[Archived] Alternative Vote

[dave birch]

Here is a chance to make politicians think more about the people that vote. They will all want to hit the magic 50% +1.

The downside is that they tend to get in bed with the lesser knowns to exchange preferences on their "how to vote cards".

I can only say, that it is an infinitely better solution than first past the post.

[LeChuck]

I feel change may be a good thing and will not therefore vote against change. It's the whole manner of the way this is being done I cannot support.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face, it seems.

It seems 'no' is going to comfortably win because many people have decided to mix party politics into their thinking. This should just be a straight vote on the system, and I can't see why people wouldn't vote for more choice.

[Mattyblue]

I think it will be closer than you think Le Chuck.

'No' is in the lead in opinion polls, but are the 'yes' voters more likely to turn out?

[den]

It seems 'no' is going to comfortably win because many people have decided to mix party politics into their thinking. This should just be a straight vote on the system, and I can't see why people wouldn't vote for more choice.

But giving the electorate this referendum is a political agreement between two parties LeChuck. It isn't being put forward because both parties think it's time to move from FPTP. It's an agreement to placate the Lib Dems in payment for their support. If they were really offering a choice, they would also offer PR. The Tories don't want AV and in all honesty the lib Dems don't want it either. So neither of them can really complain if the voters use this vote as a tactical vote.

We seem to be being pressurised into voting for something that hardly anyone wants, in order to get an eventual referendum on PR. I can't see why I should go along with this kind of daft thinking.

[Paul]

What solid principles Paul? The Lib Dems have been caught out by actually ending up in government, something the rank and file at conference never envisaged when voting in unnaffordable policy pleges.

That is probably true, I always had them down as decent alternative vote if I wanted to avoid voting Labour. The last few months has proved this to be very wrong on my part.

[LeChuck]

We seem to be being pressurised into voting for something that hardly anyone wants, in order to get an eventual referendum on PR. I can't see why I should go along with this kind of daft thinking.

I don't think that's true at all.

In my view, AV is better than FPTP. Not perfect by any means, but better than what we have. That's enough to vote yes.

When FPTP was introduced, 9/10 people voted for two parties, so the system was fine for that era. People do not vote like that any more though, the system is no longer fit for purpose.

There are many simple, practical examples of why AV is more suited to today's needs than FPTP. Here's a good example of why it is better suited.

Most of the 'no' campaign is based on gross exaggerations and scaremongering. Unfortunately it seems to be working. It also says a lot that the Conversatives and the BNP seem to be the only main parties against it, whilst Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and UKIP all support yes. If I had to be grouped with one way of thinking there, I know which side I'd want to be on.

[Paul]

Cutting off your nose to spite your face, it seems.

It seems 'no' is going to comfortably win because many people have decided to mix party politics into their thinking. This should just be a straight vote on the system, and I can't see why people wouldn't vote for more choice.

I'm not making a choice based on politics. My choice is based on this appears to be offered as a sop to the LibDems AND, crucially for me, there has not been any form of proper public debate on the issue. It is the lack of debate and information which forces me to abstain, I won't vote for something I do not fully understand the consequences of. If this was a general election we would be overwhelmed with party information, in my view this vote is every bit as important as a general election but the politicians have failed to inform the electorate properly on the matter.

But giving the electorate this referendum is a political agreement between two parties LeChuck. It isn't being put forward because both parties think it's time to move from FPTP. It's an agreement to placate the Lib Dems in payment for their support. If they were really offering a choice, they would also offer PR. The Tories don't want AV and in all honesty the lib Dems don't want it either. So neither of them can really complain if the voters use this vote as a tactical vote.

We seem to be being pressurised into voting for something that hardly anyone wants, in order to get an eventual referendum on PR. I can't see why I should go along with this kind of daft thinking.

Very well put Den.

[Mattyblue]

isn't a majority of the Labour Party against it?

Milliband has sensed an opportunity and is pro AV (not suprising as he only won the leadership election because of Alternative Vote).

[jim mk2]

, there has not been any form of proper public debate on the issue.

This isn't true. It has been debated many times on television and on radio (Radio 4 yesterday and today devoted large chunks of the Today programme to AV) and in all the main newspapers.

