Why you should vote YES to AV on Thursday:

[JJonas]

With AV you would still also have the option to only choose one person to state a preference for

 

So for the lazy voter it is potentially easier you only have to write a 1 (one stroke of the pencil) rather than an X (two strokes)

 

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?

[DrCheese]

< 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.

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?

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 after

 

The current system does work, because the majority gets to decide who governs

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)

Edited May 3, 2011 by DrCheese

[teejay]

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.

[DrCheese]

Labour voters will still vote Labour

Tory voters will vote Tory

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.

[Gatt]

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!

[teejay]

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.

 

No it won't, if you want the MP out, your only realistic option is to vote for the strongest opposing candidate as first choice under AV as anything else you are risking the MP getting through in the first round, so there is no difference in tactical voting.

[JJonas]

 

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..

 

To quote from the "A-Z of rubbish arguments from NO2AV" I posted earlier

 

X is for eXpensive (!)

 

AV will cost £250m! Except £82m of that is apparently the cost of holding the referendum, which would be incurred even if there is a No vote. And £130m of that is on buying voter counting machines. They don’t use them in Australia, which uses AV, but DO use them in America, which uses FPTP.

[GrumbleDook]

The vote counter machines are meant to allow for a similar number of staff to be able to complete the count in a similar amount of time. Without the machines the choices would be to allow for more time to complete the count, increase the number of staff involved, allow for more time due to human error / miscounts or any combination of these.

 

The pressure to have an answer before lunchtime on the Friday after a general election is partly put there by the media / public, but mainly be the world markets. This means we cannot allow for longer time (even though that is still a risk due to the predicted rise in the number of recounts per stage) so we either pay for more staff or a new system to measure the votes. Purely electronic is out, so we have to have counting machines ...

 

£130m is the suggested figure for the machines, and there has been money put aside to cover the costs of the next election which should (with inflation) be about that amount. However, there has been no indication yet of any other costs or possible increase of existing costs due to the change in the system. Speaking with one returns officer a fortnight ago they said that would look forward to having machines in to do the work, but they seriously worry about what happens when there is a problem ... the problems with shortages of ballot papers, people not having time to vote, etc are just some of the examples which need to be sorted either way. The introduction of a new system will need some serious training and management ... and there seems to be significant scepticism if this is possible.

 

So, if you count for the figures of the referendum, the costs of machines, the costs of marketing / training / planning, the legal costs for challenges ... then yes, I could quite easily see it rise to £250m and even go passed it, but yes, the way the No campaign has stated some facts (and they are facts) is a typical political truth ... used to say something with a slant in a particular direction. The annoying thing is that to say that it is not going to cost more than it is at the moment, without having completed a full breakdown (and published) seems a tad strange by the Yes campaign.

[beeswax]

Finally, I would like to point out that this "unfair", "discredited", "expensive" system that "doesn't work" is used by their own party to vote in members to the House of Lords, and a variant of the system (which uses multiple rounds of voting) to vote for their leader. Why don't they eat their own dog food and use FPTP themselves if it is so much better?

 

The full text of the letter can be found here - Why don't Tories use FPTP to elect their own leader - Letters from Leamington Observer If the Tories used First Past the Post (FPTP) then David Davies would would have been elected leader of the Tory party.

[Hightower]

In the event that my candidate does not score a majority, I would still like my views to be taken into account.

 

Now this just doesn't cut it for me. With the current system your views are taken into account, and you were outvoted.

 

The AV to me is a bit like that annoying kid at school who used to play a 'best of 3' game of heads or tails with you, then when he lost he would say "nah, it was best of 5" and then "nah, it was best of 7" and so on.

[localzuk]

Now this just doesn't cut it for me. With the current system your views are taken into account, and you were outvoted.

 

The AV to me is a bit like that annoying kid at school who used to play a 'best of 3' game of heads or tails with you, then when he lost he would say "nah, it was best of 5" and then "nah, it was best of 7" and so on.

 

Outvoted by a minority... 36.1% of the vote and the Tories are in power.

[TechMonkey]

Now this just doesn't cut it for me. With the current system your views are taken into account, and you were outvoted.

 

The AV to me is a bit like that annoying kid at school who used to play a 'best of 3' game of heads or tails with you, then when he lost he would say "nah, it was best of 5" and then "nah, it was best of 7" and so on.

 

It would be more like if you got to sign up to what you wanted to do in PE for the term. If the group you legged it to was full, instead of being told for the next term you will be doing nothing you get to leg it to another group.

[Dos_Box]

So the crux of this thread is 'I should vote 'yes' because of what some bloke said on the internet'

[localzuk]

So the crux of this thread is 'I should vote 'yes' because of what some bloke said on the internet'

 

Better than 'because of what some bloke said in the pub'. At least with the internet you can have the process explained using cats!

 

[X-13]

Now... I don't know politics, but I know what I like.

 

 

And I don't like this... Seems kind of stupid to me. [@Hightower summed it up pretty well.]

[teejay]

Outvoted by a minority... 36.1% of the vote and the Tories are in power.

 

Or, they got the most votes of any party, therefore the most popular, therefore have a right to govern.

[X-13]

Or, they got the most votes of any party, therefore the most popular, therefore have a right to govern.

 

Or everyone votes MRL and they're in charge.

 

 

Is that really what you want?

[Hightower]

Outvoted by a minority... 36.1% of the vote and the Tories are in power.

 

Really? Last time I checked it was Nick Clegg who called this referendum.

[localzuk]

Or, they got the most votes of any party, therefore the most popular, therefore have a right to govern.

 

So 73.9% of people get no representation in government!? Minority rule is ok for you then? There is no 'right' to govern.

 

Really? Last time I checked it was Nick Clegg who called this referendum.

 

Yes, the original referendum idea was to go with a form of PR, but the party which formed the government, ie. the Tories, said no, and made them change it to AV. So, again, the Tories get to use their minority vote position to do what they want.

[TechMonkey]

Or, they got the most votes of any party, therefore the most popular, therefore have a right to govern.

But not a majority & not really the most popular. If a party wins with any less than 50% then there is more than half that did NOT want them so they are not the most popular

[psydii]

That might actually be a good idea. Just to keep things fresh, and help focus people in future on not being idiots when they stand/vote.

[featured_spectre]

go back to a 2 party system. Most countries in the world have a 2 party system and it works well for them (France, USA, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Canada, Mexico etc)

[Hightower]

go back to a 2 party system. Most countries in the world have a 2 party system and it works well for them (France, USA, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Canada, Mexico etc)

 

Or, just let @localzuk run the country - he has an answer for everything

[Guest Guest]

Some good arguments off the BBC site:

 

1.That's bad news for complacent MPs - and extremists.

 

Personally I'd say it's good for extremist parties. What about all those people who wouldn't choose BNP as their first choice but might put it down as a second or third? On the current system you completely waste your vote by doing a "protest vote for BNP", with AV you can get as many "votes" as you like.

 

IMO there will be a fair few people who give the extremist parties a stab if we go to AV.

[localzuk]

go back to a 2 party system. Most countries in the world have a 2 party system and it works well for them (France, USA, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Canada, Mexico etc)

 

The USA doesn't have a 2 party system. They have dozens of parties country-wide, same with France and Canada. (Can't be bothered looking up the others).

 

A 2 party system is inherently undemocratic. I disagree with both our largest parties' policies, so why should I vote for either of them?

 

Or, just let @localzuk run the country - he has an answer for everything

 

Now that's an idea I can follow! First ruling would be 'hats for everyone!'...