Friday Debate - AV Referendum 5th May

sketchley

In the absence of DDD posting a friday topic to kill a couple of hours I thought I would jump in.

On 5th May I get to vote on voting or alternatively I could go for a bike ride and not worry about it.

I have no idea about this at all except that I would want the best system for future rather than the short term view of what helps the current government stay in or not. All I seem to hear at the moment is about what the effect would be at the next elections, i.e. Torys in (no to AV) or Torys out (yes to AV), although enen then they cannot agree on this, so I have no idea which is the better system and why.

Consquently I have no idea which way to vote or if I should just vote apathy party and go for bike ride.

Anybody care to explain it?

asprilla

I'm voting for AV simply because the voting system
In this country needs changing. AV isn't the answer, PR is, but we aren't getting that.

Kieran_Burns

PR puts the power into the hands of the minority, not the people most of the electorate (who bothered) actually voted for.

What we need is an end to England being the coinpurse for the UK and a separate parliament for the largest contributor and the only one with no separate voice.



(just call me Don)

PresumingEd

I will be voting for AV for a number of reasons, including:
- I will be able to record my first prefernce at all future elections, rather than having to decide who might have a chance of winning (or whether to just waste my vote)
- At least 50% of voters will need to support a candidate in order for them to win
- As most people hate Tories, they should finally be consigned to history
- It might eventually lead to a proper, proprtional voting system

By the way KB - AV is not actually proportional at all

bails87

Explain what?

What AV is? What a yes or no vote would mean? Or what difference using AV would make?

AV works by voters ranking the candidates in order of preference. E.g. You're a labour voter so you put a 1 next to labour. If you want you can then put a 2 next to your 2nd choice, 3 next to your 3rd choice etc. You can rank every option or just one.
When it comes to counting the votes, they add up all the '1' votes. If one candidate has already got 50% then they win.

If noone has 50% then they add all the '2' votes. If the number of votes for any one candidate is now over 50% then that candidate wins. If there are two who've been pushed over 50% by the inclusion of the 2nd person I guess they take the one with the highest share.(?) If no-one has got 50% yet, then they carry on until someone does.
For example a voting card could be:

1. Lib Dem
2. Greens
3.Labour
4. Local save-our-hospital party
5.Monster raving loonies
6.Tory

Or it could be

1.Tory

Or

1. UKIP
2. BNP

I don't know which way I'm going to vote, if at all.

I think the 'No' campaign is weak, it seems to focus on "the electorate are too thick to rank candidates in order of preference". Which is odd considering that you can just put a "1" next to your most preferred candidate and leave it at that.

I don't really see how it will give more power to the BNP, which seems to be an empty scare tactic being used. Even if it did (and I think the BNP are hateful cretins) shouldn't the fact that people want them be counted. You can't say "democracy is important and everyone should have a vote, unless you say something we don't like, in which case we'll ignore you".

The "Even the 'Lib Dems' called it a miserable compromise" line is a cheap shot. Seeing as the Tories said "you can have a referendum on AV or no referendum at all". Some change in the right direction is better than none. But if we go to AV does that mean we're stuck with it when there may be a better system? Likewise, if the vote is a 'No', will that be seen as an acceptance of FPTP or a rejection of AV, because the two are different. I know of people who will be voting no because they want STV or something else, they want to get rid of FPTP but AV isn't seen as a big enough change.

I guess it's hard to predict how things will turn out if we have a system like AV because we don't really know what people's second, third and fourth votes would be

asprilla

Not having PR means that my vote may be rendered pointless by geography. There is no point in turning up to vote in Surrey unless you are voting Tory and vice versa in Tyne & Wear.

Kieran_Burns

PE - I was responding to a previous post by Asprilla

UndercoverElephant

Any system where the elected member has not been voted for by the majority of the electorate is badly flawed, IMO. Vote yes.

rick_chasey

There is no reason that I can think of that makes first past the post better than AV.

dhope

I'm not certain AV will change anything.
May be cynical but I wonder whether if approved, the 'voting reform' item gets checked off the list and not talked about seriously again for a while, which would be a mistake as I don't think AV is a particularly significant reform.

bails87

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Any system where the elected member has not been voted for by the majority of the electorate is badly flawed, IMO. Vote yes.

Yep
Last election 36% of people who voted, voted Tory. They got 47% of the seats.
29% voted Labour. They got 40% of the seats.
23% voted Lib Dem and they got 9% of the seats.

