[Closed] this vote thing next week, why should i care?

You go to a pub with some mates and all decide you want crisps. The choice is: Salt & Vinegar, Cheese & Onion, Plain; so you take a vote:

[b]First-past-the-post[/b]: Salt & Vinegar gets the most votes, but not with a majority. In fact the majority hate Salt & Vinegar. So why choose a flavour unacceptable to the majority?

[b]Alternative Votes[/b]: this time you list your preference 1,2,3 and taking into account second choices, find out that Cheese & Onion is acceptable to a majority.

It's a crap analogy and entirely wrong. But it's the easiest way for me to understand why AV is fairer, and why I will vote for it.

I'm voting 'yes' because I see it as the first step towards proportional representation, which would actually be a good solution to the issue of many people having wasted votes.

The danger of the outcome of this vote being 'no' to AV is that politicians will use this as a signal that we're happy with the current system, and PR will move yet further from our grasp.

As it is with the current system, since I was old enough to vote mine has never counted as I live in a very safe Tory area.

labour under brown hugely screwed me (financially) over so i voted conservative and within 24hrs I'd been hugely screwed again.

Well, you could stop voting on what suits you best and start voting on what is best for the nation.

As it is with the current system, since I was old enough to vote mine has never counted as I live in a very safe Tory area.

Can you explain what you mean by not counted?

To be honest I do not know of many people wh vote for tneir MP but vote on a party basis, though I am sure there are some. I will be voting for AV as it seems fairer. I would prefer full PR, though. I don't like the idea of someone claiming a mandate with less than half the votes.

looking at the polls we will be staying with FPTP, which in my opinion would be a disaster. The current political system is broken and needs to be looked at on mass. Why should votes have different values depending on where you live? why should bishops sit in the house of lords? Why should a party most people do not want be elected with huge a huge majority?

OK, a change of opinion here. I admit when I'm wrong...

from being very definitely "no" I think I've moved into the "yes" camp merely because this is probably the best - and more likely the only - chance we have of changing things for at least a generation.

I don't like AV but I like "no choice" even less. Both methods have their faults, but if we say "no" now, as mentioned above, "the powers that be" will probably take that as a "carry on as you were", and we won't get another chance to change things for the next 25+ years

As it is with the current system, since I was old enough to vote mine has never counted as I live in a very safe Tory area.

This is the bit of the yes campaign I don't get. Why hasn't your vote [i]counted[/i]?
just because your chosen candidate didn't win, doesn't mean that your vote didn't count does it?

@charliemungus,

A number of points, if you look at many northern towns, it is a forgone conclusion that a labour MP will be elected so any vote for a tory, a lib dem, a green, etc is a waste. The home counties are Tory fiefdoms and a tory will be returned. You might as well talk of the rotten boroughs of the 17th century.

So the idea of a vote not counting, your vote is not represented in any way by the outcome of the election. A true PR system would mean that if you vote green, then your vote is added to all the other green votes nationally, so your vote might actually count for something.

The current system could see a party get over 50% of the vote and still loose the election, it depends on where your vote is as to whether you get the MPs and thus win the election, is that fair? etc etc etc.

It's a crap analogy and entirely wrong. But it's the easiest way for me to understand why AV is fairer, and why I will vote for it.

A, it is a forgone conclusion that a labour MP will be elected so any vote for a tory, a lib dem, a green, etc is a waste.

See, I don't think it is a waste, True my candidate doesn't win, but I don't think that means that my vote is wasted.

The current system could see a party get over 50% of the vote and still loose the election, it depends on where your vote is as to whether you get the MPs and thus win the election, is that fair? etc etc etc

This can still happen with AV.

See, I don't think it is a waste, True my candidate doesn't win, but I don't think that means that my vote is wasted.

How would you see it, you made the effort to vote, but your vote influences nothing, there is no one representing your opinion.

AV is no better or worse than FPTP, the only reason i intend to vote yes is to say the current system is bust and needs to change. vote against AV and this will be taken not as AV is crap but FPTP is the best system going.

How would you see it, you made the effort to vote, but your vote influences nothing, there is no one representing your opinion.

But it is registered. The same way in which striking and losing or going on a march / demo or writing to your MP does not change policy, but I don't think those efforts are wasted. You've voted, you exercised your right to do so. You lost. That's all.

