Hmm, that's the only reason I went with Yes in the hope it starts us on the path of PR.
Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
Hmm, that's the only reason I went with Yes in the hope it starts us on the path of PR.
The only way we would get PR is if the lib dems still have enough seats and votes next time around to be kingmakers and demand a change next hung parliament.
Isn't there a chance that if we vote for AV we get stuck with it though. Voting for it would allow any government to say it's what we wanted so no more changes.
I can't decide which vote would be a step closer to PR. Reading the future is tricky business.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,086
- Location
- Berkland
Edit: Codswalup!
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 5,510
- Location
- Worthington-on-sea
Because to get the LibDems into the coalition the Conservatives agreed to a vote on electoral reform. However, not prepared to concede to PR they offer AV or nothing. The LibDems know that AV will give them more votes than FPTP even though they dont want it so they grasp at it with both hands as it's the only chance they're getting.
For me AV is a compromise on eletoral reform and not a good enough reason to change.
It's certainly possible we'll be stuck with it, but we know that the LibDems actually want PR and I think it's very likely that AV will give them more influence as people won't see them as a wasted vote.
I don't really understand this viewpoint... Surely the winner should have the support of the majority of the constituency they're winning in? In a constituency with many candidates, the "winner" under FPTP can have a ridiculously small amount of support and still win the seat. Under AV, the winner actually needs the majority of the constituency to support them. Whether they're first preference or not, they still require far greater support to win the seat than under FPTP. How is that not more fair?
Only the LibDems are going to offer us PR. AV will help them do that.
I don't really understand this viewpoint... Surely the winner should have the support of the majority of the constituency they're winning in? In a constituency with many candidates, the "winner" under FPTP can have a ridiculously small amount of support and still win the seat. Under AV, the winner actually needs the majority of the constituency to support them. Whether they're first preference or not, they still require far greater support to win the seat than under FPTP. How is that not more fair?
Only the LibDems are going to offer us PR. AV will help them do that.
No. FPTP is very, very bad at giving equal counting of votes. The value of my vote is very dependent on what everyone else in the constituency has chosen. If I don't side with the plurality (the largest single block, usually not a strict majority) then my opinion is completely ignored. This results in a large number of very safe seats and a few marginal seats that actually determine the result of the election. AV doesn't fix this, but it improves the situation with fewer very safe seats, more marginal seats and the ability to express an opinion that still gets taken into account even if your first choice doesn't match with the plurality.
Each voter under AV has a significantly more equal say than under FPTP.
Everyone who expresses all their preferences gets the same number of votes. It is simply false to claim you get more votes when your first preference doesn't get in. Every vote is counted once in each round. If your first preference is eliminated your second (or lower) preference vote is counted; if you're lucky enough to have your first preference still in the race, your vote for them gets counted again.
No-one gets 3/4/5 votes while some only gets 1 that's a complete misrepresentation of the system.
Why? Why is my opinion suddenly irrelevant if my very first choice didn't get in? We're supposed to be electing a representative here! Why does my opinion on representative get completely ignored if I don't happen to side with the largest minority?
There's a thing called the Condorcet criterion used for judging different electoral systems. What it says is that the winner of an election should also win an election held with only them and any of the other candidates. So, for example, if the Tories win in an election with Liberals and Labour also running; they should also win if only the Liberals or Labour ran. That stands to reason, right? If the winner picked doesn't meet this criteria than a majority of the electorate would prefer not to have them.
Neither AV nor FPTP, unfortunately, meets this criterion. However AV is much, much closer to doing so than FPTP.
What is not to understand?
10 People vote. 3 people vote for one person, the other 7 vote for 7 other different people with thier vote, therefore the person with 3 votes has more support than any other. The fact that the 7 people didnt vote for them should not then mean that they effectively get to vote again.
The "fairness" for me is the right of the person voting, not who is elected. I dont agree with people having multiple votes, which is what AV is. One person, one vote, is surely more fair. It means that people who vote National Front, can vote for them, but knowing they will not win they get a second, third, fourth chance etc. I dont agree with this.
Well educated voting ethics I see
The conservatives are against rape, do you like rape?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(or MEGALOLZ!!!1111ROFLLMAO!!!11! for the 11-16 yr olds among us)
Very funny, I enjoyed that, good job there's no one else in the office at the moment.
FPTP
AV doesn't offer that though, all it offers is that the winner has over 50% of the votes counted in the round that they win. This could be considerably less of 50% of the voting constituency. The only way to ensure they have the support of 50% of the voting constituency is to force people to rank all candidates.
Because it does not address the issue of voters having different voting weight dependant on the order of elimination and it allows a situation to occur when voting as first preference could actually be harmful to your candidate?
I disagree. This is fundamentaly what AV is.
Further problems will be if AV came in you wont get 100% of voters ranking all candidates....they can simply still vote for one person.
The result is more minority parties, like the BNP, gaining more influence.
My vote in the last election only counted as 1/5th of an actual vote. Give me 5 preferences and I have my 1 vote.
AV plz.
And? If enough people support them, then they should be represented, regardless if you and I disagree with their policies. It's called democracy.
Wow, this is about the most disappointed I've ever been with this forum.
Why is anyone thinking of FPTP? The two systems are very similar with the key difference being the AV solves the split vote problem that FPTP suffers from and allows people vote their true preference without having to think tactically.
It really is as simple as that, no more no less.
Why is anyone thinking of FPTP? The two systems are very similar with the key difference being the AV solves the split vote problem that FPTP suffers from and allows people vote their true preference without having to think tactically.
It really is as simple as that, no more no less.
It will be sad times if we see the likes of the National Front, or some kind of radical muslim extremist party with a seat, democracy or not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Person 1, third round, still backing their first candiate, ergo, their first preference can still win. Effective number of votes, 1
Person 3, third round, on their third preference, their first preference can never win. Effective number of votes 3
So the person with 'more votes', that you would complain is an unfair advantage, their first choice can never win, where your 1 vote (unfair disadvantage) can still win.
You have only cast 1 lot, but your party is still in the running
They have cast 3 lots and neither there first nor there second preference has come through
Does ANYBODY want to be in the 'get more votes' camp?
And the ultimate irony, the losers next preference may very well be FOR YOUR PARTY.
We're trying to decide where to go for drinks, there's 10 of us.
3 people want to go to Starbucks for coffee
2 people want to go to the Red Lion for a pint
2 people want to go to the Queen's Head for a pint
2 people want to go to the Flag and Bucket for a pint
1 person wants to go to the Rake for a pint
Do you really think going for a coffee best represents what those ten people want to do?