So he is a perfect example of how the system would work.
If no-one has a clear majority in the first count then drop the lowest candidate and count their next choice, rinse and repeat till you get a clear majority.
The UK did lead the way in first past the post - hundreds of years before the rest of the world adopted it.2. AV is not widely used
AV is only used by three countries in the world - Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea - and even they don't like it. In Australia, av hasn't made their MPs work any harder, got rid of 'safe' seats, or stopped negative campaigning. By contrast, our first-past-the-post voting system has been copied around the globe. It is used by 2.4 billion people, making it the most widely used system in the world.
Because only a few countries use AV isn't a good argument against it. It is akin to saying we should never have adopted FPTP and a feudal/monarchy/dictatorship system would be better as thats what 'everyone else' used.
I'd vote 'yes' followed by 'no'......
& while I am randomly thinking I have wondered and not got an answer from anywhere, if you only put down one choice and your party is one of the eliminated ones, does your vote still count as part of the percentage or is it lost?
With AV you would still also have the option to only choose one person to state a preference for (we need to be careful about what you call a vote and a preference). It is already predicted on both camps and across all parties (at least at local party level for Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and Greens who I have spoken with ... and if they are looking at things then lots of other are too) that it will take a lot of explaining to people that you don't have to fill in all the boxes ... you can choose just one person or two. AV can be (and will be) used to target people into adding 3rd and 4th preference votes for people you would never even consider as a possible MP. If you don't like the policies of a particular party, or disagree with a particular candidate then why on earth would you stick them as 3rd preference? Yet, that is a strong probability as this is one way of people trying to target the extra votes.
And when I say votes, there is only ever one vote counted. However, it is traded around due to the preferences system.
It is also important to stop people saying (as I have heard a few times on TV for both camps) that you *rank* you preference ... you don't. Rank implies that you have to enter something for all candidates ... see my points above.
As for the arguments for and against ... those who say it will not be expensive ... it will cost more that it is costing at the moment until it is tweaked. Since we do not vote each week, it will take some time to do this and I do agree that the costs will be brought back in line (allowing for inflation, etc).
AV is a bit of a mess, but so is FPTP. Personally I don't think it will improve politics any ... it will just make it murky in a slightly different way, one which may take a few elections to get to grips with. I would prefer this referendum at a different time, when were aren't in a difficult financial position and where party politics is being used (and abused) to try to sway a very important change to how we select those who make the decisions on how the country is run.
Joking aside, I'd rather see something done to shake up the internal organisation structure - and have a bit more open discourse with politicians.
But if AV isn't good we can always go back to FPTP....it doesn't have to be forever. Change is sometimes good :-)
sparkeh (4th May 2011)
As an addition (to keep it separate from the yes/no debate and points I have just put up) ... I would also like to see it become compulsory to vote. You can choose to spoil your paper, have a 'none of the above' option, vote for The Official Monster Raving Loony Party (none of these part-timers for me ... if you are going to be mad, then be MAD), or simply vote for your preferred candidate (or candidates, depending on the result of the referendum).
If people are going to fight for free speech and free democracy, then it should be enshrined in how the country selects the decision makers (or doesn't, depending on your feelings) that we *all* do our part.
Gatt (3rd May 2011)
There should be a none of the above....my nan who is German said in Germany back in the 70's a none of the above option was introduced and it was that which made the German ministers fight for their place. There are no safe seats there and you can serve no longer than 5 terms in office at county and state level and you cannot switch counties/states for representation, which means people are limited to 20 years in office at most.
If under the AV system I indicate my choice of one candidate with an X will that still count as a valid vote providing I make no other marks on the paper?
YouTube - The Alternative Vote Explained < For anyone who doesn't understand AV or why it's better than the current system
The fact that it means that tactical voting will no longer be necessary is reason alone. No more will people vote for a party they hate, just because they are afraid of a party they hate even more getting in power.
It will be incredibly sad if the country votes No this Thursday just to "stick to the lib dems". This isn't about the Lib Dems, it's about you actually be able to vote for who you want.
Yes. There is nothing stopping you from picking just one candidate if you so choose. There is no need to list every single candidate on the paper in order, although you could if you wanted to. It just means that if your candidate doesn't win, your vote won't be applied to any other candidates afterIf under the AV system I indicate my choice of one candidate with an X will that still count as a valid vote providing I make no other marks on the paper?
What? People win seats with less than 30% of the vote at present, meaning the majority is represented by a party that they didn't vote for. How do you think the Tories keep getting into power when so many people dislike them (for the record, I don't)The current system does work, because the majority gets to decide who governs
Last edited by DrCheese; 3rd May 2011 at 07:06 PM.
Labour voters will still vote Labour
Tory voters will vote Tory
Lib Dems voters will spend 5 hours in the polling booths trying to decide if they should put the Greens or the Monster Raving Looney Party as their 4th or 5th choices.
AV is fantasy land waste of time, it will make naff all difference in your ability to kick out an idiot, corrupt MP. The only way to do that is to have a none of the above vote which if it wins force a by election with none of the previous candidates standing.
eh, even so I think you'll find a lot of people only vote for a party because they "don't want the other guys in power" at the very least, AV will eliminate that. Sure you'll still have the die hards who only ever vote for one party but that's not a reason to deny those who want to vote for another party the ability to do so without accidentally voting in a party they hate.Labour voters will still vote Labour
Tory voters will vote Tory
In all honesty I'm more likely to vote NO.
I find it wrong to be spending, what £250m?, on not only this referendum but also on a possible change to the system when people are struggling to find work, and keep a roof over their families heads and be able to provide food.. THAT is a far more pressing issue that this money could be spent on..
As already stated - Why are we considering a system that is being used by a few countries?
IMHO, I think a "none of the above" box would be a better solution to AV along with making it compulsory to vote... Too many people "cannot be arsed" yet are the first to complain.. - If you haven't voted then you have no right to complain about it!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)