[Closed] AV referendum

while the silent majority want to stick with what they know

Maybe the silent majority want to stick with what they favour. Or the vocal minority want to opt for what they don't know?

If I vote for a Labour candidate in a seat in which Labour has a large share of the vote, I can rank every other candidate to my heart's content but those votes will never be counted, no difference.

By contrast, if I vote for a fringe party that gets knocked out early, my second and third preferences can end up deciding the election.

Under those circumstances, the second and third preferences of fringe parties (some of whom may be moderate, some of whom may be extremists) become all-powerful, so candidates for the mainstream parties will have to pitch for them. Hence, under AV, the minor parties wield more power – both in the ballot box and on the stump.

So - mainstream parties are forced to pander to the nutters in order to get elected, producing policies and rhetoric that appeal to them, so that they are selected in second or third place.

The problem with AV isn't that the BNP would win more votes, its that the people who are stupid enough to vote BNP as their first choice, become the all powerful vital second and third votes that settle the election!

Maybe the silent majority want to stick with what they favour.

Why do they favour it though? Mainly because people generally fear change/what they don't understand.

So - mainstream parties are forced to pander to the nutters in order to get elected, producing policies and rhetoric that appeal to them, so that they are selected in second or third place.

You've already said this and it was wrong the first time. Again, see the example of Australia where they actually use this system.

Under those circumstances, the second and third preferences of fringe parties (some of whom may be moderate, some of whom may be extremists) become all-powerful, so candidates for the mainstream parties will have to pitch for them. Hence, under AV, the minor parties wield more power – both in the ballot box and on the stump.

But they could do that now. For example, the Tories might want to look tough on immigration in order to appeal to BNP sympathisers (obviously a poor example).

What you are suggesting is not a feature of AV, it is a feature of all political systems.

Why do they favour it though?

You've already said this and it was wrong the first time. Again, see the example of Australia where they actually use this system.

You say that like it might actually change his tune sometime soon.

If I vote for a Labour candidate in a seat in which Labour has a large share of the vote, I can rank every other candidate to my heart's content but those votes will never be counted, no difference.

By contrast, if I vote for a fringe party that gets knocked out early, my second and third preferences can end up deciding the election.

Under those circumstances, the second and third preferences of fringe parties (some of whom may be moderate, some of whom may be extremists) become all-powerful, so candidates for the mainstream parties will have to pitch for them. Hence, under AV, the minor parties wield more power – both in the ballot box and on the stump.

This is simply the wrong way to look at things. In the first round, you vote for labour and some minority party is knocked out. In the second round, you get to vote again (the same as everyone else) and you stick with labour, and so on.

People who vote for a minority party which then gets knocked out get to indicate their second preference (e.g. BNP 1st, UKIP 2nd) - but that does not mean they get more voting power, it simply means that their political views are not held by a majority of the public.

Mainstream parties are in no way forced to pander to the 'nutters'. If they don't, then the nutters will only vote for their minority party - which will be knocked out a certain point, and then their vote is discounted.

Edit: in case it's not obvious, I'll be voting Yes. And I sincerely hope as many people on here as possible engage in the debate and choose the system they find to be most representative of the people (i.e. Yes 😛 )

Zulu,

The AV system throws BNP votes in the bin.

If someone votes BNP their vote will be lost. If someone who is a racist then votes Con/Lab/Lib then what's the problem? Existing voters for those parties may have objectionable views too.

No-one gets more than one vote and votes for parties without broad support are rejected.

AV is a kick in the teeth for racist parties.

Mainly because people generally fear change/what they don't understand.

Too many unsubstantiated claims in there. How do you know they fear it as opposed to support the other option? How do you know they don't understand it?

Is it that if they do not agree with you the must be stupid and fearful?

Well, the mainstream parties already do pander to the "nutters" (see tory/labour insane policies re: immigration). I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing - but imo AV would provide a more representative breakdown showing who in the electorate cares about immigration/environment/cornish independence. Currently there may be Green voters (say) who vote for the tories to keep the BNP out - this is good for no-one (apart from the tories), and leads to lower turnouts.

