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.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 11:56 PM

"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. "

Which is why Aussies Compulsory Voting makes sense.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:32 AM

I don't follow your argument, Don. Yes, we are talking 50% of votes, not voters, but all that means is the FPTP is even less representative and the people currentlý elected may have only 10-15% of eligable voter support whereas AV might push that up to 25% of eligable voters by insisting on 50% of votes cast. I can't see why that's a case for keeping FPTP

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:51 AM

Interesting that many here seem to think that AV means less Tories.

If you vote for a system on the basis of it favouring your own flavour of politics, I'm not sure that is a healthy reason. If the system now did favour one type of party, that would be a reason to get rid of it. But for every example of a Tory twit in place who wouldn't under AV, you can normally find a Labour donkey to balance the system.

I'm not sure that this is a vote between Tory thoughts and a.n. other thoughts. It is not as clear cut as that. Some Tories are sharing a platform with Milliband & Clegg, whilst John Reid was up there with Cameron the other day.

Forcing people to vote is not a good idea either. Not voting can be a statement, not that I would ever not bother, but I don't vilify people who don't either. I's a bit like when politicians talk about giving people choice and power in NHS care. Fine, many people, especially those who need lots of care may well want to help influence the delivery. My experience having been involved in this for many years is that most people want to know it is there when they need it and trust others to ensure it is attainable.

Many people have the same view of politics. Wrongly in my opinion, but apathy is not a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:38 AM

After the last election several people told me that they voted Conservate because they reckoned that the Conservative candidate would do less damage at Westminster than he had done on the local Council!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:46 AM

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.

This point is worth a few seconds of thought. You may well ask why vote for Green (for example) as your first choice, knowing full well that in your area it will be eliminated and your second choice is the only one which stands a change of being counted. Is it just a sop to your conscience that has no real effect?

I would say there is more to it than that. It gives information that could be used by winning candidate to influence their actions in that term and when they decide who to court for the next election. It also allows the Greens (in my example) to see if support is growing or falling and act accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:55 AM

I too would like to remind that most people probably will still vote for the two big parties, so the idea that AV is good for one "lot" and bad for another isn't a safe one.

What we can say is that it is MUCH better for minority parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:55 AM

I too would like to remind that most people probably will still vote for the two big parties,

That's not a reminder, it's a prediction. How people vote once an alternative vote system is in place is guesswork, especially over any length of time. In fact I'd probably i8jn some elections rank the candidate I actually voted for third or fourth in terms of my preferance.

Effectively I have been driven to vote against the party I dislike, rather than for the party I prefer. Even so that candidate got in, without a majority of the vote. That's the "democracy" that the naysayers want to hold on to...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:57 AM

Just a thought. Will we able to vote 2,3,4 or just 1,2,3?

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 08:25 AM

It would be 1,2,3,4,5... As when we go shopping.

Unless you go to shops where they say "I'm afraid we haven't got your first choice in stock - sod off."

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:34 AM

They never have my first choice!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 02:45 PM

Now that would be nice ... if we could shop for our preferred candidate online ...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Irene M
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:25 PM

The prospect of AV fills me with dread.
Why?
I work on the count after the polls close.
Sorting ballot papers for a local election has us there to at least 1AM (the polls close at 10PM, the first boxes start to arrive 20 minutes later).
Last year's General Election had us there to 4AM.
The candidates and their agents can see from the piles of papers, whose pile is biggest. They don't feel the need to ask for a recount.
How in hell do you verify who the actual winners are with AV?
We would be there for days instead of hours.
I can't bear it!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:48 PM

Don't you get paid, Irene? And if we have to wait a bit longer for the result, what's the hurry anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:28 PM

"The candidates and their agents can see from the piles of papers, whose pile is biggest. They don't feel the need to ask for a recount.
How in hell do you verify who the actual winners are with AV?"

Well if the biggest pile is less than 50%, they redistrinute the smallest party's pile among the remaining ones.

