That AV Vote

[Kalimantan Gull]

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.

I admire your determination,. can I ask, is the party you vote for one of the big 3? is it the current holder of your constituency, or came a clear second?

I want the Green party to win the election and form a government. I vote for them, and they never win (I don't vote in Brighton). Thats OK, that's democracy. But the rub is, if you were offering me a choice of just Labour or Conservative, I would have a very definite opinion. And that is of course the actual, real-life choice for our country, no way round it. AV allows me to make that choice, as well as support the party of my first choice; and most importantly for me, it allows all those other green party supporters to vote for the greens instead of their usual tactical vote so maybe, just maybe, things will change in the future.

 

[Igor Gurinovich?]

I will be voting no, solely on the basis that this is proposed by Clegg and his band of Tory flunkies. Not the usual approach i would take to politics but i just cant stand him

 

[beorhthelm]

Make your mind up. Either it will have a significant effect or it won't. Your argument is all over the place.

they are two seperate points, the first is the overall result, the second is the constituency result. i dont believe (and commentry ive seen suggests) there will be a substantial change nationally, due to the same old north/south/ricg/poor/urban/rural tribal voting patterns. but in some individual constituencies we will see final round results differing from first round counts. the two points can live quite happily along side each other.

 

[DTES]

I will be voting no, solely on the basis that this is proposed by Clegg and his band of Tory flunkies. Not the usual approach i would take to politics but i just cant stand him

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)
Nigel Farage (UKIP)
Robin Tilbrook (English Democrats)
Alan Craig (Christian People's Alliance)

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

If I was going to base my vote on how much it would damage party leaders I don't like, I'd definitely want to damage the No list...

 

[Superphil]

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...

There is a bit of a difference, you make your choice on polling day. If your choice loses, and it goes to a second vote, then you have time to consider the options, listen further to the remaining candidates and make a more informed decision, which may be to vote for one other candidate, or decide against voting altogether.

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).

I genuinely don't know the answer to this, when was that choice made, and by whom? Perhaps there should be a vote on that first, do people want plural majority, or absolute?

I admire your determination,. can I ask, is the party you vote for one of the big 3? is it the current holder of your constituency, or came a clear second?

The candidate I voted for was one of the 'big' three, and he came third, he lost. He wasn't the current holder of my constituency, he came no-where near second, but he was the one I wanted in. I've got over it, and I will probably vote for him or his party next time.

 

[Don Quixote]

I will be voting no to AV, it is a ridiculous way to vote.

 

[DTES]

There is a bit of a difference, you make your choice on polling day. If your choice loses, and it goes to a second vote, then you have time to consider the options, listen further to the remaining candidates and make a more informed decision, which may be to vote for one other candidate, or decide against voting altogether.

But can't you listen to all the candidates before election day? The campaign goes on for bloody weeks (if not months), so listen in advance, ask yourself which you'd vote for if your first choice were knocked out, and then mark a "2" next to whoever you want. If you decide you can't vote for any of them, don't put a second choice.

I agree that you need to listen to them and consider who your second choice should be (if there is one), but just do it at the same time as the first choice vote. It is different but, as above, it's only a difference of timing.

 

[Brovion]

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.

But surely you agree that people currently vote tactically? E.g. you're a Labour supporter in a Tory constituency. You want to vote Labour but you reckon (going on previous elections) that the LibDem has more chance of getting in - so you vote for them instead. You've now been recorded as a LibDem 'supporter' despite the fact that, as you say, it's just someone you dislike less than the Tory. Under AV you can vote for your 'own' party.

This tactical voting means we don't know what people really want. I'm sure the Greens would get a lot more votes but people think "Where I live voting Green is a waste so I'll vote Lib Dem instead."

You're right though that real minority parties may never win seats but may get 5% of the vote nationally. Should they get 5% of the seats in a parliament? Being a PR supporter you'd probably say 'yes'. I'm not so sure.

 

[Superphil]

Remember, I don't want either option, at all. But yes, that is true, but the delay might help people like me to reconsider, and also with the full knowledge of who is left in the poll, before I decided. As it stands right now, whatever happens, I would only choose one candidate, but if there was a period of contemplation between polling days, even stallwarts like me might be encouraged to make a second choice, but if it's all on the same day, then it is never going to happen with me.

 

[Superphil]

You're right though that real minority parties may never win seats but may get 5% of the vote nationally. Should they get 5% of the seats in a parliament? Being a PR supporter you'd probably say 'yes'. I'm not so sure.