Too many unsubstantiated claims in there.

It's just human nature - or do you deny the general principle? Inertia is clearly a massive factor in politics - I'm not suggesting that every single person who supports FPTP is doing so only because they fear change. But to deny that it's a factor is just silly.

The AV system throws BNP votes in the bin.

If someone votes BNP their vote will be lost. If someone who is a racist then votes Con/Lab/Lib then what's the problem? Existing voters for those parties may have objectionable views too.

Under FPTP, the racists will be tactically voting Tory to try to get Labour out?

Under AV, they have to be openly racist first then, after their BNP, UKIP, England First or whatever votes are thrown out, they get to vote Tory.

Too many unsubstantiated claims in there. How do you know they fear it as opposed to support the other option? How do you know they don't understand it?

I think it is pretty hard to argue that people generally do not fear change.

But if you look at the stuff the No campaign is pumping out it is all aimed at generating fear, and given that they probably have a lot of clever people behind the scenes working out the most effective messages to put forward for their cause, I think it is a fair assumption that that has been the outcome of some proper research.

Apart from all of the stuff about how BNP supporters will be in charge, how about the crap about it only being Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea that have AV now - so what? If you want to look at the numbers of people under any particular system then Chinese Communism is the most popular, but I don't see many Tories advocating that.

I'm not suggesting that every single person who supports FPTP is doing so only because they fear change. But to deny that it's a factor is just silly

Ok, but will you also accept that there will be a number of people voting for change for equally spurious reasons and that many of them won't really understand it either. It's just that your original post had a hint of 'oh they're too stupid and scared to know any better' The system is not complex. I don't think there are many who do not understand how it works.

But we don't need to have a hijack here to labour the point.

Under FPTP, the racists will be tactically voting Tory to try to get Labour out?

Under AV, they have to be openly racist first then, after their BNP, UKIP, England First or whatever votes are thrown out, they get to vote Tory.

And how would that will change the result? Or is your argument is that it will benefit Labour as they may win outright due to the split Tory vote?

No - the mainstream parties are going to have to do much more to appeal to supporters of the minor parties than at present to be sure of attracting their second preferences.
So where now the Conservatives/Labour can afford to ignore the thousand loons who vote BNP in a constituency, in future they will have to make sure second preference votes come to them… So the dog whistle will come out and sooner or later someone will suggest banning burkas here too.

Focussing on 'the BNP will not win any seats’ is a smokescreen from the yes camp to distract from this!

The system is not complex. I don't think there are many who do not understand how it works

I wouldn't go that far

So far I've had to try to explain it to 2 couples one way and a 1 the other way and the outlaws
I still don't think they get it

Could be me, I guess but the guy from the 'Yes' campaign seemed to give up on the couple next door and walked off looking confused himself

If I vote for a Labour candidate in a seat in which Labour has a large share of the vote, I can rank every other candidate to my heart's content but those votes will never be counted, no difference.

By contrast, if I vote for a fringe party that gets knocked out early, my second and third preferences can end up deciding the election.

Under those circumstances, the second and third preferences of fringe parties (some of whom may be moderate, some of whom may be extremists) become all-powerful, so candidates for the mainstream parties will have to pitch for them. Hence, under AV, the minor parties wield more power – both in the ballot box and on the stump.

No offence to Mr Zulu but if someone like him who is clearly intelligent and interested can misunderstand the consequences of AV this badly the No campaign have done a damn good job and it's no surprise the vote looks like it will stay with what we have.

As I said before, when you do the maths in a at least 3 main party state even when the third party only gets about 10% of the vote its very hard to come up with a senario where everyone is not having one of their votes count towards the play off between the 2 most popular parties. The only time it might happen is when one party is a lot more popular than any other and only just misses the 50% outright of first preference votes. In that case they may only need to count the votes of a handful 2nd preferences but I very much doubt it would make a difference to the outcome as if they counted back even further (to take into account all the small parties) the largest party is still going to cross the win line..

