up until yesterday I would have added the majority of Liberal supporters too, though that may have changed since Monday.
In terms of electoral reform, I think there are larger issues that the Liberal should explore beyond proportional representation. One would be the old Reform Party proposal for MP recalls - that was actually one of their ideas I really liked.
The other is, wait for it, an elected senate. And yes I know senate reform is supposed to be owned by the Conservatives, but somehow I get the feeling this will no longer be top priority for Harper during the 41st parliament.
I think that if the Alternative Vote were proposed for Canada or a province, an organization like Fair Vote Canada would likely not support it as AV is not proportional. I can't speak on behalf of the FVC executive even though I am a member. However, I would not donate money in support of AV. Opposition to AV doesn't mean that FVC would actively campaign against it. It just mean that the organization would likely not commit financial resources in supporting it.
Trust me, Fair Vote Canada would come out against AV, (or as it's called here, Instant Run-Off Vote) for the exact reason they don't consider it proportional. Some of them even think it's worst then the current FPTP, plus if it were passed, they fear it would kill reforms for a long time (which I dont get , because ANY rejection of a new voting system effectively kills electoral reform for a long time)
There are a lot of PR purists on the board of Fair Vote Canada. -- particularly of the NDP and Green Party variety.
Don't get me wrong.. I like PR.. but it has been rejected massively here in 3 provinces. AV or IRV is the least threatening of the voting models to the status quo, and even it would face a stiff challenge to pass, if the referenda method were continued. The Fair Vote guys don't seem ot get that.
Maybe we need to reform how individual MP's yield power within the current system before we change it. If MP's had more independence to represent their constituents our democracy would be more responsive and accountable.
FVC will not support IRV, they have said so in the past. Personally I would oppose PR vehemently. We are not a small country like Isreal where one corner of the country is the same as the other 3. There are a lot of benefits to IRV and I think it would be good for a centrist party like the Liberals.
Proposals for change are rejected because they are often incomprehensible. Counting second or third or tenth favorite picks produces a mess than only a computer can sort out -- and who trusts them?
Why not just have a damned runoff election the month afterward when no one gets to 50%? And do the whole thing by mail so that people don't have to wander out to a polling station? Then you'd still have your paper ballots to count, and one vote would still be one vote, no matter what.
1. There is zero interest in electoral reform among the general public. Anyone interested in democracy should recognize this and get off their hobby horse.
2. PR was massively rejected in Ontario on a scale similar to what happened in Britain. It's been rejected in two other provinces, as well. PR is dead for a generation. Anyone interested in democracy should recognize this and get off this hobby horse.
3. Only PR supporters consider PR more fair than first past the post. PR supporters continue to ride this hobby horse only because they're unable to recognize it's possible the other side could have a point. Instead, they believe PR gets rejected because the stupid electorate is easily scared.
And that's why PR supporters won't get off their hobbyhorse - because they have no respect for the electorate.
I'm inclined to agree Brian. While electoral reform is a primary focus online, I get no sense the general public shares the concerns, and this might explain why it keeps losing. For right now, I say let's focus on making our MP's more representative, decentralizing our democratic power base within the given system, THEN consider other options.
Post a Comment