[Archived] Alternative Vote

[Stuart]

This seems to be a big deal at the minute. If you happen to be an MP. I don't fully understand it though.<br><br>What I have picked up is that a "No" to the Alternative vote means that elections could be won be the candidate with the most votes. This sounds fair in principle but it also means that we could end up with a government installed by reaching a target of say 30%. meaning 70% of the country would NOT have voted for them.<br><br>In theory, this could give the BNP or other extremist group the chance to win more seats - particularly if there is no clear preferential mainstream party - by rabble-rousing 20-30% of the local electorate.<br><br>This could be the biggest watershed moment in British history, or it could be a damp squib, or even a clever tactic to keep other current political issues out of the press and allow senior members of the government and the opposition, and even within the coalition, to get into a penis-measuring competition.<br><br>So it potentially sounds a bit scary but what is the reality of a No vote? Or even a Yes vote? And will anyone on here be voting in the referrendum? And why?

[chaddyrovers]

I will be voting and I will be a No Vote!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12883998

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8068583.stm

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8644480.stm

these links should answer your questions

[Stuart]

Why are you voting no Chaddy?

[philipl]

Voting yes in favour of AV.

Would prefer a proportional system but it is a step forwards.

[chaddyrovers]

cos I believe in the first past the post system jisty!

just my view!

Which way are you voting? which party do you favour?

[LeChuck]

cos I believe in the first past the post system jisty!

just my view!

Which way are you voting? which party do you favour?

That was implied by your no vote, I think he was asking for your reasons. I'm interested to know as well.

Why are you bringing party into it though? This should be irrespective of party, it's a yes or no vote.

I'll be voting yes.

[Stuart]

That was implied by your no vote, I think he was asking for your reasons. I'm interested to know as well.

Why are you bringing party into it though? This should be irrespective of party, it's a yes or no vote.

I'll be voting yes.

Correct LeChuck.

I'm honestly not sure Chaddy, hence this thread.

The vote is nothing to do with party politics (as far as I can tell). This will affect how politics works.

I think the system probably needs a shake-up but I'm hoping to be educated by some of our learned and right-honourable, members on here.

[LeChuck]

I'm interested to hear some of the 'no' voters' reasons. I haven't found any so far but there must be some good arguments on that side.

[chaddyrovers]

my view is that the guy who has the most votes in the poll should win.

also The winner should be the candidate that comes first, but under AV the candidate who comes second or third can actually be elected. That’s why it is used by just three countries in the world – Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. Voters should decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system. We can't afford to let the politicians off the hook by introducing a loser's charter

Also I think that the current system is better than av and my reasons are it's creates strong government, it's fair and It's simple to understand and easy to implement.

Thats why I prefer the first past the post system!

[Tris]

I'm interested to hear some of the 'no' voters' reasons. I haven't found any so far but there must be some good arguments on that side.

I haven't decided how to vote yet, but in the interest of balance I'm quite happy to put forward a couple of thoughts in both directions.

For starters, I think Alternative Vote is a crap description of what this is. Single Transferable Vote is the proper name for this system. You have one vote, but you can choose to transfer it in the event that your first choice comes last (or 2nd last, 3rd last etc).

When I was at uni, I was actually elected (President of local union) using the single transferable vote system, which was used for all similar elections .. so in my term of office I also had to manage (+ count) the elections for the following years mob using the same system. At that level I'd say it works very well - it's about people rather than parties.

For this referendum on how we elect our national government, I can easily think of a couple of arguments against changing the current system.

Firstly, the current system works, and has done for hundreds of years. It ensures power alternates between the two main parties of the era on a regular basis - and as we can see from the last 20 years, currently they are both much the same anyway bar minor details, individuals, and some shouting over the despatch box.

Secondly, the way transferable vote works, is to transfer votes from the least popular candidate first. This is questionable. It means that the idiots who voted as first preference for the lunatic or extreme option, get first dibs at pushing someone else over the winning line.

eg - If you are daft enough to vote BNP or similar and your stupid choice comes in last, then why should you be given the priority to have your second choice vote matter before anyone elses?

The STV system has merits but I think they are more suited to local situations.

Here's a final thought - what the Lib Dems really want is Proportional Representation, so why are we having a costly referendum on the STV system? I think it's probably the legacy of some frantic negotiations to try and form a coalition government last year - ie it's a compromise which suits nobody.

And if this system is adopted, then the likely outcome is that coalition government would become the norm.

