This is very much my opinion, it only benefits the protest vote.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
If you were pro Proportional Representation...
- Thread starter Simster
- Start date
This is very much my opinion, it only benefits the protest vote.
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but I don't understand what you're saying. There is absolutely nothing for them to gain by voting tactically under AV in this situation, so what are you getting at?
Well, assuming a lib dem candidate is 3rd choice, in a constituency that is largely labour/tory, the likelyhood is, it won't get to the point where the lib dem voters' second choice is counted. Therefore, their first vote is what counts, and it would be wasted voting for lib dem when there is no chance of them getting in, so may be moer likely to, for example, vote labour to keep the tories out.
I think that is what he's getting at. That if they vote for their first choice, who happens to be third popular, the other fringe parties will be eliminated and their votes will likely decide the election before their second vote comes in to play.
Yep, except that there is everything to be gained for them voting tactically if they wanted to keep one of the big two parties out.
To get elected, the winner needs 50% of the vote. By definition, this will be more than all the other parties put together. Therefore they win even if the other votes are exchanged between parties (be that tactically or by any other method).
Voting "tactically" (voting for someone else first instead of the Lib Dems) won't reduce the 50% achieved by whichever party it is that wins...
I'm not entirely sure I get what you mean ha...
Let's say there was a (theoretical) constituency where the previous election results are as follow:
Conservative: 40%
Labour: 37%
Lib Dem: 8%
Other: 15% (Each less than 8% in total).
In this situation, voting first choice for Lib dem wouldn't do a lot - your second vote is unlikely to be counted, as the second votes of the 15% of other could decide the election results before yours is counted. This could end up in a tory majority.
But if you were to use your first vote for labour, and enough people did the same, labour might get the majority in previous rounds.
I think that makes sense...
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,845
Bob dislikes Labour intensely, but as a Tory in a northern urban constituency, voting blue is meaningless. he has in the past voted tactically for the Liberals on an anyone but Labour basis. under AV, he will still be in the same position, although he might be able to adjust tactics to vote Tory first and Liberals second if the tories poll so low as to make that viable and not see Labour win first round. if the normal vote is tight, which lots of green/socialist voters likly to vote Lbour second choice, his best tactic will certainly be to vote Liberal first choice.
Last edited:
But it will increase the % of votes that whoever you tactically voted for, potentially helping them to 50% sooner than if you'd voted for your actual first choice.
Ah, ok - I understand where you're coming from now. However, this tactical voting still wouldn't affect the result. Let's say you're right, and it's decided after the elimination of the "Other" votes, for example leaving us with:
Conservative: 51%
Labour: 41%
Lib Dem: 8%
(obviously adjust this to 52%/40%, or however you want to split the "other votes)
If you voted "tactically" amongst the "others", your vote would now be amongst the 41% Labour votes. If you didn't, it would be amongst the Lib Dem votes. Either way, it's in the 49% that doesn't outweigh the Tories' 51%.
Let's say *all* the Lib Dem voters do this tactical vote, such that the Lib Dems get 0% and the "Other" parties start off with 23%. Obviously your vote (and other Lib Dem's) votes won't affect the votes of the genuine "other" voters, so we'd be left with:
Conservative 51%
Labour 49%
Either way, the Tories still win and your tactics can't stop it...
The turnout for local elections has been falling in recent years, and is typically lower than 40%
Assuming everybody voting in the local elections will also vote on the AV issue, and that the No/Yes votes are about equal (at present Nos ahead of Yesses by about 10%), that means the issue will be decided about 21% of the electorate (assuming it goes 21% one way, 19% the other way).
Not a very sound basis for a major change to the constitution, is it?
Assuming everybody voting in the local elections will also vote on the AV issue, and that the No/Yes votes are about equal (at present Nos ahead of Yesses by about 10%), that means the issue will be decided about 21% of the electorate (assuming it goes 21% one way, 19% the other way).