I am a Yes even though it is unlikely to have any significant effect.

I don’t like the manner of the No campaign and i don’t like Cameron.
I don’t like the spin that tries to make the AV system seem complicated. It is simple and anyone suggesting otherwise is an idiot.

But the major reason is that a no vote would block any further reforms for years to come.

No - the mainstream parties are going to have to do much more to appeal to supporters of the minor parties than at present to be sure of attracting their second preferences.
So where now the Conservatives/Labour can afford to ignore the thousand loons who vote BNP in a constituency, in future they will have to make sure second preference votes come to them… So the dog whistle will come out and sooner or later someone will suggest banning burkas here too.

Focussing on 'the BNP will not win any seats’ is a smokescreen from the yes camp to distract from this!

But the point is Zulu, to get across the 50% line they don't just need the few BNP votes, they would need to maintain a [b]massive [/b] number of 1st preference votes and be very very popular with the electorate so that only a handful of 2nd preference votes would get them over the game line.

To attract the BNP vote with extremist policies would put off as many first preference voters as it would disproportionately encourage 2nd preference BNP votes. Unless of course you are saying that typical tory voters are closet racists anyway and would not mind a bit of that from their preferred candidate! 😉

I'm not talking about just BNP votes though - there are plenty of other "fringe" parties, UKIP attracted over 16% of the total vote at the last European election, but only 3% at the general election - if UKIP voters can happily vote for UKIP as 1st choice, and Conservative as second choice in a general election, can you really dismiss this?

Same goes with the BNP - 6% at euro election, <3% at general election - given that they are [i]more likely[/i] to vote BNP first if they are sure their second vote will be counted - do you really think that this sort of proportion proportion of the total vote can be ignored?

The Tories would [b]have[/b] to create policies which ensured they got the UKIP voters second preference.

I'm not talking about just BNP votes though - there are plenty of other "fringe" parties, UKIP attracted over 16% of the total vote at the last European election

Same goes with the BNP - 6% at euro election

And this is why we have 2 BNP members representing us in the European parliament, including Mr Griffin himself. What's changed ?

[i]if UKIP voters can happily vote for UKIP as 1st choice, and Conservative as second choice in a general election, can you really dismiss this?[/i]

What's the problem? It means that the Conservatives have a lot of broad support in that area.

You can't get pissed off by a democratic system just because you're in a minority in the electorate. It's democracy. If 33% of the electorate want the Conservatives and 33% want Labour and 33% want UKIP, but all of the UKIP voters would be happy enough with the Conservatives and none of the non-UKIP voters would be happy with UKIP, then surely the Conservatives are the best representation.

[i]they are more likely to vote BNP first if they are sure their second vote will be counted[/i]

Who cares? As long as (broadly speaking) at least half the voters never put a number in the BNP box, the BNP don't get a seat.

Zulu-Eleven

What you are suggesting as a negative makes no sense.

So the mainstream have to broaden their appeal to everyone from the BNP to the Greens.

Why is that a bad thing.

But the point is Zulu, to get across the 50% line they don't just need the few BNP votes, they would need to maintain a massive number of 1st preference votes

Not really, as long as they weren't knocked out of the first round then Cons/Lab/Lib could in theory run with 10% of the first vote and hoover up the round 2 votes.

Alas, politicians got involved in both sides of the AV argument so I have to say equal spin and bull from both camps.

Only way I can see the BNP etc. benefiting is getting AV then getting PR after that - that way they'll get seats.

The Tories would have to create policies which ensured they got the UKIP voters second preference.

They don't have to. They would [b]choose[/b] to, as UKIP/BNP/rightywing stuff would be their 'bag' and they would want the votes. Similar to labour going for left wing stuff (not that they are at all left wing any more). If they went out all-right-wing-mad they would end up losing their core vote/votes to the middle-left of their party. So it would balance out.

[i]The Tories would have to create policies which ensured they got the UKIP voters second preference. [/i]

So what you're saying is that the parties would have to adapt to find ways of better representing the views of the population as a whole?

