If you were pro Proportional Representation...

[beorhthelm]

you think the result should be a No?

yep, why not? as i say, other legislatures seem to think this is fine for significant changes to their political processes and consitutions. the broader point is why arent we even discussing these refinments and changes to the political system, many of which render the AV debate a side show. do we want constituencies? do we want compulsary voting? do we want a directly elected executive? all such issues have been apparently decided for us.

 

[Titanic]

The argument for AV over FPTP is that the winner needs to reach a certain percentage (50%) of those who care enough to vote.

AV does not guarantee that the winner will get 50% of the vote.

The expectation is that a large proportion of the electorate will only vote for one candidate, and many others will not go all the way down through the list which would be necessary to ensure a 50% vote.

 

[DTES]

yep, why not?

Because, IMHO, if 74% of the population in a "democracy" are in favour of something (anything), and absolutely nobody is opposed, then it is madness not to implement it. Obviously we'll just have to agree to disagree here...

I agree though that there are many more debates to be had, r.e. constituencies, compulsory voting etc. I'd be more than happy to have these debates. However - firstly AV is (currently) more than a side show as there is a referendum on it in a matter of days, and secondly I don't see any possibility of the country ever having those other debates - those in charge have too much vested interest to allow it to happen...

 

[DTES]

AV does not guarantee that the winner will get 50% of the vote.

The expectation is that a large proportion of the electorate will only vote for one candidate, and many others will not go all the way down through the list which would be necessary to ensure a 50% vote.

Sorry - I'll rephrase. AV guarantees that the winner will get 50% of the votes in the final round. It also guarantees that the winner will be preferred by the majority (of those who have bothered to vote) to the candidate that they beat.

If somebody has chosen not to vote (either at all, or just in terms of a second preference etc) then that is their choice. Without compulsory voting, you can apply the "they didn't really win as some people didn't vote) argument to absolutely any election under any system...

 

[Titanic]

Sorry - I'll rephrase. AV guarantees that the winner will get 50% of the votes in the final round...

NO. It doesn't. This would only be GUARANTEED if EVERYONE had to express a preference for EVERY candidate.

Perhaps you would like to rephrase it again?

 

[DTES]

NO. It doesn't. This would only be GUARANTEED if EVERYONE had to express a preference for EVERY candidate.

Perhaps you would like to rephrase it again?

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.

 

[DTES]

On a separate note, at least NSC itself is being impartial and displaying massive adverts from both camps across the top, and not just NO adverts.

Oh.

 

[Stoo82]

....

 

[Storer 68]

As AV (merely a small tweak t o our present systesm to re distribute votes in a constituency) is now where near Proportional representation (ie a fair representation of parties in parliament based on the total number of votes cast for them in an election), I don't see the point in taking part.

its a bit like BHA fans worrying desperatly this season about the play offs. Totally pointless

 

[beorhthelm]

On a separate note, at least NSC itself is being impartial and displaying massive adverts from both camps across the top, and not just NO adverts.

to be fair, NSC can only show the ads provided, if the Yes campaign arent paying for ads, they wont show.

(though it might be possible to manipulate by blocking ads)

 

[DTES]

to be fair, NSC can only show the ads provided, if the Yes campaign arent paying for ads, they wont show.

(though it might be possible to manipulate by blocking ads)

Yeah, I know. It wasn't intended as a genuine complaint against NSC/Bozza.

 

[cliveh27]

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

 

[Bold Seagull]

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

I do believe that while you're comment may well be true, AV is a step toward PR, whereas a no vote is a step away. Vote no and any voting reforms whatsoever might be off the agenda for a generation, vote yes and while PR will still be off the agenda, the next time voting reform comes on, it is the next step.

There is little surprise that a ruling party (whether Tory or Labour) with only 36% of the vote but with 47% of the seats, and in turn in power, is going to want to keep the status quo.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

I would vote 'yes to AV'. As mentioned about, it could well be a stepping stone.

But no Country has even gone from AV to PR?

 

[8ace]

I have just seen Referendum Campaign Broadcast about it: basically if you like going to the pub you should vote YES but if you prefer drinking coffee you should vote NO.

 

[Bold Seagull]

But no Country has even gone from AV to PR?

So we have the chance to lead the world in voting reforms and fairer representation! (if what you say is true...)

 

[RexCathedra]

Smells like team spirit. Instead of a dispassionate discussion of the merits of AV, and the occasional wise reference to Arrow's paradox, and the Marquis de Condorcet, everyone wants to know what it will do to their party at the next general election.

Which is not to say that Nick Clegg's ego isn't the only man-made structure in Britain readily visible from the International Space Station.

Because it is.

 

[pork pie]

...would you vote for or against AV?

Here is my position: I would rather have AV than the current system, but am not sure that it provides much more of a benefit. It would give the LibDems a handful more seats in most elections, but rarely will it make a real difference.