Not a very sound basis for a major change to the constitution, is it?
That does make sense actually. Which is ironic, because by making more sense, it leaves me even more confused on how to vote in the referendum. I need a lie down.
Maybe - but what alternative is there? You can't just set an arbitrary threshold as you could fall just short due to apathy even if not a single person is actually opposed. You could make voting compulsory, but I can't see that being very popular...
Maybe not, but for the people who don't turn out, they can only blame themselves. If you don't vote, you can't really complain about the cirumstances afterwards.
fataddick
Well-known member
Whichever side wins, there won't be another vote on electoral reform for a generation.
And I think Proportional Representation will be less popular with the man on the street than AV, as it removes local accountability by creating huge constituencies, and thus will never happen.
Just look at all the morons on the Argus comments boards in the run up to the General Election, complaining that Caroline Lucas had lived in Oxford when she was MEP for the South East, and she should have lived "locally". Oxford is *in* the South East Euro constituency, you fucktards.
Under PR for Westminster, even though the constuencies would be smaller, people would be voting for candidates who live in fairly distant towns, there would as a result be less local contact and MP's surgeries, etc. Can you really see the majority of the voting population buying into that?
The choice will always be between AV and what we've got, as far as I can see. Fans of PR need to accept that.
And I think Proportional Representation will be less popular with the man on the street than AV, as it removes local accountability by creating huge constituencies, and thus will never happen.
Just look at all the morons on the Argus comments boards in the run up to the General Election, complaining that Caroline Lucas had lived in Oxford when she was MEP for the South East, and she should have lived "locally". Oxford is *in* the South East Euro constituency, you fucktards.
Under PR for Westminster, even though the constuencies would be smaller, people would be voting for candidates who live in fairly distant towns, there would as a result be less local contact and MP's surgeries, etc. Can you really see the majority of the voting population buying into that?
The choice will always be between AV and what we've got, as far as I can see. Fans of PR need to accept that.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,845
setting a quorum for the result to stand? why cant you set an "arbitary" threshold, many countries set things like 75% of representitives for consitutional changes. its odd that one of the AV arguments against FPTP is that a a candidate or a governemnt can get elected on 35% of the vote, while overlooking that the outcome of this referendum will probably be decided by far less than that after accounting for turnout. why are we not debating fixing all the other problems in the mechanics of electoral system, why is dropping FPTP the first one?
The MOST loathsome forms of PR are those which allow for a 'Party List' of chronies, lickspittles and career politicians, accountable to nobody, to get elected time after time.
AV is not proportional in any sense of the word... I am pretty unimpressed by the FOR case, but largely indifferent if we happened to end up with it.
However, as it could be seen as a 'stepping stone' to the former, then I am all for a resounding NO vote.
IMHO We SHOULD be focussing on radical reform of the second chamber rather than this side show.
AV is not proportional in any sense of the word... I am pretty unimpressed by the FOR case, but largely indifferent if we happened to end up with it.
However, as it could be seen as a 'stepping stone' to the former, then I am all for a resounding NO vote.
IMHO We SHOULD be focussing on radical reform of the second chamber rather than this side show.
The problem is, the vote is pretty much a choice between FPTP and AV. By setting a minimum threshold, it already favours FPTP as AV would need a whole load of people who don't normally vote to turn up to have a chance of going through, whereas FPTP would win if these people didn't turn up. If people really care about it, they should get out and vote.
The argument for AV over FPTP is that the winner needs to reach a certain percentage (50%) of those who care enough to vote.
To give an example, let's say it needed 75% as you suggest. If the results are:
Yes: 74%
No: 0%
Don't Care: 26%
you think the result should be a No? You can replace the above with percentages to match whatever quorum you set. Apathy shouldn't prevent change if those in favour exceed those against.
It's a perfectly consistent position with AV - the "winning post" is 50% of those who give a flying f*** - unless you want to introduce compulsory voting?