AV is no better or worse than FPTP, the only reason i intend to vote yes is to say the current system is bust and needs to change. vote against AV and this will be taken not as AV is crap but FPTP is the best system going

Given that it is very likely that the 'No' campaign will win, do you thin your 'Yes' vote will be a waste?

[i]The current system could see a party get over 50% of the vote and still loose the election, it depends on where your vote is as to whether you get the MPs and thus win the election, is that fair? etc etc etc[/i]

as I understand it, under AV (or FPTP or any other "fair" voting system, for that matter), any candidate with more than 50% of the vote will win no matter what the other candidates do. OK, 49% of the electorate [i]didn't[/i] vote for the winning candidate, but show me a fair electoral system where a candidate winning more than half of the votes fails and I'll show you some hanging chads...

But it is registered. The same way in which striking and losing or going on a march / demo or writing to your MP does not change policy, but I don't think those efforts are wasted. You've voted, you exercised your right to do so. You lost. That's all.

Fair enough, but i would say IMO, i would rather know that my vote had been counted for something, ie a positive vote, rather than counted as a protest but having no affect. I except that you can loose, i just am not happy that different constituencies are of varying sizes so each vote is not equal. A system where certain areas of the country are fixed voting wise. I want the winner to have got 50% of the electorate to support them, not 30% as is the current situation.

@johndrummer, not saying in a constituency, i am saying nationally, because the constituencies are different sizes and by getting landslides in a few or being spread thinly nationally, these are things that mean that you can get the majority of the vote but a minority of the seats.

As for a wasted vote, you win some you loose some, it would be nice to see a proper debate in the media from both camps, the coverage has been crap, far to much negative campaigning. but not really a surprise.

I've deleted my post, I'm to drunk to post sensibly. Thanks for the replies all, as ever on stw some excellent views, comments and arguments.

[url=

e's why[/url]

The Tories are saying "A vote for AV might get the BNP in", while the Labour Party aren't keen on any electoral reform that might force them not to be useless.

Vote AV and watch them all squirm.

but i would say IMO, i would rather know that my vote had been counted for something, ie a positive vote, rather than counted as a protest but having no affect.

I can understand that, but it means less if you have to vote for someone other than the candidate you actually want.

AV opposition say the reason Av is bad is because it's complicated.

a) It's not complicated.
b) If that's the best reason the opposition can come up with for stopping it, they probably don't have any good reasons.

Only stupid people will vote against AV. Sadly you live in Britain so it'll never happen.

I can understand that, but it means less if you have to vote for someone other than the candidate you actually want.

and the beauty of a PR system is that you vote for who you want, the allocation of seats is then based on a national basis.

I do except PR has a downside in that it delinks mps and constituencies, but i would say how many people vote for an MP and how many vote for a party?

"might let the BNP in"

ho ho ho

a) It's not complicated.

True, and so all the false analogy vids are unnecessary and only serve to mislead.

Only stupid people will vote against AV.

Only stupid people will vote for AV

Now what?

and the beauty of a PR system is that you vote for who you want, the allocation of seats is then based on a national basis.

Yes, PR would be fine. I'd vote for that.

@CharlieMungus - see mrmo's comments. I couldn't have stated my position any better!

@johndrummer -

as I understand it, under AV (or FPTP or any other "fair" voting system, for that matter), any candidate with more than 50% of the vote will win no matter what the other candidates do. OK, 49% of the electorate didn't vote for the winning candidate, but show me a fair electoral system where a candidate winning more than half of the votes fails and I'll show you some hanging chads.

The current system allows a candidate to win with significantly less than 50% of the vote. Whilst AV is far from ideal, at least a greater proportion of votes will be reflected by the result.

Given the number of people in STW who favour AV, I wonder who your first 2 votes would be for? Who is your choice and who would be the alternative?

[i]Now what? [/i]

We wait and see how stupid we all are.

Yes, PR would be fine. I'd vote for that.

You won't get a chance to vote for that for a very long time, if ever, if the AV outcome is 'no'.

You won't get a chance to vote for that for a very long time, if ever, if the AV outcome is 'no'.

I really don't see that it will be any more likely if the outcome is 'Yes'

You're trolling, aren't you?!

