Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

[pingwing]

But that works the other way around as well. The person elected under AV could, for example, have only had 10% of first votes, so how is that fair seeing as 90% of people didn't have them as first choice?

Chances of that situation happening are quite low as it relies on an even spread of initial votes across the candidates at the start and then for the candidate with only 10% of the votes to stay in after several knock out rounds is also quite low.

The difference now is that its no longer based on just your first preference, its now more about you overall consensus of who should represent you

 

[RDM]

The difference now is that its no longer based on just your first preference, its now more about you overall consensus of who should represent you

Unless your first preference is for the person that came first in the first couple of rounds, then only that one counts. In my opinion it is inherently unfair as it starts to treat individual voters differently depending on where their first preference comes. Perversly it seems to give more preference to those that back the wrong horse as it were.

 

[paddy]

I'll start his post by saying I haven't read the thread thus far. I imagine by this point there is an argument raging, so I'll just dump this here.

In short: I'll be voting for AV because I want an electoral system which doesn't naturally gravitate to a 2 candidate race. I feel any system where voting for the 3rd candidate are considered "wasted" votes really isn't appropriate and stifles any real change in the political map.

A video I thought was quite good

 

[pingwing]

Unless your first preference is for the person that came first in the first couple of rounds, then only that one counts. In my opinion it is inherently unfair as it starts to treat individual voters differently depending on where their first preference comes. Perversly it seems to give more preference to those that back the wrong horse as it were.

The idea is that it ensures that people who do pick the "wrong" candidate do have their opinions heard still, instead of a vast proportion of a constituency's opinion just being thrown in the bin (as is the situation with FPTP)

 

[RDM]

The idea is that it ensures that people who do pick the "wrong" candidate do have their opinions heard still, instead of a vast proportion of a constituency's opinion just being thrown in the bin (as is the situation with FPTP)

Unless you back the person that comes first in the first couple of rounds, in which cause you opinion is only heard the once. It treats voters differently and gives different weighting to their opinions. I personally think that is wrong.

 

[Vampyre]

I'm 90% certain I'm voting yes, I think the effects are only really going to be felt in marginal constituencies, but I do like the idea that even if my 1st preference doesn't get in, my 2nd preference has a better chance.

 

[Ekim]

Unless you back the person that comes first in the first couple of rounds, in which cause you opinion is only heard the once. It treats voters differently and gives different weighting to their opinions. I personally think that is wrong.

But surely if your first preference wins surely that is a good think? Unless I am reading what you wrote incorrectly?

 

[Rich_L]

I like the highlighting of flaws based on arbitrary scenarios, so may as well add one to the mix - under FPTP, if there are 20 candidates and the vote was evenly split, a person could be elected with 5% of the vote lololol

Even better, if 19 candidates had the same policies but were differentiating on character, and the one candidate represented different policies, the MP could be elected with 95% opposition to those policies. Zing!

 

[RDM]

But surely if your first preference wins surely that is a good think? Unless I am reading what you wrote incorrectly?

Unless the lose the last round, which is not an unlikely scenario. Effectively you got one vote and lost, someone else may have got two effecitve votes and won, a third person may have got three effective votes and won while someone else may have got one effective vote and lost. It smacks as being inherently unfair.

I like the highlighting of flaws based on arbitrary scenarios, so may as well add one to the mix - under FPTP, if there are 20 candidates and the vote was evenly split, a person could be elected with 5% of the vote lololol

What a well thought out and considered counter point to the valid arguments some have agianst AV. Well done! That is what I find most amusing about the pro AV people, they seem to take it all so terribly personally if you dare to disagree with them. LolAV.

 

[Rich_L]

Jeez don't take it personally Er lolnoAV?

The point of course being that you can pick scenarios where FPTP, AV, PR, (insert voting system here) fails or is less than ideal - there is no perfect system and coming up with contrived scenarios in which one system may be better than another without looking at the bigger picture is rather pointless.

Realistically, a Tory voter (which is basically what you seem to be referring to), or any voter should never feel 'forced' to just vote for one party - the whole point in AV is that it promotes ideological flexibilty. Unless you are some extremist 'all or nothing' voter, with AV in place it provides a natural environment for alternative parties or platforms to thrive - UKIP, the English Democrats - the current Tory party which is probably best described as the 'Social Liberal Economic Conservative' party.

There's a great article on FPTP on the BBC site, that the last time it worked 'properly' - i.e. each candidate was elected on over 50% of the vote was in 1955. The current 3-party system, as well as the increasing ideological flexibility of the population away from traditional RED VS BLUE politics means that FPTP is singularly unsuited to the current voting patterns unless you happen to get a convergence of voting results that ends up in a hung Parliament.

In a country where the vote is split 36%, 29%, 23%, there damn well should be a coalition government rather than a party ruling with a majority based on just over a third of the voting population's support. The fact that a party gaining 23% of votes translates to 9% of seats is a travesty in itself.

However uncomfortable it may be for Tory or Labour supporters who are able to command outrageous majorities out of proportion to their support, a representative government is supposed to be representative of the people, for better or worse.

