BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)

Subject: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 09:49 AM

With the referendum on whether or not to modify the British way of voting, maybe a thread to exchange views about this would make sense.

So here it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:10 AM

AV? You vote using school movie projectors?   


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:13 AM

David Cameron was elected Tory Party leader under a preferential voting system.

So why the tories are making such a big noise about how disastrous such a thing would be is something that I fail to understand.

Our MEP's are chosen by a preferential voting system.


If I could vote that way, I would put my preferred minority party first, and my preferred mainstream party second.

That way there would be a point to voting for my preferred minority party as my vote would not be wasted in the event of them coming last.

Most people would do the same.

You would see massive increases in support for the Greens, and other smaller parties.

This could include the BNP, but it is unlikely, and besides, the notion that we have to keep democracy a closed shop with only two contenders so as to preserve democracy is a nonsensical argument.


I am pro AV

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:24 AM

I am still trying to work out the strategy on this and this could be a great thread.

Suppose for arguments sake that I would always vote Labour, but if they didn't get in, would prefer Lib Dems to get in and at the last resort Conservative.

How should I vote and how does the syetem work. Is it still a seat per constituency or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:25 AM

I will vote for AV reluctantly, because it is such a small improvement, but it is an improvement and all that is on offer, so I suppose it will have to do. Either way, I reckon we will be stuck with the result for decades.

I suspect it will be just an anti-Nick-Clegg vote, rather than anything whatsoever to do with voting methods.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:37 AM

Arthuritis.

AV explained


Basicall, its saying - if the party you really want don't get enough votes, you get a chance to say who you would prefer out of the remaining candidates.


So I can vote green, and if they only get 5%, I can still say I'd rather Labour to the tories - but only if noone has won more than 50% of the seats.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:38 AM

"So I can vote green, and if they only get 5%, I can still say I'd rather Labour to the tories - but only if noone has won more than 50% of the seats. "

Sorry, I should have said:

So I can vote green, and if they only get 5%, I can still say I'd rather Labour to the tories - but only if noone has won more than 50% of the VOTES.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:40 AM

Thanks Lox - your explanation makes it dead simple and in the jargon I understand :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:59 AM

Why can't the title SAY "alternative voting"? The concept is important, but the abbreviation is not widely understood.


Oh well, then 'Spaw couldn't make funny remarks about it... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 12:14 PM

When I first saw the thread title, I thought it was about my beloved Aston Villa (football team in the UK). I came onto the thread quickly thinking I would be able to talk about them with other like minded supporters. :-) Doh!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Musket
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 01:02 PM

I'm against it on balance.

First past the post should give us a government that has the mandate to carry out its manifesto. AV has a much higher statistical chance of no overall majority, and the problem with that?

A coalition government ignoring the promises of those parties who make up the government by saying all bets are off. Sounds familiar. It happened, it can happen but under AV it has more chance of happening.

Not a good day for democracy, so why anybody other than fringe interests such as Lib Dem and Monster Raving Looney should support it is beyond me.

Only problem is, by expressing a view you are seen to be agreeing with either Cameron, Clegg or Milliband. Bit of a bugger all round.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 01:26 PM

There are several problems with that, though, Ian. One is that it is pretty unlikely that as a voter you agree with the whole of any manifesto in the first place; also thanks to the weasiliness of politicians the manifesto might not mean what it appears to (eg Labours promise not to introduce University fees in that term actually meant that they would pass the legisation that term but the fees wouldn't start until the next term). Finally every manifesto must change as a result of events ("events, dear boy, events"). So I don't think of a manifesto as much more than an outline of general principles. Then again, I remember a talk by Robin Cook we he said our normal approach has been to have strong governments that do what they like because no-one can prevent it, then the other party comes in and overturns it because they can and then when the first comes in again they overturn that "and I'm sick of that kind of strong government". A strong change is really one which is lasts across governments because everyone fundamentally accepts the broad approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smedley
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 01:43 PM

AV means more coalitions, permanent involvement in government by the Lib Dems, and the replacement of voting for principles by secretive post-election deals between politicians. It's a big old no from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 02:01 PM

David Cameron was elected Tory Party leader under a preferential voting system.