Whilst we may not get the chance to vote for PR if the AV vote is 'yes', we definitely won't if the vote is 'no'. The Tories (and to a large extent the 'establishment') don't want the current system changed and will use a 'no' result as evidence that we're all happy with things as they are.

AV isn't perfect (or even particularly good) but at least it's a step in the right direction, and would show that there's an appetite for change.

Likes reform cat.

[url= http://www.ukpolitical.info/1979.htm ]voting details[/url]

1979
Conservative 43.9% gave 339 seats
Labour 36.9% gave 268 seats
Liberal 13.8% gave 11 seats

1983
Conservative 42.4% gave 397 seats
Labour 27.6% gave 209 seats
Liberal 25.4% gave 23 seats

1987
Conservative 42.2% gave 375 seats
Labour 30.8% gave 229 seats
Liberal 22.6% gave 22

1992
Conservative 42.3% gave 336 seats
Labour 35.2% gave 271 seats
Liberal 18.3% gave 20

1997
Conservative 30.7% gave 165 seats
Labour 43.2% gave 418seats
Liberal 16.8% gave 46

2001
Labour 40.7% gave 412
Conservative 31.7% gave 166
Liberal Democrats 18.3% gave 52

I know this doesn't show the whole picture, such as the 59.4% turn out in 2001 compared to the 76% turnout in 1979.

in 2005, 67% of the voting public didn't want Labour in power, however they either were too disillusioned or could not identify with any other alternative.

With AV, parties will be forced to recognise the possibility that the so called "silent majority" might not stand by and allow then to fart in our faces.

Frankly, that prospect is long overdue.

mrmo - so that's showing % of votes against number of seats gained? It would be interesting to see the % of votes against the % of seats gained, but I think it shows the winning party and leader has never in that time come close to representing the majority of the country?

Whilst we may not get the chance to vote for PR if the AV vote is 'yes', we definitely won't if the vote is 'no'. The Tories (and to a large extent the 'establishment') don't want the current system changed and will use a 'no' result as evidence that we're all happy with things as they are.

No, I'm not trolling and of course I'm aware of your argument above, but it is unsubstantiated. A counter might be to say that once we have AV, 'the establishment' will tell us we have the voting reform we wanted or that we should give it a few elections to bed in. or to say that by voting 'No' we send that message that we will not accept their half-assed sop which doesn't actually give us what we want. My problem with these argument is that it they try to second guess politicians. I'd rather take AV for what it is, rather than what it 'might' lead to.

in 2005, 67% of the voting public didn't want Labour in power, however they either were too disillusioned or could not identify with any other alternative.

It's hard enough finding one party worth voting for, let alone hold our noses tightly enough whilst voting for another one even less desirable.

and there is also the suggestion that if this vote fails the tories will have to offer the Lib-dems something to keep them quiet, such as full reform of the house of lords.

There are lots of whats, ifs and maybes. No one really knows what the outcome of the vote will be. Which to me doesn't really sound very democratic. You would think a democracy would be a place where knowing the outcome of a vote was reasonably predictable. Look at the current vote, people voting for AV knowing it is crap but is less crap than FPTP. Sums up the problem with british democracy quite nicely i think.

CharlieMungus - I know you aren't trolling, I was just being cheeky.

You make a sound point about 'yes' and 'no' results being used by the two sides to 'prove' different sides of the argument. I'm sure this will happen, I just hope we can make some progress towards getting a fairer electoral system and I feel a 'yes' result is the best way to do this.

Look at the current vote, people voting for AV knowing it is crap but is less crap than FPTP. Sums up the problem with british democracy quite nicely i think.

It's the X-Factor / Celebrity in the Jungle / Big Brother telly culture which has got people thinking that (effectively) voting the person you want to 'go out' is a reasonable way of running an election

Panem et circenses

Keep the proles quiet with X-factor and you can shaft them as much as you like and they won't complain.

With AV, parties will be forced to recognise the possibility that the so called "silent majority" might not stand by and allow then to fart in our faces.

What's that suppose to mean ?

Every political party goes into every election fully aware that they might not win......it is a very distinct "possibility".

67% of the voting public didn't want Labour in power, however they either were too disillusioned or could not identify with any other alternative.

Why are people who voted other than Labour, described as "disillusioned" ? As a non-Labour voter in 2005 I would not describe myself as disillusioned - far from it.