If the biggest is still less than 50%, then they do it again with the next smallest one.

When the biggest pile is more than 50%, that party is the winner.


Seemples.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:13 PM

They already fail to motivate the majority of people to vote at all, and I suspect that the introduction of a less straightforward system will only increase that majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 08:20 PM

I've just had an e-mail from my MP, in which he stated that "AV is also very complicated".

I was tempted to reply that if he was that stupid he shouldn't be attempting to run the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 02:24 AM

Whether AV is complicated depends on your point of view. Under FPTP you can easily find yourself getting into tactical thinking: "I want to vote Labour, but in this area the Tories are stronger. If I was really confident the Tories would win, I'd vote Labour with a clear conscience. But their might not really be quite so strong, and if we don't give them enough votes, the BNP could get one of the concil seats. So I'd better vote tactically for a party I don't want to win to keep out the party I *really* don't want to get anywhere. But I'm doing all this based on reports, and what if the Labour vote is stronger than it seems. Then I'd be voting against the party I really want, and helping keep them out. So maybe I'd better vote Labour after all."

The AV alternative: put everyone in the order you like them.

And they claim the second is more complicated!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:12 AM

Putting candidates in order of preference rather than guessing about how other people are going to vote seems much simpler to me as well.

And the evidence seems to indicate that the proportion of people voting in systems that are accused of being "more complicated" tends to be higher than in First Past the Post systems - notably in Britain and the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:35 AM

He's done it again! The free local paper just dropped through my door and the MP has gone public with his inability to understand AV! As McGrath of Harlow says, it's much simpler than the shennanigans involved in FPTP.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 10:48 AM

If he really can't understand the complexities of AV (which is literally as easy as 1,2,3) he clearly can't be up to the requirements of the job. He wouldn't even be able to fill in his expenses claim forms.

But since, as a member of one of the parties with members in the Commons, he will have taken part in an election for party leader under AV, the simpler explanation is that he is simply lying. Which is par for the course.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 01:26 PM

It all has a vaguely familiar ring to us oldsters?

How on earth will the ordinary man in street understand that something that lat week cost half a crown, is now going to cost twelve and a half new pence? And surely this twelve and half new pence will inevitably be confused with the sum one shilling and a ha'penny.

The whole business is fraught with difficulty for the ordinary man.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 04:44 PM

The ordinary man thinks all politicians are self-serving liars who never keep to their word, and that voting doesn't really make any difference. He is the majority who doesn't bother to vote. He will see AV as a waste of time and money or at worst a way of manipulating the results. I find it hard to argue with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 04:57 PM

And that's precisely what the self-serving liars depend on...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 05:13 PM

I know..

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 04:16 PM

I shall vote against AV of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 05:19 PM

Yes indeed the world is composed of AV's and AV nots.

I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 05:58 PM

So shall I. At least under the present system the votes are counted by real people and there is a reasonable level of transparency to the process. Either way the results are not democratic, being provided by only a minority of potential voters, but the present system is less open to corruption.

"If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it" - Ken Livingstone.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 07:27 PM

I shall be voting Yes because it's a nudge in the right direction and I'm fed up with having to vote for people and parties I don't believe in. Despite the scaremongering of the NOs, AV is quite amenable to manual counting, and I don't see how it can be any more susceptible to corruption than FPTP, which has staggered from scandal to scandal, and given the world the term 'gerrymandering'. I also remember the Scottish devolution referendum where people voted against that particular manifestation because it didn't go far enough, and were then told that they had voted against devolution in any form.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 07:43 PM

I didn't mean to imply that the present system was fair, satisfactory or incorruptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 08:08 PM

I hate to see change - particularly when we can't predict the outcome. But the present situation is intolerable.

They get so damned arrogant in these safe seats. Letwin going on about people in Sheffield having foreign holidays for example.

And the unassailable position Thatcher occupied whilst humiliating and destroying the economy of the parts of the country who didn't vote for her, that's still a bitter memory.

