Saintandy666 Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 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. It is literally just transferable votes. It's call instant run-off voting because it is like running the election if the least popular candidates didn't run to find which candidate has the greatest approval. No-one gets to vote 3 times or whatever. Which is the best candidate: One with the greatest plurality of votes, or the one with the greatest approval from voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 It is literally just transferable votes. It's call instant run-off voting because it is like running the election if the least popular candidates didn't run to find which candidate has the greatest approval. No-one gets to vote 3 times or whatever. Which is the best candidate: One with the greatest plurality of votes, or the one with the greatest approval from voters? so how is it fair....in the lottery of your constituency that you may or may not get a 2nd or 3rd chance to cast your vote..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2011 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? You'll have to hope it'll still be considered on seats won at that stage as the perceived wisdom is that the Conservatives are unlikely to win an overall majority in the near future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 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. one man one vote is pr bonehead ,we have a first past the post voting system meaning alot of mps get elected with only 34 to 37% of the vote even though a majority in that seat did not want the winning mp in that seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 It is but it is still better than first past the post. So how bad does that make first past the post? That question assumes I agree with your opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 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. Good job the loony left didn't retain power then...they were going to put less into the NHS this parliament than the nasty Tories... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2011 Good job the loony left didn't retain power then...they were going to put less into the NHS this parliament than the nasty Tories... The same Tories who are going to take billions out of the NHS with reforms that front line professional staff say won't work? I note that some orthopaedic operations for the elderly are now being delayed. My own daughter has, so far, waited more than the targetted 2 weeks for referral to a specialist. This two week target had been met prior to 2011. Better to spend the money on 'reform' than treatment I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 but I could get 3 votes...if my preferred person is knocked out, I get to vote for someone else... why..? Why don't you ask the tory party why they use exactly that system to elect their leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 The same Tories who are going to take billions out of the NHS with reforms that front line professional staff say won't work? My wife and her sister are frontline NHS hospital professionals and they say that the coalition efficiency measures (or reforms as some people like to call them because that sounds more emotive) are needed and will work. Not everyone in the NHS is as negative about the changes as some people like to portray them. But those that don't kick up a fuss don't make headlines or labour MPs salivate of course. Two sides to every story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 Why don't you ask the tory party why they use exactly that system to elect their leader? 1 wrong + 1 wrong = ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 (edited) My wife and her sister work are frontline NHS hospital professionals and they say that the coalition efficiency measures (or reforms as some people like to call them because that sounds more emotive) are needed and will work. Not everyone in the NHS is as negative as some people like to portray them. But the those that don't kick up a fuss don't make headlines or labour MPs salivate of course. Two sides to every story. I think there may be some confusion between general efficiency savings and Landleys 'big idea' that only GP's are qualified to determine how the NHS budget is spent. It is the latter that people like the Royal college of nurses are mainly protesting about and we have no way at all to know if it will actually work. Edited 19 April, 2011 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 The same Tories who are going to take billions out of the NHS with reforms that front line professional staff say won't work? I note that some orthopaedic operations for the elderly are now being delayed. My own daughter has, so far, waited more than the targetted 2 weeks for referral to a specialist. This two week target had been met prior to 2011. I'm more than happy to share the 'inside view' of how NHS targets were met over the last decade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 1 wrong + 1 wrong = ? Cameron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2011 I'm more than happy to share the 'inside view' of how NHS targets were met over the last decade... Having been an insider myself, I'm well aware of how SOME of the targets were met, with some undesirable methods. But many good targets were set and met and some of these are no longer being met. It's no good ring-fencing NHS budgets if you're going to spend some of the budgets on so-called reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 I think there may be some confusion between general efficiency savings and Landleys 'big idea' that only GP's are qualified to determine how the NHS budget is spent. It is the latter that people like the Royal college of nurses are mainly protesting about and we have no way at all to know if it will actually work. Nope, no confusion here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 Nope, no confusion here So your relatives are certain that a completely untried solution, opposed by the vast majority of health professionals, will work? Such confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 Cameron ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 Having been an insider myself, I'm well aware of how SOME of the targets were met, with some undesirable methods. But many good targets were set and met and some of these are no longer being met. It's no good ring-fencing NHS budgets if you're going to spend some of the budgets on so-called reform. Depends what the net result is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 So your relatives are certain that a completely untried solution, opposed by the vast majority of health professionals, will work? Such confidence. No, they're not completely certain, but they are not irrationally dismissing it out of hand either. I believe they call it pragmatism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 Having been an insider myself, I'm well aware of how SOME of the targets were met, with some undesirable methods. But many good targets were set and met and some of these are no longer being met. It's no good ring-fencing NHS budgets if you're going to spend some of the budgets on so-called reform. And it's equally no good pouring huge amounts of extra money into a service where a significant portion of it goes down the drain. Again, reams of examples of