Alternative Vote

[oolon]

Personally I like the Idea of AV (yes I have read all the thoughtful comments on here but still would like to give it a go). However would i would say is BOTH sides are really starting to P*** ** **f. On the no side we have "People get two votes" NO THEY DON'T!, AV was a system good enough to elect Boris to mayor. The yes side really look like a load of whining children, its clear they don't want AV either, just hope its a step towards PR. They have let the NO campain get away with this race mantra without countering it, and I am getting to the point were I feel they deserve to lose.

Electing an representative is not like winning a race where the glory is about being fractionally better than someone else, its about finding would is best as representing the views of the people in an area. So on one side we have the person who was like best by people and on the other side the person who most people like/don't dislike (probably). What i don't like is the way FPTP (and PR) can be abused to provide safe seats for representatives (but I guess it people are willing to vote for a chicken they should be represented by one....)

[Phage]

Slightly OT, but this is so very similar to the Republican vote in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...ferendum,_1999
I can see defeat for the AV proposal due to an inability of the campaign to construct a viable public debate.
Can I just say, that having seen a couple of adverts on both sides, I found the arguments put forward so far in the mass media by both sides insulting and deeply irritating.

[roachcoach]

To be perfectly honest, I see it of little difference, I'm far more in favour of an alternate solution that doesn't have the most corrupt people on earth in office.

Sadly, I'm humble enough to admit I can't think of a perfect solution to that dream

It's all just theater to keep people moving along.


Yes, yes I'm cynical, although politicians do seem hell bent of proving that to be well founded.

[capt_cornflake]

Realistically, in party terms, the big winners from a "Yes" vote aren't the Lib Dems, it's Labour. But AV makes it more feasible to vote for your preferred parties on the "fringe", before the vote eventually bubbles up to a major party - and that phenomenon of more widely dispersed first-party votes may well bolster smaller parties such that within a few elections, they poll much higher overall as people realise a non-redblue vote isn't wasted. Of course, as votes are skimmed from major to minor parties, coalitions become more likely.

I started out rather sceptical about AV, but the more I read and think about it, I actually think it's a pretty good system, and probably better than a pure PR system which I would have favoured in the past.
Looked at from a party politics view, then obviously the Tory's are against it, as all they have to gain in 2nd votes is from the BNP and UKIP, but all the vaguely leftish leaning parties are likely to benefit.

The thing I don't undertsand is why there are so many labour MPs opposed to AV...
The reality is that the reduction in MPs and boundary changes will stengthen the Tory position, so that under the current system labour are likely to need a larger vote just to stand still...

Of course this is all academic because I hadn't realised I'll be away on polling day and I've missed the deadline to register for a postal vote . Still, my wife's in the same situation and she was leaning to a No vote (one of the misguided labour supporters), so we would have likely cancelled each other out.

[chrestomanci]

The thing I don't understand is why there are so many labour MPs opposed to AV...
The reality is that the reduction in MPs and boundary changes will strengthen the Tory position, so that under the current system labour are likely to need a larger vote just to stand still...

I think part of the reason is that it it makes fringe parties more viable, especially in the labour heartlands. Under the current system a vote for a fringe party is a wasted vote. Under AV, a 1st choice for the socialist workers and a second choice for labour allows a voter to publicly support a fringe candidate without the risk or letting the Tories in.

(Right leaning voters can do the same by voting UKIP->Tory)

This could have the effect of advertising how unhappy core labour voters are with the party, and put pressure on them to change their policies to make their core supporters happier. In the long term it might lead to splits, similar to the split of the SDP from main labour party in 1981

Also <insert gruff Yorkshire accent> It it wher good enough for Clement Attlee, then it's good enough for me.

[Fraz]

Any campaign that so blatantly uses complete untruths as the basis of its arguments certainly doesn't get my vote. Seriously, have you seen the utter BS that is the No to AV website? It's like a bunch of utter morons had a competition to come up with the most moronic reasons why AV is "bad".

[SHare]

There is some appalling use of untruths on both sides of this argument. I'll be voting yes to AV, I've read alot of information and opinion on both sides and I feel AV is something I'm more comfortable with. The FPTP system seems to waste alot of votes particularly in areas like mine, Labour are a pretty safe seat and have been for what must be 50 years of decline now. I'd love to get them out but too many people seem to robotically vote for what their fathers voted for and Labour always seem to just have the margin they need as the alternative voters are scattered amongst the independants, tories and lib dems. Granted, at the last election Labour won with a healthy margin and AV would have been no use but there have been years where they have just scraped through and AV might just have made the difference.

[billythewiz]

Some really good posts since my glut of posts the other day. I'd like to quote bits from each of you but it would take too long. So I'll just say thanks for saying so many things I agree with.

