[Archived] Alternative Vote

[Stuart]

Could someone briefly describe PR for me? Thanks

[thenodrog]

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.

Good. imo Proportional representation is for ideallists o2g. I used to trhink it would be a fair and equittable way of electing our leaders until I realised there are more work shy dollopers waiting for hand outs than captains of industry in this country. I'd only condone PR if elections were restricted sloely to people who pay income tax and NHI contributions.

[only2garners]

Could someone briefly describe PR for me? Thanks

I'll have a go. There are a large number of different systems used all over the world but they all aim to reflect the desires of the voting population in the make-up of their parliaments. Most commonly they will have constituencies that elect a number of MPs rather than the UK system of one member constituencies. So, for example, if there was one large constituency electing the 15 MPs in Lancashire and the voters voted 40% Conservative, 35% Labour, 17% Lib Dem, 4% UKIP, 3% Green and 1% BNP the outcome might be 6 Conservative, 5 Labour, 3 Lib Dems and 1 UKIP MP. I don't know how that compares to the actual vote last year when there were 8 Conservatives, 6 Labour and 1 Lib Dem. Of course, under a PR system the smaller parties have a much better chance of getting elected and this might encourage people who currently vote for the major party they want to win to vote for a smaller party which might more closely reflect their views.

AV is not a PR system. It is just a way of ensuring that whoever wins has a bit more support than under the present system, albeit maybe in second votes.

Good. imo Proportional representation is for ideallists o2g. I used to trhink it would be a fair and equittable way of electing our leaders until I realised there are more work shy dollopers waiting for hand outs than captains of industry in this country. I'd only condone PR if elections were restricted sloely to people who pay income tax and NHI contributions.

Funny how most of the rest of Europe seems to manage fine with PR systems though isn't it? Can't say that I follow your other point - why would PR have any effect on the number of scroungers?

[Stuart]

Cheers o2g

[thenodrog]

Funny how most of the rest of Europe seems to manage fine with PR systems though isn't it? Can't say that I follow your other point - why would PR have any effect on the number of scroungers?

It might not but it would result in their views not counting. Quite right too imo.....you pays your money, you takes your choice.

[Al]

Funny how most of the rest of Europe seems to manage fine with PR systems though isn't it? Can't say that I follow your other point - why would PR have any effect on the number of scroungers?

Only a drastic reduction in benefits would cut down the number of dole scroungers. I sometimes think that Darwin's theory should be utilised.

[sleepyjack]

It might not but it would result in their views not counting. Quite right too imo.....you pays your money, you takes your choice.

Only white male landowners should get the vote.

[JAL]

Which ever way the voting requirement is decided, the end result will be pretty much the same, as our masters dictate the real terms for the country, you, and me, heavily influenced through the financial sector.

A politician is just the middle man !

[rebelmswar]

It might not but it would result in their views not counting. Quite right too imo.....you pays your money, you takes your choice.

I can't agree with this.

I do believe that some sort of Government and History tests should have to be passed to be able to vote.

It wont be long before some wrestler or actor will become elected officials purely because of the buzz...

[JAL]

It wont be long before some wrestler or actor will become elected officials purely because of the buzz...

Does it matter ? dont think it will, the outcome will be the same.

[rebelmswar]

Does it matter ? dont think it will, the outcome will be the same.

You will feel safe in a world where Justin Bieber is elected president when he is 18?

I think people voting for things when they have no idea what a deficit is, is dangerous. Some people would vote for someone if they were offered a can of lager.

[Billy Castell]

Wikiprdia article for Jisty.

I'd vote AV, though I'd probably prefer STV. The reason being that if it fails, smug, comfortable politicians will close the debate for another 100 years or so, using the upcoming referendum as a reason to keep their rock solid safe seats and use taxpayers money for 1000 duck houses. Something is better than nothing since this issue will be swept under the carpet on May 6th.

[den]

An additional point here. One of the the primary reasons being used against FPTP, is that parties can be elected without achieving a majority of the vote. AV still allows parties to be elected with less than 50% of the vote as well. I just don't see a valid reason to support it. In fact, AV goes as far as removing the one person, one vote principal.

[LeChuck]

An additional point here. One of the the primary reasons being used against FPTP, is that parties can be elected without achieving a majority of the vote. AV still allows parties to be elected with less than 50% of the vote as well. I just don't see a valid reason to support it. In fact, AV goes as far as removing the one person, one vote principal.

Billy wrote an excellent reason above.

