Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

[Dolph]

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.

2005 was even worse...

Labour - 35.2% vote, 356 seats - 55.1% of seats

Conservative - 32.3% vote, 198 seats - 30.6% of seats

Lib Dem - 22.1% vote, 62 Seats - 9.6% of seats.

The current electoral system bias towards Labour is shocking, I'm not surprised they are squealing at the prospect of boundary revision... What's really funny is some commentators claiming the coalition doesn't have a mandate when the Tories got a greater percentage of the vote than Brown did in 2005, and with the lib dem influence they are the first majority popular vote government we've had in a very long time.

 

[meghatronic]

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...

Aren't you messing with UK/US definitions there governor?

Majority is simply the most - we don't usually express granularity with respect to majority. Unlike North America's "plurality"... we'd sometimes say relative majority, but we don't have that distinction in everyday language.

If we shared 50 sweets between you, Jesus and I. If you had 23, I had 19 and Jesus had 8... you have the "majority". In the US, you would have plurality (relative majority). You'd have a majority there if you had >25, but I'm pretty sure such a distinction isn't necessary in British English.

But I do like your reduction of the AV paradigm to those terms!

 

[Dolph]

Aren't you messing with UK/US definitions there governor?

Majority is simply the most - we don't usually express granularity with respect to majority. Unlike North America's "plurality"... we'd sometimes say relative majority, but we don't have that distinction in everyday language.

If we shared 50 sweets between you, Jesus and I. If you had 23, I had 19 and Jesus had 8... you have the "majority". In the US, you would have plurality (relative majority). You'd have a majority there if you had >25, but I'm pretty sure such a distinction isn't necessary in British English.

But I do like your reduction of the AV paradigm to those terms!

Well, strictly speaking in UK definitions, it's the difference between a majority and an absolute majority, but I figured the other terms (used elsewhere as well as the USA) are somewhat easier to understand

 

[DBT85]

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.

Yes more people voted for it than others. But representing that as 47% when it wass really 37% is not at all in any way accurate.

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.

AV wont achieve what I'm saying no, since its not PR. Buts its still better than what we have now. That is really whats in question at the moment. Not is AV the best system in the world ever, but is it, in your opinion, a better system than FPTP. I believe that to be the case.

And when you say

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,

Is your problem with hung parliaments, coalitions or both?

I think it actually just stops one wing going batcrap crazy doing whatever they want completely unopposed. If the last 12 years of labour had actually been a 75% labour and say 25% libdem or even tory coalition, do you honestly think we would be in as bad a situation as we are now? With another party being able to hold them back a little it stops the crazies in the main party from getting everything they want which generally isn't in the best interests of the country but rather either themselves, their supporters or a small section of the public. In the same vein, had the conservatives had to bargain a little more during the thatcher years would so many people want to see the woman rot in hell for eternity?

For the conservatives to get some of the stuff done that they wanted, they've had to bargain with the lib dems. We'll agree with you on this and this but we want this in return. Arguably its tamed down the tory response to the financial crisis which would have been much more severe (not saying it wouldn't have worked) and hurt people more.

Haven't Germany been running a coalition for over 6 years and its working out rather well? They are the one with all the money bailing out most of Europe after all.

 

[Randomface74]

I will be voting No to AV.

Reasons:

It will cost £millions to implement, the referendum is already costing £millions.

Your second choice only counts if you voted for the least popular party, e.g. BNP, UKIP, etc. That means in the case of voters' first choices not getting a majority, it's the morons who preferred BNP who get a second vote - aka they choose who wins the election.

 

[bam0]

I will be voting No to AV.

Reasons:

It will cost £millions to implement, the referendum is already costing £millions.

Dubious, but I'll leave that one for now.

Your second choice only counts if you voted for the least popular party, e.g. BNP, UKIP, etc. That means in the case of voters' first choices not getting a majority, it's the morons who preferred BNP who get a second vote - aka they choose who wins the election.

That's just flat out wrong. The winner is whoever gets over 50% of the votes in whatever round of voting you happen to be on. Until that happens everyone else's 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc preferences will count, when appropriate.

