Propagation: Seeds & scions (11)

11 ideas sprouting »

1. Pippa Norris was in Vienna a few weeks ago and spoke about a new study of hers: “Cosmopolitan Communications: Cultural Diversity in a Globalized World“. She took a closer look at the influence of mass media on 90 different cultures worldwide. You can watch her lecture here:

   http://etalks.tv/blog/2010/06/11/cultural-diversity-in-a-globalized-world/

   Seed planted by Jeff Bennett — 20 June 2010 @ 10:01

2. UK AV referendum called, scheduled for 5 May 2011.

   Complaints already from the Tories that this will be held on the same day as the UK’s sub-national elections, because this might lead to unfair variations in referendum turnout.

   The Conservatives are running the “AV gives some voters an unfair second vote” argument, which is illogical but understandable in a country that has zero experience with AV (and only a small amount with STV-PR). The really odd thing, though, is that the “two votes” line of argument first hit the internet in Alaska’s 2002 IRV referendum. You know, Alaska? Where they have a primary election followed by a general election? Where presumably at least some of those 50,000 Republicans who voted against Sarah Palin in the 2006 GOP primary went on to vote for her in the general?

   Seed planted by Tom Round — 08 July 2010 @ 22:41

3. Will the Alternative Vote System in the United Kingdom be an optional preferential voting system? Will voters be allowed to vote just 1, and then as many preferences as they want?

   Are Voters required to rank all preferences till they exhausted like in Australia?

   Are voters required to rank a minimum of Preferences like 1,2,3 as in Papua New Guinea?

   Seed planted by Suaprazzodi — 11 July 2010 @ 01:27

4. I would hope that electors get to vote as few or as many preferences as they wish, which is the case in some but not all MPV systems in Australia. The LSE election blog recently disgraced itself by calling for truncated MPV on the London model, offering the less than persuasive argument that it would limit choice to the 2 big parties.

   Seed planted by Alan — 12 July 2010 @ 01:09

5. Err, me who changed the thread. The Pippa post was the most recent UK post I could find that would accept comments.

   From James Macintyre in the Staggers: “The strategic Cameronista case for an AV ‘Yes’ vote”; “Cameron ‘considering’ backing electoral reform”; and “As a demonstration of his commitment to the coalition, David Cameron is considering reversing his opposition to electoral reform.”

   Seed planted by Tom Round — 15 July 2010 @ 06:17

6. My gut feeling at this stage is that this referendum will be lost somewhere around 53-47%. The British are not only a profoundly conservative nation (which is why they trust their parliament with an un-entrenched constitution), but they have very little experience voting in referenda. Australia has been called “constitutionally speaking, the frozen continent” but still 8 out of 44 proposals have been passed (another 5 got 50%+ nationwide but didn’t carry a majority of States). The English have, if I count correctly, only ever voted in one England-wide referendum (excluding local licensing polls) and that was to confirm the fait accompli of EU membership 2 years after the fact. Like Stockholm City Council’s congestion tax, a recent change survived attempted repeal even though it would probably have been defeated if put to a referendum before it was first tried.

   Interestingly, the Scots seem somewhat less conservative and have twice voted for devolution by simple majority, the 1979 attempt failing only because of the 40% threshold, the 1997 attempt passing. The Welsh are one-all on both and the Irish can’t, it seems, say no to a referendum proposal… (other, of course, than those allowing fewer than 3 MPs per constituency or more than one wife per husband).

   Anyway, judging by the arguments I have seen so far, I predict that the case for AV (such as it is) will be shot down using the familiar (to Australians) pea-and-thimble trick of simultaneously arguing that it goes too far and also doesn’t go far enough (well, of course it doesn’t, but it’s a stepping-stone to PR… good luck ever getting a PR referendum if the Conservative PM’s deputy is a Maude or a Patten instead of Nick Clegg). Eg, arguing both that AV “gives some voters a second vote” [*] and also that it fails to elect the Condorcet winner. Since there is no law requiring “No” votes to agree on a common counter-proposal, these ballot-papers all go into the same pile and it will be taller than the “AV is great!” or “AV is the least-worst option on the table” pile.

   [*] As I’ve noted elsewhere, this “two votes! bad!” argument seems to indicate either mathematical illiteracy or else (when it comes from the political heirs of Lord Salisbury and Lord Cranborne) transparently opportunistic. One of the few provisions in the Australian Constitution that limits the Federal Parliament’s power to write electoral laws is a requirement that each elector “vote only once”. In 92 years of using AV and STV, no one has ever persuaded the High Court of Australia to seriously consider an argument that preferential voting contravenes this requirement.

   Seed planted by Tom Round — 16 July 2010 @ 05:47

7. It is worth noting that David Cameron revealed in an interview to the Sunday Times on 6 June 2010 that he will take a back seat in any referendum campaign on electoral reform adding ‘I will not change my view that the alternative vote is not an improvement to first-past-the post’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7144676.ece

   Seed planted by Francoise Boucek — 20 July 2010 @ 10:25

8. A rather sad Antipodean illustration of the Dan Rather/ Helen Thomas-like decline of a once-great journalist: Mungo MacCallum – a brilliantly witty satirist/ reporter back in the Whitlam era – now camping out in Byron Shire and reduced to contributing regular anti-Tony Abbott squibs to the local freebie paper. (His column poo-pooing rumours of a Labor revolt against Rudd as rubbish peddled by the Murdoch press hit the newsstands the very same day that Julia Gillard ousted Kevin – ouch).