How can a 6% change mean you get less than a quarter of the seats?
Obviously I know how, but it's not a great system is it?

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

There is no reason that I can think of that makes first past the post better than AV.

We're idiots and can't understand a more complicated system....apparently.

Presumably we'll all be doing it in wax crayon and we'll get extra 'good boy points' if we keep our votes inside the lines.

rick_chasey

What irritates me when I see brits discussing voting systems is this constant whining that somehow something more proportional is somehow weak, despite the fact that a) the enormously unfair and barely democratic system the UK has at the moment produced a hung parliament and b) that the current coalition is governing fine < and is not 'weak'.

Voting systems massively affect policy. If only a handful of middle income swing voters in marginal seats are the only ones who really count in an election, it's likely they'll be massively over-represented at the expense of the public at large for political gain < which is what happens in the UK.

The more each vote actually has an effect on parliament, the more incentives the politicians have to form policy for EVERYONE.

SimonAH

The only real change that I would back 100% is to make it compulsory to vote and add a square for abstemption.

You risk a fine not to send back your census form, why not for failing to vote? People have fought, struggled and died to give all of us the right to vote - to not bother because you'd rather watch Corrie is unbelievable.

asprilla

What Rick said.

Kieran_Burns

SimonAH wrote:

The only real change that I would back 100% is to make it compulsory to vote and add a square for abstemption.

You risk a fine not to send back your census form, why not for failing to vote? People have fought, struggled and died to give all of us the right to vote - to not bother because you'd rather watch Corrie is unbelievable.

+1

all voting should be compulsory

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

The only real change that I would back 100% is to make it compulsory to vote and add a square for abstemption.

You risk a fine not to send back your census form, why not for failing to vote? People have fought, struggled and died to give all of us the right to vote - to not bother because you'd rather watch Corrie is unbelievable.

What if you're suddenly out on business that day, or a client calls and you need to stay late at work / travel out?

Many people don't vote because they can get to their polling booths because of other commitments.

davmaggs

Seems to be a few views on here that FPTP isn't doing the job therefore it should be a yes to AV. There isn't any posting of the specific merits of AV, more of I don't like the current system so I will vote for anything else.

If you want the system to be AV then vote for AV, but if you want PR or any other variant then it has to be a no as this vote is not asking about those systems. They aren't on the ballet so don't even think about them. Chuck all the PR/other arguments away, and stick to what this vote is asking as the nation will be stuck with AV for years.

I also find it interesting that a party that 77% of people didn't vote for get to put this to the nation, and when negotiating for the coalition they demanded that the British people should not be consulted at all.

rick_chasey

davmaggs wrote:

Seems to be a few views on here that FPTP isn't doing the job therefore it should be a yes to AV. There isn't any posting of the specific merits of AV, more of I don't like the current system so I will vote for anything else.

If you want the system to be AV then vote for AV, but if you want PR or any other variant then it has to be a no as this vote is not asking about those systems. They aren't on the ballet so don't even think about them. Chuck all the PR/other arguments away, and stick to what this vote is asking as the nation will be stuck with AV for years.

I also find it interesting that a party that 77% of people didn't vote for get to put this to the nation, and when negotiating for the coalition they demanded that the British people should not be consulted at all.

AV is better principally that FPTP because it significantly reduces the need to tactical vote -so you can actually vote for the party you want most.

If you are desperate not to have the tories in power, you can vote labour first, lib dems second.

It basically helps consider who is unpopular and it produces results that are closer to the voting proportions than FPTP which, as I have explained above, is a good thing.

AV is by no means a good system, but it's a better system than FPTP and that's the only choice there is.

Edit: Given that AV favours the Lib Dems, who are very pro PR - surely it makes sense to vote for AV so that, once in place, those who are pro PR will have more say to enact such a change...

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

I also find it interesting that a party that 77% of people didn't vote for get to put this to the nation, .

Yes, 77% of people didn't vote for them but then 35% of the electorate didn't vote for anyone at all. At least the country gets a choice. 64% of people didn't vote for everything the Tories are doing, and we don't get referendums about each individual thing there do we?

If you want the system to be AV then vote for AV, but if you want PR or any other variant then it has to be a no as this vote is not asking about those systems. They aren't on the ballet so don't even think about them. Chuck all the PR/other arguments away, and stick to what this vote is asking as the nation will be stuck with AV for years

Or, hypothetically, 60% of the population want a different system so they vote 'no'. This gets seen as an acceptance of FPTP and we're stuck with it forever.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

The only real change that I would back 100% is to make it compulsory to vote and add a square for abstemption.

