they might be wrong 🙁
There seems to be an assumption here that centrist policies are what is best for the country.
No, there is an assumption that minority extremist policies don't reflect the opinion of the majority of the population whereas minority centrist policies are more generally acceptable.
Ultimately the aim of AV could summarised as trying to find a set of policies that at least 50% of the population agree upon.
Under FPTP the aim is the same, but the target percentage is much lower.
There seems to be an assumption here that centrist policies are what is best for the country.
Good point.
But not that simple.
Almost by definition, centrist policies must be what the majority want? And I am thinking of both Labour and the Tories as being largely centrist here.
But maybe, as you seem to be suggesting, we don't always know what is good for us, and maybe a few more radical policies would actually be more effective or fairer.
I think that AV would actually allow more of those sorts of policies to be put forward and tested.
For example, the Greens might put forward a range of policies on housing, energy use etc, and even though they might not get elected, a significant section of the population might show their support by voting for them in the first rounds, which would then give maninstream parties a bit more courage to pursue such policies themselves.
BTW Billy Brag and Robert Winston are just about to debate AV on R5Live
> The consensus of people would agree with that theory.they might be wrong
If you believe that then the entire system of democracy is flawed, not AV.
I'm with Churchill on this: [i]"Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"[/i]
Ultimately the aim of AV could summarised as trying to find a set of policies that at least 50% of the population [s]agree upon[/s] are prepared to tolerate
BTW Billy Brag and Robert Winston are just about to debate AV on R5Live
Apparently they had Peter Stringfellow as the NOtoAV advocate on Jeremy Vine! 😯
prepared to tolerate
That'll do me.
That'll do me.
I think this is the crux of the difference. The idea of your vote counting is not so simple. In the AV case, yes your vote will count, but your votes stop being about who you want but more about who you are prepared to tolerate. I prefer a less wishy-washy system
Apparently they had Peter Stringfellow as the NOtoAV advocate on Jeremy Vine!
Yeh, but he was put there by the 'Yes' Campaign
I prefer a less wishy-washy system
So you'd rather have strong policies that say 30% of the population agree with, rather than more compromised policies that over half are happy enough with.
Fair enough. I fall to pragmatism and compromise, but that may be my age 🙂
Fair enough. I fall to pragmatism and compromise, but that may be my age
I still want to change the world!! but I'd settle for a cup of teas and a bun.
So you'd rather have strong policies that say 30% of the population agree with rather than more compromised policies that over half are happy enough with
I have a struggle with being a democrat but not trusting the voting public to choose what they actually need.
[i]In the AV case, yes your vote will count, but your votes stop being about who you want but more about who you are prepared to tolerate. I prefer a less wishy-washy system [/i]
But the less wishy-washy-minded will generally dislike some parties as strongly as they like others. Take the example I gave above. If you have parties X, Y, Z, and you really love X and really hate Y, AV gives you the chance to keep Y out of power by registering a vote for Z [i]if[/i] party X turns out to be the least popular.
So AV is good for being less wishy-washy.
CM
they might be wrong
That is what Gaddafi is working on! If you shoot enough of them you end up with a majority.
But the less wishy-washy-minded will generally dislike some parties as strongly as they like others. Take the example I gave above. If you have parties X, Y, Z, and you really love X and really hate Y, AV gives you the chance to keep Y out of power by registering a vote for Z if party X turns out to be the least popular.So AV is good for being less wishy-washy.
But this is bass ackwards, why vote for who to keep out? I want to keep everyone nut my party out. i don't have an alternative
That is what Gaddafi is working on! If you shoot enough of them you end up with a majority.
Not just Gadaafi, look what happened when the elected Hamas. and of course the South Africans, before Apartheid
In fact, I don't think there was an election which replaced gadaafi
I have a struggle with being a democrat but not trusting the voting public to choose what they actually need.
Me too. So I prefer AV which acknowledges that my political opinions may not exactly align with one party policy to the exclusion of all others.
"[i]I want to keep everyone but my party out. i don't have an alternative [/i]"
Fine, you can stop at "1" on the paper. But if you put a "2" somewhere that only comes into play if your party is so unpopular that it gets eliminated anyway, in which case it probably wouldn't have done very well under FPTP either.
Fine, you can stop at "1" on the paper.
Yeah, but everyone else gets to have a second go. I don't want that.
Yeah, but everyone else gets to have a second go. I don't want that.
No they don't. They just get their true preference represented just as you do.
No they don't. They just get their true preference represented just as you do.
yeah, then when their true preference don't get in? Their next best gets a vote
This made me chuckle a little...from Lord Winston (Labour Peer)
AV was used to elect the Labour leader & the winner was the one most didn’t want.”
😆
yeah, then when their true preference don't get in? Their next best gets a vote
I dont see this as a problem. Their second choice might be your party.
