Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday

[Naffa]

I'm genuinely undecided. I think that AV is an ever so slightly better system than first past the post, but it's so similar, and will produce such similar results (yes, it will) to past the post, that I just don't think that the change is worth it.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

I'm genuinely undecided. I think that AV is an ever so slightly better system than first past the post, but it's so similar, and will produce such similar results (yes, it will) to past the post, that I just don't think that the change is worth it.

I don't think its possible to predict how the outcome would be affected by the change given the scale and uncertainty of the problem. Ie tactical voting, how many people who would like to vote lib dem but have to vote labour to stand any chance of defeating the tories?

If anything, i suspect under AV we would see a swing to the left because most left wingers would vote

lib dem - labour - conservative - BNP
labour - lib dem - conservative - BNP

And most right wingers
conservative - labour .....

Which generates a stacking bias to the left. If lib dem+labour > conservative, the left wins.

 

[godinman]

FPTP. As said before, it's got it's problems, but I foresee more problems with AV.

 

[Tefal]

In an election with more than two candidates, AV maximises the number of happy voters where FPTP mathematically can't.

yet most people probably only know labour, conservative and libdem.


So wil lrank them most likly 1, 2, or 1,2, 3.


and the libs will get a huge number of extra votes based purely on "ummmmmm ok well i've heard of them i'll put them as 2 as i don't want lab/con but tbh i really don't know wtf the libs represent".

 

[AGD]

Definitely voting AV. It's not perfect but it's a step in the right direction and FPTP is just awful.

 

[krooton]

Also in Australia, AV has created what is effectively a two party democracy and that's not something I would like to see.

What, like the UK has been for over 50 years?

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm

 

[Castiel]

What, like the UK has been for over 50 years?

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm

Unlike Australia, we still have the choice to vote for a party of significant size in the Liberal Democrats, we also have the choice not to vote.

AV in Australia has forced the weaker parties to form a permanent coalition in order to compete, that is not something I would like to see here.

 

[guyfawkes5]

Voting No to AV doesn't mean Yes to FPTP...

In all honesty though, do you think your political masters will interpret it, or at least present it, that way?

 

[Vonhelmet]

In all honesty though, do you think your political masters will interpret it, or at least present it, that way?

I'm not sure your opinion on our political masters will be the most tempered

 

[PMKeates]

AV in Australia has forced the weaker parties to form a permanent coalition in order to compete, that is not something I would like to see here.

How has AV managed to do this? If a party is weak enough to have their candidates eliminated under AV then surely they will be eliminated under FPTP too?

It sounds like something else other than AV was the root cause i.e. unpopular politics.

 

[bam0]

In fact in Fiji there are moves to return to a FPTP system and in Australia the reform lobby are also campaigning to return to a FPTP system.

The Fijians have an issue with apparentment, not something that is being considered in the UK. And as for Australia looking at returning to FPTP, that's just wrong, I challenge you to find any of the main Aussie political parties supporting a move to FPTP.

Neither seems to be indicative of the "stepping stone to PR" that you seem to think is automatic, quite the opposite in fact.

Well if you will base your opinions on falsities....You might find this analysis of the recent Aussie poll that the No campaign keep talking about interesting: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...n-surveys-of-the-preferred-voting-system.html

Also in Australia, AV has created what is effectively a two party democracy and that's not something I would like to see.

It hasn't "created" anything more than FPTP has created the political system we have here. Australia also happens to have a fully elected upper house voted in under a full PR system that has similar powers to block legislation as the House of Lords, you do the country a disservice by only looking at its lower house.

Voting No to AV doesn't mean Yes to FPTP, it simply means AV is not what people want, it doesn't impact on the need for electoral reform, in fact a No vote will not silence reformers and will more than likely increase their numbers as this referendum has increased awareness to the issues our electoral system has.

Voting No to AV will be treated, politically, as Yes to FPTP. As is evident from the current campaign all the Conservatives and half of Labour have no desire to change from what we have no because it gives them power (cyclically) and they don't want to share, they'd both rather be out of government for several terms in a row than be permanently reduced to their appropriate size.
You can have all the reformers and campaigners you like, but if you don't have anyone with the power to change things supporting your position you're not going to get anywhere.

Whichever way you vote, Parliament will see that as a vindication of that system, only with the No vote we have had no change and so the same argument from the reformers remain and probably increased by more awareness of the issues with FPTP and in all likelihood we will see MPs backing more substantial reforms to the Constituency and Parliamentary systems and in turn revisiting the voting system. Voting Yes to AV simply vindicates AV as the change reformers are calling for, thus undermining their own campaign for PR.

I refer you again to the Canadian situation, high targets were set for changing the voting system in some areas (60% approval required to pass) it was missed by 3% and a couple of years on there is no longer a body of people supporting reform, change breeds change.

 

[Castiel]

How has AV managed to do this? If a party is weak enough to have their candidates eliminated under AV then surely they will be eliminated under FPTP too?

It sounds like something else other than AV was the root cause i.e. unpopular politics.

Or a split vote.

Whatever the reason, AV in Australia has arguably failed, so much so that recent polls suggest a return to FPTP is what the electorate want, in Fiji that is what is happening, I suspect that Australia will not be far behind.

AV is not a better system than FPTP, it simply has different problems.

 

[guyfawkes5]

I'm not sure your opinion on our political masters will be the most tempered

Especially given they're not 'our' political masters in the first place.

