The AV referendum

[scotty]

A little confused - what is wrong with that

 

this. If blair and co hadnt had such a free ride with their majority maybe he wouldnt have been able to drag us into iraq.

[pedg]

A little confused - what is wrong with that

 

My point is that the current set of U turns have got little if nothing to do with the Lib Dems being in the coalition and are down to the dogmatic 'lets sell off everything including the forests, the sky and air' attitude of the tory's who now find themselves as ministers and appear to be giddy with the power after so long without any.

Edited 18 April, 2011 by pedg
too many dogmatics

[scotty]

My point is that the current set of U turns have got little if nothing to do with the Lib Dems being in the coalition and are down to the dogmatic 'lets sell off everything including the forests, the sky and air' dogmatic attitude of the tory's who now find themselves as ministers and appear to be giddy with the power after so long without any.

 

I disagree on this one. There is an element of influence held by the libdems for the simple reason that the coalition would not exist without them. The Major government was dependent to a lesser degree on the irish mps, but that was more the result of his wafer-thin majority. I quite like the idea of a smaller party having some level of veto over the usual tory/labour steamroller politics, think its a refreshing change myself.

[moonraker]

If you believe that then you're even more naive than I thought.

 

If changes to our antiquated 19th century voting system was all he wanted then he would have got more than referendum from boy David. AV is not enough but it is better than the rubbish system we currently have. Even the Tory leadership uses a more sophisticated system than FPTP, similar to AV.

[StDunko]

Vote for more than one candidate and your second, third or fourth choice could knock out your first. If it comes in I will only put a 1 against the candidate I want. I will not be grading my vote and damaging my first choice.

 

No to AV for me

 

You CAN do this under AV, so what is the problem? Did you watch the video that was posted on this thread?

[Pugwash]

If changes to our antiquated 19th century voting system was all he wanted then he would have got more than referendum from boy David. AV is not enough but it is better than the rubbish system we currently have. Even the Tory leadership uses a more sophisticated system than FPTP, similar to AV.

 

Indeed. If the major parties had First-Past-The-Post in electing their own leaders, then Davies would be Prime Minister and Labour would be led by the other Milliband. (courtesy of Stephen Fry)

[aintforever]

I think AV is a much better way of representing what the people want, how can people expressing their first, second and third choice possibly be a bad thing?

 

There is not one party whose policies I totally agree with but there are some I very strongly disagree with (BNP for example). AV gives me the chance to get my view across.

 

I voted Lib Dem mainly because where I live it's a straight choice between them and the Tories, under AV I would probably vote 1:Green party, 2:Labour 3:Lib Dem. The Greens or Labour will still not get in but at least my vote reflects my opinion - that is what democracy is all about.

[St Jim]

trouble with the present system we get can governments with massive majority with 38% of the vote and the other 62% are just ignored. i think its typical brish trait that we don,t like change of any sort.

 

The AV vote does nothing to make the system more democratic. You can still get majority governments on say, 38% of the primary vote and even get majority governments on less than 50% after preferences (as proved here in South Australia where Labour only obtained 48% and the Liberals 52% after preferences on a 2 party preferred basis, yet Labour still had a majority of seats).

 

One big issue is that the candidate who, say, came third out of six after the primary vote counts can still get in after preferences. That is a candidate getting less than 33% of the primary vote. The example of this was at the Australian General election last August. Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie scored 21% of the primary vote (in third place behind Labour (35%), the Liberals (23%) and just ahead of the Greens (19%)). How is it democratic that a guy who only polled 21% of the primary vote can make it into parliament?

 

If I were back in Old Blighty my vote would be no and I encourage the country not to waste the nations finances changing the current system to one which will provide no greater amount of democracy or proportional representation.

[trousers]

Ah, politics. One of mankind's greatest inventions.

 

Make of that what you will.

[trousers]

If you believe that then you're even more naive than I thought.

 

Please sir, can I go in your 'naive' pigeon hole too? Please sir?

 

A 'no' result will not cause a lib dem revolt. They're too happy to have got a share of power after trying, and failing, for 70 years.