 

[Dolph]

Your second choice only counts if you voted for the least popular party, e.g. BNP, UKIP, etc. That means in the case of voters' first choices not getting a majority, it's the morons who preferred BNP who get a second vote - aka they choose who wins the election.

Not necessarily, because in a three primary party system such as we currently have, there are very few 3 way marginals.

Currently, many people have to choose between voting for the party they want (whether Tory, Labour or Lib Dem or someone else) and voting against the party they don't want (by voting for the party most likely to beat them). AV changes this, you can cast your first vote for who you would like ideally, and your subsequent votes according to your order of least objectional parties. It is not just about the lunatic fringe parties like the BNP, socialist workers et al.

The recounts continue until someone has over 50% of the vote, it is essentially compressed run-off voting.

 

[Glaucus]

Before I was indifferent but the more I read about av the less I like it.npeople have been blinded by av. You just need to read about Australia to see the problems. Where big parties are held to ransom by fringe or independent candidates. It's also failed in all countries who have tried it, austrailia needed to make it law to vote or be fined and Fuji need a coup. Been tried and disbarred in America and Canada with public not wanting it after just the first vote.

I really don't think av has been discussed and I really don't think people have read up on it and this is why referendums are so dangerous.

The argument it's a step in the right direction makes me mad, it's not it's a half hearted attempt that doesn't work and we will be stuck with it. It is not going to be a stepping stone.

I might actually got vote now I've read around it more.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Its funny this I am currently undecided but leaning towards retention of FPTP.

For me PR is crazy, just potentialy gives official representation to odd ball wierdo parties. So no way would I support that.

The new proposal AV, actually seems semi logical but as many say I seriously doubt half the population would "get it" hence possibly leading to more issues.

FPTP, people always throw the "corrupt boundary movements" spiel.

What I actually wonder would be better is a half way house between FPTP and PR, in that some of the house is elected by each method.

Create much bigger constituencies and elect half the house that way, then the other half are PR based on the total votes cast. Each party would rank their candidates and the PR system would allocate the members for each party in that order from the ones who failed in their own constituencies.

All constituencies should be practically the same size and based on similar people, ie dont stick a large town with a few local rural areas, create large super rural areas.

I would also like to see no allowed PM change within a party, ie none of that Blair moving to allow Brown to take over stuff (both parties have done it).

I would also like to see the term of the election capped at 5 years, but reduced for low majority goverments. So anywhere between say 2 years to 5 years based on a sliding scale from say 1% to 20% majority. If you get in with a small majority you have a short term, do well and you may get reelected. In fact I think terms should always be fixed and the goverment should not be allowed to decide when to hold the election, but we the voters decide by how much of a majority we give the government.

 

[Glaucus]

For me PR is crazy, just potentialy gives official representation to odd ball wierdo parties. So no way would I support that.

t.

If you look at Australia this is exactly what has happened numerous times, they have identical system to the purposes av system, with one minor change they have to order every party, where we won't have to. You then look what has happened in Fuji, papa new ginuie, America and Canada. People have just gone we want av without reading up on it.

 

[avec]

May have been mentioned on here already but:

Yesterday can’t have been fun for the Yes campaign. Ed Howker was leaked a document from the the campaign’s biggest donor the Electoral Reform Society, that proved, despite the legal threats to the contrary, that they were set to profit from a Yes result.

They concede in the strategy memo that their commercial wing is a weak spot:

“It is possible that ERSL will profit as a result of a YES vote (increased business opportunities)”

And they are well aware of how damaging it could be:

“ERSL fear that negative publicity might affect union clients, Conservative Party or other No supporters which in turn, might affect future dividends.”

The Sun and the Mail have gone to town and even the pro Yes Guardian found it worthy of a thorough writeup. It all makes yesterday’s denial look a little silly. It’s not best to try cover these things up if you put it in writing yourself.

Elsewhere the shock IPPR YouGov poll that found 45% in favour of AV has been shredded by the experts due to the fact that its leading questions read like a Yes press release.

http://order-order.com/2011/04/15/state-of-the-race-yes-campaigns-smoking-gun-memo/

I'm still firmly in camp no and some of the reasons I've heard for why people want to vote yes have been quite silly, but not altogether unexpected.