I can't agree with your last line at all either. In the end count no single person will have more than one vote. It is just a variation on how that vote will be applied.

[den]

I can't agree with your last line at all either. In the end count no single person will have more than one vote. It is just a variation on how that vote will be applied.

I don't understand your reasoning there LeChuck. Some voters could have just their one vote counted, while others might have their first, second and third choice counted.

[LeChuck]

I don't understand your reasoning there LeChuck. Some voters could have just their one vote counted, while others might have their first, second and third choice counted.

I see where you're coming from, it's a matter of interpretation I guess. In my mind the final results (after elimination and so on) will see one person with one vote. You seem to be wording it like those who have their third choice counted have an unfair advantage. I don't follow that. I know I'd rather have my primary vote being counted than my tertiary vote.

Regardless, I'm not sure why 'one person one vote' is such a big issue though, the system as a whole is more important than old ideology.

As others have put more eloquently than I can, a 'no' vote here will have us stuck with FPTP for decades. In my mind it's worth voting 'yes' simply to start the ball rolling on finding a new system. AV is a step in the right direction.

[Billy Castell]

Fast forward to 1 minute 10 seconds or so.

[Glenn]

Three very simple infographics to explain why AV is a better option than FPTP

http://www.broadstuf...rregularity.JPG

Contains a slightly not-safe-for-work-word, but explains the idea of why AV is fairer than FPTP excellently

and this annotates the No To AV's campaign leaflet, showing that it's low on facts, high of FUD (though it's almost as biased as the leaflet itself)

http://imgur.com/a/hgmbQ

[LeChuck]

Contains a slightly not-safe-for-work-word, but explains the idea of why AV is fairer than FPTP excellently

Hah, brilliant. Thanks for that Glenn. I might shamelessly post it on Facebook, that's great.

[Paul]

At the moment I shall either vote "No" or abstain. Why? It is simple really, a proposal is being put to the country by someone - I'm really not at all sure who - to change our long established and relatively successful electoral system. I am being asked at least for my opinion on and at best my vote for this change. I don't even know where the idea comes from - presumably the man we trust with our lives Nick Clegg?

Voters who take a responsible attitude to the privilege should first ask if this proposed change has been adequately presented to the electorate? In my view the proponents of change have utterly failed to present their case. There is no campaign of any. A sensible voter should not vote on a subject that has not been adequately presented to or debated with the country as a whole.

I learnt more about AV here than anywhere else. The whole thing appears to be nothing other than an expensive fop to Clegg after he allowed Cameron to shaft him and the LibDems for ever and a day.

[tony gale's mic]

At the moment I shall either vote "No" or abstain. Why? It is simple really, a proposal is being put to the country by someone - I'm really not at all sure who - to change our long established and relatively successful electoral system. I am being asked at least for my opinion on and at best my vote for this change. I don't even know where the idea comes from - presumably the man we trust with our lives Nick Clegg?

Voters who take a responsible attitude to the privilege should first ask if this proposed change has been adequately presented to the electorate? In my view the proponents of change have utterly failed to present their case. There is no campaign of any. A sensible voter should not vote on a subject that has not been adequately presented to or debated with the country as a whole.

I learnt more about AV here than anywhere else. The whole thing appears to be nothing other than an expensive fop to Clegg after he allowed Cameron to shaft him and the LibDems for ever and a day.

I'm not a fan of Clegg by any means. But the sheer number of lies peddled by the No to AV group should be far more worthy of your contempt.

They're claiming AV would cost £250 million because of expensive counting machines that would be needed for it. These are basically an invention as those proposing AV have said there would be no need for this system. In places where AV style systems are in place, counting is managed without these special machines so why have it in this country?

They're also claiming it would benefit the rise of extremists. Another outright lie. Very few people who would vote for the BNP would put them at second place - they're an extremely polarising party. It would arguably push the extremists even more to the fringes than they are currently.

[LeChuck]

At the moment I shall either vote "No" or abstain.

Just be aware that "No" vote will be construed as a "Yes to FPTP" vote. We might not get another chance to change our system for a long time.

A sensible voter should not vote on a subject that has not been adequately presented to or debated with the country as a whole.

Unusually condescending tone from you Paul. Considering the relative simplicity of the subject, I don't think it warrants a full on public debate. There is enough information out there to make a judgement without listening to other people debating it.

I'd have no problem with people voting without fully understanding it anyway. Someone might be a big supporter of FPTP and doesn't want a change, regardless of the system. Alternatively people might be sick of FPTP and just want something new to break free from the system.

