Electoral Reform: How might the 2005 result be different?

How electoral reform changes the 2005 result Who would have won and lost from electoral reform in 2005? As MPs vote on Gordon Brown’s plan to hold a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV), here’s a guide from the Newstatesman [yes - that irrelevant and seldom read leftist rag] to how the various electoral systems would have changed the outcome in 2005 There are lots of colourful, some might even say sensitive, pie charts which show how each electoral system would have allocated seats in terms of the 2005 vote. If you click on the pies you go to ‘flickr’ and can chop the pies into a powerpoint. Here is the link.

How Has Brown missed the chance for real electoral reform? Your first mistake Mr. Brown? Hard to count really. Has Brown made a mistake in choosing to adopt the Alternative Vote (AV) as his system of choice. AV has the benefit of eliminating the need for tactical voting by allowing electors to rank candidates by preference but it is not a proportional system. Indeed, it can produce even more distorted outcomes than first-past-the-post (FPTP). The Jenkins Commission found that, had the 1997 election been held under AV, Labour’s majority would have ballooned from 179 to 245. It said: A “best guess” projection of the shape of the current [1997-2001] parliament under AV suggests on one highly reputable estimate the following outcome with the actual FPTP figures given in brackets after the projected figures: Labour 452 (419), Conservative 96 (165), Liberal Democrats 82 (46), others 29 (29). For full article.

Electoral Reform: A bluffers guide Feel that casting your vote never seemed so complicated? Haven’t a clue what you will do in your exam? A quick journey through the systems, formulas and voting types: Click here to bluff.