If you were pro Proportional Representation...

[Dandyman]

AV is not PR, it's a voting system that does nothing to increase the representation of minority views and simply transfers votes to the existing big 3 parties. I think FPTP worked in a two party system but as politics becomes more plural it increasingly losses nay moral authority.

For those who advocate AV,two questions ? Why was Caroline Lucas' amendment for a real vote on PR rejected and why should I believe that a system that counts the second preference votes of the least popular party in an election as more worthy than the first choices of other parties be considered "fair votes" ?

 

[beorhthelm]

From AV site...
Myth 3) AV helps the BNP

The BNP have already called on their supporters to back a ‘No’ vote. Currently because MPs can get elected with support from less than 1 in 3 voters, there is always a risk that extremist parties can get in.

The BNP have learnt this lesson, and have used it to scrape wins in town halls across Britain. With AV, no-one can get elected unless most people back them. Therefore the risk of extremist parties getting in by the back door is eliminated.

So no BNP would not get more seats.

its an interesting rebuke, because its not strictly valid. the council seat seat election aren't being changed, so there will still be those extremists that scrape through to win. also, unless you count Lucus, i cant recall the last extremist that did win a parliamentry seat. a few independents have done ok with FPTP on engaging with their constituency a massive postive.

i think they would continue under AV. but there is no doubt what will also happen is disgruntled voters, from both left and right, will vote more for the extremist parties with the fall back of their second preference for their "proper" vote. how long will it be untill this leads to a win? and in local campaigns, it will be increasingly important for the main parties to canvas for their vote. judging by the last election, the BNP and UKIP voters will probably hold the balance in Dagenham and there are other seats where the fringe part second or third choice will decide the winner.

but thats ok, because its actually the purpose of AV that those supporting fringe parties tip the balance, as their vote is now "counted". twice, or thrice.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

There is only one referendum that really counts but you won't get it because the powers that be know they would lose....the vote on the EU

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I think AV would have won easily if it wasn't for Clegg's massive drop in popularity; I bet the Tories pushed through the tuition fees and so on to break Clegg and deliver them this victory.

 

[DTES]

There is only one referendum that really counts but you won't get it because the powers that be know they would lose....the vote on the EU

That sounds a bit conspiracy theorist - which way round do you mean? You think the powers that be want to stay, but the people would leave, or vice versa? I know sections of the right-wing press shriek about it being so bad we actually need to withdraw, but I don't think there's majority support for that in the country overall - maybe that's a topic for a different NSC poll/debate though...

 

[pork pie]

I think AV would have won easily if it wasn't for Clegg's massive drop in popularity; I bet the Tories pushed through the tuition fees and so on to break Clegg and deliver them this victory.

No, I think you will find that nobody really cares about him anyway, and nobody much wants to change from a tried and tested system. Hardly a Tory victory is it now? More of a victory for those with common sense in all parties. Which would be why that clown Milliband is fighting most of his own party!

 

[beorhthelm]

I think AV would have won easily if it wasn't for Clegg's massive drop in popularity; I bet the Tories pushed through the tuition fees and so on to break Clegg and deliver them this victory.

Clegg could have simply abstained, and suggested to his MPs they do the same. his weaknesses from that issue are his own doing. not that it would make much difference to the AV vote, i believe AV isnt winning because people can see the arguments for AV are poor. (or rather are poorer than the FPTP, which are hardly great either)

 

[paddy]

Whatever the outcome on Thursday, PR will be off the agenda for a generation.

This. It is irrelevant whether FPTP or AV wins. Neither Labour or the Tories are interested in introducing PR (since it would destroy both parties capacity to win a majority). Only the Lib Dems and the smaller parties are in favor of it and none of these parties will ever be in a position to demand it again. The Lib Dems will be destroyed at the next election and decline into an irrelevance (at least on the national level) and, under either FPTP or AV none of these smaller parties will ever win enough seats in the Commons to demand reform.

There will be only one loser on Friday: PR.

 

[Soton Seagull]

It strikes me that the almost Amercian style negative 'No' campaign has been a huge success. Listening to some sadly sterotypical peroxides in my office today (sadly in Croydon) I've heard their reasons for wanting to vote no; they incude;

'BNP voters will get loads of extra votes and then have more chance of getting in' -

'Candidates that finish 5th have a really good chance of winning'

'Everywhere it is hates it'

These are just a few of the comments. I'm not claiming the 'No' campaign have made these statements themselves; my point would be that they have delibrately clouded & confused the issue, feeding half truths and leading (the thick) to a fear factor that means they will vote to keep things the same.