And let's get one thing straight, I don't blame the Labour Party for forming the government, I blame the electorate who voted Labour for doing that - without them Labour could never have formed a government.

It's about time people stopped blaming politicians for the way [u]they[/u] vote.

Panem et circenses

It's about time people stopped blaming politicians for the way they vote.

Not blaiming anyone for the way thy vote, just blaming a system that gives more value to the votes of different voters.

One man one vote, should mean that, it should not mean if you live in worcester your vote is more valuable that if you live in blaenau gwent.

Why are people who voted other than Labour, described as "disillusioned"

Because no one wants a ban for calling them what they really are.

It's hard enough finding one party worth voting for, let alone hold our noses tightly enough whilst voting for another one even less desirable.

I voted Labour in 1997 and regretted it less than 18 months later. By 2003 they exceeded the very depths of my cynicism.

My point is, with AV we may not be tied to a two and a half party state and real choice might force our politicians to perform better.

One man one vote, should mean that

And that is exactly what it means. The electoral system does not "give more value to the votes of different voters". No one is forced to vote the way they do - they do so freely. If there are certain concentrations of votes for one party in a given area, then it is because of the way people have chosen to vote.

I'm sure this is fascinating, bunch of politically minded cyclists going off on one. I'm voting AV. Cos cats told me to.

If there are certain concentrations of votes for one party in a given area, then it is because of the way people have chosen to vote.

It might also be because of the way the electoral boundaries are drawn

I voted Labour in 1997 and regretted it less than 18 months later.

Why did you regret it ? New Labour turned out to be exactly what they promised to be.

I didn't vote Labour in 1997 because I was listening to what Tony Blair was telling me. I'm mystified how people appear to have been confused by Tony Blair.

I'm sure this is fascinating, bunch of politically minded cyclists going off on one. I'm voting AV. Cos cats told me to

Thanks for sharing

The current system allows a candidate to win with significantly less than 50% of the vote. Whilst AV is far from ideal, at least a greater proportion of votes will be reflected by the result.

that's not what I was arguing. I saw something about a candidate with [i]more than[/i] 50% of the vote [i]not[/i] winning. How can that be? under [i]any[/i] system other than Zimbabwean, or possibly Floridian?

It might also be because of the way the electoral boundaries are drawn

No, it's purely down to the way people vote. No one is forced to vote in a certain way because of how the electoral boundaries are drawn up.

ernie, your missing my point completely.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies ]wikipedia[/url]

Ynys Mon has 49721 voters in 2010 compare this with north west cambridgeshire where electorate is 89,419.

So in both constituencies you get one MP, in one you have less than 50,000 voters the other nearly 90000. The value of the voters vote is not the same.

No one is forced to vote in a certain way because of how the electoral boundaries are drawn up.

Yeah, 'cos that's what i said isn't it?

Wanna try again?

I have already postal voted nooooooooo ... 🙂

ernie, your missing my point completely.

No, you're missing my point. Ultimately it's all down to the way how people vote. Why doesn't the BNP form a government ? .....because practically no one votes for them.......it has nothing whatsoever to do with electoral boundaries.

Overwhelmingly, people who support AV today do so because they are dissatisfied with the way people vote in general elections (which they always blame politicians for). It's as simple as that.

ok, I'll just sit back. read and learn.

Wanna try again?

No not really. If you read back through the posts you'll see that I responding in the context of you responding to my post. Beyond saying that, I can't be arsed.

The electoral system does not "give more value to the votes of different voters"

But it does, depending on where you live your vote has a different value. everything else being equal, if it takes 25000 to get a majority in ynys mon and it take 45000 to get the same result in Cambridge each vote has a different value.

Overwhelmingly, people who support AV today do so because they are dissatisfied with the way people vote in general elections (which they always blame politicians for). It's as simple as that.

Maybe, or maybe they see a system that is not working that does not reflect the desires of most people, it is a system where the majority of seats does not equal the majority of votes cast.

And i think you will find that no one actually wants AV, just a case of that is what we are being given. What should be on the ballot is FPTP and PR.

Well ok then, I'll try once more
If there are certain concentrations of votes for one party in a given area, then it may be because the boundaries were drawn to achieve exactly that. this does not force anyone in that area to vote in a certain way, but it forces an area on those who vote in a certain way.

they see a system that is not working that does not reflect the desires of most people

Why doesn't the BNP form a government every now again then ? .....if it doesn't "reflect the desires of most people".

