Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

OriginalJonty · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:16

JHeaton said:
I don't understand how they could show AV results when we only made one choice.

I think they've correlated it with the percentage of the votes each party received and then split the seats accordingly.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/ERS%20General%20election%20facts+figs%20booklet.pdf - Page 7

matt_fsr · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:28

I think I'm going to vote in favour of AV.

Firstly, it is a fairer system of voting. Not a fair system, but an improvement over FPTP - which living in Labour areas all my life, has always meant any vote of mine to any other party has been completely worthless.

Secondly, its a change. Anything that gets people used to changing systems, and a step closer to being able to move to an even fairer system of proportional representation, is in my book a good move.

However, I have a feeling that some last minute advert/campaign from anyone who owns a major newspaper could scupper AV in a day or 2 - lets hope nothing like that happens.

Tunney · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:32

I'll be voting yes.

Here's the winning percentage of votes for the last 5 single-party governments:

2005 - 35.2%
2001 - 40.7%
1997 - 43.2%
1992 - 41.9%
1987 - 42.2%

Notice that they're all way below a 50% majority. In other words, FTFP leads to governments that the majority of people didn't voted for. It's unrepresentative.

AV isn't perfect but I'd rather have a government of second choices than a government voted in by a minority.

[TW]Fox · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:33

Tunney said:
I'll be voting yes.

Here's the winning percentage of votes for the last 5 single-party governments:

2005 - 35.2%
2001 - 40.7%
1997 - 43.2%
1992 - 41.9%
1987 - 42.2%

Notice that they're all way below a 50% majority. In other words, FTFP leads to governments that the majority of people didn't voted for. It's unrepresentative.

AV isn't perfect but I'd rather have a government of second choices than a government voted in by a minority.

Isn't this a flawed statement? Because there is no second choice with FTFP we cannot make assumptions like that. Who is to know what peoples second choices would have been?

krooton · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:50

OriginalJonty said:
http://img844.imageshack.us/f/graphicprelectionresul0.gif

A little image that compares the 2010 election results between FPTP, AV, and STV. The Lib Dems would have made a lot of gains, while the Tories would not have gained as much as they would have liked. Result would still be a coalition.

Ignoring that it is a probable approximation, whilst there would be the same coalition as there is now, it would be forced, rather than giving the LibDems the options to court either the Tories or Labour.

Had they joined with Labour last year, they above calculation would show that a Lib/Lab coalition was not what most people wanted.

Take a guess how I'm voting.

bam0 · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:52

[TW]Fox;18795723 said:
Isn't this a flawed statement? Because there is no second choice with FTFP we cannot make assumptions like that. Who is to know what peoples second choices would have been?

Assumptions like what? It's factually correct that previous governments have had more people vote for someone else than for them.

Tunney · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:54

[TW]Fox;18795723 said:
Isn't this a flawed statement? Because there is no second choice with FTFP we cannot make assumptions like that. Who is to know what peoples second choices would have been?

You're right, we don't know who they might have voted for. AV gives us the chance to find out.

[TW]Fox · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:56

bam0 said:
Assumptions like what? It's factually correct that previous governments have had more people vote for someone else than for them.

Maybe read my post again, I beleive I explained my opinion?

Strife212 · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:59

Turnout in UK elections is lower than in most other
established democracies; most EU states with lower
turnout in their last election were post-communist
countries in eastern and central Europe.

:/

gettothechopper · 31 Mar 2011 at 10:59

going with yes

live in a very safe labour area and have half as much say as the uk average so had no chance of influencing any change at all

also I actually quite like the current coalition, comprimise and discussion is so much better than squabbling over party politics all the time

nothing turns me off to politics faster than the old system of labour and conservatives arguing about who screwed the country over more in the past and the current system encourages that

apeZ · 31 Mar 2011 at 11:29

Strife212 said:
:/

Low turnout is a big issue. Not just in here, but in the States too.

I think we should have a system like Australia where you have to vote (even if it means ticking 'no preference' on the ballot paper) or you can face fines. A democracy should require all participants to vote.

Also I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned, but under AV you don't HAVE to vote for more than one party. You can simply state your first preference and leave it at that. However, if the ideals of more than one party appeal to you, or if you want to ensure that the minority parties don't stand a chance, you would rank the parties in that order. I think most Lab/Lib voters would rather rank the Tories than BNP/UKIP etc.

RDM · 31 Mar 2011 at 11:32

apeZ said:
However, if the ideals of more than one party appeal to you,

It isn't really going to be used like that though, what is more likely is that it will be used negatively, vote for anyone and everyone other than Labour for example.

Danthus · 31 Mar 2011 at 11:32

Not sure the idea of democracy and forced voting really works!

Mr Jack · 31 Mar 2011 at 11:49

It's a better system, although not by much, so I will vote yes.

britboy4321 · 31 Mar 2011 at 11:54

OldCoals said:
Not sure the idea of democracy and forced voting really works!

Difficult one. Voter apathy is normally shouted by dictators as they take power, as in:

'Why spend 5 squillion pounds on something only 4% of the population bothers with - it's ridiculous - we're abandoning it.'

apeZ · 31 Mar 2011 at 11:58

RDM said:
It isn't really going to be used like that though, what is more likely is that it will be used negatively, vote for anyone and everyone other than Labour for example.

I seriously doubt that.

OldCoals said:
Not sure the idea of democracy and forced voting really works!

Voters can choose 'no preference'. The point is, if there is a bigger turnout of voters, there is more chance that they will actually take an interest in politics (as they should!) and thus more people will vote for the party that best represents their interests.

There was a 65% turnout at the last general election, and I'm curious what a difference would be made if 35% more people voted. Almost 30 million people voted in the 2010 elections, if my maths serves me correctly, an extra 35% of voters would be 16 million votes. That is staggering.

RDM · 31 Mar 2011 at 12:18

apeZ said:
I seriously doubt that.

Honestly? You don't think there are plenty of "Anybody but the Tories" or "Anybody but Labour" voters out there?

apeZ said:
Voters can choose 'no preference'. The point is, if there is a bigger turnout of voters, there is more chance that they will actually take an interest in politics (as they should!) and thus more people will vote for the party that best represents their interests.

Or because the whole process is more complex it may turn voters off voting. It may also turn more people off voting when it starts throwing up those odd results that AV systems can manage. Finally it may turn off voters in constituencies where the afore mentioned "Anyone but Labour" or "Anyone but Tory" constituencies when their chosen party has even less chance of winning.

platypus · 31 Mar 2011 at 12:26

I will be voting No. I don't believe that the system being advocated is a positive change, as it will not lead on to a better system any time soon (we will be stuck with the solution for a long time before anyone is brave enough to broach the subject of change again), and will lead to even more tactical voting. There is already enough voter apathy without introducing an even more complex voting system.

FPTP is far from perfect, but it's better than a half assed PR solution.

Hatter The Mad · 31 Mar 2011 at 12:28

Rich_L said:
You could have saved yourself a few paragraphs and just said 'O HAI I"M A TORY'

Also having seen the ridiculously antagonistic US political 'system' at work over here, anything that hastens the move towards political co-operation and ideological flexibility between multiple parties should be heartily endorsed at every opportunity.

You could have saved yourself a few paragraphs and just said 'O HAI I"M (sic) A BIGGOT'

SiriusB · 31 Mar 2011 at 12:38

Oooh (sic) burn!