Yes. Unless a future government brought through legislation to change it again to a different system and held another referendum. Realistically that wouldn't happen for a long time.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
That AV Vote
- Thread starter Dandyman
- Start date
Yes. Unless a future government brought through legislation to change it again to a different system and held another referendum. Realistically that wouldn't happen for a long time.
I think that's my main concern with full PR. Even maintaining a constituency link if say the Barking Mad party got 5% of the votes. I would be 'uncomfortable' with the idea of them having 5% of the seats simply on the grounds it was 'fair'.
West Hoathly Seagull
Honorary Ruffian
I'll be voting No to AV. For me, this is a trojan horse for the Lib Dems. The Conservatives will almost certainly lose next time; though I am a Tory, I can well understand people's opposition to the cuts: fair enough, they are well over the top - I would have gone for Darling's cuts plus say 5%, certainly not the 20% they have done. However, I would rather there was a decisive result in that case. I can see the argument for AV: the likes of Charles Hendry, Greg Barker, Francis Maude and Andrew Tyrie do not really need to campaign at General Elections to win their seats. If I thought that was where it would remain, I would be quite happy for AV to go through. As I have indicated, though, I suspect that if Labour needs the Lib Dems to form the next government, they will hold out for PR. That is why I am against it. I won't go into my reasons for being anti-PR for now.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,251
History has shown that the 2 main parties will score in the region of 28-45% of votes cast, with the Lib Dems 10-25% and minority parties on the increase. I'd say the political views of UK voters are becoming increasingly wide.
In order to win by a landslide Labour effectively had to take on some Tory policy, e.g. there was PFI but no renationalisation, no significant taxing of the rich, no giveaways to the poor. Similarly, if the Tories want to get a 1997-style landslide they'd have to adopt some Labour policies. All of this amounts to the same sort of compromises as goes on in a coalition anyway.
In order to win by a landslide Labour effectively had to take on some Tory policy, e.g. there was PFI but no renationalisation, no significant taxing of the rich, no giveaways to the poor. Similarly, if the Tories want to get a 1997-style landslide they'd have to adopt some Labour policies. All of this amounts to the same sort of compromises as goes on in a coalition anyway.
Superphil
Dismember
nwgull
Well-known member
Think about what you're saying here. To me it seems that you don't want the views of a proportion of the population to be represented because you don't agree with their policies. Who is anyone to decide whether a party's views and policies are right or wrong. If, for example, the BNP got 2% of the popular vote then it is right and democratic that they should be represented. We can't claim to have a democracy, but only allow parties with policies within certain limits to take part.
I have thought about it. And whilst it may be the ultimate in democratic systems to say "everyone's point of view should be represented in Parliament" I'm not sure it leads to good governance. Currently the major parties are broad churches of political opinion. As a general rule people don't go off and form their own parties because it's political suicide. But if all our 650 MPs were elected by PR then 2% of the national vote - a risible amount - gets you about 13 MPs. Your own little fifedom. I foresee a future in which there would be several 'George Galloway' style parties clogging up parliament and having to be taken seriously as potential coalition partners by minority governments. You might think that's great (and fair enough, it's a valid opinion), but I think it's too democratic.
withdeanwombat
Well-known member
I've got a question for the political buffs ; if this succeeds do I HAVE to number my votes ? I mean,I would be voting for the person I wanted to win,and would not wish to rank the others.Would a voting slip that had 1 against your choice,and the others blank constitute a spoiled ballot paper ?
sten_super
Brain Surgeon
No, that's a perfectly legitimate vote; you are under absolutely no duress to vote for more than one person if that is what you wish to do.
Nope, that's absolutely fine. As in the analogy I've used above in discussions with other posters, it would be the equivalent of voting for your candidate in the rounds they are included, and then abstaining in any rounds after they've been knocked out.
Australia (which uses AV) does have compulsory voting in every round (i.e. you have to number all candidates), but there is no plan to introduce that here.
EDIT: Oops, beaten to it by sten_super
blue2 - if you're a supporter of First Past The Post, maybe you can help me understand something that no other FPTP supporters have been able to answer. (I don't just mean on here, I even mean as part of the No campaign). What is "the post"? There is no "post" to get past as MPs can be elected with low figures (one MP was elected last year with 29% of the vote), so what does it really mean?
Interesting question actually - though this is mainly because a) I'm a complete geek and b) I need to pass some time while I'm waiting for a call in the office...
Yep - Fiji, Australia & Papua New Guinea is (almost) a complete list of the countries that currently use AV in the exact form we will use it.
There are a lot of countries though that use non-instant run-off voting (again, this is the same as AV except you have to go back and vote several times over several weeks rather than just marking on one form who you want to vote for in the second/third round if you can't vote for the same candidate again)
Then there is the vast majority of countries, who use neither, instead using multiple-winner systems - i.e. akin to PR. It'll be interesting to see if the No2AV campaign actually use the "look how many countries" argument, because it really isn't an argument for the status quo, rather it's an argument for PR...
If you really want the lists...
FPTP:
Antigua, Aruba, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Canada, Cayman Islands, DRC, Dominica, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Palau, Rwanda, SK&N, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Isl., Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvala, Uganda, UK, US, Yemen, Zambia & Zimbabwe. (Worth noting that most of these (including the obvious example of the US) don't have more than 2 parties - in such a case FPTP and AV is exactly the same.)
Run-off voting:
Australia, Belarus, CAR, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Fiji, France, Gabon, Guadeloupe, Haiti, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kiributi, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Mauritania, Monaco, Nauru, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
Multiple-winner voting systems:
Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Benin, Bermuda, Bolivia, Bosnia & H, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luzembourg, Madagascar, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Poland, Portugal, Macedonia, Romania, Russia, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome & P, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela
(and now I'm really bored and want to go home... ring damn phone, ring...)
It's a stupid name, whatever the outcome they should change it.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,993
its just a racing term isnt it, to describe the winner. i dont think its meant to be taken too literally. i dont think theres a good way to describe the method, so its just stuck, for want of a better name.
Racing parlance. Let's just call it MVW or Most Votes Win. I'm in favour of sticking with it, as we all know "change is bad". A fourth better option in my mind is what they've had in Belgium for the last year or so - no government at all. Everything over there still seems to be working OK - bins still collected, trains still run, I mean no one's died.
Spun Cuppa
Thanks Greens :(
FPTP and gaining more than 50% of the vote are not directly linked/implied I would have thought
In your example, someone won with 29% of the vote, but the crux is they got more than any single other candidate
I do agree in that case 71% wouldn't be represented by their favoured party
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,993
FPTP and gaining more than 50% of the vote are not directly linked/implied I would have thought
In your example, someone won with 29% of the vote, but the crux is they got more than any single other candidate
I do agree in that case 71% wouldn't be represented by their favoured party
where as in AV, you could have 71% not represented by their first choice, but by someone they rated 2nd or 3rd. not that different is it?