[Closed] Alternative vote?

As long as corporations can make political donations or employ MPs we will not have democracy.

It means the liberals will be in 'power' forever mowahahahaa.....

Worst of both worlds not proportional just representational. Makes for us all choosing the bland middle ground not that I could ever trust the Lib dems again spinless lying ****ers. I am pro PR but cannot support this poor fudge compromise.
Imagine someone will get to vote BP , UKIP, Tory then Liberal --quite a range of views there - just too oppose labour rather than support for the ones who get their fourth and COUNTING vote. A labour supporter gets one vote [ tory examples are available obviously]. Think about it a system where the [more]rubbish miliband looses every round then wins in the last vote ...is that how you want to choose who leads the country? I want to vote for who i want most [and for it to count in terms of seats or actuall say/power]not to keep going till it is someone I hate the least representing me

As a supporter of our reptilian overlords I'll be voting against it.

But, the anti-AV poster campaign has been utterly absurd. If I was a floating voter I'd be voting in favour of AV, simply on the strength (weakness) of the No campaign.

[i]Will it make for a real democracy?[/i]

No - but why would you want a real democracy? Have you looked at the electorate? Would you trust them with your future 🙂

[i]Will it mean that people in 'safe seats' will have to work harder?[/i] Probably not. I'm not aware of MPs in safe seats necessarily not working hard. Of course if your views and theirs don't match you might see it like that. It might mean individual MPs will be more willing to stand up against their parties so ensure they get reelected - or it might mean even more emphasis is on the collective party opinion.

[i]Does it mean government's with large majorities like Blair's could have been more easily toppled at the end of their first term? [/i] it makes it much less likely that you'll ever see a party with that size of majority ever again. I suspect it will also mean less "chalk and cheese" when a new government gets in - in general there will be more consensus politics and less idiological extremes.

[I]Does it secure a stronger position for the Lib's in the future?[/I] stronger than now, or stronger than they were a year ago?

It's settling for less. First past the post's an abberation, basically intolerable in a country that styles itself a democracy, and AV is I think definately better but is it best? Nobody really seems to think so. I certainly don't. And settling for less probably means a hundred years before we move on to something better.

Then again maybe a no vote gets seen as a vote for FPTP, or a vote against change.

****ing Lib Dems.

1) imagine a world where one candidate wins 40% of the vote but no other single candidate gets near him/her. the "winner" does not have an outstanding mandate but is the "most popular" of the available choices

2) now imagine the same world where all the votes against that candidate are added up against him/her and rolled onto the "second most popular".
The second most popular wins by dint of being the second favourite choice of [i]all[/i] the rest. The "winner" is not even the "most popular". he/she is the "least worst" choice of all of the rest.

(1) is what we have now. (2) is "AV"

(1) may be flawed but it sure ain't as flawed as (2)

Here's our local AV result:

1.20pm: Full first round results:

Peter Davies (English Democrats) 16961

Stuart Exelby (Community Group) 2152

Michael Felse (Independent) 2051

Sandra Holland (Labour) 16549

Mick Maye (Independent) 17150

Dave Owen (BNP) 8175

Jonathan Wood (Conservative) 12198

Then you faff around for a couple of hours on second choices and the like:

3.17pm: Pandemonium at the Dome - thanks for bearing with us. First up, the official final result after the second choice votes have been added:

Peter Davies 25,344

Mick Maye 24,990

IT'S DAVIES!

Where is the sense in that?

Well, the sense in that is that you had 3 candidates with only a tiny difference, and no actual majority. Sure you can say Maye was the most popular but he only took 23% of the vote first time round. "Where is the sense in that?", 77% of people didn't want him in. That's election by failure in a nutshell.

Sure he's a gigantic sack of s***e but people voted for him.

yes but by that argument, 78% didn't want Davies!

av is flawed i but fptp surely is the more corrupt,
imagine if you lived in brentwood and whatever you way you voted eric pickles would be your mp!
i also think AV gives a better representation of peoples attitudes, i like policies from several parties and id like to be able to reflect that in my vote
i think the No campaign posters are dreadful too
[img] [/img]

living in Bradford district, as far as Pickles goes, you can keep him 😉

I will vote for it I think - it's a long way from perfect, but so is the current system. However if we carry on as normal there won't be another chance to effect change for decades as it doesn't suit the status quo.