I would like to say something new ... about minor parties. We all know the big (lab/con/dem), famous (green/ukip/bnp), regional (plaid and SNP) and joke (monster raving looney) parties, but the last time I voted there were about 20 to choose from.

This country has dozens of minor parties, such as ....

Respect,
Veritas,
Libertarian,
Science Party,
Trust,
Popular Alliance,
People's Alliance,
Communist (there are about half a dozen different flavours),
Socialist (another half a dozen different flavours),
British (3 or 4 flavours),
National (3 or 4 flavours),
Christian (3 or 4 flavours) .... etc.

What do they all stand for ? I've no idea. There's no point in even finding out because with the existing system (one vote, one count) I'm never going to pick any of them.

But with AV, I would make the effort to find out what the Science Party wants and I'd at least investigate a few others that don't have clues in their names !

I'm just glad there isn't a Judean People's Front .... Splitters !

[floppybootstomp]

I'll just quote the two posts l made at another forum I'm a member of on the same subject:

Must admit I do have doubts about my decision though:

This is purely my POV but all PR will do is allow fringe nutter parties like the BNP a chance to get their tainted foot in the door.

I'll be voting no.

As for elections I either don't vote anymore or vote for one of the fringe nutter parties just to try and shake up the main contenders a little.

Labour have been voted in here in Greenwich since the Romans ruled so it doesn't make any odds anyway.

Why don't I vote?

Warning - political POV forthcoming....

Labour died the day Tony Blair walked into 10 Downing Street.

The Lib-Dems are two faced and mould their policies to suit whichever way public opinion is flowing.

I hate the Greens with a vengenance cos they want me to go without a set of wheels and they don't have any clear cut policies other than to hug trees.

All BNP members should be placed in sacks laden with bricks and thrown into the nearest river.

And I won't vote Tory in principle, me dad would turn in his grave if I ever done that.

Told ya this could get messy...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The way I see it - and I may be wrong - is how can you get much fairer, much simpler, than the candidate with the most votes wins?

Simple and fair, in my POV.

The PR method of voting has been pioneered mostly by the Lib Dems as they've been so cheesed off at getting a fair percentage of the whole nation's votes that they want to bend the rules in the hope of gaining a few more seats.

And the method proposed is messy and could give some very unpredictable results, an election within a constituency could become very much like spinning a wheel of fortune.

Lemme see, a candidate needs 50% of prime votes to win outright. Any percentage below that and all the second votes are added up etc etc until, after a long and to my mind messy procedure, a winner is declared. Who that winner will be will be dependent on the extra votes you give after your first vote.

Nah, to my mind it's just sour grapes on the Lib-Dems part and they're trying to bend the rules to their favour.

One voter, one vote, first past the post wins - simple.

I will acknowledge the fact that the current system of voting isn't perfect, particularly when the Tories under Thatcher decided to shift a fair few of the constituency boundaries in their own favour.

I also note that the situation atm is mostly a two horse race and that's probably not ideal but that's the way it is. At least we have more choice of parties than they do in The States.

And on a personal comment, I thought Blair was bad, cruel and unjust but the Cameron Clegg Glimmer Twins partnership makes him look like a sweet hearted Teddy Bear. Such is life

[Fraz]

Why the hell is it called "First Past the Post"? FFS, it's just "Most Votes Wins". There is no goddamn post, and it's not a race. Do we need an erroneous horse-racing analogy to explain even a concept as simple as this?!

Are people really worried that voters might not be able to handle putting candidates in order of preference using *gasp* numbers?! If that's the case, then I vote we just abolish government altogether, because it's clearly just total rubbish.

[billythewiz]

The way I see it - and I may be wrong - is how can you get much fairer, much simpler, than the candidate with the most votes wins?

With a two horse race you are completely right. Ironically the AV vote is exactly that and so the wining side will not only get more than the loser, they will also get more than 50%.

But what if this vote on AV had more than one choice ? What if the choices were ...

Do you want AV ?

Yes.
Definitely Not.
Absolutely Not.
Certainly Not.
No Way.
No F...in. Way.
Over My dead body.

That would be brilliant. The NO supporters have so many to choose from. They are just so lucky
And the Yes vote could win with 15% of the votes !! They'd easily win with say 30%.

Simple and fair

in your POV.
Simple sure, but not exactly fair.

From your Political POV I'd guess you are left leaning (if for no other reason than to keep your dad happy ). And you stated that you like to vote for one of the "fringe nutter parties". Under AV you'd get to vote for loads of them. Not just the monster raving loonies, but any of these or these.

It's good that you are concerned that AV might help the BNP. No sane person wants that but the BNP believe that it will hurt them. Try googling "bnp av" and the top hit is this http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/why-bnp-will-urge-no-vote-av-referendum.

