Well that's fine for someone who, like you, wants one particular candidate and has absolutely no preference between all the other candidates. But that's not the case for most voters. A lot of people have a favourite candidate but also have an opinion on which of the other candidates they prefer. AV allows them to express that. The whole point of an election is to allow the public to express its collective opinion in the context of producing a parliament and government that are as far as possible both representative and stable. A system that better represents the views of voters would therefore be a good thing.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
That AV Vote
- Thread starter Dandyman
- Start date
Well that's fine for someone who, like you, wants one particular candidate and has absolutely no preference between all the other candidates. But that's not the case for most voters. A lot of people have a favourite candidate but also have an opinion on which of the other candidates they prefer. AV allows them to express that. The whole point of an election is to allow the public to express its collective opinion in the context of producing a parliament and government that are as far as possible both representative and stable. A system that better represents the views of voters would therefore be a good thing.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,964
Yes, no-one sayings it's not.
The point is that under AV getting the most votes wouldn't in itself be winning, getting a majority of votes would be.
If people need a sporting metaphor think of it as a test match.
England get bowled out for 150
India make 600 runs and declare with two and a half games to go.
England bat out and end with 350-9.
Result is a Draw
Superphil
Dismember
Really? I'm not so sure most people have other candidates in mind as alterntaives. I guess we'll see after the vote on AV then.
So, my vote for candidate A is counted only as 1 vote because candidate B almost got as many votes (he/she lost). Other peoples votes for C & D then get dumped and their extra votes get added onto either A or B, whereas because I know my own mind and didn't have an AV, I don't get any 'extra' votes.
Vote No poeple, when you vote, you vote for who you want, that's it, One Life, One Person, One Vote.
Life After Bobby
New member
I'm more in the no to AV yes to PR camp. I think if we brought in AV, when the public realises that it doesn't really make any difference it will make it much harder to discuss further changes to the electoral system.
However I also strongly believe that whatever system we do have - and there is no perfect system so we shouldn't search for one - needs to maintain the constituency link for MPs. I quite like the idea of keeping first past the post for the Commons but then having PR for the Lords/second chamber (or part of it). Opponents might argue this could undermine the legitimacy of the Commons, but there is no reason for it to if the roles and responsibilities are clearly defined
Actually, that's not the case. The official campaign easily has as many Labour supporters (including former MPs) running it.
However I also strongly believe that whatever system we do have - and there is no perfect system so we shouldn't search for one - needs to maintain the constituency link for MPs. I quite like the idea of keeping first past the post for the Commons but then having PR for the Lords/second chamber (or part of it). Opponents might argue this could undermine the legitimacy of the Commons, but there is no reason for it to if the roles and responsibilities are clearly defined
Actually, that's not the case. The official campaign easily has as many Labour supporters (including former MPs) running it.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
I think this misses the point. It's nothing to do with 'knowing your own mind'. In the vast majority of constituencies it's completely pointless voting for anyone other than the big 3 parties because the alternatives have no chance of winning. This is down as much (probably much more) to their party politics and large advertising budgets as it is to their actual amenity and ability as an MP. The AV system at least allows you to vote for the person you actually want to support without completely throwing away your vote.
Horton's halftime iceberg
Blooming Marvellous
I voted PR however will vote Yes to AV as I first past the post is well past its sell by date, none of the partys use it, most people around the country do not vote because their vote is pointless if the live in one of the many rotton boroughs.
Best of two poor systems, will hopefully get some of the rotton MP's having to apeal to more of their electorate.
Best of two poor systems, will hopefully get some of the rotton MP's having to apeal to more of their electorate.
But isn't it a case that there are still lists, e.g. people will get into parliament who have not been directly elected, i.e. not chosen at a constituency level?
Like I say, I'm not 100% opposed to PR, but I must admit I'm slightly depressed at the number of people who are opposed to any sort of change.
Absolutely. I wonder if the people who are opposed to change are in constituencies where their candidate won? Superphil may indeed 'know his own mind', but I bet the person he voted for also got loads of votes from people who simply didn't want the Labour/Tory/Libdem getting in, but the candidate will still say "all these people voted FOR me." AV will make the whole system a bit more honest and a bit more positive with less people voting AGAINST someone.
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
I have also been very surprised at the people on here wanting to maintain the status quo, to be honest I'd always viewed the move to AV (in the absence of any other alternatives to FPTP) as something of a no-brainer.
Dandyman
In London village.
