pcstru Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 I urge people to vote no ... as their second preference. 2
localzuk Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Yup. I will be voting yes, and I'd suggest others should to. The current system is inherently unfair and not representative of peoples votes.
tech_guy Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Anything that potentially gives those with their snouts in the trough in Parliament the incentive to actually get off their fat backsides and actually do some work is a good thing. I'll be voting for AV.
Robz Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 but I fail to see the benefits of this AV, can someone enlighten me? All I see is that the person who comes 3rd (and out of 3 candidates that is last place) can potentially win the vote and represent people who didn't think they were good enough to be first. 1
teejay Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Nothing fairer about AV, just a different way of voting that will probably affect the outcome for a couple of MP's at most. The best way forward would be to stick to the current system but with a 'None of the Above' vote, if 'None of the Above' has the majority, then no-one is voted in, a re-election is called with none of the candidates from the first vote able to stand. This second ballot should not have a 'None of the Above' or if it does it shouldn't trigger another ellection. This will enable people to get rid of MP's that don't work for their constituency and hold them more accountable, which is really what we all want.
pcstru Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 but I fail to see the benefits of this AV, can someone enlighten me? All I see is that the person who comes 3rd (and out of 3 candidates that is last place) can potentially win the vote and represent people who didn't think they were good enough to be first. I think the stat is that 2/3rds of MP's were elected by a minority of those that voted - or put another way, for the majority - their vote didn't count. With AV all MP's will be elected by a majority of voters based on the ranked preferences. Apart from improving representational democracy, this means that candidates cannot simply ignore that part of their constituency that doesn't normally vote for them. They will want to be as high up your ranking as possible. I'd hope that it will also increase the perceived probability of hung parliaments and that the parties will have to not only tell us what they will do if they win but what they will do if they have to form a coalition. That might be a forlorn hope though since at the last election when the biggest single issue was dealing with the deficit, all of the parties schemed together to avoid giving any detail. Meanwhile the benefits of first past the post are ... errr??
srochford Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 but I fail to see the benefits of this AV, can someone enlighten me? All I see is that the person who comes 3rd (and out of 3 candidates that is last place) can potentially win the vote and represent people who didn't think they were good enough to be first. I think you're misunderstanding (unless I've got it completely wrong!) The person who comes third (or anywhere else) has no effect at all if the person who comes first gets more than 50% of the vote. If no-one gets more than 50% of the vote then you look at the votes of the people who voted for the loser and (effectively) say "you can't have your candidate so who's your second choice" and you add those votes on to the other candidates. Depending on how close the vote is you may now get a winner or, if there are a lot of candidates, you might have to eliminate the next to the bottom candidate and re-allocate their votes. What you end up with is a system where the winner was actively voted for by a majority (even if he was second or third choice). At the moment, you might say "Well, I really want Lib Dem but if I can't have them then I'd like Conservative" but your second choice gets ignored. At the moment, roughly two thirds of MPs are elected with less than 50% of their constituents voting for them. Now it may be that this is fine (I vote Tory; I get a Labour MP but I'm happy with that because the Labour MP was my second choice). With this system we get a better chance to know what people actually want (even if it is second choice)
sted Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Yup. I will be voting yes, and I'd suggest others should to. The current system is inherently unfair and not representative of peoples votes. no system is that good if their are 4 candidates say and one gets 40% then others got 20% then they have been elected with a minority but short of having a runoff losing the worst every time (and after results are published so you can vote tactically if you so desire) what can you do? no system is 100% fair what weve got works as well as any and some systems 1 party may get enough of the vote to have x seats in parliament but gain seats in areas they lost in. at the end of the day im not sure it matters anyway as when was the last time the majority politicians did whats right for their constituents rather than towing the party line anyway?
Gatt Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Haven't we got more pressing matters to attend to - such as the rising level of Unemployment and National Debt? Isn't this just a lite version of PR anyway?
CAM Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 How many will add an extra vote anyway? "I'm a Labour supporter, I won't put those other two in my vote!" "I'm a Conservative! Like hell I am putting in labour and those Lib Dems are getting in the way!" etc. TBH I find it hard enough to pick one idiot in office, let alone three. 1
elsiegee40 Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 We used to use AV at university for Students Union elections... it didn't seem such a bad system apart from the length of time it took to count the votes.
somabc Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) Single Transferable Vote! http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/e/7/0e7352003d9bcaa654979c904b8b5492.png The best system shame they are going for AV instead. Single transferable vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Edited April 4, 2011 by somabc
beeswax Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Andrew Rawnsley makes convincing argument pro-AV, Adopting the alternative vote would be a very British revolution | Andrew Rawnsley | Comment is free | The Observer
teejay Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 If you support AV, instead of a Yes/No referendum we should be giving you some options, so how about putting the following in order of preference: [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe [ ] Haven't a clue [ ] I'm can't decide so I'll just stick numbers next to all of them [ ] I can't count past 3 [ ] Is this the vote for my local councillor? [ ] Do I get fried rice with that?
nicholab Posted April 4, 2011 Author Posted April 4, 2011 It looks like it give ballet spoiler more options that actually mean some thing.
Little-Miss Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Eugh i don't know. They're all evil anyway, whoever gets in! 3
Gatt Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Like I said earlier, I think there are more important things to be worrying about right now... Not sure yet how I'm going to vote.. I'll need to wait on the info leaflet they are supposedly sending to all and sundry....
nicholab Posted April 4, 2011 Author Posted April 4, 2011 If you think that get involved and stand yourself. 1
sted Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 If you think that get involved and stand yourself. and what use is an independent mp they cant change anything unless there are a heck of a lot of them?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now