this over the last decade or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 You could argue if AV is so good why doesn't labour use it for their leadership election. Out of interest how does the liberals elect their leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 April, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2011 And it's equally no good pouring huge amounts of extra money into a service where a significant portion of it goes down the drain. Again, reams of examples of this over the last decade or so. You will find waste in any industry or business or public service. You might find this article interesting: http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/the-nhs-excellence-and-efficiency/ It's one of many that reinforce the report from about a year or so ago that the NHS is one of the most efficient, value for money healthcare systems in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 so how is it fair....in the lottery of your constituency that you may or may not get a 2nd or 3rd chance to cast your vote..? Because it is finding out which candidate has the greatest approval, as opposed to minority approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 Because it is finding out which candidate has the greatest approval, as opposed to minority approval. so, one person could get 3 cracks at the vote...another gets 1.. not very fair is it.....what IF...in a place where someone had just scraped 51% but everyones 2nd vote would have meant someone else would have got 52%...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 so, one person could get 3 cracks at the vote...another gets 1.. not very fair is it.....what IF...in a place where someone had just scraped 51% but everyones 2nd vote would have meant someone else would have got 52%...? It's not 3 cracks, it's instant run-off voting. Watch what I posted earlier in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 It's not 3 cracks, it's instant run-off voting. Watch what I posted earlier in the thread. sorry it is...one person may only get their vote card used once.....another may get their vote card used 2, 3 times.....that is a fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 sorry it is...one person may only get their vote card used once.....another may get their vote card used 2, 3 times.....that is a fact It only counts once though so I don't really see the issue. Watch this video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 why should my vote get 3 chances of counting when someone does not get that chance..? why not let everyone vote 3 times..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 why should my vote get 3 chances of counting when someone does not get that chance..? why not let everyone vote 3 times..? You aren't voting 3 times. If I told you to go to the shop and said get me a mars bar, but if not get me a galaxy. How many chocolate bars do I get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 You aren't voting 3 times. If I told you to go to the shop and said get me a mars bar, but if not get me a galaxy. How many chocolate bars do I get? I know im not voting 3 times...but MY VOTING CARD could be USED 3 times....where as someone elses may not need to... either way, no matter how much you keep giving me examples, I will be voting no and if the polls are right, so will most other people and that will be that for a generation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 I know im not voting 3 times...but MY VOTING CARD could be USED 3 times....where as someone elses may not need to... either way, no matter how much you keep giving me examples, I will be voting no and if the polls are right, so will most other people and that will be that for a generation That's a shame for you then. AV isn't perfect, but FPTP is worse for reasons discussed already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 How many times are we voting then? This is all very confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 Why don't you ask the tory party why they use exactly that system to elect their leader? Because they can understand it but us thicko commoners would explode our heads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 How many times are we voting then? This is all very confusing. You can consider each stage at which someone is removed and their votes redistributed as a round of voting. In each round the person you vote for either stays the same if they missed the cut or is changed if your vote was for the person who was removed for having the least number of votes. In each round everyone votes. The resultant winner will be the person who best reflects the consensus opinion of the voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 I know im not voting 3 times...but MY VOTING CARD could be USED 3 times....where as someone elses may not need to... either way, no matter how much you keep giving me examples, I will be voting no and if the polls are right, so will most other people and that will be that for a generation This thread is full of people who have no idea what they're angry about. Not a single clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 This thread is full of people who have no idea what they're angry about. indeed...yet I still get to vote just like you....and it will be because of thick people like me why it will result in a no.. unlucky verbal.... also, what are your thoughts on saints injury problems...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 I know im not voting 3 times...but MY VOTING CARD could be USED 3 times....where as someone elses may not need to... either way, no matter how much you keep giving me examples, I will be voting no and if the polls are right, so will most other people and that will be that for a generation But surely democracy is all about gauging the opinions of the voters. If people like the policies of 2 or 3 parties, or hate one particular party surely that is just as valid as someone who passionately supports 1 single party? If you don't want your vote counted more than once you don't have to put a 2nd or 3rd choice so I don't see why you are concerned with how many times your card is used. From what I can see the only reason certain parties are against it is for their own selfish reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 It's just like the bottom candidate being knocked out and then everyone re-voting for their then favourite candidate and so on and so forth, just like the Tory leadership contest. It means everyone has a say in the real contest and the MP elected has over 50% of the constituency supporting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 It's just like the bottom candidate being knocked out and then everyone re-voting for their then favourite candidate and so on and so forth, just like the Tory leadership contest. It means everyone has a say in the real contest and the MP elected has over 50% of the constituency supporting them. and that it appears for certain people is the rub. They think that the party they support will be less able to win that 50% so rather than see a more balanced voting system they attempt to convince themselves that FPTP is better, it may be 'better' for them if it was kept but this does not make it a better system for everyone not just them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 You can consider each stage at which someone is removed and their votes redistributed as a round of voting. In each round the person you vote for either stays the same if they missed the cut or is changed if your vote was for the person who was removed for having the least number of votes. In each round everyone votes. The resultant winner will be the person who best reflects the consensus opinion of the voters. So that's three votes then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 So that's three votes then? Yes. If it takes 3 rounds to get to a majority the EVERYONES votes will be counted 3 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 why should my vote get 3 chances of counting when someone does not get that chance..? why not let everyone vote 3 times..? You aren't voting 3 times. So that's three votes then? Yes. If it takes 3 rounds to get to a majority the EVERYONES votes will be counted 3 times. yes or no..