AV System

[KimyReizeger]

I agree with Rathen in saying I'd be less inclined to vote tactically under AV and would likely put a small party as my 1st preference with a main party as my 2nd preference. As I understand it, this is a step towards a system of proportional representation.

The advert for the 'No' campaign was embarrassing and insulting too. 'laaake, If am in tha bettin' shop, an a put a bet on a horse which cums last, ah win? dat ain't right!' (or something to that effect).

[FOX]

Ironically, the "No to AV" party will will through tactical voting..

[waltz]

I like to think if AV's voted for, it'll strike a huge blow for the Tories and give the Lib Dems a bit more confidence in the Coalition.

Any step towards proportional representation is a good thing, surely? I'd like to think that when I voted, my one vote would stretch as far as it could.

[Oedo 808]

Won't this 'helping smaller parties' business mean that the likes of the NF or BNP will be able to get more seats

No.

If 20% of a constituency vote BNP, however abhorrent we may find their views, they should be allowed to represent those people

Both these posts suggest a misunderstanding of how AV works.

Firstly, AV is not proportional representation. There is no list vote. People might say it is a "more proportional" voting system, but that's not the same thing. Not even close.

Currently, if 20% of the cast votes go to the BNP and their nearest rival gets 19% the BNP wins. But in AV they look at the ballots of the people who voted for the least popular candidate and see who their 2nd choice was. They then add those ballots to the piles of their 2nd choices. This goes on until someone has the required % of the vote and is declared the winner.

In other words, people from across the political spectrum would need to be listing the BNP as a high preference in their voting.

AV will help only the smaller parties that people find generally unobjectionable, feel lukewarm about and have heard of. You could call this the "I agree with Nick" effect. Of course, when these parties get anywhere near power your mild appreciation of them might very well evaporate.

I don't think most people are lukewarm/unsure about racism.

Personally, I don't think the AV vote is really important or even very relevant. Right now I think I'll vote YES because the idea seems to annoy the Tories.

[delboy]

I'm pretty rubbish on understanding these things but that article in the Independent made it a little clearer. I'm deffo voting for change, as Bob says it will annoy the tories but to be serious I'm fed up of wasting my vote because of where I live. I mean round here in the International Republic of East Anglia its a complete tory stronghold so I'm all for my vote at least counting towards the bigger picture.

[FOX]

Any step towards proportional representation is a good thing, surely? I'd like to think that when I voted, my one vote would stretch as far as it could.

That's pretty much my thinking too; I'm pretty keen on the idea of AV, but not because I'm in a safe seat (admittedly Labour's hold only got stronger on Aberdeen South last time). I just like the idea that MPs will hopefully be judged on individual qualities and usefulness and not just stay in because they're in a safe seat (cough, Doran).

[soundian]

Although still flawed I think it's a much better system than the current FPTP.

I like it because I might have a preference for who wins, but I also have a preference for who doesn't. I can now indicate that preference by voting for everyone else except someone I don't want to win.

That alone seals the deal for me. I can't see how there can be any argument against it. The option to cast a vote for any candidate I think is competent, and withhold my vote from any that I think are incompetent is a far better system than effectively saying no to all but one of the candidates as we do now.

[french_disko]

The reason I'm voting no to AV is that it's inherently unfair unless the voter is compelled to mark a preference for everyone on the ballot paper. It's also a nonsensical system unless "none of the above" is one of the options on the paper. I've yet to see a single good reason for why someone who marks down three preferences should have more of a say in the election of representatives than someone who only marks one or two.

There is a 'none of the above' - leave your paper blank. And a non vote is a vote too. Leave the bnp or Tories box free and that's a vote against them.

[Old Gold]

Any system that puts a greater value on one vote than another is dangerous and fatally flawed.

Unless they were handing out pens with 3 drops of ink to some people, everyone would still have opportunity to vote.

[soundian]

If there was a "none of the above" option it could be chosen as someone's alternative vote. For instance, when using AV I would vote Conservative as my first choice and possibly UKIP as my second choice. After that, I don't want to vote for any other party and for them to claim they have a mandate on the back of that vote if they win. Therefore, if my first two options were out of the running, my third preference would be to have the seat go empty until the election can be re-run.