You risk a fine not to send back your census form, why not for failing to vote? People have fought, struggled and died to give all of us the right to vote - to not bother because you'd rather watch Corrie is unbelievable.

What if you're suddenly out on business that day, or a client calls and you need to stay late at work / travel out?

Many people don't vote because they can get to their polling booths because of other commitments.

That's just a question of mechanics which has multiple solutions - proxy vote, postal vote, e-vote, vote a different site, extend voting period to a couple of days. There are any number of ways around the problem. Most people don't vote because they are apathetic, uninterested and uninformed. If voting were compulsory then perhaps they would take the time to learn a little about what they were voting on?

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

Seems to be a few views on here that FPTP isn't doing the job therefore it should be a yes to AV. There isn't any posting of the specific merits of AV, more of I don't like the current system so I will vote for anything else.

It's better at showing your preferences. If you'll only be happy with a Tory govt then just put a 1 next to them and that's it.

If you're happy with either Labour, Libdems or Greens running your local govt then you can put 1, 2, 3 as appropriate.

If you find the BNP abhorrent then give everyone except them a vote. This is probably what I'll do if we get A/V. It lets you show what you don't want as much as what you do want.

Say there's an area where votes are very evenly split between BNP, Tories, Labour and Lib Dem. Say most people would be very strongly anti-BNP, ie, their 'misery' at a BNP local MP would be greater than the misery of BNP voters having a Tory MP. They can show that by voting:
1. Tory
2.Labour
3.Lib Dem
and no vote for the BNP.

Whereas BNP people think the BNP is the only party and the rest love brown people too much to be taken seriously so their votes look like
1. BNP

Say 26% put BNP as their first choice., with low 20%s for the other parties. Under AV, the unhappiness caused by a BNP govt is taken into account as the votes are cascaded down to find the least objectionable govt, rather than one that the biggest minority said was their first choice. You end up with most people saying "it's not ideal, but it'll do" rather than mmost saying "it's terrible" with a minority happy.

Purely hypothetical and slightly simplified numbers I'm sure, but it's just to make a point.

bails87

SimonAH wrote:

If voting were compulsory then perhaps they would take the time to learn a little about what they were voting on?

It's always a little scary to read the newspapers letter pages or the comments under made up stories on the Daily Mail/Express website, and then remember that these people have as much of a say in the democratic process as you or I! :shock:

rick_chasey

I don't get this "what about extremist parties" rubbish.

If people want to vote for them, let them.

Sheesh - just because the majority find them abhorrent doesn't mean it's not a legitimate political view to take, nor does it mean that they shouldn't be allowed to gain power legitimately.

If they're rubbish, which they're likely to be, they won't last long.

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't get this "what about extremist parties" rubbish.

If people want to vote for them, let them.

Sheesh - just because the majority find them abhorrent doesn't mean it's not a legitimate political view to take, nor does it mean that they shouldn't be allowed to gain power legitimately.

If they're rubbish, which they're likely to be, they won't last long.

I know, I hope my post didn't come across as if I was saying that.

I don't think the 'AV=mentalists' argument makes much sense, and as I said earlier, if people want to vote for the BNP or anyone similarly unpleasant then they're allowed to.

davmaggs

bails87 wrote:

Yes, 77% of people didn't vote for them but then 35% of the electorate didn't vote for anyone at all. At least the country gets a choice. 64% of people didn't vote for everything the Tories are doing, and we don't get referendums about each individual thing there do we?

That's the choice of the 35%. We can't start intepreting why they didn't take part or attributing that as for or against something or other. If they want to have their say, then they should show up.

What we do know as fact was that the Libs got 23% of the votes, and each person can decide on their own whether they that gives them the mandate to be so influential.

bails87 wrote:

Or, hypothetically, 60% of the population want a different system so they vote 'no'. This gets seen as an acceptance of FPTP and we're stuck with it forever.

That isn't particularly logical. If the no votes wins then it can only ever be said that the people were against AV and nothing else. That is all the question is asking.

rick_chasey

davmaggs wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Or, hypothetically, 60% of the population want a different system so they vote 'no'. This gets seen as an acceptance of FPTP and we're stuck with it forever.

