Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

[Lunatic Dreyfus]

I don't know where to cast my single vote these days, let alone have more choices. At the rate parties are losing my vote, I'll be voting Green.

I'll vote Yes, but only in the hope it might shake up the Westminster Centre Right quagmire.

 

[Participant]

Not sure why the BNP favour FPTP over AV since as I understand it, AV would probably bag them more votes in terms of people voting for them as a second preference.

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?

It's not possible, but I'd still be interested to see it.

 

[JBod]

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

IMO - the majority of people are not qualified to choose who runs the country. That is actually a serious statement - not a glip/flippant comment.

A voting reform should be more like:

If you are tax negative - ie. you have taken more than you have given to the system - then sorry no vote. Yes this includes students, disabled people etc...

It would work quite well (IMO - although I probably haven't though of a horrendous glaring hole ) as it would discount criminals whos time behind bars cost the tax payer more than that individual has contributed to society. Spongers would instantly not be allowed to vote and thus stop a us spiraling into a welfare state.

I'd suggest caveats are added so that someone who worked for 20 years and then got screwed by injury/redundancy etc... are not ignored and OAP automatically qualifies for voting.

Bottom line, if you have taken more out of society than you have given it then you cannot decide how society is run.

 

[Floogie]

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

Well they would have, until they pretty much screwed over the majority of supporters!

I will be voting yes for AV. It's not STV, but its a step in the right direction regardless.

 

[Trifid]

These are my thoughts on the matter:

I have little confidence in the result of this poll being an informed decision. (And that includes me at this point in time)

AV is slightly better than FPTP in that those who really want to vote for another party can put that vote in without wasting it and putting their second preference as either Labour or conservative for whoever they prefer the most. Maybe if enough people agreed with their first vote in this new way they would be their local MP...


I'll probably vote yes in the belief the results will not be very different.





I'd quite like to see what a government would be like if it is mostly made up of independent MP's that voted on legislation based on their belief that it is for the better of the country and not because their party drafted it.... I suppose this would stand more of a chance at happening with AV.

 

[lttlejoe]

I listened to a " FPTP/AV mock election" on Radio 5 today and initially the FPTP winner was the Labour candidate with I believe the Conservatives coming second and Liberals 3rd, the Greens 4th, UKIP 5th and BNP 6th.

When the AV system was used, Labour still won but the BNP went out first round and UKIP 2nd round.
When it went to the last rounds, both the Lib-Dems and Conservatives were out and the second party was the Greens which was initially only the 4th party of choice so be careful what you vote for or you may get more than you bargained for!

Me - I'm against AV, even if FPTP is not the best system but, I prefer tactical voting rather than this method which I don't think truly reflects voter's views!

 

[semi-pro waster]

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

This would be my concern if the system changes and it isn't (much) better, it's taken a long time to get to the point of a referendum on it and implementing another system may mean we'll be stuck with it for another lengthy period. I have taken a brief look at the options tonight and I'm still undecided about the options but currently I'm leaning towards keeping FPTP as I'd prefer not to change the system if it's not going to be a substantial improvement.

However as daz suggests it may be a platform for further reforms to yet another system, we're unlikely to know that until long after we vote though.

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

Maybe we will get the politicians we deserve, I'm not sure that it's a point in favour of more accurate representation though.

 

[J-FRO]

So from what I can see, AV is a little like this:

Say the three main parties for simplicity are Tories, LibDem's and Labour.

Say 7 people all cast their votes, the seven in question are A, B, C, D, E, F and G. All seven make a selection of three choices in order of which their preference lies, however they are under no obligation to use all three votes, they can use one, two or three.

Say the votes were as follows:

A: (a) Torie (b) LibDem (c) Labour
B: (a) Torie (b) Labour (c) LibDem
C: (a) Torie (b) Libdem (c) Labour
D: (a) LibDem (b) Torie (c) Labour
E: (a) LibDem (b) Labour (c) Torie
F: (a) Labour (b) Libdem (c) Torie
G: (a) LibDem (b) Torie (c) Labour

On the first round, Labour would be eliminated due to having the least number of votes. As F was the only person who wanted Labour, his first vote is moot.

Now this is where I'm confused. For the second round of voting, do they only count everyone's (b) selection, or do they count (a) and (b)? Such as for this example if they use (a) AND (b) whilst striking out all the labour votes, Torie would have 5 Libdem 6. Torie 3 (a) votes and two (b) votes, libdem 3 (a) votes and 3 (b) votes. This would mean Libdem's win.

Have I got this right that in the second round they count (a) votes and (b) votes?

 

[Dolph]

I'll be voting yes. It is not ideal, I would much prefer some form of proportional representation (ideally mixed member PR), and the voting system alone probably won't change the fact that the area where I live would vote for Josef Fritzl if he stood for Labour, but AV is a fairer system than FPTP in a system with more than two parties, and I consider the increase in possibility of a coalition government to be a good thing (not least because I think the current coalition is far better than either a Tory or Labour majority government would have been).

It would also reduce the need to vote tactically with your only vote, which should give a better indication of popular support for parties than the current system.

Of course, none of this addresses the problem of the bulk of the population being idiots who have no idea about the parties they are voting for (see the controversy around the NHS reforms which were actually in both Conservative and Lib Dem manifestos in very similar forms), but that is not something that the voting system can really fix...

 

[Ekim]

So from what I can see, AV is a little like this:

Say the three main parties for simplicity are Tories, LibDem's and Labour.