   “… preferential voting… is not unique to Australia; some form of the preference system is also used in constituencies as diverse as Latvia, Nepal, Malta and Nauru. But the vast majority of democracies still rely on the more direct method of election known as first past the post…”

   - Mungo MacCallum, “May the least loathed win”, Melbourne Age (20 July 2010).

   Anyone have a first-year journalism cadet around to spot the factual howler in that paragraph?

   Seed planted by Tom Round — 22 July 2010 @ 08:39

9. There has to be a solution for journalistic serial offenders like Mungo and his friends. As it happens I live in a convenient desert. A couple of the Mad Max flicks were made here.

   I’m sure a suitable chunk could be made available for Professor Shugart to preside over a reality show involving sand, dust, heat, flies, very little water and a modicum of journalistic re-education.

   Seed planted by Alan — 22 July 2010 @ 17:12

10. […] The preferential voting system produces, or at least encourages, preference deals. It is that simple. The deal is played out in party how-to-vote cards which advise voters how to fill out their ballot papers. They are as old as the preferential system itself, especially at local electorate and state level. Relatively new though are the highly disciplined national deals, in line with the general tenor of modern Australian politics.

    The term “deals” suggests something underhand, but these are generally fairly benign arrangements between like-minded parties on both sides of politics. This means that the majority of the supporters of the parties involved are already inclined to vote that way anyway. If a party leadership attempted to direct preferences against the general disposition of their followers then a grassroots revolt might occur. Leaders have to be careful what they do.

    The how-to-vote card merely attempts to firm up the situation, perhaps adding another 10 per cent of second preferences to what would have occurred anyway without any guidance at all from above. So the impact of these deals should not be exaggerated. They probably matter most when there is a genuine market for preferences, as between competing minor parties such as the Greens and the Democrats. […]

    What is in it for the parties concerned? Overwhelmingly the reason is electoral benefit. The relationship has to be a win-win situation. In the House of Representatives the benefits are almost all with the major parties as usually only the preferences of the minor parties are distributed. Rarely does the minor party have any chance to win in the House of Representatives.

    In these cases the support of the minor party must be bought in some way. This is often simplified as “support in return for concessions.” The concession made by the major party may be a promise to introduce a policy dear to the heart of the minor party.

    There is a special type of preference deal called cross-house trading. The major party mainly gains electoral benefits in the House of Representatives; the minor party gains benefits in the Senate where they have a real chance of winning a seat. Here the preference deal can mean life or death for the minor party. When the Democrats and the Greens were neck-and-neck, as in Western Australia on several occasions, the deal effectively decided the result of the final Senate seat.
    Naturally those who feel jilted cast scorn on the deals and imply the worst. That has been one reaction to the Labor-Greens deal in this election.
    But deals rarely signify private policy deals. They are about win-win electoral benefits. Nevertheless they do leave the parties open to legitimate criticism that they are in a closer than usual relationship that muddies their independent images and restricts their freedom to move. They also can be seen as another step towards a centralisation of politics that neglects local circumstances, such as the qualifications of individual candidates and the wishes of local party members.

    But when they feel uneasy about what headquarters has agreed to, local party members at polling booths tend to undermine the national deal in any way they can. After all voters can quite easily throw the how-to-vote card in the bin. Many do.

    - John Warhurst, “Nothing underhanded about Labor-Greens deal”, 20(14) Eureka Street (27 July 2010).

    Seed planted by Tom Round — 02 August 2010 @ 13:09

11. This report tends to confirm my pessimistic assessment of the likelihood of AV passing the referendum:

    George Eaton, “Why the odds have shifted against electoral reform: Four reasons why the no campaign is now likely to win the referendum.” New Statesman blog (10 August 2010).

    What did suprise me, though, is that the (recent) former Federal and Queensland State Director of the Liberal Party of Australia is assisting the “No AV” case.

    And yes, folks, that would be the same Liberal Party of Australia that supports AV (with compulsory preferences) in those elections which its own endorsed candidates contest.

    As Groucho Marx said, “Those are my principles. And if you don’t like them I have others”…

    Seed planted by Tom Round — 11 August 2010 @ 22:41

RSS feed for comments on this post.

TrackBacks

To graft a scion to this planting, please use the following URL:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/blog/wp-trackback.php?p=4034
(Non-MT bloggers click here to send pings.)

Grafted scions that are not compatible with this planting's stock will die or be pruned out by the Orchardist.

Please note that the name you enter below and the first several words of your comment will appear on the right sidebar of the blog's front page, under "Propagation." New propagators might want to look at the comment policy.

Please do not enter long URLs into the seedbed. Either mark them up using html hyperlinks or convert them to a "tiny URL." Thank you!

Seedbed

The soil is ready for planting: