One of the few benefits FPTP offers is providing communities of electors with a representative in Westminster (and it’s not even an exclusive benefit, the superior AV system that the electorate in all its wisdom slung out in May also offers this). Tinkering with the boundaries to try to make all constituencies fall within 5% of the quote of 76,641 electors is destroying cohesive community-based groupings, as this mornings report from the Boundary Commission for England shows.

As an example, take Lewes, Brighton and Hove, three towns on the South Coast. Currently there’s an MP for Lewes and an MP for Hove, and two for Brighton. The BCE are proposing constituencies for Lewes-and-one-edge-of-Brighton, a bit-of-Brighton-and-a-bit-of-Hove and another bit-of-Brighton-and-another-bit-of-Hove. And the absurd exemption for the Isle of White makes the case for preserving the link with coherent geographical communities, but only if they are surrounded by sea.

But why do it? The whole point of FPTP, we were told, is that what matters is that there is a decisive winner. And with a couple of exceptions from over 30 years ago, the largest number of seats has always gone to the party with the largest share of the vote. The changes proposed would make seats more proportional to vote share if we had a two party system, but we don’t. And because under FPTP if you don’t vote for one of the two front-runner parties in your constituency, your vote is effectively discarded, the unfairness of of using it in a multi-party system is so massive that any anomalies arising from the variations in constituency size are rendered negligible. However, the practical effect of these boundary changes will be to benefit the Conservatives at the next election…

How will it benefit the Tories? Because a lot of the smaller constituencies are in Labour areas (eg. in cities, Scotland or Wales). Also there may be other coincidental benefits from the changes through disrupting tactical voting: for example in Lewes, the Tories narrowly failed to win the seat from Lib Dem Norman Baker; with a chunk of East Brighton in the mix where their main opposition is Labour they will be able to consolidate their support against a Lib/Lab split.

And then what? Over time, as birth rates fluctuate and people move, the constituency sizes will grow in variation again. We’ll still be using the same electoral system, so the only remedy will be go through the whole daft and expensive process again.

Two things console me. Firstly, the government have inadvertently scared their MPs into rebelling. Many of them, needing to secure a new seat, will find this the most effective way of grabbing attention and getting selected. Secondly, weakening the link between communities and their representatives at Westminster may be a small contribution to prompting people to reconsider whether genuine electoral reform might not be a better idea after all.

“They feel like they’ve been lied to their whole lives, so it’s amazing how many people express their displeasure with pi in the strongest possible terms – often involving profanity.

“I don’t condone any actual violence…”

So I’m nailing my colours to the mast, with suitable hyperbole, but I’m sticking with pi. I think we should save it.

The tau-ists movement is purely a notational one, something its leader, Dr Michael Hartl, openly admits.

“When I say pi is wrong, it doesn’t have any flaws in its definition – it is what you think it is, a ratio of circumference to diameter. But circles are not about diameters, they’re about radii.”

I’m not just unimpressed by the fact this is purely a nit-pick with convention, however. My concern extends to the fact that this is a somewhat limited view of pi, and it ignores the fact that using pi produces far more elegant mathematical presentation.

Hartl seems to be deeply wedded to his circumference based definition of pi.

“What you’re really doing is defining it as the ratio of the circumference to twice the radius, and that factor of two haunts you throughout mathematics.”

Well, no. How about if you use pi to find the area of a circle. Slice your circle up into sectors and place them top to tail so they approximate a rectangle, the more sectors, the better the approximation. Taken to its limit, this rectangle will be a radius in width, and half the circumference in length. The length is pi*r, in fact. But with tau that would be tau*r/2. Eww.

The factor of 1/2 you do not want to be haunted by.

Worse is to come. Pi goes beyond just measuring circles. Euler’s identity combines so beautifully five fundamental constants:

Tau, haunted by that ugly factor 1/2, ruins it.

Don’t get fooled. Say no to tau, and save pi.

Under the alternative vote, during counting, when a candidate is eliminated (as all but the winner eventually are, starting with the one with least votes) then each vote counts for the candidate who that voter has ranked the highest – and who is still in the running. If I’d voted for someone who had done so poorly they’d been eliminated, my vote would transfer to my next preference. If you’d voted for someone who was still in, your vote could still count for them. All votes count in the same way. The untruth that David Cameron and the No Campaign are peddling is that my vote would be counted “twice” and that I’d therefore have some sort of advantage over you, despite the fact your vote still counts for your first choice. It’s a complete fiction, a sleight of hand, wilfully taking advantage most voters’ lack of familiarity with AV. It is, in short, a contemptible lie.

