That AV Vote

[DTES]

And whilst we're at it, get rid of unelected peers in the Lords too - that's another promise that Tony Blair broke.

Completely agree - this is one area though where Clegg has utterly bottled it. He's trying to push through legislation making the Lords 80% elected - which will still meet with as much opposition from the Tories but will fail to get wholehearted support. No-one will put their neck on the line for 80% - he should have gone the whole hog (in the same way Blair should have, as promised)

 

[AMEXican Wave]

You scored 24 out of a possible 85

'You appear to have doubts about first past the post but are unsure, or maybe lukewarm, when it comes to the alternative vote.'

The thing I really am not sure about with AV, is that when it comes to the final vote-off if necessary between 2 candidates, my 6th or 7th choice could have equal weighting against someone else's 1st choice. Not sure that's fair, maybe the choices should be weighted relative to the rank the voter gives them? Which I know isn't the system proposed...

 

[Simster]

You scored 24 out of a possible 85

'You appear to have doubts about first past the post but are unsure, or maybe lukewarm, when it comes to the alternative vote.'

The thing I really am not sure about with AV, is that when it comes to the final vote-off if necessary between 2 candidates, my 6th or 7th choice could have equal weighting against someone else's 1st choice. Not sure that's fair, maybe the choices should be weighted relative to the rank the voter gives them? Which I know isn't the system proposed...

Indeed not. Whilst this is the main flaw with AV, IMO, the problem with attributing different weight according to rank is that you still don't guarantee that the winner has over 50% of the vote, which in turn damages accountability. i.e if you're going to apply a weighting to a vote, you may as well not bother changing it from FPTP.

 

[Yoda]

Let's put the AV spin on this poll.

As we haven't got an option with over 50%, can those 25 who voted "No to AV, Yes to PR" let us know how they would recast their vote?

For info, even though I'm in a stronghold for a party a don't like to vote for, I would still keep it FPTP.

 

[beorhthelm]

From todays Guardian

Do you want the alternative vote? Take the quiz | Politics | guardian.co.uk

i think that quiz is quite skewed. I answered with afirmative "vote for the one i want to win", current system doesnt put me off, not worried about wasted votes, still pulls be up as tactical voter. the second question is completely biased and sets the tone

I'd be much happier with AV if the constituency sizes were standardised,

i understand they are changing the consituency sizes, as well as reducing the number of them. theres going to be a substantially different make up at the next election regardless of voting system.

You scored 24 out of a possible 85

'You appear to have doubts about first past the post but are unsure, or maybe lukewarm, when it comes to the alternative vote.'

feel that sort of proves the bias - 28% yet still supposedly undecided and should go for AV?

as for the Lords, an elected second chamber sounds like a good idea. but have a look at how it works in the US, if the senate, congress and president match politically, they get to steamroller through anything they like. if one is opposition to the others, they can jam up government completely and stop anything happening. i dont know how other counties deal with the secondary chamber, its a fine balance to set up so that it has some but not too much power. if directly elected by a different system to the commons, which one has more "legitimacy"? ees complicated.

 

[PaoloRossiJohnson]

Simple flowchart to help you decide which system to vote for...

http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2011/01/17/how-complicated-is-the-alternative-vote/

 

[beorhthelm]

Simple flowchart to help you decide which system to vote for...

http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2011/01/17/how-complicated-is-the-alternative-vote/

it would seem Mr Anthony Smith is from the school of thought that ignorantly believe under AV no one will second guess who others will vote for in order to avoid a unfavourable candidate winning. the "simple" argument is a little thin, but the "end to tactical voting" argument is disingenuous and presumes only one type of tactic.

 

[MJsGhost]

I haven't read all of this thread, so apologies if anyone has already mentioned it, but by all accounts (well, the account of a friend who knows far more about this than I given that he has worked in politics for over 10 years), the best solution would be a modified D'Hondt method. The only trouble is, it's so complicated there are few who understand it completely, so it's seen as a tough sell to the electorate...

I shall be voting 'yes' more to encourage some kind of change than in the expectation of the 'yes' vote winning. There needs to be a shake-up of some form IMHO

 

[The Large One]

Likewise, I haven't read through all this thread.

However, I will probably vote 'Yes' not because I necessarily believe AV is the right method, but because a 'No' outcome will kill the debate for another 20 years - and FPTP has proved an unrepresentative method.

I don't know what the exact answer is, but this campaign is so black-and-white, it makes a farce of the whole debate in the first place.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Likewise, I haven't read through all this thread.

However, I will probably vote 'Yes' not because I necessarily believe AV is the right method, but because a 'No' outcome will kill the debate for another 20 years - and FPTP has proved an unrepresentative method.

I don't know what the exact answer is, but this campaign is so black-and-white, it makes a farce of the whole debate in the first place.

Couldn't be arsed to read it all either, but .... I don't see the point in voting for change, just for the sake of it. I would actually say that a 'no' vote is more likely to prompt a review in the near future as most people think the current system is not one that we want. If the yes vote wins, they will stick with that for several parliaments to try it out. What is the logic in moving to a system that no-one else wants, especially the few people that have it. Absolutely no-one has said that AV is ideal - or indeed any better than what we have.

 

[beorhthelm]

having watched the debate on Newsnight last night, im left with the feeling that neither side has won the argument. some of the yes campaigns points are good (particularly from Dan Snow), but overall it fails to convince that AV is any better as i simply dont accept their arguments are true. too much politics and we know whats best for you.

the conclusion im left with is that we should first have had a debate about how we wish to be represented: through consitituency MPs or party lists. vote for a candidate vs pick a party. once thats resovled, i feel we could then have decided whats best, if people would rather have party lists then PR is an option to put forward.

