[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.