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

[spudbynight]

Yes the 110% of the population.

Under AV all of the 110% will get a vote. How is that fair?

 

[Antelopethy]

So what do any of the No2AV people have to say about the fact that all the parties use AV to elect their own leaders? Should they switch to using FPTP in your opinion?

 

[RDM]

So what do any of the No2AV people have to say about the fact that all the parties use AV to elect their own leaders? Should they switch to using FPTP in your opinion?

I would say that it is up to the individual party to decide how they want to elect their leader and that comparing a leadership election to a national election is somewhat difficult due to the differing criteria used. I would say that monotonocity is still an issue with it and that it can sometimes through out odd results, for example the election of Ed Miliband as Labour leader.

 

[Theophany]

just like in the last general election only 65% of the eligible people voted, the other 45% are just ignored.

This is pretty much why I'm voting FPTP tomorrow. A big deal is made of candidates not getting 50% of the vote and thus being in a situation that the Yes to AV crowd claim means 'most people do not want them.'

In a country where electoral turnout has been getting worse and worse over the years, all AV will do is put wads of chewing gum over the cracks. Generating 50% votes by churning vote preferences doesn't actually make the system any more democratic imho.

Bottom line is that when you have 40+% of the electorate not voting, you can always speculate that the winning party might not have been the people's first choice. AV ain't going to change that, so what's the point?


As unfashionable as it seems to be to admit it, I actually like FPTP. It's worked for so long now and AV only seems to have become a pressing issue because of one coalition government. Seems like overkill.

 

[Vonhelmet]

This is pretty much why I'm voting FPTP tomorrow. A big deal is made of candidates not getting 50% of the vote and thus being in a situation that the Yes to AV crowd claim means 'most people do not want them.'

In a country where electoral turnout has been getting worse and worse over the years, all AV will do is put wads of chewing gum over the cracks. Generating 50% votes by churning vote preferences doesn't actually make the system any more democratic imho.

All AV aims to achieve is getting a 50% majority among the voters, not among the whole electorate. I think you're mixing up which 50%s you're talking about, unless I'm misunderstanding you. It's not like with AV you'd be able to claim that even though only 30% of the electorate voted, there are 50% of the electorate in favour of candidate X.

In terms of FPTP giving results where a majority of people don't want the winner, this is true - you can end up with a winner that a majority didn't vote for. AV works backwards in a way to ensure that this doesn't happen. The winner in an AV election is the person that more people are happy with than any other.

Bottom line is that when you have 40+% of the electorate not voting, you can always speculate that the winning party might not have been the people's first choice. AV ain't going to change that, so what's the point?

It's not meant to change that. It's meant to make the result more representative of what people want.

As unfashionable as it seems to be to admit it, I actually like FPTP. It's worked for so long now and AV only seems to have become a pressing issue because of one coalition government. Seems like overkill.

Electoral reform has been talked about for a lot longer than just this coalition, but as FPTP massively favours a two party race, neither the Tories nor Labour have made any moves towards it as it would detract from their power base.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

This is pretty much why I'm voting FPTP tomorrow. A big deal is made of candidates not getting 50% of the vote and thus being in a situation that the Yes to AV crowd claim means 'most people do not want them.'

In a country where electoral turnout has been getting worse and worse over the years, all AV will do is put wads of chewing gum over the cracks. Generating 50% votes by churning vote preferences doesn't actually make the system any more democratic imho.

Bottom line is that when you have 40+% of the electorate not voting, you can always speculate that the winning party might not have been the people's first choice. AV ain't going to change that, so what's the point?

You seem to be confusing the proportions.
Less than 40% of the 65% that voted, got what they wanted, ie, 26% of the population.

If you don't vote for one of the two top candidates your vote is wasted.
The AV voting system is more democratic by removing the Spoiler Effect.
By removing that hurdle, the most favoured / least despised candidiate winning.

As unfashionable as it seems to be to admit it, I actually like FPTP. It's worked for so long now and AV only seems to have become a pressing issue because of one coalition government. Seems like overkill.