But look beyond the lie, and you start to learn a little about the true attitudes of those who favour First Past the Post.

AV is about giving control to the voters. Seen from the electors’ perspective, it’s a small change to the current system that goes some way to ensure that in choosing an MP we don’t need to compromise between principles and tactics, and that we don’t rely on guesswork and gambling when we are making such a key decision. But listen to the language of the no campaigners. The issue they have is with the votes for the less successful candidates being transferred – but those votes never belonged to the candidate, they always belonged to the voter. No one but the elector who cast the vote has any say in where a vote for an unsuccessful candidate is transferred to. With First Past the Post all the votes for the candidate who came last are discarded; in effect this is that system’s way of punishing voters who were foolish enough to cast their ballot for someone who did not come close enough to winning – punished by having their vote thrown away.

Under AV, people are asked to rank candidates in order of preference… In this way it allows people who vote for the minor, fringe parties to have their votes counted several times, while those voting for mainstream parties can have their voted counted just once.

…according to No2AV. But since in fact the votes for “mainstream” parties are being counted again each time a candidate is eliminated (it’s just that these voters are lucky enough to have their first choice still in the race) this is true “one person, one vote”. FPTP is “one mainstream voter, one vote” and if you vote for a “fringe” party and your vote gets discarded, that’s your fault for voting for a third-place party. I don’t think it’s the primary intention of the supporters of FPTP to penalise you in this way; it’s just that they don’t care. From their perspective they want to punish the “fringe” candidates and they just don’t care about the consequent disenfranchisement of their supporters.

There’s one more day of campaigning. Listen to them on the radio, watch them on TV. Attend to their language – and see if they give away their belief that, once cast, votes belong to candidates and no longer to the electors…

I think that the first ever opportunity to vote on how we elect our representatives at Westminster is hugely exciting and AV is very nearly my favorite electoral system. The discussion around electoral reform goes right to the heart of our democracy, raising questions about the separation of the executive and legislature and the role of the monarch, whether we (should) vote for people or parties, the link with constituencies and the nature of representation. I really don’t understand why, when a democratic revolution is sweeping across north Africa, anyone should feel the need to apologise for discussing the nature of our own democracy.

It is true that the options we are being presented with a very limited. A more proportional system is not on the agenda right now (and some have argued this is a reason to stick with the status quo – I may come back to this in another post). Like first past the post, AV involves electing a single member (who may or may not belong to a political party) to represent a geographical constituency. In fact, when there are only two candidates standing the systems are functionally identical: marking one candidate with a cross and leaving the other blank is precisely equivalent to marking one candidate with a one and the other with a two, whether you see this as the one fewer votes being eliminated or the one with the most votes winning. It’s where there are three or more candidates involved that the difference is apparent, and it’s because of the crumbling of support for the two party system over the past sixty years that the flaws in first past the post have surfaced.

To see how different the outcomes of the two systems can be, consider a simplified situation where three candidates each have a different policy position on a major local issue, and where their supporters’ motivation is aligned with this. Candidate A, let’s call her Dilys Andrews, wants to close the local hospital because it is overspending and failing to meet targets. Candidate B, let’s call him Edgard Bennett, wants to keep it open by closing A&E and focusing on improving the rest of the provision. Candidate C, let’s call him Fergus Crane, also wants to keep the hospital open by merging the management with that of the one in the next door constituency. Bennet and Crane’s positions are close, but with significant differences that are worth putting to the electorate. Let’s suppose the votes are cast with A getting 12,000; B getting 10,000 and C getting 8,000. With first past the post, Andrews wins, and the constituency is represented by someone who work towards having the hospital close. But since first past the post is good for two-way elections, wouldn’t it be better to re-run the race without Crane, who has clearly lost? With just Andrews and Bennett standing, the 8,000 who originally voted for Crane could choose to support the candidate they thought best represented their views, and we might well suppose most of them would choose Bennett as a candidate promising to keep the hospital open. If more than 5,000 of them chose to vote that way, Bennet would win and the constituency would be represented by someone who would work to keep the hospital open.

Had there been another candidate, there would have been another round, and this system of “rounds” is, of course, how AV works (with voters ranking candidates in order of preference rather than actually having multiple rounds). No one’s vote has counted for more than anyone else’s. But the difference is that the supporters of the candidate who has the least votes, rather than have all of their votes discarded entirely, get a chance to contribute to the choice between those that remain. Ultimately, a candidate can only be elected if over 50% of their constituents prefer them to their closest rival.