Your issue with AV appears to be simply that you tend to disagree with the population as a whole. Which is fine. Largely, so do I. But it's not a criticism of AV, it's simply that there are more right-leaning people than you would like.

Focussing on 'the BNP will not win any seats’ is a smokescreen from the yes camp to distract from this!

No it's not.

Think about the reality for a moment.

For the BNP to win a seat they would have to get the second (or third, or fourth etc) preference votes of [b]nearly all[/b] of the second/third/fourth parties in order to beat the other remaining party in the final round.

Do you really think that is going to happen?

Or are you just creating your own smoke screen.

Only way I can see the BNP etc. benefiting is getting AV then getting PR after that - that way they'll get seats.

If significant numbers of people vote for them, then they should get seats - however much we might not like them, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be?

No - the mainstream parties are going to have to do much more to appeal to supporters of the minor parties than at present to be sure of attracting their second preferences.

This is a GOOD thing!

Significant minority parties get to have greater influence on policy. Politics moves towards trying to find compromises that suit everyone instead of just trying to keep a majority happy at the expense of others.

So where now the Conservatives/Labour can afford to ignore the thousand loons who vote BNP in a constituency, in future they will have to make sure second preference votes come to them…

You're ignoring the fact that if Conservatives/Labour decide to adopt some extreme BNP policies to earn some second preferences from BNP voters then they are likely to lose votes from their existing supporters. So it wouldn't be worth it.

They are far more likely to look at the number of people voting for more moderate minority parties (Green, SNP, SDLP, Democratic Unionist, Plaid Cymru etc) and see if they can adopt any policies from those parties that may win them votes.

Bez, as I said It leads to the forced extreme of politics, the mainstream parties have to pander to the nutters, rather than (at the moment) pandering to the middle of the road!

Do you really want the nutters to have the final say?

To me the simple fatal weakness of AV is that the second preferences of the nutters (ie. the people who would vote BNP or another fringe party as their first choice) become the decisive votes, and the mainstream parties will be forced to pander to them.

So the mainstream have to broaden their appeal to everyone from the BNP to the Greens.

Why is that a bad thing.

It starts to be a bad thing if you take the example of the current coalition. You may have voted LibDem because of their stance on student fees, then too late realised in the backroom horsetrading they've given that 'policy' away.

This coalition could well be brought down (good or bad in your opinion) because one party (most likely LibDems looking at the polls) is going to throw a strop after losing the AV vote. Ironic given their 'lets be adults' political approach...

Scotland has a form of PR - actually two differnt ones neither of which are AV

Minority parties do get representation - tories, Lib Dems and Greens as well as pensioners, socialists and one or two other odd bods.

however extremists such as the BNP don't get anything at all. Same as they would not under AV.

A fully proportional list types system might give them representation but AV will not. Its not a proportional system as such

Zulu, your premise is that current mainstream parties will become nutter parties. That just ain't going to happen. Not least because doing so will lose them more votes than they gain. There are vastly more votes in the middle of the road than there are in the gutter.

If the population in part or in whole has some beef about immigration issues then they need to be handled in mainstream politics by mainstream parties, otherwise it's ignored and frustration builds, and extreme parties gain support.

You can forget the real neonazi crowd, they'll vote BNP whatever. The issue is disenchanted voters living in areas where they perceive immigration or race related issues. Some of these issues are often real, even if they're always not [i]actually[/i] immigration related. It's at the margins where people need to talk and deal with issues, otherwise the extremists can sound compelling.

I understand where you're coming from but still maintain that AV is a significantly better way of addressing your concerns than FPTP is.

[i]You may have voted LibDem because of their stance on student fees, then too late realised in the backroom horsetrading they've given that 'policy' away.[/i]

That's an unfortunate example, in that they stupidly photographed themselved with signed pledges. They were never going to form even a minority government on their own so it ends up either being pointless if they remain in opposition, or looking stupid if they end up in a coalition and aren't able to keep that pledge (chances of which were always going to be slim to none). Simple game theory says it was dumb.