Well ok then, I'll try once more
If there are certain concentrations of votes for one party in a given area, then it may be because the boundaries were drawn to achieve exactly that. this does not force anyone in that area to vote in a certain way, but it forces an area on those who vote in a certain way.

just say it, the political map has been gerrymandered.

Ernie, are you just doing this for the sake of argument? Mrmo didn't say "doesn't reflect the desires of most people, in every respect" Yes, the BNP not being in power reflects the desires of most people. Do you think this is evidence of a system which, generally reflects the desires of most people?

Why doesn't the BNP form a government every now again then ? .....if it doesn't "reflect the desires of most people".

maybe because they represent the desires of almost no one?

No one is saying that the parties in power have no popular backing, they certainly don't have the bakcing amongst the population that the electoral results give.

For the OP, you don't have to vote is you don't want to, you do have the right not to care.

quote charliemungus [i]Yes, the BNP not being in power reflects the desires of most people. Do you think this is evidence of a system which, generally reflects the desires of most people?[/i]

just explain that please... for simple folk like me

Gerrymandering is a pretty serious allegation mrmo, and illegal. So presumably they will also, if necessary, be falsifying the results of the AV vote ?

The truth is mrmo, if the AV vote is passed, you are going to be so disappointed in future general elections - because people will still vote "incorrectly". And you and all the others who constantly whinge about politicians, will continue to whinge incessantly about politicians. And of course it will never be the electorate's fault - just the politicians.

You can play around with the system as much as you like, but there are no alternatives to voting correctly. You cannot save people from the political decisions which they have taken.

i just type the truth.

ernie, AV is no better than FPTP. I expect no difference, the point is to make a point, the current system is broken where you live reflects the value of your vote.

and yes the UK is gerrymandered. look at the voting results i gave earlier. Labour constituencies are smaller than tory. Labour needs a smaller share of the electorate to gain power.

OF course people will vote "incorrectly", people vote for self interest and not national interest. That is human nature. But a system where people are not told why things are the way they are doesn't help. A system where being northern or welsh means you vote in a smaller constituency than if you are a shire dweller. It might be fair to arrange the system in that manner, but where is the justification?

Maybe i am odd in that i want to vote for something and not vote against something. Tell me why you want to do something, don't just tell me the other lot are crap.

Just to reiterate, i don't want AV, but i don't want FPTP either. The choice is change or status quo. I vote change. We may never get PR, but vote for FPTP and the chance is even slimmer.

charliemungus at least I've got your number. You're real. or a comedy act. Ok, it's a start. so, we'll work o this act? I'll give you 15% and the rest to bill hick's biographers.

I am voting yes. current system is broken. Really want PR but AV will be a step in the right direction.

CharlieM - from Andrew Marr show this morning...

AM - Will a No vote put an end to electoral form for a generation?
Dave - (some waffley caveat)...Yes

I don't care how people vote in General Elections. I don't mind if the BNP manage to get an MP (they wont, actually), because even though I think they are nasty fascists, they are a legal and democratic political party who have some support but no representation in parliament. That situation is wrong.

What matters is the quality of our democracy. FPTP is only fair when there are just two parties. UK politics has changed and the voting system must move with the times too. AV is not a panacea, but it's fairer and progressing toward the proportional system we need.

Vote "YES" for fair votes!

I am voting yes. current system is broken. Really want PR but AV will be a step in the right direction.

This. AV is a crap compromise but it's no worse than the status quo, and a vote against will be taken as a vote for the status quo.

This is the bit of the yes campaign I don't get. Why hasn't your vote counted?
just because your chosen candidate didn't win, doesn't mean that your vote didn't count does it?

Yes it does - because of who happen to be lumped in with in completely arbitrarily drawn up boundaries. If you live in a marginal seat your vote has much more power than that of a voter in a safe seat - hence why all this banging on about 'one person one vote' is completely disingenuous.

they are a legal and democratic political party

You don't know much about the BNP if you think they are a democratic political party. Central to the entire philosophy of the BNP, is a unwavering commitment to deny whole sections of our society their democratic rights. They might well be legal, but they are most certainly not democratic. The fact that they use the democratic processes to further their own hate based philosophy doesn't count.