AV or Not to AV, That is the question

[drew]

So, not sure if there has been a poll on here before but as the elections are looming in just over two weeks wondered what the feelings for change were on the electoral system in this country.

My own view is that AV is not perfect but it is better than fptp so I shall be voting for it. Too few MPs represent considerably less than 50% of their constituency. Ideally PR would be my preferred choice but it ain't on the voting slip!!!

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

We've already had a taster of AV in the last general election. Vote LibDem and your vote gets changed into a Conservative one.

 

[crasher]

We can apply the simple Daily Mail test here. The prospect of AV makes the DM really angry - therefore it must be a good thing.

 

[beorhthelm]

after reading the referendum explanation leaflet last week, my missus mused that it means the fringe party's voters will be pandered too, to gather up their 2nd preference.




i looked on a little dumb founded that i had thought of that or seen it higlighted anywhere, and i do like to think i follow these political things. its spot on really. Green, BNP and UKIP voters will probably end up deciding seats. most wouldnt mind a bit of green or anti-european leaning in policy making, but I wonder in how many constituenies will the BNP hold the balance of power and how Tories and Labour will respond to that

 

[Gangsta]

Having voted and found that my choice isn't winning can I ask that you gerrymander the voting system on here so my choice might win - maybe bring in AV?

 

[Husty]

The daily mail doesn't like AV and hence I do

In reality though I want PR, but the LibDems didn't have the backbone for that, so it'll have to be AV.

I think it's bloody funny seeing the celebrities lining up on each side, AV has educated people like Izzard and Colin Firth, no one needs to explain who they are, but every time the media talks about the first past the post celebrities, not only does there have to be an intricate explanation of why they are 'famous' but they also manage to come over as uneducated ignorant chavs, maybe that is why they don't want change?

 

[Waynflete]

There was a similar thread and vote a few weeks back: That AV Vote

AV's not perfect, but it's a much better way of knowing the mind of the electorate than the awful FPTP. I also like the Daily Mail test. I shall be applying it to other life decisions from now on.

 

[DTES]

As an extension to The Daily Mail Test, there's also the party leader test:


Party leaders in favour of AV:
Nick Clegg (Lib Dems)
Ed Miliband (Labour)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
Alex Salmond (SNP)
Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid)
Margaret Ritchie (SDLP)

Party leaders campaigning for a NO vote:
David Cameron (Conservative)
Nick Griffin (BNP)
George Galloway (Respect)

Simple, isn't it?

Jokes aside though, it simply has to be a yes vote for me. The point about fringe votes deciding constituencies completely misses the point that everyone has the same number of votes, it's just those whose second preferences aren't counted have simply voted in the second (or third) round for the same candidate as their first choice hasn't been knocked out yet.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

First Past The Post means you can get elected with less than a third of the vote. That's how Caroline Lucas won Brighton Pavilion.

Proportional Representation means that each (enormous) constituency gets more than one member. That's how Caroline Lucas became MEP for South East England.

The Alternative Vote means that someone else may or may not win the seat in a constituency the same size as existing ones.

Which is best? As my signature says ... none of the above.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

People who feel that AV will benefit the BNP might like to ponder on the fact that the BNP is thoroughly against it.

Saturday's Daily Telegraph argued that AV would lead to the number of Lib Dem MPs more accurately corresponding to the number of Lib Dem voters. A fair point, but the Telegraph was using the fact as an argument AGAINST AV, saying that if there were more Lib Dem MPs the potential for coalition governments would be greater and the chances of one or other of the major parties having untrammeled power would be reduced.

That's the trouble with democracy, No campaigners note - it gets a bit messy sometimes.

 

[Waynflete]

On the BNP question, DTES posted the following on the other thread:


"To be elected under AV you need votes from 50% of the electorate. The BNP will never achieve that in any constituency in Britain.

Under the current system, you just need the most in the first round.

For example - as happened in several council elections - the BNP could get about 30% while the "main three" split pretty equally about 20-25% each. Under FPTP (current system) the BNP get elected. Under AV, the second preferences would be shared out until someone gets 50% - and the BNP lose out as there's no way enough Lab/Lib/Tory voters would rather the BNP get in than their rivals. (I hate the Tories, but would put them ahead of the BNP...)

This obviously applies to all "extreme" parties whether left, right or whatever..."

 

[Super Steve Earle]

It's really easy. If Milliband, Clegg and the Labour luvvies are in favour of AV, it's got o be a bad idea. Now, where's my Daily Mail.

 

[beorhthelm]

The point about fringe votes deciding constituencies completely misses the point that everyone has the same number of votes, it's just those whose second preferences aren't counted have simply voted in the second (or third) round for the same candidate as their first choice hasn't been knocked out yet.

on of the biggest problems is the confusion. ive re-read that and still dont understand your point. i do understand the argument you are making, but its just a little nonsensical to everyday thinking. and simply wrong, because AV means people get to vote n times, in preference order. what it might do thats positive is show peoples true political perference as they might vote for their real favoured first then tactical votes second/third. be interesting to see if fringe parties start polling higher, for example in strong tory areas the UKIP might get alot more votes.

People who feel that AV will benefit the BNP might like to ponder on the fact that the BNP is thoroughly against it.

it is an interesting conflict of interest. but consider Dagenham where they polled 11.2% while Labour polled 40.3%. does Labour court the Liberal voters (8.6%) who are likly anti-Labour, or the BNP who are probably ex Labour voters judging by the swing? The Tories (34%) face similar dilema, though UKIP are holding 3.5% and certain to put Tory as second choice. they could play to Liberals, with a view they'd be eliminated before BNP. does a Liberals third vote make the difference? what happens to UKIP voters 4th perference? does a party get their voters to place 2nd or even 1st chioces to modifiy the order of dropping out and lower down prefernces taking effect... i get confused trying to think through the permutations, i do know one thing though - the tactical voting is going to get a whole lot more tactical.

