[Archived] Alternative Vote

[dave birch]

One aspect of this style of voting is that parties make arrangements with each other to attract the second and subsequent preferences.

At times, the result it throws up seems strange. It is possible that a candidate who garners a small %age of the total can end up being the eventual winner.

I've never had a problem with the system used in the House of Reps in Australia. The Senate is a different matter because it attracts too many candidates because there's always a chance they may fluke a win.

In the recent NSW election, the voting paper for the upper House was over 1 metre long!

[Mattyblue]

But wouldn't Kaufman still always get elected in places like Gorton and Tories still always get elected in places like Surrey?

In all likelyhood we would see coalition after coalition, not what I want to see,

[dave birch]

Matty, I don't think that there'll be "Coalition after Coalition".

Because of the two major parties, it will be more of the same, as is now. It will be when there's a close election that there's likely to be the possibility of a hung parliament.

From time to time a hung Parliament is no bad thing. It makes the parties focus on being a bit different and trying to be more appealing.

[den]

In reality, AV is still a FPTP system. The first past the 50% mark, takes all.

[only2garners]

In reality, AV is still a FPTP system. The first past the 50% mark, takes all.

You're right, it is effectively just a slightly more sophisticated FPTP system. But it will make a change, albeit not as much as a proper PR system would.

I can understand why people might feel rather underwhelmed by the AV proposal but it would be very dangerous to therefore not bother to vote or to vote no. A no vote in the referendum will mean that there will not be another vote on changing the voting system for a very long time. Bringing in AV will open peoples' minds and is likely to lead to greater support for a proper PR system sooner rather than later.

[den]

Thing is, if AV is accepted, I imagine that it will be an awful long time before full PR is put to the people. To my mind, three options should have been debated fully and put to the people. AV, FPTP and PR. The main reason why they haven't been, is probably fear on behalf of the two main parties, that they would never have a majority again - coupled with maybe the idea that a small step first to AV, would be the safest way to go.

That doesn't mean that I personally support PR, because like Paul says, the case for change has to be made fully. I imagine that only a small %age of people in this country have given any serious thought to this.

[RibbleValleyRover]

John Howard former Prime Minister of Australia made a valid point on the Daily Politics today that whilst PR works in Australia they only have two main political party's but we have three. He said if AV was implemented here he would expect to see some strange and unexpected results.

[SouthAussieRover]

John Howard former Prime Minister of Australia made a valid point on the Daily Politics today that whilst PR works in Australia they only have two main political party's but we have three. He said if AV was implemented here he would expect to see some strange and unexpected results.

Australia doesnt have PR though.

It has AV or preferential voting.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Australia doesnt have PR though.

It has AV or preferential voting.

My bad.

But still the point stands in countries where AV is used (Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea) they do not as far as I'm aware have a three party system like we have here. Could having AV (the point raised by John Howard) in a country that has three political parties lead to unusual and unexpected results, especially when you factor in tactical voting.

[LeChuck]

But still the point stands in countries where AV is used (Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea) do they have a three party system like we have here? I know Australia doesn't.

The point can only stand if you say why. The original post doesn't offer any explanation really. I'm not saying it's wrong but it does need explaining.

[RibbleValleyRover]

The point can only stand if you say why. The original post doesn't offer any explanation really. I'm not saying it's wrong but it does need explaining.

The point I was making was that those countries that use AV (Fiji, Australia, Papua New Guinea) do not have a three party system. John Howard raised this very point i.e. that he was unsure how AV would work with the three party system we have here and that it could produce some unusual and unexpected results. Personally I would agree with that, we don't know how well it would work here especially with tactical voting.

[Boz]

Two important aspects of living in a democracy are, voting and taxes.

Neither of which appear all that popular in modern society, whereby apathy seems to reign.

My electoral solution would be to encourage people to actually vote more, which also has an impact upon tax.

A personal allowance for tax purposes is only applied when the person appears on the electoral roll and can be seen to have participated in the vote at every election.

Hence if they chose not to vote then they do not get a personal allowance of £7,475 and would be liable for tax on this element, those that do participate receive a tax break, if you chose not to vote, then you don't.

To accommodate for disillusioned voters I would add a "none of the above" box to register and record people's dissatisfaction with the political offerings.