So why the tories are making such a big noise about how disastrous such a thing would be.

Is there an implication that that wasn't a disastrous outcome?

.....................

Still, in spite of this system having given us David Cameron, as well as the leaders of the various other political parties, it's a much better system than the only other one on offer, First Past the Post, which can give us MPs elected with a tiny proportion of the vote, and only one in three elected with the support of a majority of those voting.

I'm fed up being presented with the choice between "wasting my vote" by voting for the person I'd like to get in, who I've been told has little chance of getting in, or voting for somebody I don't particularly want, in order to prevent someone whose politics I detest sneaking in.

As for breaking promises made in manifestos, all parties do that regardless of whether they are in coalitions or not.

In fact AV would make it more possible for MPs who go along with that to be punished at the next election - when the Cleggite Lib-Dems stand for election next time, I am sure there will be anti-coalition Lib-Dems joining the line-up against them, and taking enough votes from them to send them to the bottom of the poll, so their vote gets redistributed in an hopefully more honest direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Micca
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 02:21 PM

I will own up that, for me, since David Cameron was agin it my gut reaction is to support it!!! Having thought about it, I will probably support it as the FPTP Principle still holds IF the candidate can muster 50% of the Vote, but if s/he can't then NOW I will be able to effectively say ANYONE But THEM!!!! by leaving their candidate BLANK!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 04:45 PM

Interesting the way that politicians opposed to changing the voting system this way insult voters by saying they will find an alternative voting system too difficult to understand.

It's worth noting that, if Strictly Come Dancing had been decided on the First Past the Post system, Ann Widdecombe would have won.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 04:58 PM

"Only problem is, by expressing a view you are seen to be agreeing with either Cameron, Clegg or Milliband. Bit of a bugger all round."

Creepy isn't it ...

"It's worth noting that, if Strictly Come Dancing had been decided on the First Past the Post system, Ann Widdecombe would have won."

HA - nice!


Its worth pointing out that a two party system is much more susceptible to corporate bribery.

This is a real chance to claim back our democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 05:42 PM

I'm afraid that if I thought that the candiddate I voted for would implement everything (or even most of the things) on their party's manifesto, I'd never vote. FPTP has consistently given us governments that have insisted that they have a mandate to do such and such when the majority have voted against it. At least with AV (though it's a long way from being perfect) there's a chance that every vote might count, rather than the current system where the majority of the population is effectively disenfranchised.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: sian, west wales
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 05:47 PM

I'm going to vote for it. It isn't perfect but, as I don't support any party 100% (cuz no party has ever supported me 100%) I like to indicate my 'spectrum' of support in this way.

I also entertain a variation of Micca's rationale: the minute the No campaign claimed we must vote against cuz we're too stoopid to understand it, my heels dug in.

I found the early Media reports also annoying. The "first past the post is the British Way" my foot. We've had a different system in Wales since we've had the Assembly. Not a terrific system either but gives a far more interesting mix. Indeed, the Tories might remember it's the only way they get a look-in in the Assembly. On a positive front too, it played a role in the Assembly being one of the first elected Assemblies with close to a 50/50 female/male balance.

And I have no problem with coalition governments. Yes - it slows the process down. Thank God for that.

I was having this conversation with someone last Friday and couldn't quite work out why, "Wales has had the STD system for years" didn't sound quite right. Single Transferable ... oh. Vote. STV. Right. Similar to the War in Iraq, and the first time I heard a report about exploding IUDs. The things they don't tell us, eh? "No! Don't pull that string ... "

sian

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 05:53 PM

It's better than what we have, for the reasons that Lox sets out.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 06:08 PM

Thanks Bill.....I look for the chances but so few bite anymore, its hardly worth it...............................