If this isn't the right change, lets change it again, but for god sake let's change the present atrophied parody of a democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 08:47 PM

Once we change, we're stuck with it for a long time. Winning parties are likely to want to change the system that put them there - it takes exceptional circumstances for that to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 08:49 PM

Er.. "Winning parties aren't likely to want..

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 02:04 AM

"Despite the scaremongering of the NOs, AV is quite amenable to manual counting"

In Aust, Compulsory voting means well over 99% vote (there are always a few...), so actually there are more votes per population than in other countries.

We still do paper voting (Upper and lower houses together), and manual counting. Most seats in Federal. State, and local seats are decided by close of Saturday counting - well before midnight. Many seats are decided within an hour or two. We have several time zones, so the last state (W.A.) closes about 2 hours after the Eastern States. Usually sufficient seats are decided (each on > 50% of primary vote) by close of counting Sat night that a winner is declared, especially in Federal & State elections, and the losing and winning speeched made.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 02:07 AM

"Once we change, we're stuck with it for a long time" - Ditto if we don't change, of course. Which I am afraid I think is far more probable because this is likely to be an anti-Nick Clegg vote rather than a properly considered decision about the best way of voting. The 'Nick Clegg' masks and photos around the 'No' campaign are an indication of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: MikeL2
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 04:26 AM

hi

I shall be voting NO - maybe just to prove to Nick Clegg that Dinosaurs can think !!

Oh and my wife will voting the same - normally in political votes we are diametrically opposites.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 04:59 AM

"I also remember the Scottish devolution referendum where people voted against that particular manifestation because it didn't go far enough, and were then told that they had voted against devolution in any form."

Quite so! In fact it goes further in that they were told by a Scottish ex-prime minister (ie Douglas-Home) to vote against because the Conservatives 'would' introduce a better type of Assembly than Labour were proposing. Although the YES vote were in the majority it was not a big enough majority as they'd said it needed 40% of the total electorate to carry it. I imagine that at least some of those who didn't vote didn't do so because they believed the Tories were goign to introduce a better deal anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 07:17 AM

At least under the present system the votes are counted by real people

As opposed to AV where it's done by Martian centipedes, I imagine.

Good grief - it's the same people who will be doing the counting whatever happens. Paper ballot forms stacked up on folding tables.

As for: "Once we change, we're stuck with it for a long time." If we don't change we're equally certain to be stuck with it for a long time, pretty certainly for the rest of our lives, even for the young ones

Back in 1931 the House of Commons voted for AV, but a new Tory coalition took over and stopped the change. And of course they've been in power for most of the years since. Which is what will happen if it's a No vote this time, which is why they are funding the No campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 08:51 AM

I shall be voting NO - maybe just to prove to Nick Clegg that Dinosaurs can think !!

Given that it is likely that whatever decision is taken will affect the next half century or more, what Clegg, Cameron, Milliband, Reid at el think is largely irrelevant. Ditto, Billy Bragg, Frederick Forsyth and all the rest. And opinions expressed here of course. Also whether or not the voting system costs more (which is disputed), since whatever it costs will be dwarfed by the first significant decision that would change if the power balance was different.

There is one and only one question of relevance: which voting system delivers the better government? But to answer that, you need to have decided what constitutes a better government in the first place. "More decisive and able to take decisions" is not the whole of it - a single party or dictator is a better way of achieving that. Equally being too responsive to the public runs the risk of government by media. So there are real and deep issues here that people lives in fundamental ways that deserve careful and intelligent considerations. Don't expect to get much useful from either campaign on the evidence so far.

In my view, the 'yes' supporters have presented their case here in a way that has not really relied on the somewhat trivial material in the campaign material. Although I accept the views of the 'No' supporters here, I don't feel they have really presented a case beyond what is in the pamphleteering, and I for one would welcome it.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 11:23 AM

(I thought this thread was about the Authorised Version of the Bible! But never mind, I'll throw in my two-penn'th anyway.)