I think you need to look at what AV offers more factually, in the sense that the systems produce essentially the same results but in a more democratic way. Democracy is good, more democracy is better?

 

[Theophany]

All AV aims to achieve is getting a 50% majority among the voters, not among the whole electorate. I think you're mixing up which 50%s you're talking about, unless I'm misunderstanding you. It's not like with AV you'd be able to claim that even though only 30% of the electorate voted, there are 50% of the electorate in favour of candidate X.

It's not meant to change that. It's meant to make the result more representative of what people want.

Electoral reform has been talked about for a lot longer than just this coalition, but as FPTP massively favours a two party race, neither the Tories nor Labour have made any moves towards it as it would detract from their power base.

I'm not mixing them up, just not making my point particularly eloquently, only had 2 hours of sleep!

What I'm trying to say is that regardless of how representative AV claims to make the vote, it is still not necessarily representative of the people 'as a whole.' I think targetting voter turnout is a much more valid cause right now than changing the voting system. The Yes to AV campaign makes a point of how ridiculous it is that a government can average less than 40% of the popular vote across constituencies, but I think it's much more ridiculous that a government can be elected by less than 60% of the people living in this country.

Yes, electoral reform has been talked about for a while, but the reality is that the majority of people don't care enough about it for it to be popular, otherwise it would have been on the agenda sooner. It's now only come about because the Lib Dem element of the coalition have an electoral mandate to call a referendum, if they hadn't joined the government, it would have been a tiny minority of the population complaining about more FPTP - mainly academics, I'd wager. The majority of people only get riled up about the issue now because a referendum has been laid in front of them and they think it's something that they should be riled up about.

the systems produce essentially the same results but in a more democratic way. Democracy is good, more democracy is better?

Call me callous, but to me that's a distinction without a difference. Like I said above, pursuing voter turnout is a far more worthy cause in my eyes than making people choose between two flawed systems. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic springs to mind.

 

[krooton]

Some people don't both voting as the current system sees their vote count for nothing. Why do something pointless?

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

What I'm trying to say is that regardless of how representative AV claims to make the vote, it is still not necessarily representative of the people 'as a whole.' I think targetting voter turnout is a much more valid cause right now than changing the voting system. The Yes to AV campaign makes a point of how ridiculous it is that a government can average less than 40% of the popular vote across constituencies, but I think it's much more ridiculous that a government can be elected by less than 60% of the people living in this country.

Of course it is ridiculous, but could it also be considered that FPTP is the reason why many people do not vote?
In any area which is considered a 'safe seat' we should be looking at driving up voter turnouts in any way possible, this includes changing the voting system.

Yes, electoral reform has been talked about for a while, but the reality is that the majority of people don't care enough about it for it to be popular, otherwise it would have been on the agenda sooner.

Political appetite. MPs won't enter a fight if there's not serious gains to be made by fighting in it. The same reason our drug laws are a mess - try finding an MP who supports legalisation openly!

 

[Sheff]

I'm undecided; either yes to AV or I will spoil my ballot.

 

[Django x2]

Here's my guide on AV.

Your son, Tommy, a talented sprinter, enters the school sports day 100m race. He trounces the competition and comes 1st by a clear 2 seconds. He's not the most sociable at school but has some friends.

His classmates, completely inferioir athletes, come in a close 2nd and 3rd with only 2/10ths between them. They are far more popular at schools and always bring the 6 packs to the after school pass the parcel birthday parties.

The teacher sees this victory, but hands out 1st place prize to the lad who comes in 3rd place. Tommy gets 2nd place.

Now, try telling Tommy why he got 2nd place?

 

[Theophany]

Of course it is ridiculous, but could it also be considered that FPTP is the reason why many people do not vote?
In any area which is considered a 'safe seat' we should be looking at driving up voter turnouts in any way possible, this includes changing the voting system.

But even under AV in Australia citizens are legally forced to vote, given the malaise toward the voting system there I'd wager their turnouts would drop dramatically if it weren't for legal enforcement. So I don't think AV would be particularly useful in improving voter turnout, beyond the novelty value for the first few years, anyway.