Just to wrap up the bad joke, here's a typical A-V Club from my era ....... 10 geeky kids surround a projector and an even geekier teacher/advisor.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 06:20 PM

McGrath mentions the politicians supporting the "No" vote claim it will be too difficult for us. My favourite misleading claim is this one: "AV would undermine the principle of one person, one vote, by giving greater weight to choices of those who put fringe parties first and whose second-choice votes could decide results" - a statement that is either mathematically illiterate (ok, pedants, innumerate) or careless in its phrasing. Or both, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 06:54 PM

Many years (decades, half-centuries) ago I read a book which reckoned that there is correlation between the complexity of the voting system and the number of spoilt ballot papers, ie. Switzerland with one of the world's most complicated voting systems had a negligible number of spoilt ballot papers, while the UK with a supposedly simple voting system had high numbers of spoilt ballot papers.

Maybe, of course, it's just that we have to have ballot papers simple enough for our politicians to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 07:55 PM

Well I hope all you who are still working for a living don't mind your taxes being used to pay the extra costs of two or three weeks spent counting and recounting, just to get exactly the same kind of government you have right now.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:00 PM

For me, it's got to be proper proportional representation with one man one vote, but every vote counting.

Otherwise leave it as it is.

It isn't by chance that only three countries on Earth use AV, and sixty percent of the population of the largest want it scrapped.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:11 PM

"Switzerland with one of the world's most complicated voting systems had a negligible number of spoilt ballot papers"
I rather think that tells us something about the Swiss...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:18 PM

One of the bitterest disappointments of the Blair era for me was that he didn't reform the voting system.

I hated the way different governments indulged in all sorts of wasteful tokenism, when I was a teacher. Labour was pretty weird - an education secretary (Shirley Williams) who didn't see any point in consulting with teachers representative bodies. But Keith Joseph for the tories deserves some sort of memorial erected to the guy with the most mad arsed irresponsible ideas in history.

Either way we were a political football. No one with any teaching knowledge of difficult schools was consulted. It was looked on as a moral failure by the tories to try and teach in poor city areas. We had to import better teaching bloodstock from 'better' schools where they had no problems to speak of.

These extreme positions and policies were always pursued by some plonker who had managed to convince the nutter part of the population to give them 38% of the vote.

We need protection from extremists, and the insolence of politicians. Lets hope AV gives us more balanced and serious minded leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:20 PM

In South Australia, the political opponents of giving women the vote thought they would be clever and bundled into the referendum a whole of things they thought would sink the referendum.

Women to vote, saturday voting, compulsory voting, and I think preferential voting.

It got up.

Pretty soon all states had all those things, no politican 'wanting to be seen as being left behind'.

The arrogance and stupidity of those 'born to rule' always underestimates the intelligence of the voter, and is ultimately self defeating ...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 02:07 AM

The trouble with the word 'coalition' is that we naturally think about it in terms of the current system, but it ain't necessarily so.

Take an issue like Europe. It is perfectly feasible for a pro-Europe Conservative and an anti-Europe Conservative to stand in the same election. One imaginary set of results is shown here:-

Pro - 20%
Anti - 25%
Labour - 30%

Here there is a clear overall Conservative lead, but under FPTP the Labour would win because of the Tory split. But under AV, the 'Anti' would win - with exactly the same overall margin as if a single Conservative candidate had stood in the first place. However, the voters have also given him or her a 'mandate' to take an 'Anti' stance.

In government, there is still (probably) a coalition, but it would be between the two wings of the Tory party, not two parties. So that's my message: want a vote on Europe [or other issue of your choice]? Vote yes to AV!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 02:37 AM

Another cute touch is that where there are on;y 2 major parties, bribery by Business is pretty easy. When there are many more smaller parties, it becomes uneconomic to spend the money spread across all the candidates, as the major parties may easily piss off enough of a segment to create a situation similar to what happened in Australia. By being pig headly unshiftable (gaining a reputation as a 'destroyer', not a 'builder'), Abbot caused liberal/national disaffected voters to move to a party/independent candidate who was NOT Labor - so the 'coalition' became Labor with a handful of independents, which is causing the Lib/nats to be exposed as just a bunch of closed minded bile spewing irrelevant idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:52 AM

"AV means more coalitions, permanent involvement in government by the Lib Dems,"

Not a given surely! Even within Britain there have been other recent examples. The SNP are just coming to an end of a minority administration at Holyrood. No coalition was formed. The politicians of all parties simply got on with the job and though the SNP were unable to go ahead with some of their policies because they couldn't gain the support from any of the other parties (most obviously the independence referendum)in general the term ran smoothly with the chamber voting on issue by issue. The other parties didn't try to bring the Executive down at every turn. It is kind of possible for politicians to work a bit with each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Musket
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 04:22 AM

If I had to be cynical, I would say that regardless of who you vote for you get the Government.

