Majority support referendum on voting reform; AV+ preferred amongst Labour supporters

From @LabourList

Below are the results of the LabourList poll on voting reform, which was conducted between Monday and Wesnesday of this week:

ALL RESPONDENTS

I would like to see a referendum on the voting system held at the same time as the next general election:
Yes 75%
No 25%

My current preference for the voting system for the British Parliament is:
Alternative Vote 16%
Alternative Vote Plus 26%
First Past The Post 20%
Single Transferable Vote 37%
Other 1%

LABOUR MEMBERS OR SUPPORTERS

I would like to see a referendum on the voting system held at the same time as the next general election:
Yes 74%
No 26%

My current preference for the voting system for the British Parliament is:

Alternative Vote 19%
Alternative Vote Plus 33%
First Past The Post 23%
Single Transferable Vote 24%
Other 1%

NON LABOUR SUPPORTERS

I would like to see a referendum on the voting system held at the same time as the next general election:
Yes 79%
No 21%

My current preference for the voting system for the British Parliament is:
Alternative Vote 10%
Alternative Vote Plus 14%
First Past The Post 14%
Single Transferable Vote 62%

REASONS CITED FOR RESPECTIVE PREFERENCES

ALTERNATIVE VOTE
* Fairest and most simple system to identify 50%+ of the vote to winning candidate.

* Must include compulsory voting like in Australia – Norwich showed the key issue is turnout of our voters.

* The Australian system of Alternative vote (or as we call it preferential voting) plus an elected House of Lords chosen by the proportional representation system.

* AV for the Commons, STV for the Lords.

ALTERNATIVE VOTE PLUS
* With 5 year fixed terms and term limits of 3 parliaments.

* To avoid the problems of AV+ creating two tiers of MPs – why not use the “+” element of top-up politicians from the list to elect the House of Lords? This would ensure a chamber of constituency MPs, tied to an area elected with 50% of the local vote and a chamber of regional/sub-regional “Lords” who are elected on a proportional basis.

FIRST PAST THE POST
* I believe that changing the system of voting in this country would be an uneccessary cost for the following reasons; it would be seen as electioneering by thhe majority of the public, it would damage Labour’s electoral prospects just as much as the Tories, and it could potentially produce hung parliaments, with smaller more extreme groups gaining notable influence.

* It usually produces strong governments which are accountable to the electorate at regular intervals in general elections.

* Referenda are hijacked by the nay sayers and the big brother watchers/Mail readers and this is a debate that only political intellectuals are having. The rest of us would just like more access to politics and politicians from real world backgrounds. Labour is presently handing out all women short list seats, but how many of those women are from working class backgrounds? It’s not the system that needs to change, it’s the people in the system.

* Vital to keep the link with constituency MPs (one MP, one constituency) as anything else removes accountability, and not sure that AV will be any better.

* First past post with a radical reduction in the number of MPs (say, by 1 third), would ensure strong representative government.

* Clarity & certainty. Direct link between person elected and the elector.

* It is simple – has a clear constituency link and the wider general public understand the system. There should be no electoral reform without compulsory voting.

* Once elected MPs represent all their constituents, regardless of how they voted. We should pass legislation for a fully elected second chamber before the General Election.

* It’s a shame that people might no be able to get the Green or Liberal Candidate that they want due to geography, but the fundamental strengh of the system is more important that that.

* Simple, effective, produces strong governments, does not give overdue power to Parties (as our crrent ridicculous system for European elections does), strong constituency link, allows voters to ‘kick the buggers out’.

* Other voting systems let in extremist parties, like the BNP, as was the case in the most recent Euro Elections.

* If it aint broke, don’t fix it.

* PR is thoroughly undemocratic, giving rise to undemocratic coalition government and power broker parties. The Lib Dems for example could effectively be in government permanently as a coalition partner, yet still consistently finish as the third party.

* I would prefer a system where I vote for an individual, whom I can hold accountable. However, I also believe that many practices associated with the party system are staggeringly undemocratic. The idea of whipping MPs to vote against their own beliefs is Orwellian.

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE
* STV gives a proportional result, whilst keeping a link between MPs and a geographic area. Voters can choose between candidates as well as parties. MPs should be more accountable.

* As long as the multi-member constituencies are relatively small (3-5 members each): it ensures there are no safe seats, retains the constituency link (and enables constituencies to reflect natural communities), whilst ensuring that extremist parties do not hold power in potential coalition governments.

* It’s the system that gives proper representation in Parliament, consistent with the numbers of votes cast. It’s fair, transparent and will stop government by minority.

* Takes power away from the executive and the party system. Keeps enough of a constituency link (3 MPs for a merged triple constituency – pretty good).

* Does not involve a top-up like AV+ and therefore avoids the perils of the top-up MPs becoming second-class MPs (as with the AMS system in Scotland).

* STV should be brought in immediately for councils in England and Wales. The wards are already mostly multi-member so this fits STV like hand in glove.

* It gives the best reflection of public opinion.

* STV is the most democratic and thorough system. It enables greater choice within and without political parties. Multi-member constituencies would allow electors to lobby MPs who are closer to their opinions. STV would mean that there would be greater participation prior to elections by the ‘ordinary’ voter. One never hears about elections held under STV as being ‘rigged’; this is because they are the most exhaustive and therefore, most democratic.

* Gives voters the most choice and preserves the constituency link.

* It’s the best system, proportional, fair, non majoritarian, would connect us with our roots and supporters again, abolishes safe seats and has a proven track record in local government elections in Scotland.

* Failure of elections to reflect the votes actually cast. For example, the Tories (79 – 97) did not achieve over 50% of votes cast but had a majority. Same for Labour (97 – present). Only coalitions reflect what the electorate want but this can lead to (sometimes) the tail wagging the dog – ref the Greens debacle at the Scottish Parliament.

* Simply: It maximises voter choice, whilst maintaining a constituency link.

* Puts the elector in command rather than the political party.

* Removes tactical voting, full expression of true preference, more proportional.

* More truly represents votes of the electorate – reduces the risk that a Government with a minority of the vote wins power!

* As a Labour voter in S W England, my vote has only counted in two general elections from the ten I have voted in.

* STV is a much fairer system and would completely change the way in which British politics currently works.

* Every vote counts in a single member constituency.

* Puts power in the hands of voters not parties. Keeps accountability of MPs to constituencies.

* No wasted vote. Enable the Labour/LibDem/Green anti-Tory front.

488 people were polled between Monday 27th and Wednesday 29th July. Of those, 320 (66%) identified themselves as Labour members or supporters.