So in a referendum we will have to contend with all the arguments about the confusingness of AMS AND STV.

James — the preferential vote isn’t what’s often cited as the “confusing” aspect of Single Transferable Vote — rather, the process of determining the allocation of each seat is. Understanding the transferable vote is relatively simple when you only have single-member constituencies, as is the case with Alternative Vote — it works just like a knockout election. However, try explaining the droop quota and the way “surplus” votes are re-allocated to someone who’s never looked at electoral reform before — it’s a challenge, I can tell you, because I’ve had to do it before.

So AV+ isn’t really much more complicated than AMS. And crucially, it tackles one of the biggest flaws of FPTP from the constituency level. When discussing electoral reform, people are always making one very big mistake in only focussing on one issue: national outcomes. In reality there are three: the type of representation (Direct, Indirect, diverse, majoritarian, compensatory etc..), the basis of election (individual, party or hybrid) and national outcomes.

FPTP is notoriously flawed from the position of nature of representation. For it to be fair only two candidates can stand, which is pretty much the most basic error for an advanced voting system to make. AV allows transferable voting, which grants electors the ability to vote as they would in a multi-round election, but at a fraction of the cost. This is a big advance on FPTP, whatever your views on single-member systems in general.

Dave

James — the preferential vote isn’t what’s often cited as the “confusing” aspect of Single Transferable Vote — rather, the process of determining the allocation of each seat is. Understanding the transferable vote is relatively simple when you only have single-member constituencies, as is the case with Alternative Vote — it works just like a knockout election. However, try explaining the droop quota and the way “surplus” votes are re-allocated to someone who’s never looked at electoral reform before — it’s a challenge, I can tell you, because I’ve had to do it before.

So AV+ isn’t really much more complicated than AMS. And crucially, it tackles one of the biggest flaws of FPTP from the constituency level. When discussing electoral reform, people are always making one very big mistake in only focussing on one issue: national outcomes. In reality there are three: the type of representation (Direct, Indirect, diverse, majoritarian, compensatory etc..), the basis of election (individual, party or hybrid) and national outcomes.

FPTP is notoriously flawed from the position of nature of representation. For it to be fair only two candidates can stand, which is pretty much the most basic error for an advanced voting system to make. AV allows transferable voting, which grants electors the ability to vote as they would in a multi-round election, but at a fraction of the cost. This is a big advance on FPTP, whatever your views on single-member systems in general.

Dave

Perhaps a motion reminding Federal Conference of its longstanding support for STV and calling for cooperation with the ERS and Unlock Democracy campaigns? I’m a Conf Rep and I’d sign it.

Germany also uses AMS, but there are some technical differences that make the German system better than the Scotland/Wales system.

This doesn’t detract from your views on AV+. The last Scottish elections were farcical and I had personal experience of the overly complex voting papers which I managed to ruin twice.

There was an outcry about the injustice of that so they held another referendum this year…and STV was voted down 60-40.