On the other hand, I think Clegg is a total sellout wanker so I would love to see him lose. And more importantly, I can't help wondering whether we'd be better off with the current ridiculous voting system for a few more years until it becomes a glaring anomoly that is in need of reforming properly.

So in the view of NSC, do you think PR will ever be on the table?

In one word - "NO". Our voting system is one person one vote, and the person with the most votes wins - and that is how it should stay.

PR and AV are just something wanted by the gay libs because nobody actually wants them, but they they think they would be preferable to the other main party. I wonder what people will think if AV or PR were to result in the BNP getting more seats? I know that a lot of people would certainly vote for them if I was asked to make an AV instead of the Conservatives, and I suspect a lot of Labour voters would feel the same way.

 

[SI 4 BHA]

If this works for the Germans who are without doubt the most prosperous and financially secure nation in the EU, surely we should go for this? How did we get involved in a vote for AV, that almost no other country now uses?

Mixed-Member Proportional Voting

Mixed-member proportional representation goes by a variety of other names, including "the additional member system," "compensatory PR," the "two vote system," and "the German system." It is an attempt to combine a single-member district system with a proportional voting system. Half of the members of the legislature are elected in single-member district plurality contests. The other half are elected by a party list vote and added on to the district members so that each party has its appropriate share of seats in the legislature. Proponents claim that mixed-member proportional voting (MMP) is the best of both worlds: providing the geographical representation and close constituency ties of single-member plurality voting along with the fairness and diversity of representation that comes with PR voting.

This system was originally invented in West Germany right after World War Two, though since then it has also been adopted in several other countries, including Bolivia and Venezuela. It is still one of the least used PR systems, but in recent years it has begun to garner a great deal of attention. In fact, it is now one of the "hottest" systems being considered by those involved in electoral design. In part this growing attention is a result of MMP’s unique claim to be a "compromise" between the two main rival systems. In the 1990s New Zealand abandoned its traditional single-member plurality system for MMP. Hungary also adopted this approach. Most recently, the newly formed parliaments of Scotland and Wales used this system for their first elections.

How It Works. People cast votes on a double ballot--see the ballot below. First, on the left part of the ballot, they vote for a district representative. This part of the ballot is a single-member district plurality contest to see which person will represent the district in the legislature. The person with the most votes wins. Typically half of the seats in the legislature are filled in this way. So in a hypothetical 100-member state legislature, the winners of these district contests would occupy 50 of the seats.

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Ballot



On the right part of the ballot--the party list portion--voters indicate their choice among the parties, and the other half of the seats in the legislature are filled from regional lists of candidates chosen by these parties. The party lists are closed in the German version. These party list votes are counted on a national basis to determine the total portion of the 100-seat legislature that each party deserves. Candidates from each party’s lists are then added to its district winners until that party achieves its appropriate share of seats. The following table illustrates how this process works for our hypothetical election. The Democrats won 40% of the party list votes in the 100-member state legislature, so they would be entitled to a total of 40 of the 100 seats. Since they already elected 28 of their candidates in district elections, they would then add 12 more from their regional party lists to come up to their quota of 40 seats.

Allocation of Seats in MMP



In the German version two electoral thresholds are used, either of which a party must overcome to be allotted seats in the legislature. A party must either get 5% of the nationwide party list vote or win at least three district races in order for it to gain any seats in the legislature. In our hypothetical case, the New Party did not win any district seats, but they did win over 5% of the nationwide vote, so they deserve their share of legislative seats--which in this case would be six seats, all of which would be filled from the regional party lists.

One variation of the mixed-member system is called "parallel voting." It uses the same double ballot, but it differs in that the party list seats are simply divided proportionately among the parties then added to the district winners, with not attempt to ensure proportional representation for parties in the legislature. For this reason, this voting system is usually classified as a semiproportional system.

Political Attributes. MMP has a number of advantages over plurality-majority voting. It produces more accurate representation of parties in legislatures, while also ensuring that each local district has a representative. It gives voters more choices of parties at the polls, increases voter turnout, and wastes far fewer votes. This form of PR also reduces the creation of manufactured majorities. In addition, it assures fair representation for third parties, racial minorities, and women. On the other hand, gerrymandering is possible in the single-member districts used by this system. Also, MMP creates two different types of representatives, those who represent districts and those who represent parties. Finally, like all PR systems, MMP usually results in coalitions governments, not single-party governments.

 

[Sajerz]

In one word - "NO". Our voting system is one person one vote, and the person with the most votes wins - and that is how it should stay.

PR and AV are just something wanted by the gay libs because nobody actually wants them, but they they think they would be preferable to the other main party. I wonder what people will think if AV or PR were to result in the BNP getting more seats? I know that a lot of people would certainly vote for them if I was asked to make an AV instead of the Conservatives, and I suspect a lot of Labour voters would feel the same way.

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.