- Thread starter
- #51
Sorry , but totally disagree. Second preference votes under AV mean a vote for someone you dislike less than another candidate.It does not mean more chance of representation for parties that have significant national but minority (less than 50%) local support.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,993
i can see your point. however, i have a vision/naivety that we could be goverened by people that start from an ideological position and adjust their execution of policies to fit a broader consensus. at least, thats a better way to go than starting in the middle and shuflfling around to somewhere else in the middle, with no real direction or vision. people are apathetic enough as they view parties as all being the same, AV will encourage even more homogeny. Unlike full PR where parties can also start out with clear blue/red/green/yellow water around them to attract a vote from some substatinal minority group.
it will certainly encourage tactical voting, its one of the "yes" sides claims that doing so will have more weight.
It can also technically lead to a 3rd or even 4th favorite in the first round winning. probably unlikly in practice, though 2nd preference will be very likly and probably happen alot.
Last edited:
Anyone claiming that some people get more than one vote is missing the point. EVERYONE gets the same number of votes. Each round (after someone is knocked out), the voting in effect starts again. Then:
a) If your first choice candidate is still in, you vote again and it still counts for that first choice
b) If your first choice candidate has been knocked out, you vote again and it counts for your second choice candidate.
c) This continues until one candidate has received over half of all the votes.
It works exactly the same way as, for example, the French presidential election whereas after the first round (if no-one gets 50%) they then have a second round a few weeks later and everyone votes again between whoever is left. The only difference is that AV is instant rather than waiting a few weeks, and making everybody walk to the polling station again...
a) If your first choice candidate is still in, you vote again and it still counts for that first choice
b) If your first choice candidate has been knocked out, you vote again and it counts for your second choice candidate.
c) This continues until one candidate has received over half of all the votes.
It works exactly the same way as, for example, the French presidential election whereas after the first round (if no-one gets 50%) they then have a second round a few weeks later and everyone votes again between whoever is left. The only difference is that AV is instant rather than waiting a few weeks, and making everybody walk to the polling station again...
Tony Meolas Loan Spell
Slut Faced Whores
So in theory an election could take WEEKS as opposed to a couple of days. Brilliant.
In Australia, where single constituencies cover areas FAR larger than here, the result of an AV election is known within 24 hours. Where are you getting this statement from?
Superphil
Dismember
That seems OKish to me, at least it means that you Only vote for someone you want, and no-one else gets any 'extra' votes when their choice of candidate doesn't win (loses). If my choice fails to make it to the next round (loses), then I can choose not to vote, or to vote for someone else (unlikely), likewise, everyone else is in the same boat, at least it is a fair representation of who the voters Want to vote for, not who they would Accept.
Forgive me for sounding stupid, but it is a Friday lunchtime and it's been a long week... I can't work out if you're saying it's fine if it's a few weeks later (but not AV), or whether you're saying you can see it as a point in favour of AV.
It is exactly the same as AV except that AV happens straight away: you can choose not to vote for another candidate (don't put an option 2), or can vote for someone else (do put an option 2) or, if they're still in, (automatically) vote for the same candidate again.
Other than timing, there is no difference...
Make your mind up. Either it will have a significant effect or it won't. Your argument is all over the place.
And I don't agree with your homogeny argument either. Maybe economic policy will become increasingly homogenous, but actually I think that's a force for the good. In other ways, I think we might actually see less homogeny.
Some of you that don't understand AV here are missing 2 major points.
Firstly, there are never 2 candidates in general elections here. Secondly, there is a difference between a plural majority (having more votes than any other candidate) and an absolute majority (having most of the votes put together). AV attempts to address the problem that winning candidates are only supported by a minority of the electorate. By offering a second preference, voters can vote sincerely for their first choice and use their second preference to give their backing to an alternative candidate should their first choice be eliminated, but they still wish to vote against a potential winner.
AV isn't perfect but it is a fairer system than FPTP whilst retaining constituency representation (which PR would remove).
Firstly, there are never 2 candidates in general elections here. Secondly, there is a difference between a plural majority (having more votes than any other candidate) and an absolute majority (having most of the votes put together). AV attempts to address the problem that winning candidates are only supported by a minority of the electorate. By offering a second preference, voters can vote sincerely for their first choice and use their second preference to give their backing to an alternative candidate should their first choice be eliminated, but they still wish to vote against a potential winner.
AV isn't perfect but it is a fairer system than FPTP whilst retaining constituency representation (which PR would remove).