My earlier stance isn't altered despite reading some good erudite points in this thread in favour of AV.

As AV would mean more consensus (or horse trading as it is known) we have an example of that now. When confronted with election promises, Vince Cable points out that they didn't win so their promises don't count. The coalition feels it is not hamstrung by any manifesto promises. Now that's scary.......

We have this situation in a first past the post system, but my reading is that this is rare, although AV would make it more likely in any given election.

And that's why first past the post is the best of the bad alternatives. Not perfect, but not in a position to be replaced on the merit of the alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: s&r
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 04:59 AM

We already have a sort of AV in that when you cast your vote you decide which of the policies in the manifestos of the parties are worth while. Presumably then you vote for the party that ticks most boxes.

Not really democracy but is anything?

I think I shall vote for AV if only to stuff the politicians who oppose it.

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 05:27 AM

I've seen their panic stricken faces decrying it. So that means they are terrified of it, which must mean that anything that scares politicians, must be good for the electorate...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 05:27 AM

Whatever system we use we will continue to get one of the two (Labour/Conservative) being the largest party. We will also be unable to get a government that represents the wishes of the people (at least according to some polls). Both parties seem to be in favour of continuing as part of the EU. And when voted into power claim to have a 'mandate' for their policies, even if their opposition had exactly the same intentions in their manifesto.
Alongside the general election we should also get a couple of referendum questions on matters that are important to the public (EU membership / Capital punishment) then whoever gets into power will have a mandate on the subject (although maybe not the mandate they want!)
I'm sure that if the public thought they could influence policy in this way (apart from just voting for a party) then the voter turnout would also improve.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Penny S.
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 05:55 AM

Apparently, most of the Tory governments since the war have become so without a majority of the popular vote. That does not, in my opinion, mean that they have a mandate. They persist in talking as though they have some sort of mystical mandate in which most people voting against them means that most people wanted them to carry out their manifesto. They OBVIOUSLY think we are stupid. Or They obviously think we are STUPID. I'm experimenting with the correct stress here. They obviously think WE are stupid. Not sure I know which way I want to go. I think maybe I want to replace think with believe.

One thing I find very irritating with Cameron is his repeated appeal to his intestines instead of his brain. Voting for prisoners makes him feel sick. He doesn't want a voting system that requires thinking, but one relying on gut instinct. It's an unusual place for a man to locate his mind, but I would have thought Oxford and Eton would have suggested an alternative, more scientifically approved place. I can't see Democritos and Cicero seeing his guts as a valid argument. (Though I think they placed thought in the heart. Perhaps Cameron still thinks the brain is a cooling device.)

And them whining that it isn't fair...

I've had a very nice email from the Greens explaining that my county has been affected by Tory voting incomers making it impractical for poor parties to stand against them. That isn't fair - and nor is the above quoted stats about the numbers voting for the Tories.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 06:01 AM

Does anybody know what would have happened if the last election had been on the AV system? That would be interesting to see IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Stu
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 06:19 AM

In the constituency where I live, the previous MP was an experienced liner of his own pockets and was utterly unrepentant until the end when he was pretty much made to stand down. He was replaced with a blown-in that doesn't even answer his emails and it now looks like our new MP sees us as a rung on the ladder of his career. So, another wanker.