AV is a system with all of the benefits of first past the post but without one of its most significant flaws. Why would anyone not choose to accept this free upgrade?

It depresses me that as delegates wend their way home from Manchester, they’ll be feeling they’ve had a good conference. Kinnock’s remark is indicative of a feeling of comfort and security, the Labour party is beginning to feel good about itself again. Ed Milliband has told them what they want to hear – that they have to reconnect with their traditional voters – many of whom on the left were alienated by the war in Iraq.  But history relates that the things a comfortable Labour party does includes holding rallies – in Sheffield – and does not include winning elections.

Caroline Lucas has proved herself an interesting an intelligent politician who has developed the Green Part in the UK into a far more credible political force than might have been imaginable a few years ago.  She has speaks well crucially not just on affairs environmental but also on affairs economic, international and judicial.  I haven’t heard her speak on health, but that’s probably because I missed it. As their sole MP, Ms Lucas is effectively their spokesman on everything and she does it well. The Green Party in the past have been vulnerable to claims that they are a single issue pressure group, and that they have an axe to grind on that issue.  By demonstrating a breadth of expertise, and by providing solid, evidence based arguments for her case, Ms Lucas has been an effective debater both during and after the election.

On Thursday she tweeted that she had signed David Tredinnick’s Early Day Motion calling for NHS Trusts to be able to pay for homeopathic “treatments”. This strikes me as a dangerous position for such a progressive Green politician to take.  Given the attacks on climate change science from the “sceptics” and the UEA email scandal, associating herself with an anti-science agenda like this seems to both to undermine her scientific credibility and promote the perception that she is pandering to a “new age” lobby in her constituency.  While she is trying to make the issue local choice, the fact that she will not give her position on homeopathy does not help (this is precarious fence-sitting).

What is perhaps even more sad is that this does a disservice to those who believe that such arguments should be decided by having a better informed evidence-based debate.  When he received his honorary  fellowship here in Cardiff, Stephen Fry spoke of the values of the enlightenment being under attack from many sides. Those who believe in the value of evidence, science and knowledge cannot afford to indulge themselves.  You cannot pick and mix with science or selectively choose the evidence to confirm your prejudice.  It goes wherever it goes, and if we are interested in the truth then that is where we must follow.

The “benchmark” is particularly silly when you consider the renumeration the Prime Minister receives directly from the public purse whist in office is a fraction of the value the office holder will realise (lucrative publishing deals and speaking engagements at the very least will inevitably follow) whereas for all teachers (not just heads) they are getting a real salary that reflects the full payment they will get for the work they are doing, work that is serious and challenging. And if Mark Elms is seen to be worth his salary (which is £80k not £240k) the important fact is that many teachers work just as hard for a lot less: and this should not mean overtime payments but recognition for the work they do in terms of improved conditions as well as pay.

Julian Huppert MP has tabled amendments correcting the inaccuracies in Tredinnick’s EMDs and I’ve written to my MP asking him to sign them to

to support the most effective use of limited NHS funds at a time when the public sector is being cutback, and to support evidence based decision making.

If you’re in the UK I’d urge you to do the same.

It wasn’t always like this.  The first time I voted, I elected the candidate whose campaign I’d worked for, who lived in my constituency, and who swept into power along with a Labour government with a huge majority.  It was idealism and pragmatism in happy union.

Now I’ve moved into a constituency where the anti-Tory vote goes to Labour and I can vote for the party I want to, but I’ve felt very half-hearted about it.  I thought, maybe even still think, that we need a shake up that might be provided by a hung Parliament.  But over the weekend, reading through the Guardian letters page: Steve Tainton wrote “Apparently, New Labour has “broken” Britain by giving us the minimum wage, more people in work, Sure Start, the winter fuel allowance, hugely expanded university education and a massive schools rebuilding programme. We also have crime figures continuing to fall, NHS waiting lists dramatically cut, rising school standards and a Kyoto emissions target that has already been met.”  And, more crucially, Tim Horton of the Fabian Society observed how of the Lib Dems, many “believe they are somehow the leading party on tackling inequality. I’m afraid they are not. Despite having many good people in their ranks, the Lib Dems’ policy record on redistribution is one of shifting resources to their target group of middle-class swing voters.”

