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

[BunnyKillBot]

if PR was on the cards I would have jumped at the opportunity but it is not.

Given one MP represents the views of one constituency, surely an implementation of PR would require the abolition of the MP-Constituent link. Under FPTP and AV, you have one MP that represent issues from your local area in the house of parliament. If you have an issue of concern, you can write to that MP and they will address it for you.

Under PR, who do you talk to? Do you write to 'the conservatives' because you agree with their political ideology? Do you write to your geographically nearest conservative? Do you write to the council 'I support party X, so could party X please represent me at a governmental level?'

PR isnt as simple or as desirable as people make it out to be

 

[Narj]

Going to be voting no, because sadly there are too many stupid people in this country who hate certain parties without really knowing why. If we had AV these people would just end up skewing the results by sticking said parties at the bottom of their list for no real good reason other than their parent's hate them.

No vote from me... It does my head in when people wheel out the old, "I vote XXXX because my parents voted for them, and so did their parents before them". No amount of reasoning will make them question their decision so I'd rather this lot didn't gain any additional clout. One girl I know actually cried when Labour were booted out...

At least with FPTP we've historically been able to boot out governments that are FUBAR, bringing in someone else with enough of a majority to make necessary changes.

I'd like to think I'd vote for full PR, but I can see that causing even more hung parliaments, sadly, plus I'd rather vote for a local MP who I can lobby and influence (in theory).

 

[krooton]

No it's not.

Tactical voting under AV gives the opportunity for pointless, ineffective parties like the Greens and BNP to get into power as they are potentially placed higher up the rankings when the Tories (or whoever) get put at the bottom, "just because".

That is not tactical voting, that is picking preferences.

Tactical voting (as has been mentioned many times) is when you don't vote for the party you want, but for another party to try and prevent a party you don't want from getting in.

 

[Theophany]

Voted Yes.

I expect the result to be a resounding "No", the majority of votes for which will have come from people who think AV is too complicated, are scared of change, or are too stupid/lazy to understand.

I voted Herp Derp. amidoinitrite?

 

[Tunney]

Local polling station was empty. Absolutely deserted. I'm expecting a very, very low turn-out in London.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It's not tactical voting if someone you don't like gets in. It's tactical voting when a person votes for person A that they don't want in order to keep person B out because thy want them even less.

The maths of it all means that it tactical voting is simply less effective than under FPTP and it is more democratic as the fringe parties are more likely to get in when that is what people genuinely want.

 

[AndyT]

That is not tactical voting, that is picking preferences.

Tactical voting (as has been mentioned many times) is when you don't vote for the party you want, but for another party to try and prevent a party you don't want from getting in.

How is it not tactical voting? There is a tactic behind making that choice; it is in a poll and is therefore a vote.

It may not lie under the classic definition of tactical voting, but it is a voting strategy that can skew the results.

Therefore it is a tactical vote.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

No it's not.

Tactical voting under AV gives the opportunity for pointless, ineffective parties like the Greens and BNP to get into power as they are potentially placed higher up the rankings when the Tories (or whoever) get put at the bottom, "just because".

Absolutely wrong, see an earlier post of mine. The votes are redistributed from the bottom up. The party with the least votes gets knocked out and their votes redistributed. It doesn't matter if the entire conservative party (lets say upwards of 30% of the populace) list their second choice as the BNP, by the time the conservatives get 'knocked out' the BNP have already been eliminated and those second preferance votes go into the void

It seems to me the vast majority of people who support FPTP dont have a clue how AV works. See the above common confusion. Thats either a fault of the Yes campaign not being explicitly clear or the No campaign spreading lies.

In the 2010 election, the number of votes from every party who received less votes than the BNP added up is barely enough to raise the BNPs final position by 1, assuming every single one of those voters listed the BNP as a second preference.

It is statistically impossible for a minority party to get into power without a significant number of first preference votes.

The only question is how many people are tactically voting for one of the main parties when they would rather be voting for a minority party

 

[Narj]

How is it not tactical voting? There is a tactic behind making that choice; it is in a poll and is therefore a vote.

It may not lie under the classic definition of tactical voting, but it is a voting strategy that can skew the results.

Therefore it is a tactical vote.

This is pretty much how I think of it... "Anything but Party X" is a tactic IMO, even if not in the classic sense of the term.

EDIT: I think with AV many would vote for the party they really want to vote for first but don't really expect to have a chance, then they'll vote for the mainstream parties afterwards. Haven't really thought about how such "protest"/unconventional votes would affect things. I'm just of the opinion that you should vote for who you want to win regardless.

 

[dr_volki]

No vote from me... It does my head in when people wheel out the old, "I vote XXXX because my parents voted for them, and so did their parents before them". No amount of reasoning will make them question their decision so I'd rather this lot didn't gain any additional clout. One girl I know actually cried when Labour were booted out...

At least with FPTP we've historically been able to boot out governments that are FUBAR, bringing in someone else with enough of a majority to make necessary changes.

I'd like to think I'd vote for full PR, but I can see that causing even more hung parliaments, sadly, plus I'd rather vote for a local MP who I can lobby and influence (in theory).

Not just pointed at you but everyone
Why does everyone think a hung parliament is a bad thing? I fail to see that point, but that might be because I've grown up in Germany and no party there gets a majority

 

[vincent1989]

Given one MP represents the views of one constituency, surely an implementation of PR would require the abolition of the MP-Constituent link. Under FPTP and AV, you have one MP that represent issues from your local area in the house of parliament. If you have an issue of concern, you can write to that MP and they will address it for you.

