Yes! To Fairer Votes

Burnsy2023 · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:01

Duke said:
If its better, why do very few countries use it?

Because the government haven't given us the option of full proportional representation yet, which lots of countries use in one form or another. This is a halfway house to please both sides.

Theophany · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:01

Immsy said:
Whats everyones feelings on AV? I for one will be voting no

Same. One person, one vote. Who are these people to suggest that thousands of years of democracy were wrong.

Burnsy2023 · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:02

meghatronic said:
In which case it's so offensive I'm consider a No vote based just on this.

And this is one of the reasons that democracy is flawed.

Burnsy2023 · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:02

Theophany said:
Same. One person, one vote. Who are these people to suggest that thousands of years of democracy were wrong.

You do realise that AV still give one person one vote?

meghatronic · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:05

Burnsy2023 said:
You do realise that AV still give one person one vote?

Bit of a sucky way though, as it can only help the fringe parties really. Unless someone is likely to go 1. Labour, 2. Tory etc...

Burnsy2023 said:
And this is one of the reasons that democracy is flawed.

Screw it. Unless I receive a similar form from the No people tomorrow, I'm voting No to AV.

Partly because of this form debacle, partly because I don't give a rat's anus about celebrity endorsements.

daz · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:06

AV will result in a government that is more agreeable to more people.

If that's not more democratic than first past the post where large numbers of votes are effectively "wasted" I don't know what is.

Lil old me · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:06

Theophany said:
Same. One person, one vote. Who are these people to suggest that thousands of years of democracy were wrong.

What are you talking about, "thousands of years of democracy"? Democracy has been reformed and changed ever since it was first conceived in Greece. Of course things need to change over time or else, as thousands of years ago, 70% of the population wouldn't have the vote and wouldn't even be considered citizens!

Lil old me · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:07

meghatronic said:
Bit of a sucky way though, as it can only help the fringe parties really. Unless someone is likely to go 1. Labour, 2. Tory etc...

So why aren't the BNP campaigning for a yes vote?

Immsy · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:09

Burnsy2023 said:
How come?

Because I decide who I want to vote for, 1 person. Not 1 person, then another if the first doesnt quite make it. We have an elected mayor here which uses the same system and its a nightmare, about 10 choices and you have to rank them all, total joke of a system. People should decide who they want to vote for and stick with that one choice. If that results in hung parliaments then so be it.

meghatronic · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:10

Lil old me said:
So why aren't the BNP campaigning for a yes vote?

A quick search revealed they have said despite the fact they'd do better under AV, they think it is less fairer than FPTP and want full PR. So, that's why.

Immsy · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:12

Immsy said:
Because I decide who I want to vote for, 1 person. Not 1 person, then another if the first doesnt quite make it. We have an elected mayor here which uses the same system and its a nightmare, about 10 choices and you have to rank them all, total joke of a system. People should decide who they want to vote for and stick with that one choice. If that results in hung parliaments then so be it.

Just to add to my earlier post, people just end up ranking people below there first choice at random as they havent considered them so its not really a reflection of how people want to vote in my opinion.

meghatronic · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:13

Immsy said:
Because I decide who I want to vote for, 1 person. Not 1 person, then another if the first doesnt quite make it. We have an elected mayor here which uses the same system and its a nightmare, about 10 choices and you have to rank them all, total joke of a system. People should decide who they want to vote for and stick with that one choice. If that results in hung parliaments then so be it.

You're not really alone in your opinion:

"I am not going to settle for a miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party." - Nick Clegg

"AV is slanted in favour of the bigger parties. We need a simple, fair system, not a fake reform that covers its embarrassment with jargon." - Caroline Lucas

[AV would] be an ill-fitting corset attempting to squeeze diverse strands of opinion into an inappropriate, deeply uncomfortable shape." - Chris Huhne

"If we want reform to rebuild public trust and confidence in politics, make MPs more accountable, give more power to people and establish a political and parliamentary system that more reflects the will of the public, then AV doesn’t deliver that." - Ben Bradshaw (director of Labour Yes to AV)

Oh. Wait. They're all for AV now. Me bad.

Lil old me · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:14

meghatronic said:
A quick search revealed they have said despite the fact they'd do better under AV, they think it is less fairer than FPTP and want full PR. So, that's why.

I had read that before I replied, but your post seems to say that under AV small parties would do a lot better. If that was true it wouldn't be worth the BNP holding out for full PR would it? It's clearly the case that it actually won't benefit them that much.

"4. AV is the most extremist-proof electoral system

AV would make it harder than the current system for the BNP to win seats in the House of Commons, requiring them to appeal to half the electorate in a seat like Barking, removing the chances of coming through with 25-33% in a three or four way contest.

By the same token, it is difficult for small parties. However, the Greens' chances would probably be much better than those of the BNP, since one can imagine them winning second preferences from a range of parties in their top target seats in places like Brighton. Since the removal of the "wasted vote" argument allows smaller parties to poll their full support: it makes clear, where environmental candidates may attract say 10% of the vote, that candidates who want to win face more pressure to have something to say about their concerns and issues."

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/02/five-reasons-to-be-cheerful-about.html

Theophany · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:15

Burnsy2023 said:
You do realise that AV still give one person one vote?

Yeah... apart from if your chosen candidate does not win, your next vote counts. One vote is one cross on a ballot form, not a load of crosses as you blithely choose all other candidates you're not really fussed about.

Depends on your interpretation of it, but to me AV is a way in which the fringe gets over represented by people's 'well they'll do' apathy. Sod that.

Lil old me said:
What are you talking about, "thousands of years of democracy"? Democracy has been reformed and changed ever since it was first conceived in Greece. Of course things need to change over time or else, as thousands of years ago, 70% of the population wouldn't have the vote and wouldn't even be considered citizens!

This is about voting methods, not universal suffrage, which is irrelevant to the AV debate.

meghatronic · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:15

Lil old me said:
I had read that before I replied, but your post seems to say that under AV small parties would do a lot better. If that was true it wouldn't be worth the BNP holding out for full PR would it? It's clearly the case that it actually won't benefit them that much.

Ask the BNP? Or, wait and see.

I can't say I've looked into it a lot I'm afraid, given three countries use AV for national elections, I hadn't really taken it seriously and given it much thought. Maybe I should....

Immsy · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:16

Theophany said:
Yeah... apart from if your chosen candidate does not win, your next vote counts. One vote is one cross on a ballot form, not a load of crosses as you blithely choose all other candidates you're not really fussed about.

+1 this is exactly what happens in our mayor election. Because we have to choose more than one people just cross at random.

Ahleckz · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:17

There seems to be some confusion here, you don't have to rank all the candidates; you can just rank one if you want.

meghatronic · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:17

Immsy said:
+1 this is exactly what happens in our mayor election. Because we have to choose more than one people just cross at random.

It might be better if we voted for the actual government, rather than local candidate. I only know 2 of them! How can I even rank 3?!

meghatronic · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:18

Ahleckz said:
There seems to be some confusion here, you don't have to rank all the candidates; you can just rank one if you want.

If it says, "Rank candidates in order of preference", the majority of people will not just vote for one.

britboy4321 · 30 Mar 2011 at 17:18

Voting 'no'.

1) It is essential to have strong government. Coalitions just lead to a load of faffing around and discussing compromises.
2) AV will probably lead to a load more coalitions
3) I don't care about the 'green party' having less seats than it 'should'. I DO care about giving the BNP no more seats.