AV then. Yes or No?

mr_poll

Tongue in cheek I know but still makes the point eloquently.

greg66_tri_v2.0

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

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.

Can I be the only person to find this flow chart risibly contrived?

FPTP: (1) select candidate you wish to vote for (2) put X by their name.
AV: (1) place candidates in order of preference (2) write down numbers.

That tactical analysis nonsense is just that; moreover, there's no reason why, if you were minded to feck around like that in the booth, you would do it times n in an AV system. No one think that AV will end tactical voting; the tactics are different, that's all.

Not in the least, Mr. 66, I find it to be quite accurate. It may not be the case for someone who ideologically fits with one of the two major parties, but I don't particularly. I would say that AV would end the current form of tactical voting, as in "I would really like to vote for X, but Y is better than Z and as we all know, round here only Y and Z have any chance, so I'll vote for Y.

I quite like a system where even though the results will most likely be the same, as Y would be my second choice, at least people will be able to look and see the support for other ideas. We are starting to vote much more for "Others" as a country, FPTP only really works with two main parties, in my opinion.

Hold on, you're in Scotland. So the "what will everyone else vote" is "Labour in spades", and you will never get to the third possibility of not voting for your first preference candidate. Surely you worked that out years ago.

Google AV tactical voting to discover a panorama of voting tactics under AV...

tailwindhome

English people aren't smart enough to understand any alternative voting systems

Most of you can just about form a X on a bit of paper.

FACT

bails87

WGWarburton wrote:

H. Similarly, FPTP is capable of producing some silly results. It's far too crude for modern democracy.

Wasn't there an election in the 70s where the Tories got more votes than Labour, but Labour ended up with a majority of seats? So they were able to pass any legislation they wanted, assuming the rest of the party supported it, despite having not just a minority of the voters, but an even smaller minority than the Tories.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

Google AV tactical voting to discover a panorama of voting tactics under AV...

Why is tactical voting always portrayed as something negative?

walkingbootweather

Great debate guys. Some of the arguements put forward here are actually stronger than those put through more official channels.

My mind had been made up before, but here at least, the arguements for Yes appear to me to be more compelling.

Interestingly, a Polling Clerk has told me that they are unable to explain the 2 systems for fear of influencing the vote, so for devilment I shall be sure to ask for clarification this evening.

Whichever system we end up with I would like to be able to select a 'none of the above' option. I do feel it is a duty to cast a vote and have in the past spoiled my paper rather than favour any of the options offered.

mr_poll

Rick Chasey wrote:

Av is used in hereditary peer by-elections for the HoL isn't it?

Its also used to elect leaders of the party - in fact David Cameron benefitted from it as under FPTP then David Davies would be the leader of the tories. David Milliband would have been leader for Labour not Ed.
Good enough for MP's but not for us it seems.

bails87

Why is it even called First Past The Post? Surely there is no post, there's more of a 'post' in AV.

TheStone

You can now get 36/1 on a YES vote on betfair.

.... so it'll be a NO vote. What does Clegg do then?

You get a once in a lifetime chance to have a say in a coalition. You get a few big policies you can put forward or veto. You ignore charging students 9k/year because you want to make a minor, rather pointless change to the voting system .... you're finished.

I expect an election before the year is finished.

tailwindhome

bails87 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

H. Similarly, FPTP is capable of producing some silly results. It's far too crude for modern democracy.

Wasn't there an election in the 70s where the Tories got more votes than Labour, but Labour ended up with a majority of seats? So they were able to pass any legislation they wanted, assuming the rest of the party supported it, despite having not just a minority of the voters, but an even smaller minority than the Tories.

Surely the 'unfairness' in the system is more to do with constituency boundaries which result in safe seats and render many votes worthless.

Can't see AV making much difference

UndercoverElephant

Greg66 wrote:

Hold on, you're in Scotland. So the "what will everyone else vote" is "Labour in spades", and you will never get to the third possibility of not voting for your first preference candidate. Surely you worked that out years ago.

Google AV tactical voting to discover a panorama of voting tactics under AV...

I may be in Scotland now, but I grew up in the North East of England... I see your point, actually.

No2Av wrote:

For example, in a three way seat where both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in danger of coming last, a Conservative might be tempted to give their first preference to Labour, for fear a Labour elimination would mean a hefty vote transfer to the Lib Dems.

That's the most ridiculous pile of tosh I've ever seen written.

notsoblue

UndercoverElephant wrote:

No2Av wrote:

For example, in a three way seat where both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in danger of coming last, a Conservative might be tempted to give their first preference to Labour, for fear a Labour elimination would mean a hefty vote transfer to the Lib Dems.

That's the most ridiculous pile of tosh I've ever seen written.

Haha, +1

Fireblade96

TailWindHome wrote:

English people aren't smart enough to understand any alternative voting systems

Most of you can just about form a X on a bit of paper.