Under PR, who do you talk to? Do you write to 'the conservatives' because you agree with their political ideology? Do you write to your geographically nearest conservative? Do you write to the council 'I support party X, so could party X please represent me at a governmental level?'

PR isn't as simple or as desirable as people make it out to be

but under FPTP the current MP does not represent the views of their constituents, they represent the highest minority of their constituency, this could be 33% of people or less in some extreme circumstances. so I refer you to the point you made.

 

[Narj]

Not just pointed at you but everyone
Why does everyone think a hung parliament is a bad thing? I fail to see that point, but that might be because I've grown up in Germany and no party there gets a majority

No effective party whip means that getting new legislation through can be an absolute nightmare. Obviously this can be a good or bad thing, but when something needs sorting quickly, the other parties can scupper everything purely out of spite if they want to.

The current coalition has had some pluses in watering down the more loony policies but it's obvious that there's tension and it's far from a solid agreement. If anything the Lib Dems have far much more clout than they deserve considering how many seats they got.

 

[Glaucus]

Not just pointed at you but everyone
Why does everyone think a hung parliament is a bad thing? I fail to see that point, but that might be because I've grown up in Germany and no party there gets a majority

Because you get back room deals. The av referendum is a great example. Tories don't want change but need lib dem on board. Therefore offer a 5% way door(rather than half way door) that no one actually wants. Nothing gets done all designs are watered down and so one. Hung parliaments create more red tape and inefficiency more than we have now. However saying that I do want to see a national vote system but not direct PR some sort of stepped system.

As for av it isn't going to solve one single problem they say it will, both yes and no campaign have been despicable and there should be some sort of come back. Is it not regulated like normal advertising?

Going to make a prediction for the hell of it. Low turn out, close poll, av wins by a smidge.

 

[bam0]

At least with FPTP we've historically been able to boot out governments that are FUBAR, bringing in someone else with enough of a majority to make necessary changes.

No we haven't, both Labour and Conservative governments have hung on past their time despite a majority of the country not wanting them. If a large proportion of public opinion turns against a government it's actually easier to kick them out via AV than FPTP.

 

[AndyT]

Absolutely wrong, see an earlier post of mine. The votes are redistributed from the bottom down. The party with the least votes gets knocked out and their votes redistributed. It doesn't matter if the entire conservative party (lets say upwards of 30% of the populace) list their second choice as the BNP, by the time the conservatives get 'knocked out' the BNP have already been eliminated and those second preferance votes go into the void

It seems to me the vast majority of people who agree with FPTP simple dont understand how AV works. See the above common confusion

In the 2010 election, the number of votes from every party who received less votes than the BNP added up is barely enough to raise the BNPs final position by 1, assuming every single one of those voters listed the BNP as a second preference.

It is statistically impossible for a minority party to get into power without a significant number of first preference votes.

The only question is how many people are tactically voting for one of the main parties when they would rather be voting for a minority party

Apologies,

I need to edit my post, not to say "get into power" but rather, "get a seat or two in the house of commons"; which is what I really meant in the first place.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

but under FPTP the current MP does not represent the views of their constituents, they represent the highest minority of their constituency, this could be 33% of people or less in some extreme circumstances. so I refer you to the point you made.

I know i agree, i would much rather have an majority MP-constituent link under AV, then a minority MP-constituent under FPTP and no MP-constituent link at all under PR

 

[krooton]

This is pretty much how I think of it... "Anything but Party X" is a tactic IMO, even if not in the classic sense of the term.

EDIT: I think with AV many would vote for the party they really want to vote for first but don't really expect to have a chance, then they'll vote for the mainstream parties afterwards. Haven't really thought about how such "protest"/unconventional votes would affect things. I'm just of the opinion that you should vote for who you want to win regardless.

But if you genuinely prefer parties A. B, C. and D over party E, stating that preference isn't tactical, it's just the truth.

Tactical voting in FPTP means that parties can end up looking like they have much more or much less support than they actually do.

A percentage of votes for all the major parties in FPTP will actually be made up of people who actually want another party in, but vote to keep yet another party out.

All we see if the baseline "support" for the parties and take that at face value.

 

[Kazz]

I expect the result to be a resounding "No", the majority of votes for which will have come from people who think AV is too complicated, are scared of change, or are too stupid/lazy to understand.

I'm voting yes, but I also expect "no" to be the result, people in general are just too stupid .

 

[dr_volki]

No effective party whip means that getting new legislation through can be an absolute nightmare. Obviously this can be a good or bad thing, but when something needs sorting quickly, the other parties can scupper everything purely out of spite if they want to.

The current coalition has had some pluses in watering down the more loony policies but it's obvious that there's tension and it's far from a solid agreement.

Very true and I thought of that but I still don't think it's a bad thing
Same goes for Switzerland when I lived there with 2 different houses having to agree on something otherwise it'll go for public vote in some cases

 

[krooton]

No we haven't, both Labour and Conservative governments have hung on past their time despite a majority of the country not wanting them. If a large proportion of public opinion turns against a government it's actually easier to kick them out via AV than FPTP.

True, in order for us to effectively kick out a party in FPTP, everyone must vote for their only real competition, which isn't necessarily the party we want. It become one GIANT tactical vote.