[pedg]

The AV vote does nothing to make the system more democratic. You can still get majority governments on say, 38% of the primary vote and even get majority governments on less than 50% after preferences (as proved here in South Australia where Labour only obtained 48% and the Liberals 52% after preferences on a 2 party preferred basis, yet Labour still had a majority of seats).

 

One big issue is that the candidate who, say, came third out of six after the primary vote counts can still get in after preferences. That is a candidate getting less than 33% of the primary vote. The example of this was at the Australian General election last August. Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie scored 21% of the primary vote (in third place behind Labour (35%), the Liberals (23%) and just ahead of the Greens (19%)). How is it democratic that a guy who only polled 21% of the primary vote can make it into parliament?

 

If I were back in Old Blighty my vote would be no and I encourage the country not to waste the nations finances changing the current system to one which will provide no greater amount of democracy or proportional representation.

 

Its democratic because to get elected you have to have more than the support of just your core party voters which is what the current system is. I see nothing wrong with the person who was initially third winning in the end as once the votes have been distributed he obviously had more support at that point than the person who was initially in front.

[pedg]

The way to think about AV is to think of it as being similar to the approach used to elect Cameron to be leader of the conservatives. In their election the MPs got to vote in one round with 4 MP's. Then the one with the less votes was eliminated and they voted again on the remaining 3 to get 2 candidates so that when the rest of their party voted there was sure to be one candidate with more than 50% of the vote. If they had gone straight to their members with all 4 candidates then who knows who would have won. David Davies got most votes in the first MP round so possibly him? So was Cameron's election undemocratic?

 

Now obviously when you only have a few hundred people its easy to manage a number of distinct rounds of voting but for a general election that's not feasible but assuming that everyone ranks their preferences the same as the order in which they would vote for people in the separate rounds then the result will be the same.

[trousers]

Its democratic because to get elected you have to have more than the support of just your core party voters which is what the current system is. I see nothing wrong with the person who was initially third winning in the end as once the votes have been distributed he obviously had more support at that point than the person who was initially in front.

 

I'm confused. I thought AV was supposed to be a miserable compromise...?

[thefunkygibbons]

straight no

 

simples

[pedg]

Also image a constituency where someone voted green in the previous election and would vote for them again but in the one they are about to vote in there is no green candidate. Should their vote somehow count less because the person they eventually voted for was not their preferred candidate?

[pedg]

I'm confused. I thought AV was supposed to be a miserable compromise...?

 

It is but it is still better than first past the post. So how bad does that make first past the post?

[St Jim]

Its democratic because to get elected you have to have more than the support of just your core party voters which is what the current system is. I see nothing wrong with the person who was initially third winning in the end as once the votes have been distributed he obviously had more support at that point than the person who was initially in front.

 

 

It is undemocratic because you end up with an elected candidate that no one really wanted there in the first place (as in the example I gave). Practice shows that when people cast their vote, the order of their preferences tend to be based on who they don't want rather than who they do want, so the elected candidate is is effectively the least disliked as opposed to the most liked and as such they actually don't represent the people at all.

[notnowcato]

I know you will disagree but actually we really do have a good compromise now. The Lib Dems can keep a check on the more zealous Tory cuts.

 

See what happens to the NHS in the next 12 to 24 months. They've already started tearing the a*** out of it and it will only continue.

[Verbal]

straight no

 

simples

 

Dead wrong.

 

Even simplers.

[aintforever]

It is undemocratic because you end up with an elected candidate that no one really wanted there in the first place (as in the example I gave). Practice shows that when people cast their vote, the order of their preferences tend to be based on who they don't want rather than who they do want, so the elected candidate is is effectively the least disliked as opposed to the most liked and as such they actually don't represent the people at all.

 

That's nonsense, if you didn't like a candidate you wouldn't put them as any choice.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

See what happens to the NHS in the next 12 to 24 months. They've already started tearing the a*** out of it and it will only continue.

 

The NHS is the third biggest employer behind the Indian railways and the Chinese Red army. Do you not think it wise to explore ways of getting more value for money from it in these times of austerity. Already the lib dems are are putting pressure on the torys and that is a good think - a good check.