 

[RDM]

Some people don't both voting as the current system sees their vote count for nothing. Why do something pointless?

Is there any research to suggest changing to AV will increase voter turnout? Did it do it in the countries which have switched to AV in the past?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Here's my guide on AV.

Your son, Tommy, a talented sprinter, enters the school sports day 100m race. He trounces the competition and comes 1st by a clear 2 seconds. He's not the most sociable at school but has some friends.

His classmates, completely inferioir athletes, come in a close 2nd and 3rd with only 2/10ths between them. They are far more popular at schools and always bring the 6 packs to the after school pass the parcel birthday parties.

The teacher sees this victory, but hands out 1st place prize to the lad who comes in 3rd place. Tommy gets 2nd place.

Now, try telling Tommy why he got 2nd place?

You're mixing things up. You're describing a situation in which a person's position in a race is decided holistically based on all their traits rather than just their running ability. In politics, the race is already based on the candidate as a whole and all their traits, so it's ok that they are judged on many characteristics.

Your metaphor also doesn't make sense as it's not like the first round in AV is about policy 1, the second about policy 2, etc.

 

[RDM]

You're mixing things up. You're describing a situation in which a person's position in a race is decided holistically based on all their traits rather than just their running ability. In politics, the race is already based on the candidate as a whole and all their traits, so it's ok that they are judged on many characteristics.

Your metaphor also doesn't make sense as it's not like the first round in AV is about policy 1, the second about policy 2, etc.

So rubbish analogies about coffee are fine (because they support AV) but rubbish analogies about running are bad (because they do not support AV)?

 

[krooton]

Here's my guide on AV.

Your son, Tommy, a talented sprinter, enters the school sports day 100m race. He trounces the competition and comes 1st by a clear 2 seconds. He's not the most sociable at school but has some friends.

His classmates, completely inferioir athletes, come in a close 2nd and 3rd with only 2/10ths between them. They are far more popular at schools and always bring the 6 packs to the after school pass the parcel birthday parties.

The teacher sees this victory, but hands out 1st place prize to the lad who comes in 3rd place. Tommy gets 2nd place.

Now, try telling Tommy why he got 2nd place?

Voting shouldn't operate like a race.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

Here's my guide on AV.

Your son, Tommy, a talented sprinter, enters the school sports day 100m race. He trounces the competition and comes 1st by a clear 2 seconds. He's not the most sociable at school but has some friends.

His classmates, completely inferioir athletes, come in a close 2nd and 3rd with only 2/10ths between them. They are far more popular at schools and always bring the 6 packs to the after school pass the parcel birthday parties.

The teacher sees this victory, but hands out 1st place prize to the lad who comes in 3rd place. Tommy gets 2nd place.

Now, try telling Tommy why he got 2nd place?

He came first in the first race.

Then his two classmates worked together for the second race by running 50m each, and their combined speed was sufficient to beat Tommy.
After the race, the two classmates would have to decide who got to wear the gold medal more often, but it isn't an issue given that they were happy to work together in the first place.

 

[krooton]

Is there any research to suggest changing to AV will increase voter turnout? Did it do it in the countries which have switched to AV in the past?

No idea, but personally that isn't what my aim is, it's about those that do choose to vote to have their views more proportionally represented, if it has a knock-on effect of increasing voter turn out, then that's just a plus.

 

[Vonhelmet]

So rubbish analogies about coffee are fine (because they support AV) but rubbish analogies about running are bad (because they do not support AV)?

Well, the coffee one made sense, if only because it showed that where a majority of people don't want something, it shouldn't be the decided winner just because a minority do want it.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

But even under AV in Australia citizens are legally forced to vote, given the malaise toward the voting system there I'd wager their turnouts would drop dramatically if it weren't for legal enforcement. So I don't think AV would be particularly useful in improving voter turnout, beyond the novelty value for the first few years, anyway.

I'm definitely not a fan of legally forcing people to vote. There will always be a certain amount of people who are completely disenfranchised by the political system, but it's worth addressing their concerns rather than ignoring them or forcing them to vote.