Despite this, the local electorate still vote tory above anyone else and they don't seem to mind being used. As I've been unfortunate enough to live here since voting age my vote has never counted for anything. On that basis I will vote in favour of AV as although it's a PR cop out it has to be better than what we've got.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Penny S.
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 06:22 AM

what might have been

I'm lookin up what AV+ means

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Penny S.
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 06:25 AM

And here it is

I don't know how they derived their results since people did not get to rank their votes.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 06:32 AM

Nigel: see my post of 19 Apr 11 - 02:07 AM. One of the key problems of FPTP for expressing diverse views is that having two candidates in the same constituency with slightly different points of view means neither gets elected. Hence every party cares passionately that all their candidates are 'on message' during a campaign and any hint of diversity within a party gets stomped on. But under AV, that isn't a problem: you can have two candidates whose views are perfectly aligned apart from a key issue, and the system does not penalise it. And, as my example showed, it tells the successful candidate that their view on the point-of-difference is the one the electorate supports. To that extent, AV actually encourages diversity of opinion over FPTP.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 07:14 AM

"What would have happened" is guesswork, since with a different system we'd have had different parties standing in seats, probably battles between candidates from the different wings of the various parties, and very likely a signifi9cantly higher proportion of people actually voting.

However the guesswork consensus is that with AV there would still have been a hung parliament, but probably if a coalition had been set up, it wouldn't have been the one we got landed with. (Though a minority administration, as in Scotland, might have been more probable.)

AV isn't a particularly good system of voting, it's just a lot better than the winner-takes-all system we have which means that two out of three MPs get elected without winning a majority of votes. But it's the only choice we have been given, and you can guarantee that if this referendum is lost there won't be a chance to vote for anything better in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 07:16 AM

What really grips my shit is these awful celebrities both sides keep trotting out, like the bloke from Spandau Ballet, instead of stating their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 07:43 AM

I don't like Cameron telling us that AV is too complicated for us to understand. He shouldn't judge others by himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 08:50 AM

Thing is that you can't really make predictions based on what has gone before because there is an unnown number of people who might have voted for other parties, but didn't because they felt there was no point and that it would be a waste of a vote which ultimately might allow the party they hate the most into power.

If you have the option of putting your 'tactical' party as your second choice, it means you have an insurance policy that allows you to vote for the party that represents you without fear of opening a door for the party you hate the most by splitting the vote against them.

I think there are very large numbers of people who would choose the greens as their first choice who wouldn't dare vote green under first past the post.

I also think its right that the winning candidate should have a majority of over 50%.

Party 3 are out - its between party 2 and Party 3 - which of the remaining candidates would the people prefer?

It may not be PR, but it is MUCH better than first past the post.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 08:52 AM

D'oh -

"Party 3 are out - its between party 2 and Party 3"

Should read:

"Party 3 are out - its between party 2 and Party 1"

So your first choice are out - but which of the remaining candidates do you prefer.


Pretty much exactly the way the Cameron was elected Tory Party leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST,Jonny Sunshine
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 09:06 AM

On balance I'm in favour, though I'd prefer to see PR. AV is a step in the right direction, and one that isn't going to need any big changes to implement- instead of putting one cross, you rank the candidates in order of preference, should you wish to

I don't buy the argument that it's to complex, and so many of the arguments against are flawed, illogical and misleading. I'd expect our prime minister to come up with a better argument than his gut feeling- though it's patently obvious who would be the biggest losers from AV.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 04:12 PM

.


         I thought this was fun.


         AV explained




.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 08:03 PM

""there is an unnown number of people who might have voted for other parties, but didn't because they felt there was no point and that it would be a waste of a vote which ultimately might allow the party they hate the most into power.""

That is the best reason I have heard to date for voting against AV.

It will re-inforce the already current tendency to vote against rather than for any party or policy, the kind of negative thinking which can easily produce entirely unwanted results, such as for instance BNP gaining Parliamentary seats.

""I also think its right that the winning candidate should have a majority of over 50%.""

Let's not forget that this fifty percent is only fifty percent of those who choose to vote, so disabuse youselves of the idea that you will be seeing any governments which are backed by fifty percent of the population, or even candidates backed by over fifty percent of constituents. That concept is straight out of Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 11:28 PM

"It will re-inforce the already current tendency to vote against rather than for any party or policy"

People will have the option of knowing that a vote for their preferred party is not a wasted vote.

Then if their preferred party is eliminated early, they still get to say who they prefer from the remaining parties.

That doesn't reinforce anything.