I intend to vote for AV, mainly because Martin Bell supports it and my MP doesn't. Personally I think the Anglo-Saxon system of government was better than anything we've had since, but it's not on offer now. In the Blair/Brown duopoly the present system delivered us the worst disaster since the war and any change which avoids a repetition of that has to be for the better, especially as the MPs themselves don't want it. The "No" campaign has had to resort to scaremongering, which usually means it's they themselves who are scared. I'll vote for anything which stands a chance of opening the Westminster windows to let some air in, so I'll be voting "Yes".

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST,Auldtimer
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 12:29 PM

Living in Scotland and looking at the Scotish assembly I can only say that AV will be a bad idea and will vote against.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 03:26 PM

"At least under the present system the votes are counted by real people"

As opposed to AV where it's done by Martian centipedes, I imagine.

I predict that the oft mentioned 'complexity' of AV will ultimately be used as an excuse to bring in an automated counting system similar to that used on the census form. Time will tell.

I'd like to make it clear that my opinion of AV is not an indication of support for any political party, nor is it based on any canvassing, which I have avoided on a similar basis as I have the impending royal wedding.

If we had compulsory voting, then we could perhaps assess whether a change in the system might actually be fairer, but in the current situation whereby power is determined by the minority, I can foresee that minority dwindling under AV, making the process even less democratic than it currently is.

As for whether we get it or not, I expect that has probably already been decided, and that if we do, it will bring about very little change of any substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 05:37 PM

..the oft mentioned 'complexity' of AV

But it's not "complex", no more when it comes to counting than it is for voting.

And if we ever go over to automatic counting, it won't be because the system is complicated, it will be because the people who stand to make a packet by supplying the machines will have conned (or bought) the politicians involved. Which is just as likely to happen under any system of voting.

As for whether we get it or not, I expect that has probably already been decided. You mean the whole election is a sham? A bit tricky to replace all those ballot with identical boxes stuffed with fake votes... I think you are possibly a bit too paranoid here, Smokey.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 06:33 PM

But it's not "complex"

I know it's not really complex, but that notion is certainly being bandied about a lot. I said it would be used as an excuse, not that it would be the actual reason.

You mean the whole election is a sham?

No, I meant that I don't think we'd even be being given a choice about AV if they didn't already have a pretty sure idea what the outcome is going to be. Cynicism, not paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 24 Apr 11 - 04:17 AM

"Living in Scotland and looking at the Scotish assembly I can only say that AV will be a bad idea and will vote against."

Out of curiousity what about PR in the elections for the Scottish Parliament (the Assembly never went ahead in 1979) don't you like? Is it just the voting itself or is it the final outcome of the vote. I think the balance of the parliament is fair and it has on the whole worked as all govts have lasted their terms, whether they were in a coalition or running it as a minority govt, with the ability to generally run the country intact. I know the use of list candidates takes away the connection between some MSPs and a local constituency - but that wouldn't be an issue in AV anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 11 - 05:55 AM

I suppose one consequence of the Scottish voting system has been that some Tories got elected to the Assembly, which very likely wouldn't have happened with First Past the Post. But I somehow think that's not the reason Auldtimer doesn't like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 24 Apr 11 - 02:28 PM

Yeagh there wouldn't have been many Tory MSPs who won the constituencies but there were at least a couple. John Lamont won in my constituency and there was at leaast one in Dumfries and Galloway too. From what I've read they are expecting the YES vote to be stronger in Scotland than England 'because' people are used to some form of PR. Auldtimer seems to be bucking the trend,

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 11 - 03:30 PM

Dumfries and Galloway was actually Labour in the 2010 Westminster Election. I think you mean Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale nextdoor, which went to the Tories, the only one in Scotland - but very likely it wouldn't have under AV, since the winner received not that much more than one third of the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Allan Conn
Date: 25 Apr 11 - 02:39 AM

"Dumfries and Galloway was actually Labour in the 2010 Westminster Election"