PR is the real end goal so far as I am concearned. And if this is a step to get us there then it is a good thing. AV does have some merit in and of itself by hopefully getting us a slightly more representative parliment and perhaps shaking up politics for the better (it perhaps won't allow people to sit on their majority based on long standing tribal support from sections of the public - if second votes count from those who vote for the more fringe parties they may have to actually start working for their support and representing their constituents views a hell of a lot more).

It's ****ing diet PR.

Pile of ****ing shite.

first past the post sucks balls.

millions of people voted green = 1 green mp.

that's not democracy.

etc.

PR would be much fairer.

AV isn't PR, but it's a step towards it, and it's the only time we'll ever be asked.

it's now or never.

av isn't perfect, but anything that might help to prevent another blair or thatcher inflicted on the UK has to be a good thing. We need to get away from a system where only a few thousand votes actual have any effect on the government.

I mean there must be 30-40million voters in the UK and if you look at it, take out safe seats, the number of people who can actual affect the result is tiny.

john_drummer - Member

yes but by that argument, 78% didn't want Davies!

Eh, no, not at all. An awful lot of the "no" arguments boil down to total nonsense statements like this, that somehow only the first vote should count for anything.

[i]Imagine a world where 2 party politics is so ingrained that most people would chew off a limb before voting for the "other side" and most seats are historically set up to be staunchly one way or the other. Weird how the few floating voters in relatively few marginal seats can often swing the whole thing most times, hey ?[/i]

1) imagine a world where one candidate wins 40% of the vote [s]and no other single candidate gets near him/her[/s] [i]but only because of the colour of their rosette/marketing of their party leader rather than any redeeming features[/i]. the "winner" does not have an outstanding mandate [s]but[/s] [i]and is not even the second[/i] "most popular" of the available choices for a majority of voters

2) now imagine the same world where all the votes against that candidate are added up against him/her and rolled onto the "[s]second[/s] most [i]genuinely popular overall[/i]".
The [s]second [/s] [i]most genuinely[/i] popular wins by dint of being the second favourite choice of all the rest [i](after they'd voted on ingrained party grounds first)[/i]. The "winner" is not even the "most popular" by the old system but he/she is the "least worst" choice of all of the rest.

(1) is what we have now. (2) is "AV" (3) is PR and they're all shite
I reckon AV is just about the least shite, though (PR is just scaling up the floating vote scenario to apply to a few small party MPs in parliament IMO)

I hate politics and politicians - if I thought even one of them genuinely went there to serve the greater good I might be able to stomach it but I doubt that's happened for 20 yrs

total nonsense statements like this

somehow only the first vote should count for anything

now imagine the same world where all the votes against that candidate are added up against him/her and rolled onto the most genuinely popular overall".

It's not hyperbole to call nonsense nonsense. Sorry if you think that that's uncouth, or something, but this idea that if only 22% gave a candidate their first vote, the other 78% didn't want him at all, is ridiculous. 78% didn't want him as their first choice but over 50% expressed a preference for him, that's how he won.

That said I can see the sense in the argument that everyone's second votes should count, not just eliminated candidates, I've not seen any strong argument against that.

"Unfortunately in the AV system some people only get to vote once and others more than once and yet you will tell me it is unfair their later extra votes dont count- they have already voted so they did count"

Could you explain what you're trying to say here? Nobody gets to vote twice in AV.

would you not need to achieve this before others are eliminated otherwise you are only the most popular from those left.

it is not the same thing. I suspect many say [ lab ant it otry and vice versa] are actually voting aginst someone rather than voting for someone

Unfortunately in the AV system some people only get to vote once and others more than once and yet you will tell me it is unfair their later extra votes dont count- they have already voted so they did count.

Everyone gets the same number of effective votes. Think of it in terms of multiple rounds of voting, with each round eliminating one candidate. It's just that people who voted for a candidate still in the running are (not unreasonably) assumed to vote the same way in subsequent rounds until they're eliminated.

happy to admit I'm pretty confused by this stuff, I'm not that clued up. I know They don't give a shit what I think or care about. I work hard, pay my taxes and just about keep the wolves from the door, etc. and I'm sick of it. And I'm not the only one. Most ordinary people just want things to be fair and equal for everyone. If that means voting AV then I'll vote.. otherwise, what's the point. just some other bullshit. Can someone explain it in really simple terms for dumbasses like me?