This would require a few improvements to the way in which we allow people to vote, e.g. postal voting, electronic voting.

Plus a national computer record that links the HMRC database with the electoral roll, not impossible I would suggest.

Result...95% turn out at all elections with the public indifference towards politicians being duly recorded.

[Mattyblue]

Good point Boz, you HAVE to fill in the census, so why not vote? (even if it is for none of the above)

[LeChuck]

He said if AV was implemented here he would expect to see some strange and unexpected results.

John Howard raised this very point i.e. that he was unsure how AV would work with the three party system we have here and that it could produce some unusual and unexpected results. Personally I would agree with that, we don't know how well it would work here especially with tactical voting.

We don't know how well it will work, but your first post sounded far more definite than the second one. I would tend to agree with your second one (at least about uncertainty).

My main thinking now is that if 'no' is successful, it will be used to not a hold another referendum on reform for a LONG time. "The public voted in favour of the current system". That's how it will be seen. Not that we didn't want AV, but that we're happy with FPP. Given that theories suggest little will alter in terms of actual election results, maybe the message is more important here.

I do think a big practical advantage is that people will be more likely to vote beyond the three main parties because there is a safety net in the 'lost vote' scenario. Perhaps this could freshen things up.

[den]

The point I was making was that those countries that use AV (Fiji, Australia, Papua New Guinea) do not have a three party system. John Howard raised this very point i.e. that he was unsure how AV would work with the three party system we have here and that it could produce some unusual and unexpected results. Personally I would agree with that, we don't know how well it would work here especially with tactical voting.

Hang on a mo. If we had a two party system, say Tory and Labour, how would AV work then. If you voted Labour, then with your second choice you could vote for the tories?

[only2garners]

Well Australia with apparently a two party system, has managed to get a hung parliament, which is a fair achievement if you think about it. The answer is of course is that there are more than two - the Greens took 11.8% of the vote last year, so it's not that far removed from the UK.

[SouthAussieRover]

Throw into the mix the three or four independents who were elected.

The minority currently hold the balance of power in our current government.

So it appears either system throws up such a situation.

[RibbleValleyRover]

'Daily Politics' on BBC2 from 12pm have a debate on AV for those interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/default.stm

[koi]

Biggest problem I see is that the turn-out will be so low it'll be worthless. For that reason I think a threshold should be in place.

[RailwayRover]

Av is a start, but stv would be a much better voting system in uk.

fptp is a highly undemocratic system, too much of a two party system, thats why ill be voting for yes.

[Glenn]

Poll Added

[cletus]

I have voted YES for the new AV system.

In my view politics needs a good old shake up.

I am sick & tired of the corrupt gravy train at Westminster & a shake up might good it good.

I personally think voting should be compulsary. Having the freedom to vote has cost thousands of lives all over the world, yet we take it for granted.

How a party can get 20% of a national vote & then only get a handful of representatives in parliament seems wrong to me. I`m all for proportional representation. AV is a move towards that.

[bazza]

I was all in favour of a change to AV until I listened to a Radio 5 live mock election. Over the two hour period of the program I realised it was a bit farcical. It wasn't complicated to execute but seemed a bit weird, particularly when the Lib Dems who had come fourth with 15% of the vote had to have their second choices distributed. I felt uneasy. So now I'm not so sure which way to vote.

If adopting the AV system will help lead to true PR then I shall vote "Yes".

I'm still pondering.

[only2garners]

I was all in favour of a change to AV until I listened to a Radio 5 live mock election. Over the two hour period of the program I realised it was a bit farcical. It wasn't complicated to execute but seemed a bit weird, particularly when the Lib Dems who had come fourth with 15% of the vote had to have their second choices distributed. I felt uneasy. So now I'm not so sure which way to vote.

If adopting the AV system will help lead to true PR then I shall vote "Yes".

I'm still pondering.

I honestly don't know whether a yes for for AV will lead to a proper PR system in due course. What I do know is that a no vote will kill any chance for a generation at least.

[LeChuck]

I honestly don't know whether a yes for for AV will lead to a proper PR system in due course. What I do know is that a no vote will kill any chance for a generation at least.

Very succinctly describes my primary reason for voting yes.