 

[meghatronic]

People have just gone we want av without reading up on it.

Just the anti-Tory brigade.

Best thing Cameron could do, to stop AV, is to support AV.

 

[Glaucus]

Just the anti-Tory brigade.

Best thing Cameron could do, to stop AV, is to support AV.

I dont know, most people seem to be voting for av, let's hope they are just vocal. Every one who has tried it hashed major problems and massive drop off in voters, it is why austrilia made it requirement to vote.

 

[No1newts]

I'll be voting NO. The idea that a party can get into power without receiving any primary votes from a person (possible if not probable) is abhorrent to me.

The only reason the Lib Dems actually want this system to be introduced is that they are a mickey mouse third party who occupy a happy middle ground between Labour and Conserv's. They will benefit by people thinking "i'm not voting conservative or i'm not voting labour and will whack down Lib Dems as a default second choice." This whole situation is in no way a search for a more honest and fair system of politics as they make it out to be, they merely want a system which will get them into power.

 

[Dolph]

I'll be voting NO. The idea that a party can get into power without receiving any primary votes from a person (possible if not probable) is abhorrent to me.

It isn't possible though

The only reason the Lib Dems actually want this system to be introduced is that they are a mickey mouse third party who occupy a happy middle ground between Labour and Conserv's. They will benefit by people thinking "i'm not voting conservative or i'm not voting labour and will whack down Lib Dems as a default second choice." This whole situation is in no way a search for a more honest and fair system of politics as they make it out to be, they merely want a system which will get them into power.

And the reason why the Tories and most of Labour oppose it is nothing to do with their minority enabled governments I suppose...

 

[No1newts]

It isn't possible though

Sorry I was thinking of the wrong thing

And the reason why the Tories and most of Labour oppose it is nothing to do with their minority enabled governments I suppose...

I don't agree with any party politics, where we are in the world today it is ridiculous for countries to be ran by people who are not actually out to help you but to feather their own beds and pursue their own agendas. Doing away with party politics is the only way for the world, not just individual countires, to move forward though that of course is a personal beleif of mine and I doubt many would agree

If you want real representation go PR, simple. BUt as with every other politicial system it has its drawbacks, that being that there will pretty much never be enough votes for one party to win and it is constant coalations and horse trading on decisions rather than putting the people first.

Politics /spit. I hate it but its an informed hatred having studied the area, not the hatred of ignorance.

 

[Tunney]

Best thing Cameron could do, to stop AV, is to support AV.

It's kind of ironic that David Cameron isn't supporting it, since became leader of the Conservative party through an AV-style voting process.

If the Tories had used FPTP, David Davis would be prime minister right now.

 

[Dolph]

Sorry I was thinking of the wrong thing




I don't agree with any party politics, where we are in the world today it is ridiculous for countries to be ran by people who are not actually out to help you but to feather their own beds and pursue their own agendas. Doing away with party politics is the only way for the world, not just individual countires, to move forward though that of course is a personal beleif of mine and I doubt many would agree

If you want real representation go PR, simple. BUt as with every other politicial system it has its drawbacks, that being that there will pretty much never be enough votes for one party to win and it is constant coalations and horse trading on decisions rather than putting the people first.

Politics /spit. I hate it but its an informed hatred having studied the area, not the hatred of ignorance.

The solution to much of this is a constitutionally enforced small government model, so the impact the government can have is minimised.

 

[No1newts]

The solution to much of this is a constitutionally enforced small government model, so the impact the government can have is minimised.

Yet you will still have the same issues on a local level. You will be shifting the problem to community rather than national level. Just because people are lower down in the chain does not mean they will be any less power/fame hungry and will lie, cheat and deceive to get in power and suit themselves rather than help out the people they represent.

 

[Dolph]

Yet you will still have the same issues on a local level. You will be shifting the problem to community rather than national level. Just because people are lower down in the chain does not mean they will be any less power/fame hungry and will lie, cheat and deceive to get in power and suit themselves rather than help out the people they represent.

No, you won't, because the restrictions would apply to all levels of the state.