AV then. Yes or No?

CiB

Surprised we haven't done this. As it's today, I'll kick off.

No. Simple answer.


First Past The Post has served us well enough for donkey's years.

One man one vote is the fairest way of voting. Under this AV nonsense my clarity-of-thought decisive vote for the one fellow whose views chime exactly with mine, is diluted by a bunch of wishy-washy indecisive types who get anything up to 5 votes through not being able to make their mind up; I only get one. Vote for candidates who I don't agree with? Meh.

Voters who oppose unpopular candidates will get 5 votes to use against that unpopular candidate. Supporters of same can only vote for him (or her obviously) once. In what way is that fairer, unless there's some mechanism where we can use all of our other choices for the same candidate to cancel out the multiple votes against?

I don't want MPs to work harder thanks. I want them to get themselves voted in & then sit there and pass only those laws that absolutely need passing. They can spend the other 4 years 11 months sitting on their hands thanks. MPs shouldn't measure their achievements in productivity.

So No, thanks.

rick_chasey

You're the most little c convervative man I've come across.

A yes from me, not that it makes a blind bit of difference.

UndercoverElephant

Yes for me. It's a much simpler system:



I for one am sick of people saying that they would like to vote in a certain way, but that they still vote for one of the two main parties, because they can't stand the other lot.

veronese68

I went with yes. It's not perfect, but then nothing is I just think it's better than what we have. 6 staff in the polling station, all sitting on their hands. They all jumped when I walked in. I think the turn out will be absolutely dreadful.

Hairybuddha

No

I like that our current system allows for the election from time to time of governments with overwhelming Parliamentary majorities allowing them to push through comprehensive reform programmes. Blair didn't do enough quickly enough. Cameron is learning from Blair's mistakes (some of them)

With AV we are in danger of ending up with the kind of electoral paralysis often and recently seen in countries like the US and Belgium

UndercoverElephant

CiB wrote:

Voters who oppose unpopular candidates will get 5 votes to use against that unpopular candidate. Supporters of same can only vote for him (or her obviously) once. In what way is that fairer, unless there's some mechanism where we can use all of our other choices for the same candidate to cancel out the multiple votes against?

This is complete rubbish. Everyone’s vote gets equal weight, and gets counted in every round, but some votes will be transferred to a different party.

rick_chasey

Hairybuddha wrote:

With AV we are in danger of ending up with the kind of electoral paralysis often and recently seen in countries like the US and Belgium

Err, really?

Hairybuddha

Err, yup

The Rookie

My first choice vote is No, my alteranate vote is Yes.........??

The way I see it (and I can understand the benefits in terms of enfranchising voters who have become somewhat jaded in the past 20 years) is that this will almost certainly lead to a hung parliament leaving the lib-dems in power with whoever they choose to work with, this will give the lib-dems an amount of power out of proportion to their voter backing (first choice voters anyway), it will also mean a lot more coalitions, and many countries where a coalition is the normal govt end up with many more elections and flip-flopping of policies, and that instability is worse than having the 'wrong' party in power for a stable amount of time.

No for me on that basis.

Simon

notsoblue

I'm voting Yes to AV. Quite simply it means that whoever wins has support from a larger proportion of voters than under FPTP.

dhope

UndercoverElephant wrote:

CiB wrote:

Voters who oppose unpopular candidates will get 5 votes to use against that unpopular candidate. Supporters of same can only vote for him (or her obviously) once. In what way is that fairer, unless there's some mechanism where we can use all of our other choices for the same candidate to cancel out the multiple votes against?

This is complete rubbish. Everyone’s vote gets equal weight, and gets counted in every round, but some votes will be transferred to a different party.

Hrm, some truth in it.
FPTP - Most popular minority
AV - Least unpopular majority?

I'm voting yes, though I think both sides have been argued horribly. Well the AV one has, FPTP hasn't had to work very hard.

UndercoverElephant

I'm not sure the current situations in the US or Belgium are often seen, oh and the US use FPTP, which obviously works well. Especially when Bush got in with fewer votes than his competitor, in a two horse race.

Hairybuddha

Of course it will be ironic if, given some of the arguments against the current Tory Government (sorry, Tory Lib coalition), if the motion carries on the kind of pathetic turnout expected.

How can the yes camp truly then say the result is representative of the will of the people?

phy2sll2

Yes, because the candidate elected is the one for whom the most people voted. More democratic, IMO.

dhope

Hairybuddha wrote:

Of course it will be ironic if, given some of the arguments against the current Tory Government (sorry, Tory Lib coalition), if the motion carries on the kind of pathetic turnout expected.

How can the yes camp truly then say the result is representative of the will of the people?