Having said all that, the STV system worked really well at uni, and in fact one of my Nottm peers is now a Foreign Office Minister (Lib Dem - Jeremy Browne) ... so as an individual he has managed to win under both systems - however I don't think his party would under either.

[thenodrog]

I've not thought too much about how this will pan out but most elections see voters vote the way they have always done and in many cases vote the way their parents did. Duty / indoctrination call it what you will. Whether for better or for worse it's possible that this system might actually change that.

[Stuart]

Thanks for that Tris.

Interesting point Theno. For those who actually do bother to turn out to vote, under AV, there would need to be more thought about how and who they vote - i.e for 2nd choice and beyond.

[den]

I'm interested to hear some of the 'no' voters' reasons. I haven't found any so far but there must be some good arguments on that side.

I'll probably vote no, if for no other reason that voting for AV seems to make change for changes sake. Projections seem to suggest that little will alter in relation to the election results.

Plus, if I've got this right, then the only people who's second vote actually counts, are the people who voted for the party that came last. That's hardly a comprehensive system is it? I would give the electorate a choice between FPTP and true proportional representation.

[only2garners]

Tris - you're wrong. What is being proposed is not STV. STV is a much truer proportional system which only operates in multi-member constituencies and allows a much closer link between how people vote and who is elected. AV is a simpler system and is not much more proportional than first past the post.

AV will in most elections still provide clear majorities - had we had AV in recent elections nearly all of them would have had the same outcome in terms of a single party having power. Of course it might produce a hung parliament, but then FPTP has done the same in two elections in my lifetime, including last year, so arguing that you want FPTP so that you get a decisive result is just plain wrong. Right now there are large numbers of constituencies where it more or less doesn't matter who you vote for, the Labour or Tory candidate will get in anyway as appropriate.

I have voted in every election I have been able to over the last 40 years and have never yet voted positively for a candidate who has won. Under AV I will be able to vote for a candidate I really would like but will also be able to express a preference for which of the two candidates who have a real chance of winning. This means that in order to win a candidate will have to appeal to a broader percentage of the population than they have to now. It won't mean that any smaller party will get elected - the BNP will have less chance under AV than under FPTP - that's why Nick Griffin is against AV and is enough reason in itself for me to be voting yes. I would much prefer a properly proportional system like STV but AV is a much better option than FPTP.

[LeChuck]

I haven't decided how to vote yet, but in the interest of balance I'm quite happy to put forward a couple of thoughts in both directions.

For starters, I think Alternative Vote is a crap description of what this is. Single Transferable Vote is the proper name for this system. You have one vote, but you can choose to transfer it in the event that your first choice comes last (or 2nd last, 3rd last etc).

When I was at uni, I was actually elected (President of local union) using the single transferable vote system, which was used for all similar elections .. so in my term of office I also had to manage (+ count) the elections for the following years mob using the same system. At that level I'd say it works very well - it's about people rather than parties.

For this referendum on how we elect our national government, I can easily think of a couple of arguments against changing the current system.

Firstly, the current system works, and has done for hundreds of years. It ensures power alternates between the two main parties of the era on a regular basis - and as we can see from the last 20 years, currently they are both much the same anyway bar minor details, individuals, and some shouting over the despatch box.

Secondly, the way transferable vote works, is to transfer votes from the least popular candidate first. This is questionable. It means that the idiots who voted as first preference for the lunatic or extreme option, get first dibs at pushing someone else over the winning line.

eg - If you are daft enough to vote BNP or similar and your stupid choice comes in last, then why should you be given the priority to have your second choice vote matter before anyone elses?

The STV system has merits but I think they are more suited to local situations.

Here's a final thought - what the Lib Dems really want is Proportional Representation, so why are we having a costly referendum on the STV system? I think it's probably the legacy of some frantic negotiations to try and form a coalition government last year - ie it's a compromise which suits nobody.

And if this system is adopted, then the likely outcome is that coalition government would become the norm.

Having said all that, the STV system worked really well at uni, and in fact one of my Nottm peers is now a Foreign Office Minister (Lib Dem - Jeremy Browne) ... so as an individual he has managed to win under both systems - however I don't think his party would under either.

Thanks Tris, that was a good read.

I'll probably vote no, if for no other reason that voting for AV seems to make change for changes sake.

I'll happily admit that part of my reason for voting yes is that it is something different.

I am worried that a 'no' result would be construed as public support for the current voting system. Plus I do think AV would encourage more diverse voting, people are shackled by the fear of a 'lost vote'. It could help break the monotony of two-party politics.