That seems fair to me

 

[keaton]

Remember, I don't want either option, at all. But yes, that is true, but the delay might help people like me to reconsider, and also with the full knowledge of who is left in the poll, before I decided. As it stands right now, whatever happens, I would only choose one candidate, but if there was a period of contemplation between polling days, even stallwarts like me might be encouraged to make a second choice, but if it's all on the same day, then it is never going to happen with me.

Why though? It's the same thing but without the incredibly costly 2nd/3rd/4th polling day required

 

[nwgull]

The only arguments I've heard from the 'No' camp have been that it takes too long to count and/or is too expensive, and the slightly condescending argument that it's too confusing for us, the electorate, to understand. Apart from these being minor factors (IMO) in relation to the benefit of having a more representatively elected government, both the arguments have been shown to be false by using Australia as an example.

A definite yes for me.

 

[Set of Tracksuits]

I'm a yes, but I'd prefer PR.

Our MP won with 38% of the vote at the last election, which to me suggests she doesn't have a mandate to represent her constituents.

If the second votes of the losing candidates eventually took her over the 50% threshold then I'd feel a lot happier about it, even though I don't support the party she stands for.

 

[Waynflete]

Okay, looking at the poll as it stands:

25 have voted for AV
21 have voted for FPTP
10 have voted for PR

So no result has 50% or more. Under the AV system everyone who voted for PR is now eliminated and we take your second preferences into account. Which is it you ten? AV or FPTP?

 

[Superphil]

If I had voted PR, then I would now go to the pub or do some work, or something else, I wouldn't allow my vote to be used for the either of the others. If that was what I voted for, then my vote doesn't get heard. What about the other 9 then?

 

[Pavilionaire]

The last election proved that we, as a nation, cannot get our heads around anything else than FPTP.

This has to change because too many votes are rendered meaningless in a General Election and voter apathy has set in. Everybody's vote has to have significance and I believe AV helps in this regard.

However, the politicians have to give the voters something worth voting for. The childish bickering has to stop and some proper, grown-up debate and imaginative policy proposals are required.

Parties have to campaign differently; the Lib Dems got into power by proposing policies they were never going to be able to deliver unless they won a majority of the seats, and this was NEVER going to happen. However, they should not be pilloried for this; it's presently the way the electorate demands its parties to behave. If Clegg had been more flexible and less clear about his party's policies then they would never have got into power in the first place. They are victims of their own success.

Future campaigns need to be based more on ideas where the debates are played out in public. That way the voters get a better idea of who to place as their second choice and the parties have a better idea of who they can co-exist with and who they can't.

I think consensus politics inherently is more grown up, and given most of our sovereignty is with Brussels I'm comfortable with a coalition here in the UK.

 

[keaton]

The last election proved that we, as a nation, cannot get our heads around anything else than FPTP.

.

How?

 

[Simster]

I will be voting no to AV, it is a ridiculous way to vote.

Maybe, but not as ridiculous as the current utterly retarded system.

 

[Pavilionaire]

How?

Tory voters were angry they were having to do a deal with the Lib Dems. Your traditional Lib Dems voter is left of centre and would rather have done a deal with Labour - a lot more of the key policies would have been taken on board than with the Tories. Labour lost power altogether partly because they didn't get their shit together to make the Lib Dems a decent offer. Last of all, the voters appear hostile to the Lib Dems for policy u-turns and hostile to the Tories for not being good enough to win the election outright.

Consequently, a Labour Party bereft of policies and inspiration, led by Lame duck muppet Red Ed and 'Architect Of Destruction' Balls are comfortably ahead in the polls without having done any work to regain that lead.

FPTP is a shambles and must be replaced.

 

[cliveh27]

First of all, the current system is NOT "First Past the Post". Just what "post" are we talking about? No - the current system elects the candidate who is most popular.

The main problem with AV is the value that is given to second and third preference votes. If I give Candidate A my first choice and Candidate B my second choice, and Candidate A is then eliminated, it would not be correct to say that I now favour Candidate B with the same fervour that I supported Candidate A. I may give him/her only grudging support or, at worst, I may have put him/her in second place just to stop Candidate C from getting in. The vote I have therefore given to Candidate B does not, therefore, carry the same weight as the vote I gave to Candidate A. In other words, AV delivers the "least worst" choice which, as far as I am concerned, delivers a weakened parliament.