If you were pro Proportional Representation...

[Biscuit]

AV is the future. Fingers crossed it'll get the nod although I doubt it. It really could change things for the better but I fear it won't see the light of day simply because it's a tad harder to explain than the current system.

 

[Seagull27]

I don't understand how it will stop tactical voting. If I was, say, a lib dem voter in a mostly labour/conservative constituency, I'd still have to vote tactically - constituencies generally have more than 5/6 candidates, and in the vast majority of cases, lib dem votes will be 3rd or 4th. Therefore, my first vote is more than likely to be the only one counted, even if I do vote lib dem, as the minority candidates will be eliminated first and the election probably decided before my second choice is considered. This is something I've been confused about for a while, am I right?

 

[DTES]

If it helps them decide to get rid of him, it may help the Lib Dems. I certainly won't be voting for them again until Clegg has gone.

Clegg is dead and buried anyway. The local elections will be another nail in his coffin, and even if he survives as long as the coalition does (even if that's all 5 years) he won't be leader after the next election. Electoral Reform, on the other hand, is a long-term decision. Voting either way just for the sake of one man is, IMHO, madness

What if a No vote does secure Clegg's early exit, but keeping FPTP allows the Tories to secure majority governments in 2015, 2020 and even 2025 on about 35% of the vote, when electoral reform would have at least given a hung parliament? you can't say that will be helping them? Nothing will help any party (Lib Dems or Labour) when the system is so heavily stacked against them. (Yes, Labour won huge majorities under FPTP, but don't forget the boundary changes now coming into place that favour the Tories)

 

[Brovion]

I'm one of a tiny minority who thinks the proposed AV system with everything still 100% constituency-based is the best one. I'm not a real fan of PR (although I accept there are different types and maybe they could find one I like) and I'm definitely not a fan of FPTP.

If you're a PR supporter my (uneducated) opinion is that if the AV gets rejected PR will never happen. I don't see how they can keep going back to the electorate and saying "Well you didn't like AV so what about this system then, what do you think of this?" Especially as this referendum is only being allowed by the majority party as a sop to their junior coalition partners. In other words, PR fans, this is your chance to vote for reform as if there is a 'Yes' vote I can see the Lib-Dems saying "See? There is an appetite for change, lets try some more", whereas a 'No' vote will allow the Tories to say "See? We told you everyone was happy with the current system".

 

[DTES]

I don't understand how it will stop tactical voting. If I was, say, a lib dem voter in a mostly labour/conservative constituency, I'd still have to vote tactically - constituencies generally have more than 5/6 candidates, and in the vast majority of cases, lib dem votes will be 3rd or 4th. Therefore, my first vote is more than likely to be the only one counted, even if I do vote lib dem, as the minority candidates will be eliminated first and the election probably decided before my second choice is considered. This is something I've been confused about for a while, am I right?

In a word, no.

In terms of keeping out a particular person, it doesn't matter if you put them 1st or 12th as long as they're above the party you want to keep out. It's all about reaching 50% - if they reach 50% then it doesn't matter which party your vote is for as they've got more than all the others put together.

It eliminates tactical voting in the sense that you can put your first choice for someone who you think has no chance but still express a preference out of the "big two" - currently your first choice party will be massively under-represented as voters will completely ignore them just to keep out Labour/Tories

 

[beorhthelm]

On a pure statistical level, our current system means very few votes actually count.

and exactly the same problem persists with AV, only with some slightly different numbers. it doesnt solve anything, while introducing new issues. at least PR is logically sensible approach, if you accept you want to do away with local candidates and have a party list instead.

It eliminates tactical voting in the sense ...

in the sence of a very narrow definition and method of tactical voting, utterly ignoring that other tactics might be employed.

 

[Seagull27]

Clegg is dead and buried anyway. The local elections will be another nail in his coffin, and even if he survives as long as the coalition does (even if that's all 5 years) he won't be leader after the next election. Electoral Reform, on the other hand, is a long-term decision. Voting either way just for the sake of one man is, IMHO, madness

What if a No vote does secure Clegg's early exit, but keeping FPTP allows the Tories to secure majority governments in 2015, 2020 and even 2025 on about 35% of the vote, when electoral reform would have at least given a hung parliament? you can't say that will be helping them? Nothing will help any party (Lib Dems or Labour) when the system is so heavily stacked against them. (Yes, Labour won huge majorities under FPTP, but don't forget the boundary changes now coming into place that favour the Tories)

I meant more that I won't be voting for the LIb Dems, my decision on the voting system will be more or less about the system itself.