But. If you take generic policies, [i]of course[/i] some will be horsetraded in a coaltion. Surely that's blindingly obvious. You don't meld two parties and keep all the policies, it's totally impossible. But if you voted Lib Dem you've managed to see some of their policies implemented, you've managed to see some of their policies watered down and implemented, and you've managed to see some Tory policies watered down.

None of these things would have happened without a coalition, nor would they ever have happened.

To me the simple fatal weakness of AV is that the second preferences of the nutters (ie. the people who would vote BNP or another fringe party as their first choice) become the decisive votes, and the mainstream parties will be forced to pander to them.

Except that you are wrong.

Which of the current parties would be able to "pander" to the BNP without disaffecting an even greater number of their existing voters?

All of the parties do actually have some principles and history, which they won't just throw aside in order to garner a percentage or two of extremist votes. Their own members wouldn't let them.

as I said It leads to the forced extreme of politics, the mainstream parties have to pander to the nutters, rather than (at the moment) pandering to the middle of the road!
Do you really want the nutters to have the final say?
To me the simple fatal weakness of AV is that the second preferences of the nutters become the decisive votes, and the mainstream parties will be forced to pander to them.

That is crap. Under AV you need 50% of the vote. You won’t get 50% by pandering to nutters you must go for popular (centrist) ground to win.

Nutters could get you over the line but more realistically it would be the least popular of the three big parties second preference that would do it and pandering to the nutters would lose you more core votes than you win.

There's really no point debating with Z11. Notice how he's just repeating the same rubbish while ignoring the numerous times his argument has already been slapped down.

Under AV you need 50% of the vote

Not under the version if AV being offered in the referendum! AV as it will be implemented in the UK doesn’t require the winner to get 50% of the vote. Only AV where the voter must list preferences for [b]al[/b]l candidates guarantees the winner gets 50% of the vote. (The Australian system works like this)

Edit - Grum, no, I'm not just repeating myself, its a pretty fundemental problem with the system that I've raised, and rather than "slap it down" all you've said is that the BNP wont win any seats, that does not tackle the problem of the mainstream parties having to appeal to the extremists - the only valid argument raised against this is that they [b]may[/b] lose more centre voters in the process of doing so - both are valid points of view that we won't know the result of unless the vote is won by the yes's, it does not invalidate my concern over pandering to extremism though

[i]AV as it will be implemented in the UK doesn’t require the winner to get 50% of the vote.[/i]

That's sort of true and sort of not, depending on how you define "the vote".

It requires 50% of the vote once the least popular party has been eliminated. People are still at liberty not to vote at any counting stage, just as they are at liberty not to vote at the first stage - as is the case under FPTP. AV simply allows a voter to 'try again' once their preferred candidate has been deemed too unpopular. In that sense it simply works precisely as a series of FPTP elections where the post is a true majority rather than the largest minority.

Edit:

If you're a Labour voter, here's an example:
Round one: Lib, Lab, Con, BNP? Lab please.
Round two: Lib, Lab, Con? Lab please.
Round three: Lib, Con? You have the option of picking one of those two if you find them ok or want to keep the other out, or you can walk and leave it for everyone else to decide. Your choice.

Note that under FPTP, if Con had the largest minority at the first round and you and loads of other Lab voters would rather see Lib than Con, you wouldn't have the option.

the only valid argument raised against this is that they [b]may[/b] lose more centre voters in the process of doing so - both are valid points of view that we won't know the result of unless the vote is won

Under FPTP the mainstream parties [i]could[/i] also decide to adopt extremist policies to win voters over to them.

But they don't.

Because they know the net result would be less votes.

Same still applies under AV.

There seems to be an assumption here that centrist policies are what is best for the country.

There seems to be an assumption here that centrist policies are what is best for the country.

I think actually it's that they would more democratically represent the views of the majority of people in the country.

Charlie,

The consensus of people would agree with that theory.