I vote no ... because they are giving me the headache plus the fact that all those spin machine like the media will go into full swing. 😆

NO

Purely because it's a LibDem dream that they sold themselves and the country down the river for

So once again, NO, not in a million years do I want to see that bunch of pricks doing anything other than finishing a distant 3rd.
I'd rather have the Tories - at least you know what you're going to get

What sas said. 10's of millions of voters around the world understand automatic run-off voting systems. Britons are not especially dim.

FPP is only "fair" in two-party systems, but Britain is evolving into a multi-party political scene. Now I wont be happy until we get an actual PR system, but this puts in place the voting mechanism needed for PR.

Here is the key message of AV: Every vote counts. Vote for change, not inertia and apathy.

As it was explained by a couple of ad execs on th etelly the other night.. AV is a bit like asking your mate to get you a Mars bar from the shop.. Oh and if they don;t have a Mars bar get me a Twix... No Twix get me a double Decker.. But for ****s sake don't get me a bloody Bounty!

Your mate comes back with a Twix.. It wasn't your first choice but you are reasonably happy... and at least you didn't end up with a bloody Bounty.

🙂

I see AV as giving me two options when I vote.. I can vote for who I want to represent me.. But I can also make sure that I express who I really REALLY don't want too by either ranking them last or just by ranking everyone else and not them. I like that option a lot. It makes me feel I have more say over the result and feels more representative of my overall political views.

Mark, the Mars/twix/double-decker example is really very clever, thankyou.

millions of people voted green = 1 green mp.

Total tosh, the millions quote that is

yeah, but you know what i mean.

it was about 285,000, i wonder how many more would have voted green if they felt their vote actually meant anything?

285,000 votes should equate to 6 MP's

yeah, but you know what i mean.

yeah, thousands

enough for 6 MP's, they got 1.

that's not democracy.

enough for 6 MP's, they got 1.

that's not democracy.

so you think they'd have 6 seats under AV??

Vote against and electoral reform will be buried for ever. It's not the ideal but better than the archaic FPTP, reducing tactical voting and getting more parties into the commons to dilute the inbred braying mob we have there at the moment can only be a good thing.

uplink - Member

so you think they'd have 6 seats under AV??

honestly i don't know, but the current system we have is clearly rubbish.

and using the Mars/twix/double-decker example, AV makes more sense.

and AV is a small step towards PR.

uplink - Member
NO

Purely because it's a LibDem dream that they sold themselves and the country down the river for

So once again, NO, not in a million years do I want to see that bunch of pricks doing anything other than finishing a distant 3rd.
I'd rather have the Tories - at least you know what you're going to get

That's the most ridiculous argument! "Fudge the benefits this'll really stick it to them!"

Fudge the benefits

But on the back of that I don't believe the benefits are there

but this idea that if only 22% gave a candidate their first vote, the other 78% didn't want him at all, is ridiculous

Nobody gets to vote twice in AV

I like the idea of being able to vote against someone

sas - good point can see the logic in your reasoning and cant think of a good retort at the minute.
Mark nice explanation - however the reality is mars do exist and another system would guarantee you a mars. hence why this is rubbish

Here is the key message of AV: Every vote counts. Vote for change, not inertia and apathy

As an aside given how many times the votes transfer how on earth would you know how many people voted labour lib dem tory as first choice? That is what % of the population actually supports that party rather than are choosing it as a Twix option.

AV is clearly electoral reform whether it leads to PR is another matter. As i say it wont help me get a green MP in parliament All I can do is choose what flavour of bounty I have which is not a great improvement.

Junkyard - Member
"Every vote counts..."

How? if my candidate is eliminated how has my vote counted?

what do you mean 'your candidate' ? - you get to vote for several.

voting 'No' for AV is a way of saying 'the current system is great - no change here please'

what do you mean 'your candidate' ? - you get to vote for several.

What if he only wants to vote for one candidate? I'm sure there are many people who would prefer not to give even a fourth preference vote to certain parties.

voting 'No' for AV is a way of saying 'the current system is great - no change here please'

No it's not. It's a way of saying "I don't agree with this proposed change".

point 1: i would guess that's fine, he can probably do that.

point 2: yes, that is correct. i'm afraid i got carried away with myself.

FPTP is AV in a two party system.

However with the rise of the smaller parties (LibDem, SNP, PC, Green, etc) the system does not allow the voters the ability to select a preference. AV is used by the parties to select their leaders (Cons, Lab and LibDem) so why can't we have it to select who we want to run the country. In the long term it should lead to more consensus politics, but this will take a few elections before we see any substantial change.