But I was talking about the election to the Scottish Parliament in response to your comment that the voting system in Scotland meant that at least some Tories got elected to Holyrood. As I said my constituency (which is Roxburghshire&Berwickshire) in the Scottish Borders the Tory candidate John Lamont won whilst a seat in Dumfries&Galloway (the seat is actually Galloway&Nithsdale) was won by Alex Fergusson also a Tory. They both won on the normal first past the post system. It is only then that the remaining seats are allocated using the second vote.And actually on checking that is only half of their constituency wins as they also won a seat in Ayr and David Mcletchie won one in Edinburgh!
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/briefings-07/SB07-21.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Apr 11 - 09:18 PM

""At least under the present system the votes are counted by real people"

As opposed to AV where it's done by Martian centipedes, I imagine."

The Student Union I was in used the hare clark voting system - google it - there's lots of hits... I actually counted the votes of the Council Elections to fill various Committee positions.

Very Difficult - One, Two, Three... etc

Now that pile is now a Quota, so now put that aside, cause he;s elected, and now we take this pile and count it and add them to that pile...

Basically, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

QUOTE
The single transferable vote (STV) is a voting system based on proportional representation and preferential voting. Under STV, an elector's vote is initially allocated to his or her most preferred candidate, and then, after candidates have been either elected or eliminated, any surplus or unused votes are transferred according to the voter's stated preferences. The system minimizes "wasted" votes, provides approximately proportional representation, and enables votes to be explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than for closed party lists. It achieves this by using multi-seat constituencies (voting districts) and by transferring votes to other eligible candidates that would otherwise be wasted on sure losers or winners.

A modified version of STV, known as the Hare-Clark system, is used in Australia in lower house elections in two states/territories: Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. The name is derived from Thomas Hare, who initially developed the system and the Tasmanian Attorney General, Andrew Inglis Clark, who worked to have a modified version introduced. Hare-Clark has been subsequently modified to introduce improvements, such as rotating ballot papers (the Robson Rotation). The Upper Houses of the remaining Australian states[Qld abolished theirs], as well as the Upper House of the Parliament of Australia, use conventional STV.

STV is the system of choice of groups such as the Proportional Representation Society of Australia and the Electoral Reform Society in the United Kingdom. Its critics contend that some specialists and voters find the mechanisms behind STV difficult to understand,[1] but this does not make it more difficult for voters to 'rank the list of candidates in order of preference' in an STV ballot paper (see 'Voting' below).
UNQUOTE

Just keep reading that page, it's not as complex as it looks, once you have played with it once.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Apr 11 - 09:21 PM

99, 100, change hands...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 26 Apr 11 - 07:43 PM

"the present system is less open to corruption. "

This is completely wrong.

The two party system ensures that corporate interests are served as both the main party's are funded by the same people.

More parties in parliament means more parliamentary independence from corporate interests.

Which means less corruption.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 26 Apr 11 - 07:58 PM

As far as I'm concerned, keeping FPTP is the equivalent of handing you friendly neighbourhood con-man a book full of blank signed cheques.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Lox
Date: 26 Apr 11 - 08:29 PM

Well, just the FPTP "mandate" lie is corrupt enough for me.

When its used to send troops to Iraq on illegal pretexts etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 06:36 AM

I've nothing against AV......

.......but it wouldn't be my first choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 06:58 AM

There is one fundamental truth that is being buried.

If there is a bloc that wants one thing, and two blocs that don't with slightly different views, under FPTP the minority bloc that wants the thing wins. That is fundamentally wrong.

All the fiddle-faddling in the world can't change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 08:14 AM

Quite so, Richard. In fact I'd go further than that (and may have already done so on this thread - I'm losing track!). The two blocs could be pro-Europe Tory and anti-Europe Tory. Under FPTP this would probably let some other party in. But if there are enough tories in the area, one of the two Tory candidates would win (and with the same majority as a single candidate under FPTP, more or less.) However, it has let the constituency vote on Europe, which doesn't look very likely to happen under FPTP. (The issue need not be Europe, of course, but it makes the point). So AV gives far more power to the constituencies, and indeed the candidate, because they would have a 'pro-Europe' mandate (or 'anti') whatever the party as a whole decides.