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 I don't want to take 3 days off in order to vote. For that reason alone I will be voting for AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 (edited) yes or no..? You only PHYSICALLY vote once but in each round as people with the least votes is removed everybody vote counts... Its a system so simple even Tory MP's appear to understand it (at least when it suits them) so I would not try for a career in politics if I was you. Edited 19 April, 2011 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 and that it appears for certain people is the rub. They think that the party they support will be less able to win that 50% so rather than see a more balanced voting system they attempt to convince themselves that FPTP is better, it may be 'better' for them if it was kept but this does not make it a better system for everyone not just them. But isn't this reason that the libs are pushing for AV and PR. It will enable them to have a much greater (and probably disproportionate say in running the country). Labour support it because a) to get up DC's nose and may damage the coaltion and b) the chances are they will sweep up a lot of the liberal second votes so they stand to gain a lot more that the tories. I am willing to bet my life, wife and mortgage that if the FPTP system benefitted the libs over the other parties, they would be less keen to promote such noble ideas as PR. All the parties couldn't care less about the democratic rights or wrongs of the system, they are just interested in the method that will deliver them the greatest chance of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 yes or no..? If you vote for the candidate that has the most votes but not a majority your vote will count in each run off count. Another elector who placed the least supported candidate ahead of your first choice but your favoured candidate 2nd would have their vote counted the same amount of times. Run off voting (a form of AV) is widely used in most other areas of society including the Royal Navy for elections to mess offices, the difference is that in true run off voting you do actually vote twice and therefore can change your selection, a tad impractical in a national election. The simple truth is those who are opposed are not opposed on democratic grounds but on selfish grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 But isn't this reason that the libs are pushing for AV and PR. It will enable them to have a much greater (and probably disproportionate say in running the country). Labour support it because a) to get up DC's nose and may damage the coaltion and b) the chances are they will sweep up a lot of the liberal second votes so they stand to gain a lot more that the tories. I am willing to bet my life, wife and mortgage that if the FPTP system benefitted the libs over the other parties, they would be less keen to promote such noble ideas as PR. All the parties couldn't care less about the democratic rights or wrongs of the system, they are just interested in the method that will deliver them the greatest chance of power. No. That's the reason you THINK they are pushing it. The lib dems have been in favour of more representative government for a long time. Not so they get more power but because it is fairer. That's what I THINK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 So, if people have to vote 3 times then this new system favours those who are at home during the day - the unemployed, disabled, elderly, benefit cheats etc. These people are traditionally Labour supporters so they will get lots of votes whilst the people who work during the day (traditional Tories) and therefore cannot find 3 days where they can go and vote will be disadvantaged. This seems very unfair. No wonder Millibean is in favour of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 19 April, 2011 Share Posted 19 April, 2011 So, if people have to vote 3 times then this new system favours those who are at home during the day - the unemployed, disabled, elderly, benefit cheats etc. These people are traditionally Labour supporters so they will get lots of votes whilst the people who work during the day (traditional Tories) and therefore cannot find 3 days where they can go and vote will be disadvantaged. This seems very unfair. No wonder Millibean is in favour of it. Actually the real plan is to tack into popular culture and replace the elections with a special series of the X Factor. (though it could be worse, it could be a special series of Britain's got talent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 20 April, 2011 Share Posted 20 April, 2011 That's nonsense, if you didn't like a candidate you wouldn't put them as any choice. That really depends on the system I guess. Here in Australia you have Full Preferential system for the lower house where you have to rank ALL of the candidates in order of your preferences (hence why most people vote in order of their least disliked or even just preferencing candidates randomly because they can't be bothered). If it is optional preferencial voting then, like you mention if you don't like a candidate then you won't choose them so you are only voting the ones you like. In this situation there is a good chance that any one candidate still doesn't get 50% of the vote then they have to look to each voting card that is not fully preferenced and the candidates with the first preference will dictate the remianing preferences. In essence the cadidate can ultimately decide who gets in, and not the people. This is quite scarey. I'm not saying that, given the UK is a first past the post system, the AV system is worse or less democratic, I just do not believe it is the resolution to the issues people have with the current voting system and from my experience in Australia, it really is not any better and if anything it is more complex for people to understand. This AV system does not win more seats for the smaller parties (the Greens, who typically poll similarly as a percentage ot the Lib Dems have won their first seat in the lower house). The upper house here [Oz] is done based on proportional representaion and I think the Lords should be overhauled to this system. This way the upper house could fully represent the people when voting on bills and legislation. Finally the bigger issue the UK has is turnout. If people don't bother voting then you are never going to have a true representation of the public regardelss of the voting system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now