[adopted scouser]

Who cares, I mean, really ?

[Ste B]

Who cares, I mean, really ?

Liberals as they figure they will be everybodys second choice so might do well.

[den]

I don't think that's true at all.

In my view, AV is better than FPTP. Not perfect by any means, but better than what we have. That's enough to vote yes.

Sorry LeChuck, I didn't make it clear. When I said that "We seem to be being pressurised into voting for something that hardly anyone wants" I meant that none of the political parties want.

The Tories patently don't want AV and the Lib Dems generally only support it, because they couldn't get anything else. AV is the choice that neither party really wants. It's political manouvering for the benefit of the parties election chances, rather than putting all the options to the voters.

[only2garners]

Who cares, I mean, really ?

Anyone who cares about a more representative Parliament should care. As Le Chuck and I have said a few times on this thread a No vote tomorrow will condemn us to FPTP for a generation. AV is only a bit better than FPTP but it is an improvement and will give many more electors a feeling that their vote will count. I have been eligible to vote for 40 years and have always voted, but have yet to see my first choice elected in a national election. Effectively under FPTP I have had to vote for my second or third choice in order to help keep another candidate out. Under AV I would be able to vote honestly for my preferred candidate.

To answer those who have said that there hasn't been enough debate I can only say you have not been looking hard enough. I have had communications from both sides and a neutral leaflet explaining the proposal. As Jim has said there have been discussion on Today on a regular basis, also on Newsnight. Today's Independent has its first four pages on the debate. There is plenty of information there if you want it and in truth despite what the No campaign have been saying it is very simple. Can you count up to the number of candidates on a ballot paper, almost certainly less than 10? If so you know what to do. If you want you can still just use one vote anyway, just mark your candidate with a 1 rather than an X

[RibbleValleyRover]

Two more polls out tonight:

ICM- No 68%, Yes 32%

YouGov- No 60% Yes 40%

http://www6.politicalbetting.com

It could really be a bad night on thursday for Clegg and the Lib Dem's if these and other polls are correct.

[bazza]

Is one's third or fourth choice ever likely to be counted.

This is what I don't understand.

It's not the voting method that is difficult, it's the way votes are counted.

Also, should it not be compulsory to enumerate all candidates?

[Glenn]

I'm amazed anyone other than a died in the wool Tory would support it. It makes absolutely no sense anyone else want a system that no discernible benefit over the alternative. If you simplify politics into people being either left or right leaning then the current system boils down to which ever side has the fewer viable voting options. FPTP is a system that actually benefits the side offering a LACK of choice, how does that help anyone? Over the last 100 years of FPTP we've had 14 Tory governments and ONLY TWO had more than 50% of voters vote for them. In Norwich an MP was elected last year when just 29.4% of people voting for him Was he lots of people's second choice? We have no data, under FPTP it's not deemed important. Under FPTP labour could improve their chances of winning by promoting the BNP and UKIP in the hope that they'll dilute the traditional right wing votes going to the Tories! As a confirmed leftie and card carrying Lib Dem, it would probably be worth me supporting the dissolution of the Lib Dems because we'd then get a more left wing government. See, it's simply nuts. The left is penalised (and significantly less likely to get overall power) simply because there is more viable choices!

If people don't get that, this video will help you understand (we currently have to suffer coffee because the majority can't decide which pub to go to).

As for the people disenfranchised with the Lib Dems, I won't do the whole "it's a coalition, we were only ever going to get scraps of LD policy implemented, do you think a con+Green+PC+Others coalition would have been better" thing I'm expected to do, but I'll ask you this, the ONLY party that currently benefit from FPTP are the Tories. Is backing the Tories (and condemning us to endless Tory-led coalitions) how you really want to "punish" Nick Clegg?

And yes, AV isn't what I want, I want PR, but that doesn't mean I'll ignore a small improvement because I want a big one.

Don't think of it as Yes to AV. Think of it as NO to FPTP, which is a much easier decision to make.

Is one's third or fourth choice ever likely to be counted.

This is what I don't understand.

It's not the voting method that is difficult, it's the way votes are counted.