People keep talking about your vote not counting. At the moment with FPTP only a few tens of thousands of peoples votes count - the swing voters in marginal constituencies ( ok maybe hundreds of thousands)
Live in a safe constituuency and it really does not matter how you vote.
I dont see this as a problem. Their second choice might be your party
It won't be. Some parties are closer to each other than others, they benefit from this.
Live in a safe constituuency and it really does not matter how you vote
Yes, if only they all realised that
I'm sending the office gimp to buy a big pack of biscuits.
You announce that want a Chocolate Bourbon with your cup of tea.
I really don't like bourbons, but I'm torn between Jammie Dodgers or Custard Creams. Ideally I'd like a Jammie Dodger, but I'd be happy with a Custard Cream. That is my "true preference".
These feelings extend to the rest of the office such that:
34% Chocolate Bourbon zealots
33% Jammie Dodger (but also like Custard Cream)
32% Custard Cream (but also like Dodgers)
1% Monster Raving Pink Wafers
Under AV, we get Dodgers and most of the office end up with the biscuit they are happy with.
Under FPTP you force 66% of the office to gag on minging bourbons when they could have had delicious Dodgers.
Some parties are closer to each other than others, they benefit from this.
Exactly. The Dodger/Cream lovers are the true majority.
I'm already gagging on the series of poor analogies for a pretty simple idea
lols at monster raving pink wafers
These AV supporters seem to be fixated with biscuits, drinks, sweets food in general
are they all biffers? 🙂
Graham, you're assuming that none of the
33% Jammie Dodger (but also like Custard Cream)
32% Custard Cream (but also like Dodgers)
both also really like a nice Bourbon or even a Garibaldi.
both also really like a nice Bourbon or even a Garibaldi.
**Applause**
Beautiful
@Flash: which could also happen and may mean that the Bourbons win instead. Either way the conclusion is the same, under AV the majority end up with a biscuit they like, under FPTP they may not.
Politics is not the same as biscuits! I don't really give a bugger what biscuit we get. I really really care about which government we get or don't get. The differences between Bourbons and Garibaldi is much more important than the difference between Bourbons and Garibaldis!
The analogy works to show that AV gives a winner the majority are happy with, I can see why you have a problem with it.
What about Battenburg Cake?
"[i]It won't be. Some parties are closer to each other than others, they benefit from this.[/i]"
Indeed! When two parties are close to each other they tend to split the vote of broadly similarly-minded people. Which is precisely why, when their alternative votes are counted, there can be more support for both of those parties than for the others.
Your argument, in terms of this point, is that splitting a majority moderate vote allows less moderate parties to sneak in and bag the silverware, and that this is A Good Thing.
With which I disagree.
What about Battenburg Cake?
I couldn't give that my 2nd vote - I don't like marzipan, I could maybe put it 3rd and if it wins throw the marzipan away
So as you said:
Some parties are closer to each other than others, they benefit from this.
So if 65% want one of the two left-wing options available and 35% want the right-wing option then clearly most people would be happiest with a left-wing [s]Jammie Dodger[/s] government.
The analogy works to show that AV gives a winner the majority are happy with, I can see why you have a problem with it
because it deceives people into thinking that their indifference to biscuits can be applied to political parties
Ideally the result of this is that the Bourbons re-evaluate their recipe and return with a new style larger bourbon that maintains its appealing chocolatieness but adds a jam centre.
FPTP keeps us from this splendid Jammie Bourbon dream.
So if 65% want one of the two left-wing options available and 35% want the right-wing option then clearly most people would be happiest with a left-wing
yes, that much is true. I take it this is a hypothetical situation?
So if 65% want one of the two left-wing options available
Again, you're assuming that the middle two groups all want the same biscuit. What if both those middle two groups turn out to like Ginger Nuts, eh? Where would you be then? Your assumption that these hypotethetical middle groups would support roughly the same biscuit/political party is what rather scuppers the argument.
Your argument appears to be "Whatever lets the left win", which doesn't really strike me as a fair approach to politics.
Me or Graham? The analogy is useless. I don't want to hear about any more biscuits. Graham's Crackers
yes, that much is true. I take it this is a hypothetical situation?
You said yourself that [i]"Some parties are closer to each other than others"[/i]
It may not be as clear cut as two variations of X versus one of Y in UK politics - but the point stands, if parties are genuinely close enough to each other such that they would get each others 2nd preference votes and go on to win, then under AV we get the party that the majority are happiest with.
Your argument appears to be "Whatever lets the left win", which doesn't really strike me as a fair approach to politics.
Feel free to swap left for right in my argument if it keeps your blue blood happy Flash. 🙂
CFH - no its whoever lets the slightly leftish win and allows the left some representation. 😉
Interestingly PR in scotland has been the saviour of the tory party here. They have one MP from Scotland but have 17 IIRC MSPs - without PR in HOlyrood they would be completely out of the reckoning