Why you should vote YES to AV on Thursday:

[sparkeh]

given the vast majority vote one way or another, Labour or Conservative

 

Untrue.

Just take a look at the last election results, 65% of people voted either Conservative or Labour, not exectly a 'vast majority'. Only 36% on people voted Conservative and they are running the country! This can't be right can it?

In the era of real two party politics (post war) Cons and Lab shared over 90% of the vote, then the FPTP system really meant something. However, for a while now governments have been formed with around 40% of the popular vote and the spread of votes between parties is increasing meaning that we are heading for more coalitions with the FPTP system anyway.

AV might not be perfect but it is a step to a fairer system where elections are not decided by a handful of swing seats and opposition voters in a safe seat have no real meaning to their vote.

Edited May 4, 2011 by sparkeh

[MK-2]

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

 

I knew you had something against us folically challenged people, BALDIST!

[TechMonkey]

@j17sparky:

Unfortunately that is democracy. But there have been studies that when people have a decent option they don't use protest votes. It was a study in Burnley but I can't find it now. But from a link on the site JJonas posted there is this

Take a look at this House of Commons briefing note on the BNP. The three BNP councillors elected for the first time in Burnley in 2002 had an average vote share of 28.1%. This means that 71.9% of voters voted against these councillors, yet they were still elected. If you look at the vote share of BNP councillors elected in 2008 (p7), you’ll see that only one of the fifteen candidates was elected with more than 40% of the vote, and one, in Maltby, was elected with just 23.1% of the vote.

 

Under AV the only way the BNP could have won these elections is to have picked up a sizable number of second preference votes. This is extremely unlikely, because, to quote this excellent guide to AV, “generally voters either support a party like the BNP, or hate it, so such parties gain very few second and third preferences.”

from Would AV help the BNP? « Paperback Rioter Edited May 4, 2011 by TechMonkey

[localzuk]

I knew you had something against us folically challenged people, BALDIST!

 

You also have the option of other headwear too - wigs, turbans, head polish.

[DrCheese]

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)

 

eh I wouldn't say it works well in America at all, you have two major parties but the massive range of views in the US doesn't fit into them at all. The Tea Party movement should really be an entirely separate political party but instead it's had to hjack the republican party to stand any hope of being elected.

[X-13]

First ruling would be 'hats for everyone!'...

 

'Hats for everyone' reminds me of the "Free hats" episode of south park.

[gshaw]

I'm going to vote no; anything that gives power to the Lib Dems has to be a bad move...

[pooley]

So does anyone know if we would still have a "coalition" running the country if we had used the new voting system?

[TechMonkey]

I'm going to vote no; anything that gives power to the Lib Dems has to be a bad move...

 

Please I beg of you, do a bit of research. Don't vote based on "I want to show xxx" or "This'll teach yyy".

 

Don't base it on party politics, base it on the chance to start some real voting reform in the country.

[gshaw]

I've watched all the videos on YouTube, the jungle and cat ones were good

 

When you think about it all it effectively does is prolong the agony of the small parties losing by one round, I usually go for UKIP but know they won't win so then the vote goes to one of the big two.

 

The Greens will then go for Labour \ Lib Dem and it ends up as 1 of the big 3 anyway and if that means Lib Dem get more votes as a result that's not a good thing

 

If we wanted real reform why didn't they go for PR that seems to be the one that makes a real difference rather than this half-baked idea that no-one uses (3 countries out of the whole world isn't really showing much confidence in the system imo)

[localzuk]

If we wanted real reform why didn't they go for PR that seems to be the one that makes a real difference rather than this half-baked idea that no-one uses (3 countries out of the whole world isn't really showing much confidence in the system imo)

 

Because the conservatives in government said they wouldn't allow it - most likely because it would completely destroy the 2 party old style system, and therefore reduce the power they had.

[sparkeh]

If we wanted real reform why didn't they go for PR that seems to be the one that makes a real difference rather than this half-baked idea that no-one uses (3 countries out of the whole world isn't really showing much confidence in the system imo)

 

Because the Tory leadership don't want reform, the Libs really want PR but this is a half-way house that the Tories offered and the Libs had to accept to get any chance of any kind of reform.