[Joensuu]

I'm just disappointed (but not surprised) that the debate seems to have focused on soundbites and personality, rather than discussing the actual benefits of voting reform.

 

If people were to vote on nothing but the pros and cons of AV vs FPTP, it would be a landslide win for AV.

[dune]

Milliband wants it, The Liberals want it.... that'll be a NO then.

 

We have the best system there is - ONE MAN ONE VOTE - and that is why 6/10 Austrailians want to ditch AV and go back to the same system as the mother country.

[Dimond Geezer]

My default setting is usually to go against Bandwagon Dave & Lapdog Clegg. So I'm a tad confused, do I vote for or against. Fortunately on this forum we have Dune, who has made up my mind. I'll be voting for it.

[Wurzel]

NO to the AV system

 

YES to First the the post with all constituencies being equally sized. Unfortunately that's not an option at the moment.

[Scummer]

NO to the AV system

 

YES to First the the post with all constituencies being equally sized. Unfortunately that's not an option at the moment.

 

There is a boundary review taking place over the next couple of years, whatever the result of the referendum.

 

Interestingly that will then have to go through parliament, and if it doesn't pass for any reason then first past the post will remain even if AV wins the referendum.

[dune]

My default setting is usually to go against Bandwagon Dave & Lapdog Clegg. So I'm a tad confused, do I vote for or against. Fortunately on this forum we have Dune, who has made up my mind. I'll be voting for it.

 

Such as shame that you're going to lose.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/18/support-av-collapsing-guardian-icm-poll

 

Pro-AV campaigners had hoped people who wanted change would be more likely to turn out on polling day. Instead, once people are asked how likely they are to vote, the lead for the Nos increases.

 

This is to be expected as Tory voters are the core NO vote and Tory voters are traditionally more liekly to make the effort to go to the polling station. All we need now is some unseasonanlly wet weather to make sure...

 

Also of interest in the article is this:

Three-quarters of Conservatives are planning to vote will vote against, as will a small majority of Labour supporters. Only Lib Dem voters are firmly in favour, with more than two-thirds saying they will vote for the change.

 

FPTP is the best system for delivering a majority government so if you're a Labour or Tory voter that would rather have this than horse trading post an election it's the best system. AV does slightly favour Labour at the minute but we've still got constituency changes due later in the parliament which could quite easily mean this slight advantage is cancelled out. In short unless you're a Liberal and/or want to see more coalitions then AV is not desirable.

Edited 19 April, 2011 by dune

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Please sir, can I go in your 'naive' pigeon hole too? Please sir?

 

A 'no' result will not cause a lib dem revolt. They're too happy to have got a share of power after trying, and failing, for 70 years.

 

This. And they are making the most of it because when the next election comes, no matter what voting system is in use, they (LibDems) will be, in the main, unelectable.

[Deppo]

Milliband wants it, The Liberals want it.... that'll be a NO then.

 

We have the best system there is - ONE MAN ONE VOTE - and that is why 6/10 Austrailians want to ditch AV and go back to the same system as the mother country.

 

I'd have thought the BNP would be for it. Would that sway you?

[dune]

I'd have thought the BNP would be for it. Would that sway you?

 

UKIP are in favour of it, but i'm still voting against it. As it goes the BNP are saying that they are against AV but I think this is just a bluff to try to get leftwingers to vote YES. AV favours the BNP.

[Deppo]

UKIP are in favour of it, but i'm still voting against it. As it goes the BNP are saying that they are against AV but I think this is just a bluff to try to get leftwingers to vote YES. AV favours the BNP.

 

This is quite a strange tactic. Considering the BNP is made up of the stupidest people on earth, are you sure that BNP supporters are aware of this double-bluff?

 

Or is it just assumed that BNP supporters are too lazy or too in prison to vote either way on AV?

 

Also, focussing on getting the opposition to vote your way is actually another way of admitting that the BNP are in the minority, as just telling their supporters how to vote wont get them what they want.

[Verbal]

is it just assumed that BNP supporters are too lazy or too in prison to vote either way on AV?