[floppybootstomp]

Why the hell is it called "First Past the Post"? FFS, it's just "Most Votes Wins". There is no goddamn post, and it's not a race. Do we need an erroneous horse-racing analogy to explain even a concept as simple as this?!

Are people really worried that voters might not be able to handle putting candidates in order of preference using *gasp* numbers?! If that's the case, then I vote we just abolish government altogether, because it's clearly just total rubbish.

OOh, so angry. Calm down, something might burst.

Giddy up

[floppybootstomp]

With a two horse race you are completely right. Ironically the AV vote is exactly that and so the wining side will not only get more than the loser, they will also get more than 50%.

But what if this vote on AV had more than one choice ? What if the choices were ...

Do you want AV ?

Yes.
Definitely Not.
Absolutely Not.
Certainly Not.
No Way.
No F...in. Way.
Over My dead body.

That would be brilliant. The NO supporters have so many to choose from. They are just so lucky
And the Yes vote could win with 15% of the votes !! They'd easily win with say 30%.
in your POV.
Simple sure, but not exactly fair.

From your Political POV I'd guess you are left leaning (if for no other reason than to keep your dad happy ). And you stated that you like to vote for one of the "fringe nutter parties". Under AV you'd get to vote for loads of them. Not just the monster raving loonies, but any of these or these.

It's good that you are concerned that AV might help the BNP. No sane person wants that but the BNP believe that it will hurt them. Try googling "bnp av" and the top hit is this http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/why-bnp-will-urge-no-vote-av-referendum.

Yep, socialist ingrained though I will say I made my own mind up about that, no fatherly influence.

And like I said, I'm not entirely sure which voting system would be best.

Australia have had PR voting for a few years and now the overwhelming majority of the population want to change back to the 'traditional' voting system which is what we have here atm.

My political views have changed the older I have become. Predictable, really, but I've moved more to right wing. I've gone from redder than Karl marx to just slightly left of centre. This comes from independently trying to understand everything, no family influences, no hate, no love even, just a detached view that tries to stay independent.

Which roughly translates as 'I do really like people but I realise people gotta earn a crust'. And becoming self-employed 16 years ago kinda shook up my POV of things political.

The BNP? Blair Peach. Stephen Lawrence, both happened not far from me.

Funny thing, if it wasn't for the BNP's obvious hate stance, bigotry and race hatred they may actually have had a point, they certainly more left wing on most issues than Gordon Brown could ever hope to be.

But no, they're scumbags, really

Yes or no? To be or not to be? That is the question.

I'll still probably vote No.

[directhex]

This is purely my POV but all PR will do is allow fringe nutter parties like the BNP a chance to get their tainted foot in the door.

The PR method of voting has been pioneered mostly by the Lib Dems as they've been so cheesed off at getting a fair percentage of the whole nation's votes that they want to bend the rules in the hope of gaining a few more seats.

You know this isn't a vote on PR, right?

[floppybootstomp]

You know this isn't a vote on PR, right?

I do understand fully what the vote is for.

To my mind it's as close to proportional representation as this country will ever get, which is why I said 'PR'

[Saracen]

With a two horse race you are completely right. Ironically the AV vote is exactly that and so the wining side will not only get more than the loser, they will also get more than 50%.

Erm .... not necessarily. That only necessarily applies applies if all the votes for rejected candidates have subsequent preferences that remain uneliminated when a candidate wins.

Suppose there's 21 voters. In the first round, we have :-

A = 7 votes
B = 6 votes
C = 5 votes
D = 3 votes.

D is eliminated. 2 of D's votes go to B, 1 vote expressed no second preference. B now has 8 votes, but nobody has 50%. No clear winner.

A = 7 votes
B = 8 votes
C = 5 votes

So C is eliminated. Sadly, none of C's 5 voters expressed a second preference either, so the result is now

A = 7 votes
B = 8 votes

B has won, and done it with 8/21 of the electorate, that being 38.1% of the votes.

Clearly, this is a highly artificial example, but the principle holds. It is simply not necessarily true that the winning candidate will always have >50% of the vote. They may well do, but it is not guaranteed.

And it's not hard to see where someone might vote for parties whose candidates get knocked out and utterly refuse to give one of the major parties their endorsement, even in the form of a second preference. It's not hard to see how someone disenchanted with the three main parties could vote for several 'fringe' parties, each of whom was eliminated in a close race. Probably the most likely scenario for a candidate not having 50% is where the second-place candidate was the first preference of the largest single group, in round one, but fails to get over the edge. If they hold pretty close to 50% and the second placed runner just manages to sneak over the line with second, third and maybe fourth preferences, but sufficient people fail to express, say, third or fourth preferences, to get included after several cuts.