 

[Correlian]

Ill be voting a big big big YES - it was the primary reason why I voted LD in the last election - and a much needed step in the right direction, and about the only good aspect/concession of the deal they did to enter the ConDem coalition.

In many consitituencies candidates often get elected with ~40% of the vote - that means ~60% of voters dont want them to win, they just cant agree on who should be given the seat. AV, while not perfect, is a definate step in the right direction - hopefully toward "proper" PR.

A democracy is not a democracy unless the electorate is proportionally represented.

Vote YES

or stay home on polling day

 

[RDM]

Jeez don't take it personally Er lolnoAV?

I'm not, probably still stinging from the grief I got in the SC thread for daring to disagree with AV.

The point of course being that you can pick scenarios where FPTP, AV, PR, (insert voting system here) fails or is less than ideal - there is no perfect system and coming up with contrived scenarios where one system may be better than another without looking at the bigger picture is rather pointless.

Which is why my personal reasons for voting against AV are not to do with contrived scenarios and more on general principle. AV really is a miserable/grubby compromise and offers little over FPTP in my opinion. So I am not going to vote for something I think is worse than FPTP on the hopes that it may mean other changes in the future.

 

[RDM]

In many consitituencies candidates often get elected with ~40% of the vote - that means ~60% of voters dont want them to win, they just cant agree on who should be given the seat. AV, while not perfect, is a definate step in the right direction - hopefully toward "proper" PR.

No it doesn't. It means that 60% of voters didn't vote for them on first preference. The only difference with AV is that second preference counts.

You can drop the "proper" as well, AV isn't proportional.

A democracy is not a democracy unless the electorate is proportionally represented.

So if AV wins we still won't be a democracy?

Vote YES

or stay home on polling day

Nah, I think I will vote NO to AV instead. Unless as part of your drive towards democracy you don't want to do it in a democratic way?

 

[Glaucus]

It seems totally pointless to me and a total waste of money.

Your changing from voting for a winner to voting for who you don't want. Both have as many positives and downsides as each other. So there is no net benefit in changing and the whole thing as such, is just a total waste of money.
If you couldn't guess I wont be voting as they are more or less identically as good as each other just different.

 

[Correlian]

I dont claim that AV is proportional in the true sense, but it is definately better than FPTP where unless you vote for the winner your vote and your voice are effectivley thrown into the bin.

And yes, even if (which i sincerely hope) AV becomes law, we will still not be living in a real democracy. One day i hope we will be, and then hopefully we can have real choice instead of 2.5 similar parties which offer very little in the way of change or new ideas.

 

[growse]

My problem is I don't really want to vote for AV, because it's a deeply flawed system. I also don't want to vote for FPTP, because that's an equally flawed system. I don't want to stay at home, because that would seem like I don't care.

What do I do if I care and don't want either system?

 

[Rich_L]

Cross your fingers, hope for another hung Parliament in 4 years and that the Lib Dems hold out for PR

Alternatively, decide which one is least bad

 

[DBT85]

I'll be voting for AV.

In the 2010 election these parties got this much of the total vote, and this much of the actual seats in power. Its not even close to an accurate reflection of what the people voted for and so its not fair. If there was a vote on what your favourite meal was and 36% of people said Chinese, 29% said Indian and 23% said Fish & Chips and the results were published as "Chinese is the nations favourite with 47% of the vote" it wouldn't make any sense.

2010 election numbers
Conservative 36.48% of actual vote, 47% of seats

Labour 28.99% of actual vote, 39% of seats

Lib Dems 23.03% of actual vote, 8.8% of seats.

So in this particular election the Tories and Labour got a larger percentage of power than percentage of people that actually voted, and the lib dems got way less. That system just tends people toward not bothering to vote for people they might actually want because they feel that even with lots of people voting they might not get any more power.

The current system working the way it does encourages people to not vote at all. The three constituencies around me are heavily lib dem and have been for years. If I were a labour supporter there is literally no point in bothering to vote at present. Its the same all over the country. People know that their vote will make jack all difference and so there is no point going.

AV isn't perfect and i know its not PR, but at least it might be a fairer representation of the wishes of the people and for me, that is a step in the right direction.

It seems however people are using a national referendum as a tactical vote to vote no just in case it means a side they don't like might possibly get more power even if its what the country as a whole actually wants. Despite the fact that we have no way of knowing who will get more votes without actually having an election.

 

[Glaucus]

"Chinese is the nations favourite with 47% of the vote" it wouldn't make any sense.

yes it would and it does. More people have voted for Chinese than any other and as such it is the our (collectively more people have voted for it) than any other style of cooking.

Av will not achieve what you are saying. we need to get rid of constituency for parliament and instead use something else. The only thing I can think for is parties make a ranked list of there members and then votes are totalled on a national sense.
however I still want to see a slight swing in favour of the strongest partie, I don't want more hung parliaments. This one has seemed to of worked, but usually it just leads to paralysis and nothing gets done, no one can pass anything and that is even worse than what we have now.

 

[Dolph]

A big problem in the UK is that we don't use the correct terms for FPTP elections. They aren't decided on a majority, but on a plurality. Essentially the referendum is about whether we want plurality or majority voting by means of advance runoff elections...