One claim I hear is that candidates will become more bland as they try to win everyone's vote. The smart candidate (or party) will realise they can get more votes overall by wooing two separate factions like this, rather than by trying to avoid saying anything on Europe (or whatever the issue is.)

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 08:45 AM

"The smart candidate (or party) will realise they can get more votes overall by wooing two separate factions"

In Aus here that game was played for decades - The Liberals (mostly city based) and the Nationals (mostly country based) - but in Qld only they joined to form the LNP (and seems to have largely stuck its head up its bum...). The Mayor of Brisbane recently resigned to become 'the leader of the State LNP'- pretty weird since he had no seat in parliament - election maybe 2 years away! Surely a ground breaking move for Westminster system style governments! (Yes, Qld is 'special' even for us Aussies!)


Then there was the DLP, that split the looney (and largely catholic) Right off the labor party, and worked with the lib/nat coalition to frustrate Labor for ages...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 09:10 AM

Thank you DMcG - I was however trying to keep it simple enough for a politician (or some of the naysayers above) to understand...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Musket
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 09:12 AM

Thought about this again.

For much longer.

Still not convinced the present system is any worse than what is up for offer here.

Not often I agree with Nick Clegg, but it is a miserable little compromise. Pity he no longer thinks that but there again, he seems to change his views so much that there is little point hanging on his arguments.

Yes, first past the post favours the establishment but you know what? Doesn't matter, 'cos you get the government anyway. We are having this referendum (under first past the post if you think about it) not because it is needed to fix a broken system but because it was thrown as a bauble by a cynical Tory party to an opportunistic Lib Dem party.

The point of the exercise was to form a government for 2010 till 2015 not radically alter politics forever. The only reason I can see for voting for it would be to destabilise Cameron, and as GDP is recovering, retail sales are up and the rhetoric around decimating the public sector is being watered down daily, why bother? Labour aren't ready to be handed power back yet.

Some people think this is to do with voting reform rather than day to day politics and horse trading. No reason to get excited, calm down and get on with handling life as best you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 09:59 AM

Sorry Richard. I forgot some people think the fact AV is often described using several sentences is enough to make it too complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 01:14 PM

Unfortunately a lot of people are probably being taken in by the lie that AV is "complicated". Even if they look at what is involved that can backfire - "it can't really be as simple and straightforward as it looks - there must be some catch that I'm not clever enough to understand."

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 01:47 PM

Retail is not up. The last year on year figures for a month were 2% down on las year, the biggest drop in recorded history.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: goatfell
Date: 27 Apr 11 - 02:23 PM

If you don't vote for a change in t5hey way we vote then the BNP will be able to use the voteing system that we have now, because the voting system that we have now, let's parties like the BNP get seats, so they top keep them out is to vote yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 May 11 - 11:43 AM

I see the 'Daily Mail' is maintaining its traditional party alignment, and advising its readers to follow the BNP line and vote no.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:43 PM

Note the Canadian Election results this week - they've got First Past The Post over there, and they've just elected a Conservative Government which got 39% of the vote, but a sizeable majority of the seats.

It's no wonder the Tories here are so keen on keeping the system that does the same here time after time.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: goatfell
Date: 05 May 11 - 12:45 PM

vote yes no bnp or that ilk gets in or vote no and the bnp and their ilk gets in you choose

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Musket
Date: 05 May 11 - 01:21 PM

Well, I cast my vote and for the first time in my life, I don't mind saying how I voted.

After much thought and deliberation, I decided that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. To that I added, and if it is broke, bring the right tools before trying to mend it.   (A miserable little compromise is not a sonic screwdriver.)

Oh heck, does that make me a Tory?