Everyone has their own reason voting, I'm not sure it has to be through your suggestion to be sensible.

[Paul]

Unusually condescending tone from you Paul. Considering the relative simplicity of the subject, I don't think it warrants a full on public debate. There is enough information out there to make a judgement without listening to other people debating it.

Aplogies, I had no intention of being condescending - I only meant to suggest people should be sure of what they are voting for or against.

I agree there is information out there but still feel there is a real lack of information and public education on this matter. It needs more publicity through debate, in my view.

[jim mk2]

The Tories are largely against AV and the Daily Mail is against it so there are two good reasons why my vote will be a resounding Yes.

Seriously, there have been plenty of debates in the press and TV for people to form their own opinions and make a judgment.

Some of hysteria and lies from the No campaign led by Cameron have been disgraceful. Sadly those lies seem to have influenced the public according to voting intentions in the latest polls.

[Glenn]

At the moment I shall either vote "No" or abstain. Why? It is simple really, a proposal is being put to the country by someone - I'm really not at all sure who - to change our long established and relatively successful electoral system. I am being asked at least for my opinion on and at best my vote for this change. I don't even know where the idea comes from - presumably the man we trust with our lives Nick Clegg?

The first documented use of it I can find is 1871, so it pre-dates Clegg a little and the main reason most people hadn't heard to it pre-Clegg/Cameron coalition was because most people pushing for voting reform wanted full proportional representation rather that this somewhat lacklustre alternative (you may really really want to stay in the penthouse apartment of a hotel and tell everyone so, but if you're offered an upgrade from a single room to a double, you don't turn it down, just because you didn't proclaim how good the doubles were). It's an alternative that has two important points of consideration. A, despite is being a long way from PR, it's still better than FPTP and B. A no vote will doom is to FPTP for generations.

Voters who take a responsible attitude to the privilege should first ask if this proposed change has been adequately presented to the electorate? In my view the proponents of change have utterly failed to present their case. There is no campaign of any. A sensible voter should not vote on a subject that has not been adequately presented to or debated with the country as a whole.

I'm know target marketing is a complex beast, but I've been over run with info. Every houshould in the UK should have received a leaflet from both Yes and No camps and it seems to have been covered a lot on the TV news (and political commentary and current affairs shows) and certainly the only paper I read have covered it a lot (all be it slightly biased). I actually received more info on the AV vote than I did on the general election (where the two major parties didn't even bother leafleting and I suspect I only got a Lib Dem one because I'm a registered member).

I learnt more about AV here than anywhere else. The whole thing appears to be nothing other than an expensive fop to Clegg after he allowed Cameron to shaft him and the LibDems for ever and a day.

So based on the Lib Dems giving way on a few issues (inevitable in any coalition, however unpalatable it may seem), you'd give up one of the few concessions we got out of this (although, personally the privacy changes, ID cards scrapping. lords reform and big reform bill were all things I never expected to see in my life time none of which would have been possible without a coalition) just because the LibDems are guilty of some Venkyesque PR failure by letting themselves become Cameron's whipping boy.

Currently, Ed Balls holds onto his seat here by less than 1,000 votes (I bet he gets shifted to a safer seat next time) with only 32% of people voting for him, he is despised locally (he's rarely in the area and then only for a whistle stop photo tour) and I'd wager he doesn't really know where my village even is! Currently I have the moral dilemma of do I vote for a bloke I hate, who I feel represents me badly simply because I feel the most likely out-coming of not doing so is far worse (another tory in parliament). AV allows me to actually express how I feel (I want to vote for the lib dem candidate and should he not be in the running, I'd back balls over a tory) and not feel like my true vote is wasted and helping towards something I don't want.

The Tories are largely against AV and the Daily Mail is against it so there are two good reasons why my vote will be a resounding Yes.

Seriously, there have been plenty of debates in the press and TV for people to form their own opinions and make a judgment.

Some of hysteria and lies from the No campaign led by Cameron have been disgraceful. Sadly those lies seem to have influenced the public according to voting intentions in the latest polls.

I do find it amusing (as Charlie Brooker highlighted on 10 O'Clock Live last night) that BOTH sides are saying the other system is more likely to lead to minority parties getting elected (both a wrong, neither is more or less likely than now), so which ever why the vote goes ... Nick Griffin wins!

Worringly, given both the vote on here and the MORI polls, I've still yet to hear a single valid reason FOR FPTP, only reasons (well, mainly FUD) against AV.