That isn't particularly logical. If the no votes wins then it can only ever be said that the people were against AV and nothing else. That is all the question is asking.

Bail's is right. That's what'd happen.

Logic doesn't come into it.

Angry newspresenters were saying the Tories had been given a mandate to govern by the electorate this year despite getting plenty less than half the votes... :?

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Yes, 77% of people didn't vote for them but then 35% of the electorate didn't vote for anyone at all. At least the country gets a choice. 64% of people didn't vote for everything the Tories are doing, and we don't get referendums about each individual thing there do we?

That's the choice of the 35%. We can't start intepreting why they didn't take part or attributing that as for or against something or other. If they want to have their say, then they should show up.

What we do know as fact was that the Libs got 23% of the votes, and each person can decide on their own whether they that gives them the mandate to be so influential.

And the Tories got 36% of the vote. It's not as if one party got a majority of the country to vote for it and it's being pushed around by a fringe party.

Like I said, it's going to a referendum. They're not forcing us to do anything. 64% of people didn't vote for the VAT rise or the EMA cut. In fact even the Tory voters didn't seeing as they promised not to do those things.

bails87 wrote:

Or, hypothetically, 60% of the population want a different system so they vote 'no'. This gets seen as an acceptance of FPTP and we're stuck with it forever.

That isn't particularly logical. If the no votes wins then it can only ever be said that the people were against AV and nothing else. That is all the question is asking.

And it's the only question we're likely to get.

davmaggs

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't get this "what about extremist parties" rubbish.

If people want to vote for them, let them.

Sheesh - just because the majority find them abhorrent doesn't mean it's not a legitimate political view to take, nor does it mean that they shouldn't be allowed to gain power legitimately.

If they're rubbish, which they're likely to be, they won't last long.

I know, I hope my post didn't come across as if I was saying that.

I don't think the 'AV=mentalists' argument makes much sense, and as I said earlier, if people want to vote for the BNP or anyone similarly unpleasant then they're allowed to.

They are a distraction in an AV debate. If you are losing sleep over them then leave the system as is, as they've come nowhere bar one council for a brief spell.

In a PR like systems (like Israel) then minority parties get a massive say as they often hold the balance of power so you'd be more likely to worry about little parties.

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't get this "what about extremist parties" rubbish.

If people want to vote for them, let them.

Sheesh - just because the majority find them abhorrent doesn't mean it's not a legitimate political view to take, nor does it mean that they shouldn't be allowed to gain power legitimately.

If they're rubbish, which they're likely to be, they won't last long.

I know, I hope my post didn't come across as if I was saying that.

I don't think the 'AV=mentalists' argument makes much sense, and as I said earlier, if people want to vote for the BNP or anyone similarly unpleasant then they're allowed to.

They are a distraction in an AV debate. If you are losing sleep over them then leave the system as is, as they've come nowhere bar one council for a brief spell.

In a PR like systems (like Israel) then minority parties get a massive say as they often hold the balance of power so you'd be more likely to worry about little parties.

So parties that get a minority of votes might hold the balance of power, rather than say, all of it?

I'm not losing any sleep over the BNP. I don't think many Labour or Lib Dem voters would put BNP second or third. I don't think many Tory voters would, although possibly more. Yeah, a few UKIP/BNP voters might vote for the other as their second choice, but how many places are either of those parties doing well enough to get anywhere near the main 3? Nowhere. The BNP aren't an issue with AV, so I'm not sure why you call them a distraction and then use them to bash AV :?

davmaggs

Rick Chasey wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Or, hypothetically, 60% of the population want a different system so they vote 'no'. This gets seen as an acceptance of FPTP and we're stuck with it forever.

That isn't particularly logical. If the no votes wins then it can only ever be said that the people were against AV and nothing else. That is all the question is asking.

Bail's is right. That's what'd happen.

Logic doesn't come into it.

Angry newspresenters were saying the Tories had been given a mandate to govern by the electorate this year despite getting plenty less than half the votes... :?

This is starting to prove my point. AV is being chosen not as a good idea on its own merits, but as some kind of anything but FPTP idea. Or worse, change to a system that is useless so that we can ask for another vote later on.

If you stick to the point that this vote is on AV and nothing else then you have a mandate to go to the people to ask about another system. If the AV campaign is really saying that this is about PR and the public goes along with that thinking and the AV vote is lost, then your case for another vote is very weak.