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.

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, of course 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 all 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 may 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

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

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 may 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 could 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.

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: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”

Ultimately the aim of AV could summarised as trying to find a set of policies that at least 50% of the population agree upon 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.

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

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.

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 want to keep everyone but my party out. i don’t have an alternative “

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.