The problem I see is that too many people will see this vote as a vote against the LibDem's rather than making a positive choice. We can stay with FPTP and we will end up with parties with huge majorities elected by a minority of the public - is that better?

As it was explained by a couple of ad execs on th etelly the other night.. AV is a bit like asking your mate to get you a Mars bar from the shop.. Oh and if they don;t have a Mars bar get me a Twix... No Twix get me a double Decker.. But for ****s sake don't get me a bloody Bounty!

The problem with that is we are likely to end up with a choice of Mars bar, Bounty, dark chocolate Bounty & king sized Bounty rather than the nice selection quoted

No it's not. It's a way of saying "I don't agree with this proposed change".

Yes but calls for PR in the future will be met with 'But people didn't want AV, why would they want PR?'

I'm sure there are many people who would prefer not to give even a fourth preference vote to certain parties.

You can vote for just one candidate if you want you don't have to put second choices.

Lots of myths and propaganda about this.

For a rational, clear, unbiased view, see here:

www.psa.ac.uk/PSAPubs/TheAlternativeVoteBriefingPaper.pdf

Exec summary is good if you don't want to read the whole thing.

The problem with that is we are likely to end up with a choice of Mars bar, Bounty, dark chocolate Bounty & king sized Bounty rather than the nice selection quoted

How?

In my (extremely) safe Tory seat we have canditates from UKIP, Green, Peace Party, Christian Party and the big 3, for example. That's quite a range of views.

Yes but calls for PR in the future will be met with 'But people didn't want AV, why would they want PR?'

That's fine by me - I have absolutely no interest in PR, along with lots of others
FPTP has [IMO] served us well as a nation over the years

What if he only wants to vote for one candidate? I'm sure there are many people who would prefer not to give even a fourth preference vote to certain parties.

Then they would only vote for one candidate by putting a "1" next to their preferred choice. Should that person win then they will get their preferred candidate, should that person be eliminated then their vote will be disounted in subsequent counts. This however will have the potential to effectively boost the support for minority parties should the voter's initial choice be discounted as although the number of votes the minority party would have won't increase, the total number of votes will have decreased thereby increasing the proportion of votes they would hold. It is however a largely theoretical risk and unlikely to have much of an impact in reality.

AV is used by the parties to select their leaders

what do you mean 'your candidate' ? - you get to vote for several.

voting 'No' for AV is a way of saying 'the current system is great - no change here please'

I have no idea how on earth you can infer that my dislike of this system implies I support FPTP

Yes but calls for PR in the future will be met with 'But people didn't want AV, why would they want PR?'

A vote against will bury electoral reform.

How about a system of "negative votes" instead of second choices?

You get one positive vote for the candidate you'd like and one negative vote for the candidate you definitely don't want (increased to two negative votes in areas with more than 5 candidates standing).

That way you can vote for your preferred party and still block hate parties and no one is left with the dilemma that they'd like to vote Green, but worry that if they don't back the Tories then the BNP might sneak in.

A vote against will bury electoral reform.

Very deeply, I hope

Why is FPTP so good then, Uplink?

A vote against will bury electoral reform.

It doesn't prove anything, but it will be used by the 'No to reform' camp as an endorsement that everything is fine and no reform is needed.

What's the worst thing that could happen under AV?

Oh and back to the Doncaster result, remember the turnout was only 35.8%, so Davies actually achieved 8.1% of the available vote. Now there's a popular mandate. My choice for electoral change would be to add a "None of the above" box to tick, if if won, a rerun would be forced with new candidates required.

I live in a constituency which is a reasonably safe Labour seat, but it's been Tory recently enough that I can remember it and a low turnout combined with a swing to the right could return it to Tory.

In the last election, I wanted to vote Lib Dem*. Mainly, this was due to their opposition to the Iraq war and their stance on ID Cards, tuition fees and the like.

But, there is a chance that my Lib Dem vote will mean a Tory win. I really, really, really don't want that to happen. Plus, the Labour candidate is a genuinely good, local candidate who wasn't MP during the Blair years and isn't doing rather a lot of consulting for large corporations off the back of their former ministerial position.

Under FPTP, I had to make a decision: do I vote for the Lib dems or (effectively) against the Tories.

Under AV, I could have given the Lib Dem candidate my first choice vote and Labour my second choice.

