“dont think this is correct- only the second choice of those who voted for the least popular candidate gets counted, not eveybody’s second choice- a fundamental difference.”

No. Everyone else’s first choice is still in, so that is who they will vote for in either system. They are the same.

The point is that the tory leadership system isn’t AV (there is a term for it but it escapes me) and isn’t being propoosed for the General Election.

Everyone else’s first choice is still in, so that is who they will vote for in either system

which as pointed out before doesn’t happen in tory leadership elections

HTH

Someone would need to know my address AND date of birth to fake my paper vote. Inconceivable.

Well if you want to commit election fraud by altering individual votes then you aren’t going to have that much of an effect on the outcome. The potential to effect the outcome with a computer based system is much much larger.

The pencil & paper isn’t perfect, I wasn’t trying to say that it is, but adding technology won’t necessarily improve on it.

Brilliant – yes true, I could register for a postal vote and then effectively avoid the whole point of it by traipsing to polling station anyway!

What do you want – the moon on a stick?!

Personally I like the fact that there is a big pile of bits of paper with crosses on, that can be inspected and recounted if necessary.

As things stand you can send off your postal vote as soon as you make up your mind. But if you think that things will be close and that your vote will be vital, but you still can’t make up your mind (for some bizarre reason) until the very last minute, then you have the option to change your plans for the day and make sure you can still vote.

The potential to effect the outcome with a computer based system is much much larger.

But the difficulty is much greater as is the chance of it being detected and the perpetrators being caught.

What do you want – the moon on a stick?!

No – I want them to send me a password instead of a form.

I am thinking about it vaguely, but probably won’t bother to vote.

yes, and ‘yes’.

TJ guess: yes to AV – cos it would be catastrophic to the tories.

my prediction: no change.

“which as pointed out before doesn’t happen in tory leadership elections”

If people reassess their preferences between rounds then either:

1. The proposition of each candidate has changed
2. They are being pressured to change their vote, or
3. They are changing their mind whimsically and without reason

The first will not happen in a public election, the second should be prevented from happening, and with the third you will get a randomized result if you take a sample at any given time so it is immaterial when you gather the ranked preferences.

Is preferential system the term you’re looking for big_n_daft?

I appreciate the differences, but it’s still a lot closer to AV, which the Tories are campaigning against, than it is to FPTP, which they are campaigning for.

Their system gives people more than one vote, which is one of their 5 key reasons to vote No to AV.

(And I appreciate that everyone, physically, gets to vote more than once, but in effect it’s only likely to be the ones who’s first choice gets eliminated that then make a second choice – not many are likely to change their mind/loyalty once it’s underway).

Some Mash just to lighten the mood:

AV opponents face Daily Mail dilemma: MILLIONS of decent, honest Britons today face the troubling prospect of being on the same side of an argument as the Daily Mail. 😀

just voted, and doesn’t look like a large turnout at this moment in time.

The two systems do differ but I disagree that it is a fundamental difference: it is entirely incidental and immaterial

Not a fundamental difference that a very recent PM would never have been PM had they used AV rather than the system they do? Conceivably none of the PMs since him might have been PM either, with a whole succession of different people in charge. That’s what I call incidental and immaterial.

Certain arguments seem to be based on the premise that Tory party members are wholly rational and consistent in their decision-making.

I’m not saying the public is. I’m saying the difference between the systems only serves to modify the extent to which the process is influenced by irrationality. If you can make decisions in a consistent manner the pattern of voting is the same in each case.

..a very recent PM would never have been PM had they used AV rather than the system they do? Conceivably none of the PMs since him might have been PM either, with a whole succession of different people in charge.

I’m sold!

“Not a fundamental difference that a very recent PM would never have been PM had they used AV rather than the system they do? Conceivably none of the PMs since him might have been PM either, with a whole succession of different people in charge. That’s what I call incidental and immaterial.“

Is that speculation, or demonstrable with a published set of voting counts? (Not that even that would demonstrate it, since it would include the irrational swings and there’d be no control test to represent the AV outcome.)

For what its worth Hazel Blears thinks we should all vote no. Imagine agreeing with Hazel Blears

I postal voted and sent it off last week, but by teatime on Tuesday only 35,000 of the 61,000 postal ballots issued in Edinburgh had been received. I’m hoping mine was received – are people not bothered, or is it down to delays with the numerous bank/public holidays, or people leaving it too late.

Interestingly the only campaigners I have seen on the streets are the greens – who are very hopeful of serious representation- quite conceivably enough seats that an unholy alliance of the SNP and Greens could run Scotland without anyone else.

I am going to wait and see how all the politicians behave today, then make a decision at 9pm before I go up the road and post mine. That’ll keep them on their toes.

quite conceivably enough seats that an unholy alliance of the SNP and Greens could run Scotland without anyone else.