But why do you think it will lead to anything much different to what it would be now? I honestly can't see why people will change their voting patterns, as I mentioned in my previous post re tactical voting. Maybe you can help me out, as I'm struggling to see the benefits of AV over FPTP (I don't like either system)

 

[DTES]

He should have thought this through before getting into bed with them, then.

If he hadn't got "into bed with them", there would be no referendum on any reform whatsoever, so I'm not really sure what relevance this point has to the AV debate?

 

[DTES]

I honestly can't see why people will change their voting patterns, as I mentioned in my previous post re tactical voting. Maybe you can help me out, as I'm struggling to see the benefits of AV over FPTP (I don't like either system)

Think we must have posted at the same time! See my post further up this page

 

[Seagull27]

In a word, no.

In terms of keeping out a particular person, it doesn't matter if you put them 1st or 12th as long as they're above the party you want to keep out. It's all about reaching 50% - if they reach 50% then it doesn't matter which party your vote is for as they've got more than all the others put together.

It eliminates tactical voting in the sense that you can put your first choice for someone who you think has no chance but still express a preference out of the "big two" - currently your first choice party will be massively under-represented as voters will completely ignore them just to keep out Labour/Tories

But in real terms that only helps the minority party voters like the BNP/UKIP? as most Green/lib dem candidates are unlikely to finish last?

 

[Simster]

If he hadn't got "into bed with them", there would be no referendum on any reform whatsoever, so I'm not really sure what relevance this point has to the AV debate?

Well for this parliament, he should have allowed the Tories to form a minority government instead of allowing a referendum on AV.

He could have waited until an election some time in the future when his party genuinely held the balance of power (i.e. was in a position to choose which major party to form a government with) and then joined forces with the party that granted his wish of a referendum on PR. Not only is this what the Lib Dems actually campaign for, but also it is likely to have far more support than AV.

Of course, he might yet find himself in that position, but the problem is that the two bigger parties are probably going to be less happy about granting a referendum on voting reform, given that we'll have only just had one.

 

[Gritt23]

Personally, I think it’s a clear “NO” vote, unless the referendum offers the choice of “NO – don’t be so ridiculous”.

The arguments for it, appear to just confuse it with PR. It is the old PR group who just seem delighted by the fact that we have the chance to change the voting system as they have campaigned for so long on the mantra that FPTP is intrinsically unfair. The chance to change it (to PR) was always dependant upon the Liberals finally having enough power to force a referendum. Hung parliament gives us a coalition and bingo, the chance arrives and Nick Clegg shows all the inabilities to deliver something that has unfortunately destroyed his creditability, by walking out of the meeting with PR … no, hang on, AV. Where instead of a proportion of the Parliament being representative of the proportion of the electorate who voted for them (I don’t like the idea, but I understand the logic), we end up with a system that seems to just go through a series of rounds of counts, eliminating the votes of the least popular and re-assigning those votes to their second choice etc, until we reach a stage where someone eventually gets a majority of the votes, albeit a collection of 1st votes, 2nd votes etc.

Firstly, let’s just look at whose ALTERNATIVE vote gets used? Well, first up it’s going to be those who have voted for the most ludicrous candidate, as they are the candidate with the lowest votes. So, stage 2 is to add the alternative votes (2nd choice) of the 178 people who voted for The Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party. Oh great, we really CARE about who THEY thought was second best!

Secondly, where else have we seen this sort of election, and does it end up with a fair result? Hmm, it does ring a bell. One round of voting, to eliminate a candidate, then it goes to the next round, eliminating a candidate etc, until we have a clear majority, or a last man standing. A-ha, I’ve got it. It’s the system used by FIFA for the World Cup hosts!!! Well, with such a well respected electoral system as that endorsing it, it must be a winner.

Thirdly, how ruddy long will it take to count the votes, if you have to keep going back to the ballot papers and add in the next alternative vote of the various ballots. Can parties order a re-count at each stage because they are worried that switching to the alternative votes of the BNP voters would hinder them, but the alternative votes of the Greens would be to their benefit?

But my over-riding problem is that I just don’t see the benefit of it at all, and have no particular grasp of the argument that this gives a fairer system. If virtually everyone takes the vanilla-route of putting the Lib-Dems down as their first AV, then the chances are they will win seats when then had the 3rd highest number of 1st votes. Is that really more democratic?