If I were to select only two preferences, my vote would cease to have any weight once both those candidates had been discarded, while a paper with four preferences would have twice as much influence on the outcome of the election. Any system that puts a greater value on one vote than another is dangerous and fatally flawed.

That is one of it's flaws. It's easy to tweak AV so it addresses that concern, simply make it so that discarded votes still count (as a "none of the remaining candidates") and that any candidate has to have a mandate from at least 50% of people who voted, rather than 50% of those still in play. However, FPTP doesn't have the option to re-run if somebody doesn't get more than a certain percentage or majority, so I don't see AV not having it as a valid argument against AV.

FPTP basically has the same flaw as regards vlaue of votes. If I don't vote for a party that has a realistic chance of winning then I'm effectively wasting my vote. That means anyone who does vote for one of those parties has a say, I don't.

Look at it this way. You've voted Tory and UKIP. With three candidates left the Tories are third and their votes get redistributed to the Labour and Lib Dem pots. You had your chance to have your say on which one of those two would win, but you declined. You voted with your heart and forgot you also had another layer of tactical voting open to you. If you cast a vote for every party that has a chance of winning except one, your vote will count all the way down the line. If none of the parties you want to win are in with a chance, you can still have a say in who does win. I really can't see how that isn't better.

[Oedo 808]

there's a very real chance that my third choice may win the election, so I would have helped a candidate I really didn't want to win to do so

But a candidate you preferred over the candidate you voted forth.

[Oedo 808]

Fair enough. I don't really care either way.

[Oedo 808]

This is just a side show to the fact there's a Scottish general election in 9 days time.

[Frosty Jack]

Voter Power Index - the Alternative Vote Referendum Edition

[Frosty Jack]

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

AV if implemented carries the very real probability of preventing the Tories ever having a parliamentary majority again*, which is a very good thing. And Cons are less likely to wield the power of the tactical vote, so win/win.

*unless they get 50% or over of the popular vote, in which case, its a fair cop guv.

[soundian]

AV if implemented carries the very real probability of preventing the Tories ever having a parliamentary majority again

If you substitute "Tories" for "coffee shop" in Frosty's post you can see that graphically.

[Le Stu]

The perils of direct democracy... a country content in its stupor! They make us taste their bitter bean, black!!

[soundian]

I think this, posted by Rock Austin originally, also sums up how I feel about FPTP

[soundian]

I fucking hate Parma Violets. Does this mean i don't like AV?

No, it means you prefer dogshit.

[jester1470]

I can't beleive the "No" campaign used such blatant emotional blackmail echniques by implying that if we voted for the "Yes" campaign we'd be killing soldiers, shutting down maternity hospitals and putting the police in danger, that kind of electioneering is shocking, this win at any costs mentality that means we're allowed to misrepresent information int hat way shouldnt be allowed.

If things are so bad that we can'ty look at reforms that would make a fairer voting system for the whole country why are we writing off companies multi BILLION pound tax bills, surely we should be doing whatever we can...

[Gus Chamber]

The Tories called for a "no" vote, and so did Socialist Worker last week but I couldn't tell you why off the top of my head. In the end, I voted "yes" as I'd rather cunt the Tories than toe the party line.

[Le Stu]

They might as well have just asked if we were happy enough with the way we voted to elect our constituency MSP 2 seconds ago.

[FOX]

I can't believe that the "Yes" campaign implied that everyone who voted against them was a racist twat.

That's pretty bad, but I think that was to stab at the "a vote for yes will help the BNP and other nazi fringe party" guff the No camp were spouting.

[jester1470]

I can't believe that the "Yes" campaign implied that everyone who voted against them was a racist twat.

Incidentally, those "No" posters were conceived by a Labour spin doctor.

All that proves is that there are twats on both sides of the arguement, however I do think the implication that voting Yes kills babies, policemen and soldiers is considerably more offensive, but maybe thats just me.