Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

PermaBanned · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:03

Castiel said:
FPTP for me.

Why change it, AV is a halfway house that is neither one thing or the other.

Half way between a bad thing and a better thing? Why not?

Unfortunately some people aren't as they only see it as a way to get the lib dems more power... please, like they're going to get votes from anyone but tories, who have the tories to vote for.

Destination · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:04

I'll vote yes, in 'Norn Iron' it might lead to a change in the political makeup.
Less dup and less sf wouldn't be a bad thing for the country in my opinion.

~~#M-Bizzle#~~ · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:05

Anything that gets the BNP, SNP or UKIP more votes is fine with me though.

Clown · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:05

Fox, can you put that BBC link in the OP? I for one didn't have any idea of what you were talking about. I'm probably not alone in my lack of interest in politics.

Nvidiot · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:06

When I get to polling booths I like to do the "eeny meeny miny mo " method.

Westyfield2 · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:06

I personally will be voting to not change. FPTP is fine for me. I'd much rather vote for the one party I want and end up with a government that wasn't my decision but the majority of people voted for, whereas with AV it would end up with a government of second choices.

Also Theophany raises a good point... the general public isn't exactly known for its intelligence. Can we 'trust' them with AV?
Unfortunately from speaking to people at Uni I get the feeling that I could stand for election with the policy of "I will scrap all taxes and give everyone a Ferrari and a yacht" and I'd get loads of votes.... despite a) not explaining how I would fund said policy, and b) the fact that the policy is impossible to fund. They'd still vote for me as it sounds nice

.

Robbie G said:
I'd like to see a table of how the result of previous elections would have changed if the system implemented had been AV+ instead of FPTP.

Surely that's impossible as the ballot paper only asked you to make one cross, so they won't know how people would have alternatively voted?

Destination · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:07

billysielu said:
The current voting system is
Only first preference votes are counted initially. Anyone getting more than 50% of these is elected automatically.

The suggested system is
Only first preference votes are counted initially. Anyone getting more than 50% of these is elected automatically. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates in a second round of counting. If one candidate then has more than 50% of the votes in this round they are elected. If not, the remaining candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second preferences (or third preferences if they were the second choice of someone who voted for the first candidate to be eliminated) reallocated. This continues until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote in that round of counting.

Anyone else notice that the suggested system is the same as the old system - except in the situations when nobody gets a majority?

In these cases, the public get to decide what happens, by specifying their "next best" preference. This can only be better than leaving it upto politicians to form a coalition.

I'll be voting Yes, seems quite obvious.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595

Your first line is incorrect.
Current system doesn't mean anyone getting 50% is automatically elected, to be automatically elected under the currently system you only need 1 more than the nearest guy to you.
If 10 people stood for a seat, you could be elected with 11% of the vote under the current system.

Pinkribbonscars · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:10

The current system is rubbish.

The proposed system is also rubbish.

I don't want either system and don't want to vote yes to either, but I will probably vote for AV to show that I don't like the current system. Might shake up things in the short term at least. To be honest there should be top to bottom reform of the entire government system, starting from a blank sheet, but that obviously won't/can't happen.

[TW]Fox · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:12

I suspect if we get the new system that will be it for quite some time.

Dave M · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:12

No, it just gives more ammunition to 'tactical voters' who care more for keeping one party out that who actually gets in.

If the point of this (and PR) is to get the broadest support for whatever government is formed why not go further and let us decide which party we want in charge of what.

I could have a tory defence minister, liberal chancellor and a labour health minister.

Spike560 · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:15

I've heard the libdems will get more seats under the newly proposed method.

Therefore I will vote against it (regardless of having not bothered to learn how the new system will work).

Pinkribbonscars · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:15

[TW]Fox;18792531 said:
I suspect if we get the new system that will be it for quite some time.

I agree, which is why I'm reluctant to vote for it. But if the 'no's win, then the future governments will use that as evidience that the British public don't want change.

The vote is rigged, either way we lose.

avec · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:18

Both systems have their flaws, there is no perfect system.

I will be voting No, because I believe FPTP is a far superior solution to AV.

Parties shouldn't be elected on second preferences and it will skew the results even more than the current system already does (with fixed constituencies etc.).

The population isn't smart enough to realise what AV entails and the repercussions their second preference vote could have.

One person, one vote, not one person, several preferences.

If you want more accuracy, make the generally elected government directly proportional to the number of votes they received. There are other problems with this however.

Nothing is perfect, but FPTP is better than AV.

Tweaker · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:24

FPTP for me, i have seen the AV results for other countries, it is far from a good solution.

Pinkribbonscars · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:24

Although not great, I do think AV is the better system - as it means there is no need for tactical voting. Before if (for example) you wanted to vote Green but knew they had no chance you may have voted for the Lib Dems instead, meaning the Greens get no vote share and look less popular than they actually are. With AV, you can put Greens as first preference and Lib Dems second, and the end result is the same, but the Greens get the fair share of the vote.

daz · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:26

[TW]Fox;18792531 said:
I suspect if we get the new system that will be it for quite some time.

I don't think it will - it will pave the way for further electoral reform. Perhaps a fully elected upper house, perhaps decided on purely proportional representation?

With a "no" vote, the public will be saying that there is no appetite for greater electoral reform, and any hope of PR in the near future is shot in the foot. AV is the first rung on the ladder to electoral reform from our current antiquated, unrepresentative system.

Whilst I don't think it is perfect, I think AV is better than what we currently have so I will be voting yes.

JBod · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:28

Hikari Kisugi said:
Your first line is incorrect.
Current system doesn't mean anyone getting 50% is automatically elected, to be automatically elected under the currently system you only need 1 more than the nearest guy to you.
If 10 people stood for a seat, you could be elected with 11% of the vote under the current system.

Correct, however you wouldn't have a commons majority and nothing would get done in government.

I don't know what I am going to vote yet I have not decided.

Voting YES simply because its a change and makes life interesting (IMO) is not a good idea because it is voting for the wrong reason. Which part of me is tempted to do due to my boring humdrum life style.

My fear (as someone already pointed out) is that minority wack job parties will suddenly gain a voice that no one really wanted.

I will probably vote NO as I am a Conservative and I fear that people will vote like so:

A) Tory
B) LibDem

A) Labour
B) LibDem

A) LibDem
B) Labour

---

On a lighter note I think if someone explained to Joe chav public that its like the X-Factor finals with elmination and rounds they may understand it better

PermaBanned · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:29

Telescopi said:
No, it just gives more ammunition to 'tactical voters' who care more for keeping one party out that who actually gets in.

If the point of this (and PR) is to get the broadest support for whatever government is formed why not go further and let us decide which party we want in charge of what.

I could have a tory defence minister, liberal chancellor and a labour health minister.

So why is 'best of a bad bunch' an acceptable tactic in your eyes (i assume) and 'worst of a bad bunch' isn't?

daz · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:30

JBod said:
My fear (as someone already pointed out) is that minority wack job parties will suddenly gain a voice that no one really wanted.

"The people" are more likely to get a government closer to what they actually voted for.

PermaBanned · 30 Mar 2011 at 20:33

JBod said:
My fear (as someone already pointed out) is that minority wack job parties will suddenly gain a voice that no one really wanted.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but education about parties such as the BNP has increased greatly in the past few years, and you only have to look at how they did in the last election to see what that can do. Besides, is there really much difference between minority wack job parties and majority wack job parties?