Say 7 people all cast their votes, the seven in question are A, B, C, D, E, F and G. All seven make a selection of three choices in order of which their preference lies, however they are under no obligation to use all three votes, they can use one, two or three.

Say the votes were as follows:

A: (a) Torie (b) LibDem (c) Labour
B: (a) Torie (b) Labour (c) LibDem
C: (a) Torie (b) Libdem (c) Labour
D: (a) LibDem (b) Torie (c) Labour
E: (a) LibDem (b) Labour (c) Torie
F: (a) Labour (b) Libdem (c) Torie
G: (a) LibDem (b) Torie (c) Labour

On the first round, Labour would be eliminated due to having the least number of votes. As F was the only person who wanted Labour, his first vote is moot.

Now this is where I'm confused. For the second round of voting, do they only count everyone's (b) selection, or do they count (a) and (b)? Such as for this example if they use (a) AND (b) whilst striking out all the labour votes, Torie would have 5 Libdem 6. Torie 3 (a) votes and two (b) votes, libdem 3 (a) votes and 3 (b) votes. This would mean Libdem's win.

Have I got this right that in the second round they count (a) votes and (b) votes?

In the second round, the would take F's vote and see what his second choice was (Lib Dem) and then add that to the pile of first choice votes for Lib Dem. This would then give the Lib Dems 4 votes to the Tories 3 and would win the election.

 

[J-FRO]

Well that seems silly. Suppose F had only cast one vote and it was only Labour. It would then be hung and they'd have to consider everyone's (b) votes right? I realise that thats a fantastic probability rather than a realisitic possibility but it is nevertheless a flaw in the system and serves to highlight that in the long run there may be an occasion where through some complex scenario where many people may cast 8 votes but people in the same constituency may only cast 3, some nobody could invariably be voted in by the minority whereas the majority probably don't want them in.

 

[SiriusB]

Have I got this right that in the second round they count (a) votes and (b) votes?

I always understood that each person's votes are used from their preferred to least preferred in each round of voting.

So if you voted Tory LibDem then Labour, as long as the Tories are in contention [i.e. haven't been removed for having the least amount of votes] then your Tory preference will always be used. You never get two votes in the same round of voting. If Tories were eliminated, your vote would go to the LibDems if they are still in contention.

 

[J-FRO]

So typically the AV system will still be used by many for tactical voting.

Great. Seemingly a more complex system of what we've already got.

If you're voting one party but completely disagree with the other parties you may ultimately try to undermine their campaign by voting for something you couldn't really give a tosh about.

 

[Orcish-Horde]

The only thing they need change is adding a "None of the above" potion, am sure that woud make a lot of people happy.

 

[SiriusB]

I think the argument is that if you are able to give a list of preferences, you can still vote for who you really want and position your preferences below that however you like. Tactical voting with the upside of being able to initially vote for who you want?

Though realistically I am sure any voting system can be prey to tactical voting.

 

[J-FRO]

Tactical voting with the upside of being able to initially vote for who you want

For me, in a nutshell, that seems to sum up the benefit of AV.

 

[Destination]

IMO - the majority of people are not qualified to choose who runs the country. That is actually a serious statement - not a glip/flippant comment.

A voting reform should be more like:

If you are tax negative - ie. you have taken more than you have given to the system - then sorry no vote. Yes this includes students, disabled people etc...

It would work quite well (IMO - although I probably haven't though of a horrendous glaring hole ) as it would discount criminals whos time behind bars cost the tax payer more than that individual has contributed to society. Spongers would instantly not be allowed to vote and thus stop a us spiraling into a welfare state.

I'd suggest caveats are added so that someone who worked for 20 years and then got screwed by injury/redundancy etc... are not ignored and OAP automatically qualifies for voting.

Bottom line, if you have taken more out of society than you have given it then you cannot decide how society is run.

I think a suitable flaw in your system, is ina period of low employment, the workers could vote for a party who would refuse to create jobs, thus ensuring the workers future, and excluding anyone who doesn't vote from future jobs (bizarre extension of your system) but it wouldn't be representative of the country, as 'tax negative' would included masses on working families tax credits by tiem you add in the tax cost of medical/dental/optical and all the other free stuff they are given.

The fact that we allow people who are not 'qualified' to elect a government to vote, shows we have widespread democracy, but i think you'd be amazed what % of these folks don't vote anyway.


I'll be interested to see what turnout will be for AV ref.

 

[RDM]

As I said in another thread..

Ed Milliband got voted as Labour leader on a form of AV, he didn't come first until the very last round of vote counting. That looks to me to be one of the biggest flaws of AV right there.

On a more serious note, I will be voting No to AV. Regardless of the result I doubt we will see much in the way of further electoral reform so whatever system we get out of this will be the one we are stuck with for quite a while.

AV is not proportional and even has the chance of being less propotional than FPTP.

AV rewards people who backed the wrong horse as it were with additional chances to vote whilst depriving those who backed the favourite the same.

You could have a situation where the order of elimination matters more than what second preferences were given.

As far as national elections go it is only used by 3 nations worldwide and one of those is considering dropping it.

In the words of one of AVs greatest supporters, it seems to be a "grubby little compromise".

 

[badcompany]

No I do not want liberals anywhere near government ever again.

 

[Strife212]

The current system is poor but don't know if AV is any better.

The issue is more fundamental than that imo, the system of MP's linked to constituencies is the problem.