[TechMonkey]

I've watched all the videos on YouTube, the jungle and cat ones were good

 

When you think about it all it effectively does is prolong the agony of the small parties losing by one round, I usually go for UKIP but know they won't win so then the vote goes to one of the big two.

 

The Greens will then go for Labour \ Lib Dem and it ends up as 1 of the big 3 anyway and if that means Lib Dem get more votes as a result that's not a good thing

 

If we wanted real reform why didn't they go for PR that seems to be the one that makes a real difference rather than this half-baked idea that no-one uses (3 countries out of the whole world isn't really showing much confidence in the system imo)

 

But if there is a lot of support for UKIP or the Greens in your area AV would allow people to support that first so they are more likely to get in. Rather than everyone having to second guess who may or may not have a chance.

 

Voting reform comes slowly, so this is a first step, if this is knocked down I don't see any hope for my lifetime. AV isn't as good as some systems but is better than FPTP. The reasons why they didn't go straight for PR, my first thought is that it would need so much work and so much 'retraining' that it wouldn't be feasible. My cynical thought is that a certain party knew that AV would split the reform vote so have less chance of getting through, shutting the door for a while.

 

Again, taken from a lead off the site JJonas posted

it’s a question on which one needs to ask oneself, “which side are you on?” – for or against reform. People standing in the middle of the road, as Nye Bevin said, generally get run over. A no vote would scupper electoral reform, probably forever, whereas AV is a step towards potentially something like AV plus. Voting no would certainly not show that the British people want a PR electoral system. The comment on Jane’s blog that she mentions is particularly dunderheaded, but it is correct to say, as Sunny Hundal argues, that electoral reform tends to be incremental.

 

AV is better than FPTP. Vote Yes for electoral reform. That’s all I want to say on the topic now, otherwise my mental well-being will be severely tested soon.

[Guest Guest]

Under AV the only way the BNP could have won these elections is to have picked up a sizable number of second preference votes. This is extremely unlikely, because, to quote this excellent guide to AV, “generally voters either support a party like the BNP, or hate it, so such parties gain very few second and third preferences.”

 

I'd love to know where they got that info from. Personally I'd say the likelyhood of the likes of the BNP getting second and third votes it quite high - like I said it's not about loving or hating them for a lot of people, it's about the protest vote and not wasting their only vote on the BNP...

[DrCheese]

I'm going to vote no; anything that gives power to the Lib Dems has to be a bad move...

Bleh, please don't vote on this based on party politics This benefits all the smaller parties, not just the lib dems. It will curb the power of the two big parties as well

You'll have the power to stick to the lib dems in the local election and general election, whenever that is.

 

So does anyone know if we would still have a "coalition" running the country if we had used the new voting system?

 

Yes, but it may have been different. The lib dems may have had enough numbers to party up with Labour instead, or more power if they had gone with the Tories.

I'm not sure why Coalition is a dirty word anyway, it moderates the excesses of a single party having a massive majority. You can bet that the Tories would have ramraided through the NHS changes with little debate had they been the only party in power. Labour abused the hell out of it as well, trying to push through 96day detention without charge laws and ID cards.

[sted]

Or everyone votes MRL and they're in charge.

 

 

Is that really what you want?

 

i thought they were?

 

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)

 

i wouldnt say it works well in the states a vote can have a majority and be derailed by one party anyway look at the republicans holding unemployment benefits to ransom ti get the wealthyest people in the country tax breaks they dont need and their country cant afford

 

Please I beg of you, do a bit of research. Don't vote based on "I want to show xxx" or "This'll teach yyy".

 

Don't base it on party politics, base it on the chance to start some real voting reform in the country.

 

its hard not to abse it on politics when the politicians have turned it into a vote for av and get lib dems argument.

 

Personally i see it making little to no difference im never going to vote tory at any price after what they did to south yorkshire last time they were in power, even if your area elects a green/other minority party candidate so what they get say 10 seats in parliment with which they can do what exactly?. Whatever system (without a complete overhall of politics which isnt going to happen) labour or the tories will win all that will change is how much they win by and wether they need a coalition partner or not

[MK-2]

lets be fair, whoever gets in, by whatever measures, they are all the same at the end of it.

every party will promise the earth to voters and when they get in say "last government made a mess, we need to clean up first" and then spend the next 6 years taxing you and not giving anything back. it doesn't matter who you vote for, this will happen.

no party will come in and say VAT is 1%, we will raise state pension to £500 a week and give everyone a cash bonus for living here. they may all word it differently, but they will do the same

[X-13]

i thought they were?

