av voting system

[George2Loose]

Thoughts on this? Am really swayed on whether a switch to av would be beneficial.

[Longy]

This thread is useless without a poll.

In fact there should be about 5 different threads, all using a different voting system to see which method blondeites prefer.

[thetank]

I'm not a big fan because it cements the campaigning politician's role as being to piss as few people off as possible rather than to inspire as many people as possible.

[DMorgan]

Its just a way for marginal parties to get a bigger share of the vote

Its not often that one party gets >50% of the vote so the majority of seats would go to the second round under AV thus giving parties that are often a second choice (for example Lib Dems) the chance to get through to the second round and nick all the votes from the party that is eliminated in the first round.

I don't believe the theory that the system would give more seats to very marginal parties (BNP etc) because they're pretty much a lock to be eliminated in the first couple of rounds so the only parties that I see it benefitting are the ones that are often a second choice and it gives them a chance at taking some marginal seats from Lab/Con.

A vote for Lab/Con is still going to count as it would under first past the post because these parties are never going to get few enough votes to be eliminated so all it actually does to affect the result is give more seats to the Lib Dems. These are often going to be seats that the Lib Dems could win anyway with enough campaigning because they have to be very marginal seats for the AV system to help them anyway.

I'll be voting No mainly because I assume that the new system would take longer and be more expensive to implement when it really wouldn't change the outcome much in my estimation

This is as far as I understand it from just reading the BBC news article about it, haven't really looked into it but these outcomes would seem to be reasonable from what I've read

[Bongo]

It strikes me that no one really wanted AV before (they wanted proper PR) and the only ones who want it now are the ones who think they will gain politically.

This group want PR and a no vote in the referendum:
http://www.no2av-yes2pr.org/

[kinboshi]

To those who are voting NO to a change, are they happy with with the 'First Past the Post' system that means a government that has received a mandate from less than half those that vote (i.e. a minority of voters) is the one that assumes overall power and makes the decisions for everyone?

Also, what about the situation where people are in constituencies that currently means a vote for the party they support is a wasted vote, as their seat is a two-horse race between the two other main parties and not the one whose policies they support?

I'm more in favour of a system that is more proportional representation, but possibly AV is a lesser of two evils when compared to FPTP and also easier and cheaper to implement?

[thetank]

If someone is getting past the magic 50% after third, fourth and fifth preferences are taken into account they can hardly claim a strong mandate.

Most people begrudgingly use their one vote because they think someone on the ticket is perhaps the best of a bad bunch. I don't really think the people whom these voters ascribe a number 4 next to are recieving a ringing endorsement to govern however they please, no more so than in fptp imo.

[thetank]

It's not really fairer either. It's just a different type of unfair.

What it means in real terms in most constituencies is that if you want to vote tory or labour you get one vote, if you want to vote for a mickey mouse party you get two votes.

If you're a mickey mouse party fan you may believe AV is fairer than fptp. You're getting two counted votes now to most people's one, that's twice the fair.

[DMorgan]

To those who are voting NO to a change, are they happy with with the 'First Past the Post' system that means a government that has received a mandate from less than half those that vote (i.e. a minority of voters) is the one that assumes overall power and makes the decisions for everyone?

But does topping up the winning parties votes with a few votes from people that didn't really want them there as a first or a second choice really increase the legitimacy of the winning party?

Also, what about the situation where people are in constituencies that currently means a vote for the party they support is a wasted vote, as their seat is a two-horse race between the two other main parties and not the one whose policies they support?

Switching to AV wouldn't remedy this at all.

a) If you live in a landslide Tory seat and you vote for Labour under FPTP then its a wasted vote. If you vote for Labour as your first choice under AV your vote doesn't matter anyway because Labour are going to be eliminated before the Torys are
b) If you live in a landslide seat then the holding party are always going to get over 50% of the vote in the first round anyway

I'm more in favour of a system that is more proportional representation, but possibly AV is a lesser of two evils when compared to FPTP and also easier and cheaper to implement?

I agree that PR would be the ideal system but unfortunately there are centuries of tradition in the way and its painstakingly difficult to get around that in this country.

I don't see how AV would be easier or cheaper to implement though?

[thetank]

I appreciate there are constituencies where no amount of campaigning will make a difference. If your district is 95.8% Labour though, why is it unfair that these people are represented by a Labour MP?

Most constituencys can and do change hands, but they wont change to your party of choice if your party of choice parachutes in a teenager on their gap year to run for the seat. If you want to contend put up a viable candidate, a local buisnessman, lawyer, teacher, doctor, other professional or even a career politician with a decent amount of experience.

If there's no-one out of 75,000 odd people in a constituency (or the 300,000 next door) who fits this bill and can be persuaded to run for your party of choice then I don't think it's particularly unfair that these 75,000 people are not represented by your party of choice.

People talk about their wasted votes on election day, if there's enough of them they should instead be talking about their wasted oppurtunities to campaign prior to election day.

[Bongo]

To those who are voting NO to a change, are they happy with with the 'First Past the Post' system that means a government that has received a mandate from less than half those that vote (i.e. a minority of voters) is the one that assumes overall power and makes the decisions for everyone?

Also, what about the situation where people are in constituencies that currently means a vote for the party they support is a wasted vote, as their seat is a two-horse race between the two other main parties and not the one whose policies they support?

I'm more in favour of a system that is more proportional representation, but possibly AV is a lesser of two evils when compared to FPTP and also easier and cheaper to implement?

Did you see the example poll the BBC carried out? Labour won with 49% of the votes after all the rounds of AV had been done...



And this site reckon that in 3 out of the last 4 elections AV would have resulted in less proportionate results than FPTP:
http://www.av2011.co.uk/Q3.html

[Bongo]

People talk about their wasted votes on election day, if there's enough of them they should instead be talking about their wasted oppurtunities to campaign prior to election day.

I also don't see how making you rank the candidates in order of preference and then picking your lowest preference makes your vote count any more than otherwise.

[highmile]

Tank, are you really that stupid or are you just on a wind up?

[kinboshi]

Tank, are you really that stupid or are you just on a wind up?

He's not stupid.

[highmile]

Tank, are you really that stupid or are you just on a wind up?

He's not stupid.

Must be on a wind up then!