It’s a desire to change because people have got entrenched in believing FPTP is unfair, but if I was pushed on the matter I’d say this is worse. Maybe I could be persuaded that it’s “no worse” if someone could put together arguments I have missed, but better? No, I can’t see that it could possibly be better, in which case I revert to my view in the workplace, whereby I strongly argue against any “change for changes sake.” There has to be a clear benefit attached to the upheaval of change, and I certainly don’t see it here.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

The bottom line with me is that FPTP nearly two thirds of MPs are elected by under half the votes of their constituency. That is plainly unfair. Under AV at least you can have a say by using a second or third vote. It's by no means perfect but I think better and fairer than the present system.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Nothing will help any party (Lib Dems or Labour) when the system is so heavily stacked against them. (Yes, Labour won huge majorities under FPTP, but don't forget the boundary changes now coming into place that favour the Tories)

As labour changed them to suit the Labour voters.

 

[Acker79]

A "No" vote on Thursday will (rightly or wrongly) be taken as a statement that the population is happy with FPTP, particularly by a Conservative party who will take any excuse to avoid reform. They only gave us this referendum as a price to secure the coalition; there is no chance they'll ever offer another one as it stands.

But a yes vote will simply push voting reform off the agenda for the foreseeable future, and we will be lumbered with a system only slightly more fair than the existing shambles.

I think it depends on how emphatic the decisions is. If it's only a small win either way it will be revsited, if it's a stonking win either way it won't be.

I don't understand how it will stop tactical voting. If I was, say, a lib dem voter in a mostly labour/conservative constituency, I'd still have to vote tactically - constituencies generally have more than 5/6 candidates, and in the vast majority of cases, lib dem votes will be 3rd or 4th. Therefore, my first vote is more than likely to be the only one counted, even if I do vote lib dem, as the minority candidates will be eliminated first and the election probably decided before my second choice is considered. This is something I've been confused about for a while, am I right?

In theory, I think it would mean you put lib dem 1st, and everyone puts their first choice first, then it gives a true reflection of support in that the (perhaps) misconception that one party won't get enough to win will often cause them to get fewer votes because people don't think it will do any good, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I genuinely wonder sometimes how previous votes would have panned out if people voted for the person they wanted instead of the person with the best chance of keeping out the one they want least, how many people would have got a candidate they wanted but didn't think had a chance.

After that, the tactical voting will probably come back in, though I'd like to think people would work through a genuine preference list, I'm not that naive, the tactical voting will probably increase outside of first choices.

 

[DTES]

Of course, he might yet find himself in that position, but the problem is that the two bigger parties are probably going to be less happy about granting a referendum on voting reform, given that we'll have only just had one.

Of course, you could apply this whichever way Thursday's result goes. IMHO, as long as those in power can use the argument "the people have shown their support for FPTP" then a No vote will be even worse for those wanting PR further down the line.

Well for this parliament, he should have allowed the Tories to form a minority government instead of allowing a referendum on AV.

Don't get me wrong, I don't at all support what Clegg has done while in power - he should have voted against tuition fees, and should be destroying the NHS reforms that go directly against the coalition agreement not to impose top-down reforms. However back in May '10, for me Clegg had no choice. A government which is made up entirely of Tories would still have done everything "bad" that the coalition has done - and more. Choosing to sit on the sidelines rather than get involved and attempt to actually influence policy (as much as 57 MPs out of 364 in the government can actually do) would have been cowardly, pointless and would have deserved to lose every vote they ever had.

 

[beorhthelm]

the one thing that AV will do is allow far more protesting voting. you can happily vote for Green/Socialist Worker/UKIP/Raving Looney/BNP/independent, happy in the knowledge that only your second vote will actually count. if we see upswings to say 5, 7, 10% for these fringe parties nationally, maybe it will press the case for PR.

 

[DTES]

As labour changed them to suit the Labour voters.

Absolutely. The "big two" have always tried to fix the system to help them while they were each in power. Given that only 65% of voters actually vote for either of them (May '10) we need a system that doesn't let them do this. AV is a step in the right direction.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp-G-GeZS00

The last third of this video sums up AV voting perfectly.

 

[Seagull27]

I think it depends on how emphatic the decisions is. If it's only a small win either way it will be revsited, if it's a stonking win either way it won't be.




In theory, I think it would mean you put lib dem 1st, and everyone puts their first choice first, then it gives a true reflection of support in that the (perhaps) misconception that one party won't get enough to win will often cause them to get fewer votes because people don't think it will do any good, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The problem is, I don't know why it would benefit a lib dem voter in that situation to not vote tactically anymore than it would under the current system, as the likelyhood is that their first vote will be counted, there wont be enough rounds for the second vote to be counted and therfore the first vote be wasted


All in all, I think both systems are pretty crap, neither offers a better chance of PR and I'm not even sure I'll vote at all. Much the same attitude I am increasingly having towards British politicsa unfortunately