That AV Vote

[DTES]

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?

With AV you are guaranteed that, compared to any other individual candidate, the majority would prefer the winner.

In the example given, it's entirely possible that 1-v-1, 71% would prefer the candidate who came second to s/he who won, it's just there were so many candidates the first pref's were spread out.

In the example from earlier - as has happened in council elections - BNP 35%, Tory/Lab/Lib all 20-30% = 65% of the population would prefer anyone but BNP elected, however the BNP does win. All three would rather one of their "traditional" rivals won than the BNP, but the fact that there are three "main" parties means the winner slips through the net.

 

[Notters]

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 ?

Just don't complain if the BNP get in when you don't put 2 and 3 next to other candidates.

 

[beorhthelm]

In the example from earlier - as has happened in council elections - BNP 35%, Tory/Lab/Lib all 20-30% = 65% of the population would prefer anyone but BNP elected, however the BNP does win. All three would rather one of their "traditional" rivals won than the BNP, but the fact that there are three "main" parties means the winner slips through the net.

you are making an assumption no one would put BNP down as second or third preference. 10% of the tory vote and 10% of the labour vote put a 2 next to BNP and they are through. which is certainly alot more likly than 30% labour putting tory or vice versa , though Libs would probably pickup alot of 2nd prefernce and might come through the middle.

i dont see that "prefering" is really a solid basis for political mandate either. politics decided by the least disliked party, rather than most liked? its not a very positive or assertive way to do politics.

 

[RexCathedra]

Ignorant Yank question. How many MP candidates are sent out by Conservative Central, or its equivalent, to contest a particular constituency because they need a safe seat for a junior minister or whatever, or, conversely, because the seat's a lost cause and they're just taking one for Team Blue or Team Red? How many MP's are actually from their constituencies? Born and raised there, or the like?

If most MP's are coming from a free-floating pool of professional politicians anyways, isn't the argument against a list-based PR system weakened a bit?

 

[DTES]

i dont see that "prefering" is really a solid basis for political mandate either. politics decided by the least disliked party, rather than most liked? its not a very positive or assertive way to do politics.

At risk of just repeating myself here, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree However, yes, I do think that one of the absolute minimum criteria for a democracy is that the elected MP has majority support over any other candidate on the ballot paper.

If most MP's are coming from a free-floating pool of professional politicians anyways, isn't the argument against a list-based PR system weakened a bit?

Not really - for me at least it strengthens it, if anything. One of the main arguments in favour of FPTP (or indeed AV) is that it maintains the link between one MP and his constituents. Parachuting in candidates who have no link to the area (which you are right to suggest happens) can only weaken a link that would be stronger with a true local MP. With a weaker argument for the status quo, the argument to change is stronger, IMHO.

 

[APACHE]

The AV is worthless. Read the info carefully. It won't happen for awhile, if it's a Yes, and MP's get the final say. They won't vote themselves out of a job.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ignorant Yank question. ...

If most MP's are coming from a free-floating pool of professional politicians anyways, isn't the argument against a list-based PR system weakened a bit?

your "ignorant" question is spot on because thats exactly what happens. its not perfect world at the momemt but at least some MPs are genuine locals and there is scope for locals to come to prominance, PR only forces the political process to be centralised. no more "Kidderminster" (NHS Dr stood and won) or Martin Bell. but we'd have a few Greens (good for balance) and few Communists (bad for progress) getting elected instead. peoples general views might be represented better on a national level, but local issue would become less represented.

but anyway, AV is a fudge to get around whole debate. which is a shame as like most fudges, it doesnt really solve anything much.

 

[DTES]

The AV is worthless. Read the info carefully. It won't happen for awhile, if it's a Yes, and MP's get the final say. They won't vote themselves out of a job.

This is not true. The referendum bill that has already passed through both the Houses of Parliament binds the referendum result in law. If it's a Yes, the system changes - end of.

 

[Waynflete]

The AV is worthless. Read the info carefully. It won't happen for awhile, if it's a Yes, and MP's get the final say. They won't vote themselves out of a job.

What info should we read carefully? As DTES says the referendum is legally binding and will take effect for future general elections. No ambiguity and certainly not worthless. Would be interested to know what info you're referring to?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

As I see it if eg 10,000 people vote 5, 000 for A, 5000 for B but all 10000 for C as the 2nd choice, we would finish up with C as the MP who nobody wanted as first choice.