 

I assume 'or' is a typo.

[Deppo]

It was intentional. Maybe a hyphen would have made it clearer.

[dune]

This. And they are making the most of it because when the next election comes, no matter what voting system is in use, they (LibDems) will be, in the main, unelectable.

 

I agree. I think their forray into power will see places like Eastleigh and msny of their south west seats turn blue and many of their northern seats turn red. I think this coalition will in the end turn out for the best.

[Deppo]

[Lord Duckhunter]

A little old lady in Burnley has voted Labour all her life. She goes into the booth on polling day 2015 and puts a 1 by the Labour candidate. A racist moron follows her in and puts a 1 by the BNP candidate. He then puts a 2 by the Monster raving loony party member and a 3 by the local right wing Tory.As Labour fail to get the required 50%, His second and third vote count for exactly the same as the little old ladys first and only vote. The reason he voted for the Tory was the tough stance that the candidate had taken over immigration and the BNP man was impressed with some of his views on that. Thousends of other BNP supporters had also put a 2 or 3 by this candidate and despite losing to the Labour candidate in the intial vote he wins the seat. The local Labour party decide at the next election that they need to broaden their appeal and get more second and third votes. So their prespective candidate starts to toughen his stance on immigration.

 

With FPTP all the idiots, racists and loony's votes are wasted, with AV their second and third choices can carry the same weight as normal decent people's first and only vote, and some people call this fair?

 

There is a lot wrong with our electrol system, from it being weighted in favour of Labour to Scottish and Welsh MP's voting on measures that dont affect their voters. If you want to change the system to PR, then that is a fair and reasonable stance to take. One man one vote, with MP's based on the parties % of the whole vote (I still prefer FPTP, but can see the train of thought being followed by PR supporters), but this is not and never will be a fairer system than FPTP.

[Saintandy666]

The BNP will not benefit from an AV system. This is widely acknowledged and any suggestion to the contrary is rubbish!

 

Why?

 

Under AV you can not win seats without 50% of the voters giving you their blessing. The BNP at the moment are not in a position where they have ever seen themselves get 50%+ support in a constituency, hence why fascist parties will NOT be benefiting from this and why the BNP are against it.

 

Let's have a look at the parties in the UK which are fully against this change:

 

The Communist Party, the BNP and the Conservatives. They are in good company!

[Verbal]

A little old lady in Burnley has voted Labour all her life. She goes into the booth on polling day 2015 and puts a 1 by the Labour candidate. A racist moron follows her in and puts a 1 by the BNP candidate. He then puts a 2 by the Monster raving loony party member and a 3 by the local right wing Tory.As Labour fail to get the required 50%, His second and third vote count for exactly the same as the little old ladys first and only vote. The reason he voted for the Tory was the tough stance that the candidate had taken over immigration and the BNP man was impressed with some of his views on that. Thousends of other BNP supporters had also put a 2 or 3 by this candidate and despite losing to the Labour candidate in the intial vote he wins the seat. The local Labour party decide at the next election that they need to broaden their appeal and get more second and third votes. So their prespective candidate starts to toughen his stance on immigration.

 

With FPTP all the idiots, racists and loony's votes are wasted, with AV their second and third choices can carry the same weight as normal decent people's first and only vote, and some people call this fair?

 

There is a lot wrong with our electrol system, from it being weighted in favour of Labour to Scottish and Welsh MP's voting on measures that dont affect their voters. If you want to change the system to PR, then that is a fair and reasonable stance to take. One man one vote, with MP's based on the parties % of the whole vote (I still prefer FPTP, but can see the train of thought being followed by PR supporters), but this is not and never will be a fairer system than FPTP.

 

This is a classic garbage in, garbage out argument. Start with a silly premise, end with a silly conclusion.

 

And I notice you have to resort to some plainly anti-democratic arguments to support it. By what criteria are you proposing to disenfranchise 'idiots, racists and loonies'? Their votes SHOULD carry the same weight as those of the 'little old lady from Burnley', regardless of how repugnant you might find their views.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Their votes SHOULD carry the same weight as those of the 'little old lady from Burnley', regardless of how repugnant you might find their views.