Twitter has been buzzing with links to policy matching websites that allow you to compare blind your instinctive reactions to policies and get a report matching you to those of the main parties, something @BenGoldacre described as “evidence based voting”.  But that only holds if we give the manifesto the weight of a guaranteed prediction or promise.  Otherwise we have to weigh up something more complex and elusive: how much do we trust each party, and its intentions?  As Horton says, the Lib Dems have some good people, but not all of them are Dr Evan Harris, and the evidence in the disparate record of Lib Dem councils around the country show its soul is fractured.  Some follow the social democratic ideology of the SDP while others the laissez faire economics of its liberal heritage.  But because of its history, its record, and its links with the unions, I know the Labour Party.  I understand the instincts of its politicians even when I disagree with their policies; and when circumstances arise that are not predicted or prepared for in the party manifestos, it is a Labour government (perhaps supported by one or more of the smaller parties) that I would like to see set the country’s course.

I wasn’t going to write about the whole bigot gate debacle because I thought it unimportant to warrant the attention it was already getting. I wasn’t bothered by what Gordon Brown said in a private conversation in his own car. I was sorry it was overheard, and that a woman (sorry, lady) was upset by it. I was much more concerned by the fact that what he’d said in the car he hadn’t said to her – and then, to make it worse, he apologised! Calling someone a bigot is worse than being a bigot? He should have taken a risk and debated her (if it were the West Wing that’s what he’d have done, and won the argument, too). He should have said “I feel passionately about dismissing the contribution that legal immigrants can make to this country”, he should have stated clearly that he deplored racism in all its forms. He should have put his point across with all the force and drive he seemed instead to be channeling towards poor Sue.

The disillusionment I’ve felt with the government hasn’t been really idealogical. It’s been because it’s become deadlocked, mired in infighting, because after 13 years its much harder to know how to make change happen. There’s only one way things can stay the same, lucky conservatives, but for the progressives the choices for change are literally infinite. It’s a bit like a TV show that has a successful first season, following the arc plotted out for it, then when it gets renewed its not quite sure what to do (I’m looking at you Primeval, Heroes). It feels like the plot has drifted, the message has been diluted, and it’s not just you don’t know where it’s going, you’re worried the writers don’t either…

Then, today, I saw Gordon Brown’s barnstorming speech at the unofficial fourth debate.

“When Demosthenes spoke to the crowds in ancient Greece and people turned to each other, they said: ‘Let’s march.’ Let’s march for justice, dignity and fairness. That’s what we have all got to march for, and let’s march for it together.”

I no longer feel half-hearted.  It’s a luxury and pleasure to be able to whole-heartedly cast my vote according to both my head and my heart.

The report from the IFS this week, largely eclipsed by bigotgate and debate#3, that none of the main party’s proposals are sufficient to address the economic deficit means any government cutting into public services, more deeply than they admitted in the campaign, is going to find themselves deeply unpopular. They will need a full five year parliament to give their party two or three years to recover in the polls to have a hope of regaining the seats they’ve won at this election. A majority of say three seats will leave an unpopular government crippled by fear of rebellion and by-election. Like the Major government, the last thing they could afford would be to go to the country and face electoral wipe-out. The paralysis that the Murdoch press are trying to portray as the scary consequence of a hung parliament is far more likely with a single-party government. My guess would be we could face a very early election and the party handed the poison chalice of power will then be in meltdown.

But consider a Lib-Dem supported coalition: Nick Clegg has made it clear that electoral reform is a pre-condition. Following an early referendum on electoral reform, if the Lib-Dems have (as seems likely) gained far fewer seats in this election than their proportion of the vote share, the incentive to withdraw and force a new election in the new system would be high. And that will be an exciting election (not just the game-show hype we’ve got now) because suddenly all the parties will be freed from the tyranny of appealing to the centre ground, the “150 voters in 150 constituencies” that Julia Hartley-Brewer observed will decide this current election.

Electoral reform is by no means guaranteed, of course. The Lib-Dems could find themselves in deadlock (again, if they withdraw from a coalition as a result the outcome, once again, is an early return to the polls). And it will certainly not be the result of a Conservative government, should Cameron be able to form one. But I am hopeful. And perhaps it’s because for the first time since he became leader of the Conservatives it seems to me that there is actually possibility that Cameron will be Prime Minister (albeit most probably with Lib-Dem support) that I am thinking wishfully of electoral defeat at a premature election as the reward for the unlucky victor in this current talent contest.