This diagram sums it up for me:

[url= http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/voting_flowchart.pn g" target="_blank">http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/voting_flowchart.pn g"/> [/img][/url]

*I know, I know. It won't happen again. In my defence, the candidate is a nice guy who bought me a pint once and he's not standing for council again after the tuition fees decision.

Its tragic, FPTP is shite, AV is still not good. All its done is put me off even more from voting.

What was the reason for not having proper PR ?

miketually - indeed - at the last Westminster election I voted for a party who I really don't agree with on many issues, as a protest against the incumbent, and with no hope that any other candidate would get close. I'm sure many others did likewise which probably creates a skewed understanding of what the people in my constituency, and across the country were trying to say about policies.

What was the reason for not having proper PR ?

The Prime Minister doesn't like PR! In general the tories don't like it at all - which is odd, because without it they'd have 75% fewer MSPs at Holyrood!

As far as I can see the main drawback of PR is that you are not voting for an individual MP any more, and no longer will really have a "constituency MP". In reality since a huge proportion of the population seem to think they are voting for Milliband/Clegg/Cameron then it may not be a bad idea to clear it up by voting for the party rather than the candidate.

Junkyard - Member

"well they did not give the candidate their vote so yes it would obviously be ridiculous to suggest they don’t support them"

Again, nonsense- at least 50% of the voters have to support a candidate for them to win. The fact that they didn't give him their first vote doesn't mean they didn't vote for him, to say "they did not give the candidate their vote" is simply wrong.

I'm unsure whether you're trolling here tbh, I'd assume you were if it wasn't for the fact that an awful lot of people seem to genuinely have this confusion.

Is the vote for AV FPTP, AV or PR 🙂

Oh and back to the Doncaster result, remember the turnout was only 35.8%, so Davies actually achieved 8.1% of the available vote. Now there's a popular mandate. My choice for electoral change would be to add a "None of the above" box to tick, if if won, a rerun would be forced with new candidates required.

How about if less than 50% turn out then no MP gets elected.

We could really cut costs and nobody would notice the difference.

Junkyard

Mark nice explanation - however the reality is mars do exist and another system would guarantee you a mars. hence why this is rubbish

Eh, again no.

Stick with the marsbar. 11 people decide to get a sweet but they're only sold in packs of 11, so they decide to vote to decide which one they get. 3 vote for a mars, 2 for a dairy milk, 2 for a milky way, 1 for a bounty, 1 for a Caramel, 1 for a lovely Frys Mint Creme and one weirdo votes for an apple- he's a green obviously.

Under FPTP everyone gets a mars bar- 8 people get something they've expressed no interest in. Maybe they're happy, maybe they're not, you just don't know. Only 3 get what they voted for.

Under AV, there's no majority so you look further, and since some people said "I want a bounty/caramel/apple/mint creme, but failing that I'd rather have a milky way" you now have 3 votes for a mars, 6 for a milky way, 2 for a dairy milk. Everyone gets a milky way because a majority have voted for it, 6 people get what they voted for, 5 don't.

So what's fairer?

Course, better still is for everyone to get the sweet they actually voted for- that's PR.

"transferring of your vote"

Correct Junkyard. Your vote is transferred in the run-off, not copied. You are not getting two votes.

FPtP served the historical two-party politics very well, and continues to do so in America. But politics in Britain is moving on and FPtP feels more and more unfair.

I want a modern PR system, but accept that only improved voting is possible under a Conservative-led administration.

Course, better still is for everyone to get the sweet they actually voted for- that's PR.

I want a modern PR system, but accept that only improved voting is possible under a Conservative-led administration.

Junkyard - Member

Well spotted AV is poorer than PR so if we are going to change lets change to the best alternative so simple even you have got it.

Welcome to what I was saying at the start of the thread 😛 But should we throw out an improvement just because it's not perfection? (and are you still claiming that AV is worse than FPTP?)

poly - Member
As far as I can see the main drawback of PR is that you are not voting for an individual MP any more, and no longer will really have a "constituency MP".

druidh,

I'm not convinced that the holyrood system is the answer (although it is definitely better than AV, which is an improvement on FPTP). The holyrood system still uses massive constituencies (regions) which means really "minor" parties (or independents) may not get elected any seats even if they have (or could have) generated enough support from across the whole country. It also seems that the average member of the public without an interest in politics doesn't understand the two votes system and is confused by having one "local" MSP and several "regional" MSPs all supposed to be representing them.

