If you were pro Proportional Representation...

[sten_super]

I do agree that you will never get more than 50% of eligible people voting for any one party under any system. However, that is not why I'm attacking AV. I'm attacking AV for not getting more than 50% of even those who turn up to vote. Despite going through the hassle of various rounds and eliminations, we get a system which produces something not dissimilar to what we have at the moment.

I understand your point, but the issue is that it gives the vote to those that want it. If you want to turn up to vote, and place a 1 in a box and no other numbers, then that is up to you; you are saying that beyond backing that one candidate you have no further preference. You do not wish to take part in any subsequent rounds of voting. That is a perfectly valid choice, but I don't understand why it is a problem that that vote is not then included in the % calculations for subsequent rounds?

As DTES mentioned earlier, we do not include all of the people that don't bother to turn up to vote when working out the % backing, as they have not expressed a preference for any candidate; similarly when it comes down to the latter stages of AV, people who have not expressed a preference are not included in the calculation.

I agree with your other points that it won't make a huge amount of difference; we're not talking about a system that is going to rip up the political playbook. However I'm not convinced that there will be this 'race to the middle' (to paraphrase what you said) that you are concerned about; I'm not sure how we could have much more middle-ground politics anyway!

 

[DTES]

As I understand it the way the Australia solve the issue on a federal level is to make the use of all one's preferences compulsory otherwise the ballot will be considered spoiled. My point is simply that under both AV and FPTP individuals can be elected by a minority of voters who turn up at the polling station. Indeed, under both AV and FPTP individuals can be elected by a majority of voters at the polling station (I think, under FPTP in over 200 of the 650 constituencies this already happens). Evidence from Australian state elections prove that most people do not use all of their preferences. With this in mind, when you take out the 200+ constituencies that already achieve majorities, how many more MPs will actually be elected by a majority of those who turn up on the day under AV? It is this figure which indicates how much more representative government AV delivers and I would think this figure is relatively small.

And when you try and weigh this modest improvement against the risk that AV will simply result in more voter apathy (since politicians will go out of their way to agree with each other/not say anything that might alienate others in desperate attempts to pick up second preferences from other parties, and the main cause of voter apathy is the feeling all politicians are the 'same') the case for AV falls away.

I do agree that you will never get more than 50% of eligible people voting for any one party under any system. However, that is not why I'm attacking AV. I'm attacking AV for not getting more than 50% of even those who turn up to vote. Despite going through the hassle of various rounds and eliminations, we get a system which produces something not dissimilar to what we have at the moment.

I completely see where you're coming from, but for me the line has to be drawn in a different place. For me there is no point in just counting the constituents who get out of bed and walk to the polling station; you've got to only count those who actually bother to vote, and vote fully. Otherwise, you may as well include people who walk in the door but then change their mind and walk home before they've so much as made any mark on the paper - is there really, in principle, much difference between someone who doesn't bother to vote and someone who half-bothers to vote? If you want your voice to be heard, speak - don't just breathe out.

AV does guarantee getting more than 50% of those who fully use their vote, and I don't think you can ask much more than that.

On the separate issue of apathy, I think apathy will decrease. The apathy caused by people not bothering as they are in a safe-seat (like I am now with Harriet Bloody Harman as my 'representative') will be massively reduced when people see their vote may count for something.

 

[DTES]

Cue DTES... but.... but.. they would have 50% of the votes that still count after we have thrown away the ones that don't... so that's 50%... isn't it?

Tres amusing. Good to see you've something constructive to offer. If you would like to take part seriously, how about coming up with a sensible suggestion for how we can count the votes of people that don't bother? You can't "throw away" something that doesn't exist...

 

[Seagull27]

I've had a lie down. I've thought long and hard about it. I've decided to vote Yes to AV*


*Subject to change

 

[mimi]

Me too I'm in. Yes to AV. It's high time for change and if it takes the smile off Cameron's face and his horrible cronies then it was wee worth it.

 

[mimi]

I meant well worth it and it is not subject to change.

 

[Seagull27]

I meant well worth it and it is not subject to change.

I think I've just about decided, and there's not a lot of time to change my mind now. But I have changed it a lot in the last few days...

One of the main reasons i want to vote Yes is the same as yours above. He is an utter twat.

 

[tedebear]

I'll be voting no, being Australian and living with the bloody stupid system I think its a step backwards for this country no matter who is in power. Just my opinion though.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'll be voting no, being Australian and living with the bloody stupid system I think its a step backwards for this country no matter who is in power. Just my opinion though.

one more qualified than most on either side of the debate.