I have a feeling if I was to actually write down what I think of your voting system it would earn me a lot of enemies here, over here we've had PR with the past few upteenth decades and to be honest I can't imagine any different way of doing it. Some of the criticisms of AV or PR just seem completely alien to me.

 

[trigger-happy]

AV.

Anything the Conservatives and BNP don't like MUST be good.

+1

 

[bam0]

Or a split vote.

Whatever the reason, AV in Australia has arguably failed, so much so that recent polls suggest a return to FPTP is what the electorate want, in Fiji that is what is happening, I suspect that Australia will not be far behind.

AV is not a better system than FPTP, it simply has different problems.

A return to FPTP in Australia? There aren't going to be many people left who have ever voted under it being as preferential voting came in in 1918. Your suppositions are unsupported flights of fancy that just show how unfamiliar you are with politics in other countries.

 

[Castiel]

The Fijians have an issue with apparentment, not something that is being considered in the UK. And as for Australia looking at returning to FPTP, that's just wrong, I challenge you to find any of the main Aussie political parties supporting a move to FPTP.

The main Australian Party.....the opposition are a coalition of smaller parties.

Since when has what the Parties supported been the same as what the People want.

Here the people want PR, yet the Lib Dems are supporting AV.....

Well if you will base your opinions on falsities....You might find this analysis of the recent Aussie poll that the No campaign keep talking about interesting: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...n-surveys-of-the-preferred-voting-system.html

The result clearly shows a preference for FPTP over preferential voting. Going back 30 and 40 years is hardly indicative of the feeling of the current electorate....

It hasn't "created" anything more than FPTP has created the political system we have here. Australia also happens to have a fully elected upper house voted in under a full PR system that has similar powers to block legislation as the House of Lords, you do the country a disservice by only looking at its lower house.

We are talking about changing the election system for our lower house, so comparing it to Austalia's lower house is not doing it a disservice at all.

Voting No to AV will be treated, politically, as Yes to FPTP. As is evident from the current campaign all the Conservatives and half of Labour have no desire to change from what we have no because it gives them power (cyclically) and they don't want to share, they'd both rather be out of government for several terms in a row than be permanently reduced to their appropriate size.
You can have all the reformers and campaigners you like, but if you don't have anyone with the power to change things supporting your position you're not going to get anywhere.

The vote for Yes will be treated the same. AV will be vindicated as the system people wanted and no more changes will be forthcoming.

I refer you again to the Canadian situation, high targets were set for changing the voting system in some areas (60% approval required to pass) it was missed by 3% and a couple of years on there is no longer a body of people supporting reform, change breeds change.

Nice soundbite, but ultimately it doesn't mean anything. If AV wins, AV will be the new permanent voting system for at least our lifetime if not longer.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

I was being facecious with my Tories / BNP remark, but they are examples of the parties likely to be most effected by the changes.

The Tories have too many 'safe' seats, which are partly assisted due to the structural issue of Spoiled / Wasted votes. It is better that the preferences of the most people are heard, rather than having politicians that achieve less than 50% of the popular vote.

The BNP, to many people, are completely abhorrent and anything that legitimately (by reflecting the democratic desires of the people) keeps them out of power is healthy.

 

[Castiel]

A return to FPTP in Australia? There aren't going to be many people left who have ever voted under it being as preferential voting came in in 1918. Your suppositions are unsupported flights of fancy that just show how unfamiliar you are with politics in other countries.

If you say so.

Vote AV you will get AV, it will not be a shortlived stepping stone to PR, it will simply be a more expensive system that gives practically the same results with different problems.

So I will vote No, I wish to see PR, AV isn't it, so we may as well remain with FPTP.

Like I have said before, I will vote yes to change, when there is a significantly better change, AV is just different and nothing anyone has said has changed my mind.

If AV wins I won't be that bothered tbh, as I hold no party loyality, but to assume AV is simply a step to PR is naive.

 

[bam0]

The main Australian Party.....the opposition are a coalition of smaller parties.

Since when has what the Parties supported been the same as what the People want.

Here the people want PR, yet the Lib Dems are supporting AV.....

Show me that the ALP want to move to FPTP.

"The People" were only asked in the poll to choose between full preferential voting and FPTP, the question was:

"Currently, elections for the Federal House of Representatives, or lower house, use a preferential voting system. This is where voters indicate an order of preferences for all candidates, and these preferences are taken into account when deciding which candidate wins. (PAUSE) An alternative system would be "first past the post", where voters only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. Would you personally prefer .... ?
1 - A preferential system
2 - A first past the post system"

The bold sections were emphasised when the question was asked.

The result clearly shows a preference for FPTP over preferential voting. Going back 30 and 40 years is hardly indicative of the feeling of the current electorate....

The context of what was happening at the time of this most recent, and the other surveys is important, which is why I bring them up, although I can see why it'd suit you to write them off as irrelevant.

Nice soundbite, but ultimately it doesn't mean anything. If AV wins, AV will be the new permanent voting system for at least our lifetime if not longer.

Frankly your pontifications mean just as much.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

Vote AV you will get AV, it will not be a shortlived stepping stone to PR, it will simply be a more expensive system that gives practically the same results with different problems.

I haven't heard any problems with AV that FPTP doesn't already have, beyond FUD - which isn't a legitimate reason to stay with FPTP.

I accept both are incredibly similar but AV is slightly less flawed.