In an election with only 2 options then AV and FPTP are no different :P

rick_chasey

Hairybuddha wrote:

Err, yup

a projection of how the past elections would have turned out if AV had been used. If anything, they get stronger gov'ts....

Hairybuddha

@UndercoverElephant The situation in the US is due to the relative power of the different houses. There is no clear mandate for any part of Government at the moment so important legislation does not get passed (a bit like coalition Government).

In Belgium, there is no Government because the protagonists can't agree amongst themselves what the make up of any coalition Government would be. Similar issues have been seen in Germany aswell.

I think they stand as good analogies.

asprilla

Since I generally don't vote Labour or Conservative and have spent my entire life living in either Tyne & Wear or Surrey then without proper PR there is absolutely no reason for me to vote at all since my vote is effectively worthless.

AV isn't an alternative to PR, but as far as making my vote count it's a hell of a lot better than FPTP. Also, given the complaints about the cost of implementing AV I'd like to know what it costs when the parties redraw the electoral boundaries in their favour every few years.

I voted yes, although my second choice was no.

Hairybuddha

@rickchasey

How can you possibly project AV to past elections? There is no credible way to predict order of preference. That is voodoo science.

phy2sll2

Asprilla wrote:

Also, given the complaints about the cost of implementing AV I'd like to know what it costs when the parties redraw the electoral boundaries in their favour every few years.

Here here!

dhope

Hairybuddha wrote:

@rickchasey

How can you possibly project AV to past elections? There is no credible way to predict order of preference. That is voodoo science.

By that logic your conjecture that AV would result in a bunch of weak coalitions is nothing more than gut feeling and just as invalid.

stuaff

Yes. Not as good a system as Single Alternative Vote, IMHO, but an improvement nonetheless. Some of the claims made by the no campaign (helping the BNP, soldiers will die, etc) merely encouraged me to vote yes.
If you don't have a second/third preference, you don't indicate one. Not exactly complicated. No way would I ever do anything to help a fascist scumbag get elected, and AV doesn't mean that will change.

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're the most little c convervative man I've come across.

Cheers. It's nice when things are ok, and the choices you make as a youth turn out to be right as you go through life.

Anyway.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

CiB wrote:

Voters who oppose unpopular candidates will get 5 votes to use against that unpopular candidate. Supporters of same can only vote for him (or her obviously) once. In what way is that fairer, unless there's some mechanism where we can use all of our other choices for the same candidate to cancel out the multiple votes against?

This is complete rubbish. Everyone’s vote gets equal weight, and gets counted in every round, but some votes will be transferred to a different party.

No.

If I vote for Candidate A and see that no other candidate matches my views and therefore doesn't warrant my second, third etc choice vote, that's my vote spent. Meanwhile my wife will probably pitch up with a deep dislike of A (she's like that, sadly) and vote for B, C, D, E & F. That's not right.

rick_chasey

With all this chat about coalitions, what I don't understand is:

If there genuinely are 3 significant parties in terms of proportion of people voting, and I think on the basis of the past few elections and the fears of the no camp, there are, why are people so keen to keep the system unrepresentatitve?

Surely if almost 1/4 of votes are being cast for a third party, that should be able to be recognised in the system?

Having said all this, the actual impact of AV on the results will be extremely minimal.

AV+ would have been substantially different. AV is not.

DonDaddyD

Yes.

tailwindhome

@CIB

You're voting No

I'd planned to vote Yes

Could I interest you in a pairing arrangement?

Hairybuddha

@dhope I didn't actually say that it would lead to a succession of weak coalitions although that is certainly a risk and there is historical precedent in other countries.

It is my opinion however that AV would lead to a succession of coalition Governments which is an inherently weaker state than a Government with a strong single party majority.

rick_chasey

Hairybuddha wrote:

@rickchasey

How can you possibly project AV to past elections? There is no credible way to predict order of preference. That is voodoo science.

There is: often when polls are taken, it's not just "who will/did you vote for" but, surprise surprise, they ask their preferences in rank order too...

greg66_tri_v2.0

No.

Once you start pandering to the wishes of people who (a) lose elections and (b) claim that the electoral system is unfair (because they lost, it seems), you'll be fiddling with the voting system until your children die of old age.

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're the most little c convervative man I've come across.

Cheers. It's nice when things are ok, and the choices you make as a youth turn out to be right as you go through life.

.

I meant it quite literally. I've never come across anyone who wants to keep things are they are as much as you seem to!

Everyone I know would change stuff one way or another.

roger_merriman

No AV doesn't to me have a lot going for it.

the idea it will attract more votes etc is well optimistic at best, people tend to hate the party politics, people get intrested when it's local stuff.

was standing room only for the meeting about a supermarket maybe coming to nr myself.