No, it makes me a person who was asked a fundamental question in a referendum. Just like everybody else, and whilst one system tends to favour one party and vice versa, that is a consequence not an element of the question.

Pity there wasn't a third choice of "Come back when you have thought an alternative through a bit better."

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DMcG
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:06 PM

No great surpise, Ian, and don't suppose anyone will be too surprised how I voted. I remarked on another site that going by the official campaigns there was a choice between the untrue and the inept. Not too encouraging, really. Overall I think the arguments in favour have been presented better here than in the official version. As I said in my very first post, I think it likely that the 'no' vote will win out, but I don't see the 'right tool' - or any other tool - being offered in my lifetime if 'no' wins.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:29 PM

The corollary to "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is "if it is broke, fix it".

You won't get another chance to do that in your lifetime, Ian, assuming the vote went the way you voted. All the people who voted "No" because they didn't fancy "a miserable little compromise" will be counted as being satisfied with what we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: GUEST,John MacKenzie
Date: 05 May 11 - 02:47 PM

I voted 'YES', this afternoon. It's a step in the right direction in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 05 May 11 - 04:47 PM

I voted yes.

I also lookled at the 4 candidates to choose from and thought they were all a load of t*****s. So I thought, what shall I do. Then I had a brainwave. I certainly didn't want to walk away not voting. So I voted for the person that lived in my town and who lived nearest to me. That way if that person, f**** up, I can walk round there and give them hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:10 PM

I went early to the polling station and voted 'No to AV' and in so doing played my part in helping prevent 'perpetual socialism' and the 'guaranteed financial destruction' of our country. If like me, you are over 50 you will have experienced the financial impact of Labour governments on many occasions in the past but the last labour government excelled in its economic incontinence to a degree that is still hard to comprehend.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 05 May 11 - 05:53 PM

The main trouble with the last Labour Government was its neo-Thatcherite policies. I don't think we've ever been in any danger of having a socialist government in the UK. As soon as they get into power, Labour spend all their time trying to prove to the CBI that they're not socialists.

The 'guaranteed financial destuction' of our country began with Heath's relaxation of the regulation of financial institutions, and reached its previous peak with Thatcher's ruthless asset-stripping.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:14 AM

Quite so Dave - but personal advantage is not the point.

There is only one proper principle. Which (of the two systems on offer) best reflects the will of the people? The answer to that is obvious. Under FPTP if there is one candidate for the A party, and ten candidates all vehemently opposed to the A party (but with differences amongst themselves) - the A party wins. Under AV, that does not happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Penny S.
Date: 06 May 11 - 05:56 AM

Voted yes, and then had the difficult choice for three places on the district council. Four people standing, three of whom were Tory. I coud not honestly use my three votes, so only used one. AV would have been no help at all. I gather from communications since my blow up the other week that even the Tories had trouble getting their three to stand. No electoral communications from Labour at all.

Voter apathy? Politician apathy round here.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Stu
Date: 06 May 11 - 06:26 AM

I voted yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:37 AM

Had you considered, Penny, standing yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Allan Conn
Date: 06 May 11 - 08:00 AM

"I coud not honestly use my three votes, so only used one. AV would have been no help at all."

Under AV you wouldn't have to use all your votes though!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Penny S.
Date: 06 May 11 - 11:11 AM

Under AV, I still wouldn't have had anyone else to vote for.

Richard, at the moment I don't have much confidence in any party. The Greens seem to have given up hereabouts, judging from their response to me. Besides which, I want to be clear of all my responsibilities at my old home before I start anything new. (And I haven't kept up with that resolution, as the local residents' association was having trouble finding committee members.) Also, I want to be invisible from the the previous bad neighbour. But the thought has crossed my mind, and will probably do so again.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: MikeL2
Date: 06 May 11 - 03:47 PM

hi

There are arguments for both systems and like many in politics one side cannot ( or will not)see the other side's viewpoint.