Personally I think AV is a pigeon step in the right direction. it's not much better than we already have, but if we don't indicate as an electorate that we feel the current system is flawed (millions of votes are essentially worthless in FPTP) then we simply won't be asked again about further changes.

I reckon 'No' will win, and I think that is a sad reflection on the lack of clear & honest debate on the issue; and general lethargy with politics.

 

[Titanic]

No, I'm quite happy with that. It's spot on.

You're right in that SOME people WON'T express a PREFERENCE (sorry, thought I'd join in with the random SHOUTING) for every candidate. And those people who don't, if all of their candidates have been eliminated they won't have a vote in the final round. The winner will need 50% of those who do have a vote in the final round. So... I'm right.

50% of the votes left in the final round is meaningless.

The claim that is made is that 50% of voters will have expressed at least some level of preference for the winner. This is BOGUS.

 

[DTES]

50% of the votes left in the final round is meaningless. The claim that is made is that 50% of voters will have expressed at least some level of preference for the winner. This is not true.

"Some level of preference" - No. 50% of the voters will have expressed a higher preference for the winner over any of the other remaining candidates.

 

[Titanic]

"Some level of preference" - No. 50% of the voters will have expressed a higher preference for the winner over any of the other remaining candidates.

and as this '50%' is only achieved by the fact that any other ballot papers without votes for the leading candidates will have been 'burned' by that stage, it is meaningless.

 

[Titanic]

The 50% myth...

http://www.activhounslow.com/news/detail/ReferendumontheAlternativeVote50isamyth-4859.html

 

[DTES]

What do you even mean by "burned"? Your example completely backs up what I've said - the winner had over 50% of votes in the last round - the 9.3% didn't vote in the last round! The "question" in that final round of voting was "Who would you prefer to elect out of Labour or the Green Party". Labour got 54% of the votes from people who answered that question (by putting either Lab or Green higher than the other), the Greens got 46%. With all due respect, it's not difficult.

If you don't bother to vote, your vote doesn't count. If you choose to only vote for one candidate, your vote doesn't count after that one candidate has been eliminated. Entirely your call, but you know what it means.

Would you also include people who didn't turn up to vote at all? Would you also include their children who aren't eligible? Or their pets?

Yes, the above seems patronising, but it's a point that so many people are missing - ANY voting system can only include the votes of people that actually vote!

 

[Titanic]

The simple point I am making is that the claim that is repeatedly made by the pro AV campaigners is that the elected candidate represents at least 50% of the electorate who turned out to vote.

This is FALSE as the example given in the BBC voting exercise clearly shows.

You could equally well achieve this meaningless 50% target by only counting the two leading candidates in a FPTP election and disregarding all of the rest.

 

[Soton Seagull]

As an aside, it's interesting to note that Mr Cameron was voted in as leader on AV; on FPTP David Davis would've been Tory leader. Good enough for his party, but not country?

 

[DTES]

The simple point I am making is that the claim that is repeatedly made by the pro AV campaigners is that the elected candidate represents at least 50% of the electorate who turned out to vote.

This is FALSE as the example given in the BBC voting exercise clearly shows.

You could equally well achieve this meaningless 50% target by only counting the two leading candidates in a FPTP election and disregarding all of the rest.

Yes you could indeed. You'd still be making the vote (i.e. the question at hand) between two candidates, but you'd be deliberately ignoring the votes of people who may well want to answer that question. AV gives everybody the opportunity to vote between any combination of the candidates that may be remaining.

 

[beorhthelm]

As an aside, it's interesting to note that Mr Cameron was voted in as leader on AV

but he wasnt. its a peculiar myth, because the most basic analysis of the Tory leadership method shows its differnet in many ways to AV. for a start, there is no preference a key mechanism in AV. its not FPTP, but its certainly not AV either.

 

[DTES]

As an aside, it's interesting to note that Mr Cameron was voted in as leader on AV; on FPTP David Davis would've been Tory leader. Good enough for his party, but not country?

Not just 'not good enough', but apparently "not British enough" - which is a particularly bizarre argument. As you suggest, perhaps his position as PM is also "not British enough"...

 

[DTES]

but he wasnt. its a peculiar myth, because the most basic analysis of the Tory leadership method shows its differnet in many ways to AV. for a start, there is no preference a key mechanism in AV. its not FPTP, but its certainly not AV either.

Wasn't it? The full results are here: Tory Leadership Results

In what way is this wrong?

The only difference I can see is that the run-off was instant, rather than staggered, so AV makes the assumption that you'll still vote for your first choice if they're still in...