It depends how close the vote is. In reality it will be very rare that third and fourth are counted, but if 1st and 2nd are that close then every other round of voting could be considered.

Also, should it not be compulsory to enumerate all candidates?

Hell no. I'd rather my vote not be considered at all that me express any kind of preference for Cons, BNP and UKIP. In fact, one of the nice things with AV is if you think only your first vote should count, you can vote that way.

[Glenn]

Two more polls out tonight:

ICM- No 68%, Yes 32%

YouGov- No 60% Yes 40%

http://www6.politicalbetting.com

It could really be a bad night on thursday for Clegg and the Lib Dem's if these and other polls are correct.

.... and that's the problem. People thinking some how the voting system we are choosing to elect our politicians by is somebody down to the politicans. As Dara O'Brian said this evening "For a job interview, you don't let the interviewees choose how they are chosen". This has nothing to do with the existing political parties and it's certainly not "a vote for Nick".

It's a shame voting isn't restricted to those people who can actually explain what they are voting for. I'm sure tomorrow there will be a LOT of people vote NO in protest that then cry when all they have is Tory-led coalitions for the rest of their lives.

(also, very clever banners on that site, "back labour, say no to AV" .... when labour are very much behind AV)

The Tories patently don't want AV and the Lib Dems generally only support it, because they couldn't get anything else. AV is the choice that neither party really wants. It's political manouvering for the benefit of the parties election chances, rather than putting all the options to the voters.

But swing it around the other way, how many parties want FPTP? The Tories and small single issue parties that can target geographic strong holds (BNP, Respect etc). Nobody else.

Liberals as they figure they will be everybodys second choice so might do well.

You mean the Lib Dems. The Liberals get very upset at people confusing them.

But to answer your question, Labour gain massively from it too and a large percentage of my grassroots labour supporting mates have come around to that idea now.

isn't a majority of the Labour Party against it?

Milliband has sensed an opportunity and is pro AV (not suprising as he only won the leadership election because of Alternative Vote).

No, the majority are now very much behind it.

[Glenn]

I wish I'd found this earlier. FPTP vs AV explained ..... for cats (it make some great points and is brilliantlly silly)

... and an obligatory "Stephen Fry says FPTP isn't fit for purpose, so it must be true" clip (sadly contains no cats though)

[koi]

One thing I really hate in politics is when the slebs are rolled out, even Vera Duckworth was out on the campaign trail yesterday, smacks of desperation and just turns me right off.

[Mattyblue]

Am I missing something? If the public votes down AV, isn't that democracy in action? Too many people on the left believe the general public are too stupid to think for themselves- its because of the nasty Tories polluting minds, because of the newspapers etc etc.

The wishes of the people only count if they mirror their superior viewpoint.

[Glenn]

If the public votes down AV, it's not the system that's broken (in fact, for a two horse race, like a referendum, FPTP is great), but that doesn't stopped me being disillusioned at people who voted for something based on weak arguments or a lack of understanding (I've still yet to hear a convincing No argument). Whilst I disagree with his decision, Paul has my upmost respect for taking the time to learn about what he's voting on and has decided that as he is neither for or against it, has decided not to vote (on the referendum, I assume he's still voting in the locals), but how many people today will vote no because "I don't like that Nick Clegg got into bed with the Tories and didn't do what he'd promissed he do if they got into power"?

[Ste B]

I love the fact that I get a NO TO AV advert on this thread telling us to stick it Nick Clegg !

If the Yes vote fails, then it hasnt done enough to engage the average person on the street and convince them of a compelling reason to change.

[RibbleValleyRover]

I love the fact that I get a NO TO AV advert on this thread telling us to stick it Nick Clegg !

Noticed that advert earlier!

[LeChuck]

I love the fact that I get a NO TO AV advert on this thread telling us to stick it Nick Clegg !

If the Yes vote fails, then it hasnt done enough to engage the average person on the street and convince them of a compelling reason to change.

So the average person will just do what they're told? Sounds about right.

[Ste B]

So the average person will just do what they're told? Sounds about right.

If you cant engage them and convince them to vote then the jobs not done.