[makes mental note]Must vote Labour[/makes mental note]

Exercised my democratic duty first thing. The referendum is the only vote where mine has counted. I also exercised a form of negative AV by using only one of the two votes for the local councilors.

I vote for reform of the voting mechanics – I turned up at the polling station for my previous address (missed the deadline for change of address) without polling card (lost in the move) gave name and voted with no request for ID or date of birth. I think they were just glad to see a voter!

My prediction for scotland is SNP to gain a few seats but to be just short of a majority – around 52
Labour to loose a few – around 42
Torys are down to their rump vote =- they will get around the same 17
Greens to gain significantly – be disappointed with less than 6 and could get over ten
Lib dems to almost disappear. down from 16 to 6 or less.
Couple of independents – Margo should get in again.

Teh left vote is being badly split so no representation I think. Why do the left fragment so badly?

My prediction for scotland is SNP to gain a few seats but to be just short of a majority – around 52

Nooooooo !! – an overall majority please! 😀

So all the people that don’t bother to vote today (the vast majority I would say), is it going to be taken that they are happy with the system we have and counted as a no vote?

If so that doesn’t seem fair, as they don’t do that in the general elections, they just add up the votes and the one with the most wins, don’t they?

Well, I’m working at a Poll station and we’re not overly busy… hey, ho… The public are speaking.

So all the people that don’t bother to vote today (the vast majority I would say), is it going to be taken that they are happy with the system we have and counted as a no vote?

I don’t think that there is a minimum turnout requirement for the referendum so only the votes cast will count. Quite right too if you ask me. If we don’t have a minimum turnout for General Elections, I don’t see why we should have one for this.

I haven’t voted on AV yet.

I’d decided to vote ‘no’, but am now confused as I note that most left of centre parties support it. I thought that it would give people like UKIP more chance of getting some representation (heaven forbid).

Can anyone explain to me the advantages for those on the left (such as myself)?

Your collective wisdom is much appreciated!

Some lucky people get to vote twice round here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13293080

So if say, only 5000 people voted, 3000 voted Yes to AV, 2000 voted No, would they change the system to AV, or would they say the majority didn’t vote so are happy with FPTP, so we will keep the current system?

….imagine if there is only a 35% turnout but 55% of them vote ‘yes’.

Will the ‘no’ campaign disappear in a puff of logic?

[edit- ooooooh spooky ^^^ 😕 ]

rig – Member

I haven’t voted on AV yet.

I’d decided to vote ‘no’, but am now confused as I note that most left of centre parties support it. I thought that it would give people like UKIP more chance of getting some representation (heaven forbid).

Can anyone explain to me the advantages for those on the left (such as myself)?

most people in this country vote for something/someone left of centre – but the vote gets split between labour/liberal.

the minority of people who vote ‘right of centre’ – have only one mainstream choice; conservative.

so the tories even win seats where the majority are voting for something ‘leftish’.

AV would reduce the political power of the right – cos the winner would be the candidate with the broadest appeal – ie, leftish.

AV would be a disaster for the conservatives, and see loads of labour / liberal coalitons.

ukip are beginning to split ‘rightish’ voters away from the tories, which is why the tories REALLY hate ukip.

So if say, only 5000 people voted, 3000 voted Yes to AV, 2000 voted No, would they change the system to AV, or would they say the majority didn’t vote so are happy with FPTP, so we will keep the current system?

There’s no minimum turnout so in that instance the change would be implemented. It would be wrong to assume that people who didn’t vote prefer FPTP, it would be more appropriate to say that they have no preference.

Here is an intersting one (for political geeks maybe)

I bet Scotland votes for AV – as the scots are now used to some form of PR but I bet across the UK its rejected by a large margin

yes to AV – cos it would be catastrophic to the tories.

+1

The others couldn’t really care less I live somewhere that if you put a blue badge on a donkey it would get elected. We have a MP with less than 50% of those who could be bothered to vote.

“would they say the majority didn’t vote so are happy with FPTP, so we will keep the current system?“

There’s a box on the paper to say that you’re happy with FPTP.

Abstaining says “I don’t care how it turns out, I’ll leave it up to people who do care.”

If even only one person votes then we should follow that vote, since everyone else clearly doesn’t care. One person is better off in terms of their wishes being acted upon and everyone else is equally well off. That’s a net gain.

I will this evening. I promise.

So all the people that don’t bother to vote today (the vast majority I would say), is it going to be taken that they are happy with the system we have and counted as a no vote?

By the Tories, yes.

By everyone else, no.

rig,

Other thread AV referendum rehashes some of the arguments either way.

re: Internet voting, search for the hassle just having electronic voting machines , specifically designed for the task, has caused in recent American polling.

In this instance, I’m happy to stick with paper and crayon.