 

[The Large One]

Couldn't be arsed to read it all either, but .... I don't see the point in voting for change, just for the sake of it. I would actually say that a 'no' vote is more likely to prompt a review in the near future as most people think the current system is not one that we want. If the yes vote wins, they will stick with that for several parliaments to try it out. What is the logic in moving to a system that no-one else wants, especially the few people that have it. Absolutely no-one has said that AV is ideal - or indeed any better than what we have.

I'm not talking about changing it for the sake of it either. However, FPTP has become unrepresentative (I daresay AV has its potential problems as well). The problem with this campaign is the lack of choice in options.

Put the boot on the other foot - if we already had AV, would we be voting to change it to FPTP?

If 'Yes' wins, it's probable they won't try it out straight away at a General Election; by-elections or even council elections first. I can't see how a 'No' vote will keep the debate alive.

This is political manoeuvring (the whole referendum was merely a sop to the LibDems) that Nick Clegg has been outflanked on. Actually, more f***ed up royally, I'd say.

 

[DTES]

the conclusion im left with is that we should first have had a debate about how we wish to be represented: through consitituency MPs or party lists. vote for a candidate vs pick a party.

Or, ideally, both - as in the system that Germany currently uses. Mixed Member Proportional Representation. Sadly it's not on the table.

You'll probably claim that I would say this anyway (you might be right...), but if we step away from the respective pros & cons of FPTP and AV and just look at which answer is more likely to produce further change in the future, I really do believe a No vote will be taken as a vote of confidence in FPTP, kicking all electoral reform into the long grass for a generation - particularly for as long as the Tories are in government...

 

[Tricky Dicky]

If 'Yes' wins, it's probable they won't try it out straight away at a General Election; by-elections or even council elections first. I can't see how a 'No' vote will keep the debate alive.

I though this was all about general elections, no ? It all seems a fudge anyway, apparently only 1 in 10 seats stand a chance of being affected. You can't believe the parties either, they only want the system they think will get then elected most often, not necessarily the "best" one.

 

[beorhthelm]

I really do believe a No vote will be taken as a vote of confidence in FPTP, kicking all electoral reform into the long grass for a generation - particularly for as long as the Tories are in government...

of course it will and that is probably misplaced. i can see that there are problems with FPTP that might have been addressed. but the Liberals fielded the wrong horse, or played the game wrong, either way its looking like the No's are winning. the telling thing is that people are saying they will go out specifically to vote No, even in areas where there is no other election.

and worse, they are saying Clegg will get a go at the Lords next, again an area ripe for change but only if carefully considered. no doubt he'll push for the worse of all worlds, probably PR elected 80%+ with no actual power but forever claiming to be more representitive. (i think the unelected nature of the Lords is a benefit as it removes the party politics. i dont care if its not representitive if its populated by educated/experienced people with a broader, deeper, longer term view of legislation than the next polling day).

 

[Twinkle Toes]

Well I'm voting No to AV. I'm hard-pushed to vote for ONE of the weasley bastards these days, let alone multiples. I also want to see Clegg & his LigDim cronies throw their toys out of the pram after they realise they've sold their political souls for Jack Shit. (You never know, a nice bit of rebellion in the heart of the Coalition might even wipe the bloody smug look off the faces of Cameron & his odious Bullinger chums. I can't say I'm holding my breath, mind).

Logically, I recognise that PR is more democratic than FPTP: but I can't see the 'Big 2' ever sanctioning such a change when they've historically been well served by our current, archaic system. Thus, it hardly comes as any great surprise to see that AV is the only other option on offer to us peasants...

 

[DTES]

the Liberals fielded the wrong horse, or played the game wrong

I think they fielded the only horse they had. They did try to get the referendum on AV+ (AV+) but with only 57 MPs to the Tories' 306 they simply couldn't force it in. Similarly, there was no way of getting any reform in without a referendum.

Have they played it badly during the campaign? Possibly, but it's the Yes campaign rather than the Lib's in particular. I can see why they tried to play it "cleanly" to start with, arguing on the issues rather than the filth that the No campaign put out (those posters implying a Yes vote would kill babies for example...) but it didn't work. Now the campaign is deciding along the old lines of "If you can't beat them, join them" and turning it into an anti-Tory campaign - who knows if this will improve the figures at all?

 

[Simster]

This is political manoeuvring (the whole referendum was merely a sop to the LibDems) that Nick Clegg has been outflanked on. Actually, more f***ed up royally, I'd say.

This of course is the correct answer. He has been so badly outmanoeuvred that personally I won't ever vote for him again as he is quite clearly an absolutely SHIT politician. The f***ing useless tory-boy-lite twat.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think they fielded the only horse they had.

doesnt say much for it then does it. i dont know why they had to move so swiftly, less than a year after the election. maybe they could have waited another 18-24 mths and engaged in a debate.

Have they played it badly during the campaign?

wel we'll see int he results. polling suggests they will lose by a large margin. at earlier stages it was expected to be tight with low turnout from areas without local elections, those voting being proactively wanting change. to spur people, in this apathetic country, to want to proactivly vote for no change suggest a very poor campaign.

 

[DTES]

This of course is the correct answer. He has been so badly outmanoeuvred that personally I won't ever vote for him again as he is quite clearly an absolutely SHIT politician. The f***ing useless tory-boy-lite twat.

Good choice of words. Regardless though, it would be a shame if this referendum were lost solely because of voting No just to get at Clegg...