 

Why should someone's second and third vote carry the same weight as someone's first and only vote, please explain?

 

I was always under the impression it should be One man, one vote, not, some men 3 votes.

[Saintandy666]

Why should someone's second and third vote carry the same weight as someone's first and only vote, please explain?

 

I was always under the impression it should be One man, one vote, not, some men 3 votes.

 

No one gets three votes. AV is not a plural voting system, if you think it is then you have fundamentally misunderstood the way in which it works.

[Thedelldays]

No one gets three votes. AV is not a plural voting system, if you think it is then you have fundamentally misunderstood the way in which it works.

 

but I could get 3 votes...if my preferred person is knocked out, I get to vote for someone else...

 

why..?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The BNP will not benefit from an AV system. This is widely acknowledged and any suggestion to the contrary is rubbish!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said they would, all I said was that Nick Griffin's second and third choice vote will carry as much weight as a little old ladys. One of the leaflets I got backing AV stated that this system meant that MP's would need to broaden their appeal to attract the 2nd and third votes of all voters. In Burnley the BNP got nearly 10% of the vote, how are the other parties going to reach out and "broaden their appeal" to those voters?

[View From The Top]

It should either be STV or FPTP. AV is a neither for that reason alone I'll be voting no. Compromise merely results in the worst possible solution.

[Lord Duckhunter]

No one gets three votes. AV is not a plural voting system, if you think it is then you have fundamentally misunderstood the way in which it works.

 

Of course I haven't misunderstood. If nobody gets the required 50% vote, then the worst performing candidates supporters second vote, has exactly the same weight as my first and only vote. Nick Griffin could vote BNP, Monster Raving Loony and then Labour, ensuring the Labour candidates victory.

[bridge too far]

No one gets three votes. AV is not a plural voting system, if you think it is then you have fundamentally misunderstood the way in which it works.

 

A better way of describing it would be that one person's vote can be considered more than once but this won't happen to everyone.

 

For example, I live in David Cameron's constituency. Obviously I won't vote for him (derrrrr) but I could indicate my first, second and third choice as - for example - Labour, Green, LibDem. If by some strange coincidence DC doesn't get 50% of the vote then the votes for the party of my third choice (prob. LD) would be allocated and if he STILL didn't get 50% then my second choice's votes (Green) would be allocated across the two remaining parties.

 

So my vote will have been considered 3 times.

 

However, in my neighbouring constituency, the Tory might poll 51% of the vote, so someone voting there would only have his / her vote considered once.

Edited 19 April, 2011 by bridge too far

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

So my vote will have been considered 3 times.

 

However, in my neighbouring constituency, the Tory might poll 51% of the vote, so someone voting there would only have his / her vote considered once.

 

If I voted Tory in the same constituency as you , then I have 1 vote "considered" and yet you have 3.Makes a bit of a mockery of one man one vote.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The masters of the gavy train the Kinnockas say yes.

 

[Verbal]

If I voted Tory in the same constituency as you , then I have 1 vote "considered" and yet you have 3.Makes a bit of a mockery of one man one vote.

 

We haven't had one man one vote since 1928.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The pro AV supporters seem very keen on the 50% element in all this. It's not right that people are elected with support of less than 50% of voters. To be consistant I presume that they will also apply this to Parliament. Therefore, if Labour win the most seats but only 49% of the vote, we'll all get to vote again, Or does it only apply after certain results?

[bridge too far]

If I voted Tory in the same constituency as you , then I have 1 vote "considered" and yet you have 3.Makes a bit of a mockery of one man one vote.

 

We're on the same side here (:oops:) but if we lived in the same constituency and you voted Tory and I voted as I indicated, then all the votes of both of us would be considered, surely. Unless you're saying you'd only vote Tory and wouldn't register a 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice?

 

I suppose, if I'm honest, AV would help solve a crisis of conscience I have every election. I'm always torn between voting LibDem (to get DC out) or voting with my principles intact. I suppose the AV system would enable me to have a clear conscience and vote according to principle first and tactics second.

 

But I still think AV is wrong.