Agree...if you have AV...then you'll get a coalition government everytime,then bargaining politics,I'll give up A if you give up B

 

[Waynflete]

Agree...if you have AV...then you'll get a coalition government everytime,then bargaining politics,I'll give up A if you give up B

No. If you have PR then you get a coalition government every time, but as has already been pointed out AV is not a proportional system. Coalitions are barely more likely under AV than they are under FPTP, but the difference is the electorate gets to express itself in a more intelligent way.

 

[sten_super]

Agree...if you have AV...then you'll get a coalition government everytime,then bargaining politics,I'll give up A if you give up B

But don't you think that's a good thing? Unfortunately Clegg was all too eager to take the Tories offer of coalition, and ultimately ended up with little more than the forthcoming vote on AV, but the point of coalitions is that they can neuter the extremes of any sitting government. I'd much rather see the Tories in alongside someone with a degree of social conscience, or Labour in with someone who has some ideas about budget management, than these parties given free will to do as they please once elected.

 

[Danny-Boy]

Ignorant Yank question. How many MP candidates are sent out by Conservative Central, or its equivalent, to contest a particular constituency because they need a safe seat for a junior minister or whatever, or, conversely, because the seat's a lost cause and they're just taking one for Team Blue or Team Red? How many MP's are actually from their constituencies? Born and raised there, or the like?

If most MP's are coming from a free-floating pool of professional politicians anyways, isn't the argument against a list-based PR system weakened a bit?

God question. Both Cons and Lab use this approach. Until recently the LD's tended to pick locally.

 

[Triggaaar]

The politicians supporting AV are mainly pushing the idea that if you don't like politics, and you want change, you need AV.

The problem with politics is the bastards that choose to go into into it, not the voting.

 

[DTES]

Agree...if you have AV...then you'll get a coalition government everytime,then bargaining politics,I'll give up A if you give up B

Another lie that's consistently thrown about by the No2AV campaign.

UK - hung parliaments/coalitions under FPTP since 1900: 5
Canada - hung parliaments/coalitions under FPTP since 1900: 12

Australia - hung parliaments/coalitions under AV since 1900: 2

AV does not make coalitions more likely at all, let alone "everytime".

EDIT - SOTW: I'm not implying you personally are deliberately lying with my first sentence above. I was referring to the official No2AV campaign; it's quite understandable that people would believe it if they've seen/heard it several times, but (IMHO) the official campaign team must know the truth...

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

On 05 May 2011 the British public will have the chance to determine if they want Nick Clegg to decide who will form the future governments of the United Kingdom. The question is how will the boys and girls of NSC be voting ?

To nail my own colours to the mast, I am in the No to AV, yes to PR camp:

NO to AV, YES to PR | Demand real reform, not a


Unfortunately the official No to AV campaign was handed over to a gang of right-wing fruitcakes but that should not, IMO, distract people from the strong reasons for concluding that AV is a con which will be a block to real PR and the chance to mend our broken electoral sustem.

So, how will you vote and why ?

Not voting but if I did Id be for PR only. In my experience of PR this fear of not being represented is not realised ....... MPs are still assigned to constituencies and are still expected to look after them in case it damages the overall vote.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

The problem with voting for Acv is that you are doign exactly the thing you are trying to stop... voting for something you don't want to stop something you REALLY don't want.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

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'.

In Turkey this is solved by a party needing to get more than 5% of the vote to get any represnetation.

 

[ROSM]

But don't you think that's a good thing? Unfortunately Clegg was all too eager to take the Tories offer of coalition, and ultimately ended up with little more than the forthcoming vote on AV, but the point of coalitions is that they can neuter the extremes of any sitting government. I'd much rather see the Tories in alongside someone with a degree of social conscience, or Labour in with someone who has some ideas about budget management, than these parties given free will to do as they please once elected.

I agree entirely - the fuss over the nhs reforms would be just a fuss. However with the lib in a coalition there is a real chance that amendments will be made. I was undecided before but now think that I will vote for AV although my preference would have been stv using multi representative constituencies (not a candidate list like we have for European elections)

 

[Robbie G]

Having read this thread I am none the wiser what I will be voting for. I reckon a lot of people in this country will not know the full extent of the changes and just vote because of one argument they've heard.

PR is appealing to me it is the fairest voting system BUT I would struggle to vote for it because of the problem with the fact that you are not voting directly for constitutional leadership.