 

[lighthouse]

I am struggling with the idea that someones second vote could end up being equal to my first vote. Doesn't seem right to me.

I understand the frailties of the present system, but to me the biggest problem is that too few people actually come out to vote in the first place.

As someone who has only ever voted for one party, under AV if I do not select a second choice, does that spoil my ballet paper?

 

[DTES]

on of the biggest problems is the confusion. ive re-read that and still dont understand your point. i do understand the argument you are making, but its just a little nonsensical to everyday thinking. and simply wrong, because AV means people get to vote n times, in preference order. what it might do thats positive is show peoples true political perference as they might vote for their real favoured first then tactical votes second/third. be interesting to see if fringe parties start polling higher, for example in strong tory areas the UKIP might get alot more votes.

Sorry, maybe I should be a bit clearer. The best way is probably to use an already existing example (though there are a few to choose from) - The French Presidential Election

1. Everybody votes on the three (usually) candidates. Nobody gets 50%
2. The bottom candidate is eliminated and everybody comes back to the polling booth a couple of weeks later and votes between the two that are left. One of them will get 50%, and that one is elected.

It's easy to see that everybody gets 2 votes. For some people, both of those votes will be the same person. For some people (those who voted for the 3rd place candidate), the two votes are for different people.

This is exactly the same, except that the two voting rounds aren't weeks apart - they happen instantly (the alternative - better? - name for AV is "instant run-off"). You do it instantly, by marking a "2" (or "3" etc) next to the candidate that you want to vote for in the later rounds if your candidate happens to have been knocked out.

Would it be better to stagger the rounds over a couple of weeks, rather than do it instantly? In an ideal world maybe, but there are two reasons against it:
1. Cost - doubling or trebling the cost of the election needlessly can't appeal to anybody
2. Fairness. Not every constituency would need the same number of rounds, so you'd be going back to the polls knowing the results of other constituencies, which would some voters have access to more information than others.

Even without these reasons though, I'm not sure of the benefits of staggering the rounds - it just means you have to listen to all the candidates to start with, and to be honest, shouldn't we all do that anyway?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

There was a similar thread and vote a few weeks back: That AV Vote

AV's not perfect, but it's a much better way of knowing the mind of the electorate than the awful FPTP. I also like the Daily Mail test. I shall be applying it to other life decisions from now on.

How do you work that one out - its only the voters for the candidate thats eliminated in each round whose 2nd choice gets counted not those whose first choice candidate is still in the running - why should some be allowed basically to have 2 votes and others just one?

At least with first past the post it means that the candidate which the majority of people in a constituancy wanted elected gets in not peoples third or fourth choice.

 

[Norman Potting]

The Daily Mail test does seem to be a good rule for life for me. I think AV is an improvement, but I think that this quote from Churchill (statesman, not insurance company for the benefit of you youngsters sums it up nicely:-

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

[DTES]

I am struggling with the idea that someones second vote could end up being equal to my first vote. Doesn't seem right to me.

Everyone's first votes count the same, and everyone's second votes count the same. Your first and second just happen to be for the same person, as my previous post.

I understand the frailties of the present system, but to me the biggest problem is that too few people actually come out to vote in the first place.

I agree that turnout is a problem. In Australia (where they already use AV), they also have compulsory voting - with failure punishable by a small fine.

As someone who has only ever voted for one party, if I do not select a second choice, does that spoil my ballet paper?

Nope, you can vote for as many or as little as you like. Surely though, if your party is eliminated, you have some preference on who gets in? Even if that's just "anyone except the BNP"? (I am assuming you're not a BNP voter of course...)

 

[DTES]

At least with first past the post it means that the candidate which the majority of people in a constituancy wanted elected gets in not peoples third or fourth choice.

Spectacularly 100% wrong. Majority means more voted for than against.

Under FPTP you can get elected without a majority - last May one MP got elected with 29%! Under AV you need a majority. Your sentence is absolutely an argument for AV

(Your point about some people getting more votes than others is answered in my earlier post which I won't copy again)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

As an extension to The Daily Mail Test, there's also the party leader test:


Party leaders in favour of AV:
Nick Clegg (Lib Dems)
Ed Miliband (Labour)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
Alex Salmond (SNP)
Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid)
Margaret Ritchie (SDLP)

Party leaders campaigning for a NO vote:
David Cameron (Conservative)
Nick Griffin (BNP)
George Galloway (Respect)

Simple, isn't it?

Jokes aside though, it simply has to be a yes vote for me. The point about fringe votes deciding constituencies completely misses the point that everyone has the same number of votes, it's just those whose second preferences aren't counted have simply voted in the second (or third) round for the same candidate as their first choice hasn't been knocked out yet.

That sounds like a load of rubbish to me, say there were 4 candidates Orange, Purple, Silver and White and the following happens

White gets 30% of the 1st votes
Orange gets 28%
Purple gets 25%
and Silver gets 17% of the 1st vote
Silver is eliminated and their votes split to give this

White has 36%
Purple gets 33%
orange gets 31%

orange gets eliminated and it goes to the final round of voting
purple gets 51% and purple 49% so purple wins

However if purple had been eliminated earlier (1st) and their second choices counted we could have ended up with
White gets 51%
orange gets 31%
and silver gets 18% giving a completely different result because peoples second choices won't be the same and losing say UKIP may push 2nd choice votes to the Tories whereas losing Lib Ddems may push more 2nd choice votes to Labour and whichever order they are eliminated may give a different outcome and result in a different MP being elected. - so is it truely represental of the constituancy's votes?