[den]

I am worried that a 'no' result would be construed as public support for the current voting system.

You're probably right there LeChuck. A no vote would end the debate and kill the calls for PR for a long time.

[Mattyblue]

AV is a muddle that Clegg is using as a sop to his own supporters.

If it was REAL PR then I would listen to the debate, as it aint I shall be voting NO.

[Stuart]

If it was REAL PR then I would listen to the debate, as it aint I shall be voting NO.

That's a striking comment given den's post immediately above yours. Suggests that by voting no, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[colin]

I'd like an AV system. I live in Gerald Kaufman's Gorton South constituancy and no matter which party I vote for he always gets in and he always will.

Similarly in safe Tory seats the Tory candidate will always get in. Even if he has no chin, is called Tarquin, and has a history of wandering about with a polo mallet in his hand going "Oh, I say!"

It is estimated that only about 1% of the electorate on the most marginal seats has any influence whatsoever on the outcome of a general election. The other 99% of us are just trotting along to the polling booth to cement the inevitable outcome.

Anything that can change that is, in my opinion, a good thing.

BTW, my understanding of the AV system is that the second vote choice of electors is only brought into play if the candidate in first place hasn't got more than 50% of the vote. Then those who have put down the Monster Raving Looney Party votes (assuming it is in last place)as first choice are divvied up between the others who the MRLP have put down a second choice.

Then if no one gets to 50% then the second last first choice (lets say UKIP)second choice is divvied up between the leaders. Then it goes to the third last and so on until some one reaches over 50% of the vote on a combinations of first & second choice votes.

Have I got it right?

[only2garners]

Spot on Colin.

[SouthAussieRover]

For those of us who like some sort of visual guide:

http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/single/by_category/preferential.htm

[Baz]

AV seems like a half-way house towards PR to me. It's a sign of how weak at negotiating the Lib-Dems were at the general election too IMO, as they had the chance to get the PR system they have wanted for decades, but caved in too easily for any ind of power.

PR would mean more hung parlaments, but in some cases that may be a good thing and get the politicians working a bit harder. Coalitions seem to work in a lot of countries, so why not here?

AV seems like a very small step towards this, and realistically would make no difference to any safe seat in the country - which is half the problem. My best-friend is a Tory voting in Sunderland - his vote under FPTP effectively doesnt count, it wouldnt count under AV but may count under PR. The most exciting thing about the election in Sunderland at present is to try to make sure they are the first to declare each general election.

[Glenn]

Whilst I'm in favour of wholesale electoral reform (I've marched with the Purple Party more than one) and really want full scale PR (well, actually, ideally the HoC elected using a FPTP system using the current electoral wards and the second chamber elected from the rest using PR, which is pretty much AV+), I think AV is pretty much an inconsequentially small step in the right direction, that it's simply not worth the money a referendum will cost.

To me, the only upshot is a higher likelihood of a hung parliament, which I STILL believe is a good thing and it convinces people that change isn't so scary after all. So as the money is already spent, I'll be voting yes, but mainly in the hope it's a small stepping stone towards PR.

PR would mean more hung parlaments, but in some cases that may be a good thing and get the politicians working a bit harder. Coalitions seem to work in a lot of countries, so why not here?

Being a child of Thatcher, I'd argue that it IS working here. I'd rather have a Tory government that is being tempered in some small way by a coalition, than a Tory government that isn't.

[RibbleValleyRover]

It's looking very likely I will be voting 'No' due to a variety of reasons, the majority which have already been mentioned on this thread.

By the looks of some recent polls the result is going to be close, though i do expect a low turnout.

[Paul]

Glad to see this thread as I feel I know having read it than previously. There seems to be a complete lack of any "campaign" to inform the public on this subject.

The general view seems to be the outcome of most elections will not change. So I ask why bother to change? If this is the case it suggests the vast majority of candidates already win with 50% or more of the vote? If correct 50% is too low to make the change valid.

Equally I can see the view, and this is the hoped for positive outcome, politicians will have to broaden their appeal to be successful. Again at 50% it's difficult to see the point.

I fully support the principle anyone may stand for parliament BUT do not like the idea the second preference of someone daft enough to chose MRLP first might move to a candidate one would want to see defeated. If someone wants to waste a vote on MRLP there vote should remain wasted.

I had planned to vote "yes" but the more I read the less likely this is. At a 60 or 65% proportion the change would have an impact. At 50% it appears pointless.