 

I'm not that up-to-date with political goings-on... But I'm pretty cionfidenty that the Monster Rving Loony party isn't in charge.

 

I could be wrong.

[Hightower]

lets be fair, whoever gets in, by whatever measures, they are all the same at the end of it.

every party will promise the earth to voters and when they get in say "last government made a mess, we need to clean up first" and then spend the next 6 years taxing you and not giving anything back. it doesn't matter who you vote for, this will happen.

no party will come in and say VAT is 1%, we will raise state pension to £500 a week and give everyone a cash bonus for living here. they may all word it differently, but they will do the same

 

Dunno mind - they have their similarities but in my eyes Labour completely took the biscuit for their last reign. They may as well have turned round and said "there's your £500 a week benefits, oh and because you don't have a laptop here's a voucher for a free one....... debt? nah, we'll let the tories sort that out when they get into power"

[X-13]

no party will come in and say VAT is 1%, we will raise state pension to £500 a week and give everyone a cash bonus for living here.

 

I promise to do this. I swear it on the Hobnobs.

 

 

Vote for me. I'll put the Great back in Great Britain.

 

 

[deleted a post... now it won't let me repost it...]

[TechMonkey]

I'd love to know where they got that info from. Personally I'd say the likelyhood of the likes of the BNP getting second and third votes it quite high - like I said it's not about loving or hating them for a lot of people, it's about the protest vote and not wasting their only vote on the BNP...

 

It's based on the records from smaller AV type votes (such as the London Mayoral vote) and from voting studies. Voters either want the BNP in whole heartedly, use them as a protest vote or hate what they stand for. Those that want them put them as a first choice, those that use them as protest vote won't have to now or if they do will have them as first and a larger party as second and those that hate them would never put a mark near them.

 

We do actually have some data on second preference votes for the BNP, for the London Assembly elections in 2008. You can find it on p8 of the House of Commons briefing notes. By my calculations, across the fourteen constituencies we have data for, an average of 4.93% of voters put the BNP down as a second preference. This would have been insufficient to win any of the council seats I mentioned above, even in seats where they polled 40% of votes in the first round.

BNP will benefit is a Con bandied 'Fact'. The BNP don't want AV, which makes me want it more.

[teejay]

Please I beg of you, do a bit of research. Don't vote based on "I want to show xxx" or "This'll teach yyy".

 

Don't base it on party politics, base it on the chance to start some real voting reform in the country.

 

The best thing though is to completely ignore the rubbish being spouted by both the Yes and the No campaigns, engage brain, think through the process and figure out if in reality it will make any difference. When you do this, you'll find the change is so marginal that it's a complete waste of time.

[TechMonkey]

The best thing though is to completely ignore the rubbish being spouted by both the Yes and the No campaigns, engage brain, think through the process and figure out if in reality it will make any difference. When you do this, you'll find the change is so marginal that it's a complete waste of time.

 

Or you could see it as one step on the road to reform. In fact if the difference is so marginal why not vote yes?

 

It also depends on what you call marginal. That a party will have to get a real majority before gaining a seat? That alone will settle a lot of issues so well worth it.

[MK-2]

Don't vote based on "I want to show xxx" or "This'll teach yyy".

 

Don't base it on party politics, base it on the chance to start some real voting reform in the country.

 

The BNP don't want AV, which makes me want it more.

 

If you want it based on reforming this country, then surely that means making sure every party has an equal chance of winning an election, whether you agree with their views or not? By saying you want AV because the BNP don't means you aren't making an unbiased choice. If everyone said "I want AV to kick Labour/Tory, etc" then it is more out of spite you vote for it.

[Robz]

Assuming you were't utilising sarcasm (which is tough to detect on the web sometimes). He was actually voted in using an AV system (albeit only within the labour party membership).

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.

 

So 'Red Ed' got into power using the AV system? seems a good argument for voting NO....