Whilst I can see this loss of local connection as a potential draw back of PR, in the 21st century with modern communications I'm not convinced we need constiuency offices all over the country or people to have a local MP. Indeed if my issue is of importance across the country it should affect lots of MPs not just my local guy. If it only affects me or my immediate locality - it probably isn't worthy of much parliamentary attention anyway.

The other obvious "draw back" of PR (if you are one of the big two political parties) is that majority rule becomes rather unlikely and coalition type politics will be required. Personally I think this is a good thing; which would be improved if they all accepted that upfront, forced the smaller parties to be a bit more honest about the economics of their ideals and therefore laid out their priorities so the electorate aren't throwing a tantrum because all their policies don't get implemented.

Personally I'm all for PR. I believe if AV is rejected by the electorate we will not see another vote on AV/PR in the next 30 years. If AV is voted in, then I expect we will see proposals on PR within the next 3 parliaments.

Personally I'm all for PR. I believe if AV is rejected by the electorate we will not see another vote on AV/PR in the next 30 years. If AV is voted in, then I expect we will see proposals on PR within the next 3 parliaments.

Completely agree.

Welcome to what I was saying at the start of the thread But should we throw out an improvement just because it's not perfection? (and are you still claiming that AV is worse than FPTP?)

Northwind +1

Ignoring the incumbents I see it as resulting in:

- FPTP - ancient, primitive, alpha male rules as he's beaten the nearest contender

- PR - modern, caring, consensus rule via working together

- AV - flawed but more likely to lead to a vote for genuine PR in near future.

Play the long game, vote AV ...

...I would suggest that right-wing folk would be liking FPTP and the more socialist folk should be voting (though maybe not liking) AV??

Cheers...is a nice day, must get outside!!

Junkyard - Member
...if we must do electoral reform can we just do it properly to PR...[?]

ideally yes, but we haven't been given a referendum on PR because yer average tory MP absolutely hates the idea.

(it'll mean the end of tactical voting, which should mean more MP's from smaller parties)

but we [i]have[/i] been given a referendum on AV, because the tories needed to offer the lib-dems something to get them on side.

no AV referendum offer from the tories = no coalition = hung parliament = a re-vote without Gordon brown = massive labour victory.

The tories had to offer something, but they couldn't bring themselves to offer full PR.

so here we are.

And we'd be fools not to take it on the hope a PR vote comes along in the near future.

Junkyard - Member

Did I claim it was worse that FPTP? Can you learn to read and understand as well as you can patronise?

I can read fine thanks, you called it the "Worst of both worlds" way back in your first post, remember?

Junkyard - Member

"Whilst you want to claim that a transferred vote is unqualified support and a mandate for that platform[despite the fact 78% of people initially vote against the candidate and theoir policies"

Nobody voted against [i]anyone[/i]. I'm not out to be patronising but as long as you're making comments like this one, or "they did not give the candidate their vote" (when they did) and "some people only get to vote once and others more than once", it's pretty tricky not to.

Also, when did I say it's unqualified support? Of course it isn't, it's a preferred second (or third, &c) option. TBH not even a first vote is unqualified support in many cases. Nevertheless, it's a vote for, and a preference expressed. This is all in response to your "They did not give the candidate their vote" which as I say is just factually wrong.

You've got legitimate beefs with AV, and they're the same as everyone else's. You've also got some false ones. I'm not saying AV is great, I'm just out to correct some misunderstandings/prejudices.

Imagine under AV this happens
1. 24 % vote candidate a
2. 23 % vote candidate b
3. 53% dont vote for either and dont transfer their vote – voted for other candidates in previous rounds etc.
Candidate a wins with more than 50% of the votes and the majority supports them. YAH for deomocracy Hopefully you understand my "nonesense" now.
Happy voting.

Junkyard... what you have just described above is FPTP if the 53% don't have any additional preferences.

You ridicule that example, but still you are going to vote to keep it?

Nobody voted against anyone

some people only get to vote once and others more than once

what you have just described above is FPTP if the 53% don't have any additional preferences.

I support PR not this fudge version which even the supporters seem to accept it is crap or "not great" whilst trying to persuade me to vote for it.

PR isn't on the table. AV is better than FPTP. Voting Yes on May 5th will show that you want electoral reform, voting No will suggest (to those in power) that you don't.

Junkyard - Member

I know thanks - northwind claimed the winner always had a majority I was simply demonstrating this was wrong

The winner always has a majority of the votes. I don't know what you think you've demonstrated here?

Again, nonsense- at least 50% of the voters have to support a candidate for them to win