FACT

I cut my voting teeth on PR, may be why I'm not finding AV too tricky...

tailwindhome

UndercoverElephant wrote:

No2Av wrote:

For example, in a three way seat where both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in danger of coming last, a Conservative might be tempted to give their first preference to Labour, for fear a Labour elimination would mean a hefty vote transfer to the Lib Dems.

That's the most ridiculous pile of tosh I've ever seen written.

Why do you think this is ridiculous?

sketchley

Referendum Result Odds

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/pol ... um/spreads

Turnout Odds more than 40% is favourite surprisingly

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/pol ... ut/spreads

rjsterry

Sorry to back track a bit, but

CiB wrote:

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

FPTP was introduced into a two party state, where most people didn't even have the vote.

And when you say 'us' you are excluding all those who don't vote Tory or Labour, but who are unfortunately more evenly distributed across the country, rather than concentrated in particular constituencies.

UndercoverElephant

TailWindHome wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

No2Av wrote:

For example, in a three way seat where both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in danger of coming last, a Conservative might be tempted to give their first preference to Labour, for fear a Labour elimination would mean a hefty vote transfer to the Lib Dems.

That's the most ridiculous pile of tosh I've ever seen written.

Why do you think this is ridiculous?

Because the thought that anyone would be stupid enough to think that the best way for their party to win would be to vote for the party they can't stand in the blind-hope that they manage to eliminate a third party that they don't dislike too much. They obviously didn't think through the bit where their vote actually still counts for the bunch they can't stand in the next round...

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Google AV tactical voting to discover a panorama of voting tactics under AV...

Why is tactical voting always portrayed as something negative?

Hehehe. Ask Polly Toynbee. She told people to vote tactically for the LDs last election, to keep the Tories out. Her post-coalition apoplexy-fuelled TV appearance was one of the funniest things I have seen in years.

asprilla

rjsterry wrote:

Sorry to back track a bit, but

CiB wrote:

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

FPTP was introduced into a two party state, where most people didn't even have the vote.

And when you say 'us' you are excluding all those who don't vote Tory or Labour, but who are unfortunately more evenly distributed across the country, rather than concentrated in particular constituencies.

This.

As mentioned before, FPTP renders my vote null and void, and has never served me well.

Still I'm glad that those in a few marginal seats somewhere miles away from me get to decide who governs the country; I'd hate the responsibility.

AV isn't what I really want, but it's better than FPTP. Also, voting got me an extra miles for the Sill Commuter Stats.

Clever Pun

itboffin wrote:

I bet you YES voters also voted for Boris

didn't you! :twisted:

that's it... outside

Clever Pun

Greg66 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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.

so you agree with the daily mail, the bnp and the conservatives*

*see my earlier post

On this, yes.

I think you'll find I also agree with John Reid, John Prescott, Margaret Beckett and David Blunkett.

Who've you got?

Clegg the diabolical turncoat, and the adenoidal senior prefect.

Oh, and Balls up.

I win.

FACT!

Anrmando Annuci or however it's spelled

tobermory

NO
It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected they say what we want to hear then when there in the club all their promises hit the buffers

Kieran_Burns

So we're meant to use a deeply flawed election system to decide on whether to use another deeply flawed election system that isn't actually the flawed election system the 3rd least unpopular party in power want?

Did I get that right?

dhope

tobermory wrote:

NO
It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected they say what we want to hear then when there in the club all their promises hit the buffers

Yeah, show em! Fight the Man with inaction and apathy!

rjsterry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/02/how_av_made_cameron_tory_leade.html

Turns out you can bite the hand that feeds. True the system is not exactly the same as AV as each round is independent, but it's certainly not FPTP.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating this position, I just think it's interesting that it hasn't been picked up on more, and that Cameron seems to be so vehemently opposed to anything other than FPTP.

tobermory

dhope wrote:

tobermory wrote:

NO
It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected they say what we want to hear then when there in the club all their promises hit the buffers

Yeah, show em! Fight the Man with inaction and apathy!

How the hell do you know what i do make assumptions you can't back up

Blue Meanie

Yes

bails87

TailWindHome wrote:

bails87 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

H. Similarly, FPTP is capable of producing some silly results. It's far too crude for modern democracy.

Wasn't there an election in the 70s where the Tories got more votes than Labour, but Labour ended up with a majority of seats? So they were able to pass any legislation they wanted, assuming the rest of the party supported it, despite having not just a minority of the voters, but an even smaller minority than the Tories.

Surely the 'unfairness' in the system is more to do with constituency boundaries which result in safe seats and render many votes worthless.

Can't see AV making much difference

No, it won't, it was just I've seen people who seemed to be of the opinion that while it's not very good at showing the preferences of voters for smaller parties, we do at least get the government that the biggest group of people voted for. Just showing that's not true. Not that it would be any more true under AV.

jonginge

has you the will to Reform? yesnomaybe

Reform Cat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_ ... e=youtu.be

notsoblue

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So we're meant to use a deeply flawed election system to decide on whether to use another deeply flawed election system that isn't actually the flawed election system the 3rd least unpopular party in power want?

Did I get that right?

Nope. FPTP works fine when you have a choice of two options.