It seemed foolish to me to propose to adopt a voting system that is used by only three Countries in the World. Papua New Guinea Fiji and Australia. One of these is said to be trying to remove it and in Australia they have introduced compulsary voting as a result if introducing it.

I voted no because for me that is the right decision. It might not be so for others but soon we will see the real democratic decision made by the rest of the Country. And I will abide with that which-ever way it goes.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 11 - 03:55 PM

Maybe when Scotland votes for independence in a referendum in a couple of years there'll be another occasion to reform the voting system in England.

I can see why the Tories like it this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 06 May 11 - 04:17 PM

I am glad sense prevailed , NO was the right call to make.

Glad to see the Conservatives have held their ground in the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:00 PM

There is no case for the No vote save the preservation of the status quo, and that is no choice for any person of principle.

There can be no doubt that the No campaign was largely based on outright lies and inventions, and to a lesser extent on conjuration and spin - oh, and run and financed by the conservatives in breach of their coalition promises.

It represents so many of the things that are wrong with UK politics right now.

Largely, I despair of UK voters to be so fooled. Even now the admissions are coming from the No campaigners that this is the end of voting reform for a generation. These of course follow their admissions that the estimates of increased cost were pure invention.

I know the conservatives don't want fair elections, but why would anyone else be fooled by their crock of shit?

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Lox
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:07 PM

Why trust anything politicians say.

The tragic truth about how our government works.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 06 May 11 - 07:13 PM

That seems to be a very narrow minded view of the situation. The electorate made their choice.

Britain delivered a humiliating 'No' vote to Nick Clegg's dreams of tearing up the traditional electoral system. Voters rejected a change to the Alternative Vote by an emphatic 70 per cent to 30 per cent, says it all. Are you unaware the 'No' votes swept past the 12million mark ?

AV is and always will be a ludicrous system designed by a boiler suit and brown rice eating committee, not unlike those who decided some years back that socialist schooling would be better if lessons moved at the pace of the slowest pupil class room.


Well that was another dead horse that the loser Red Ed has backed!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:51 AM

The outcome appears largely to have been due to Goebbels first principle of propaganda - if you tell a big enough lie, and tell it often enough, people will believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:57 AM

As always with a democracy, it is difficult to decide whose views really prevailed, given that the decisions one way or another are largely taken on based on the views of a handful of vocal voices, not, for example, mass meetings where the topics can be genuinely discussed. Certainly the 'No' campaign was full of lies and misdirection. Certainly also the 'Yes' campaign did not make its case, and too much of that was also full of misdirection. The whole concept of "making MP's work harder" was open to confusion and much mischief was made from it. It is one of the few situations in which that glib managment phrase "work smarter not harder" is what AV would have brought about.

I think there is much more subtlety in the 'No' camp than a simple 12m majority suggests. There was a huge 'Not Proven' vote, a mighty "we-don't-trust-the-LibDems-and-it's-really-all-about-them" vote, a substantial "we-have-more-important-things-to-worry-about-just-now-thank-you" vote and, from the 'Yes'-ish camp "We-want-full-PR-and-this-isn't-it-so-we'll-vote-No".

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 11 - 03:18 AM

Oops! I meant a 12m vote, not a 12m majority. You would think someone who cared about voting could get that right! :(

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 May 11 - 03:35 AM

Here's a piece about the misrepresentation of Australian experience as mentioned above. Yes, Richie, I know it's from the Guardian, but the writer is from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and I wouldn't accuse them of wearing boiler suits and eating brown rice. G'Day. Penny

Aussie Rules voting

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 11 - 04:02 AM

I went early to the polling station and voted 'No to AV' and in so doing played my part in helping prevent 'perpetual socialism'

Or, of course, creating it. Remember we are now stuck with this system for 50 years or more, probably. And a heck of a lot can happen in that time. For example, the LibDems could implode to the point that all left-leaning votes have nowhere else to go but Labour, while UKIP (for example) chips away at the Tory vote and we end up in the position where the Conservatives are in a perpetual minority. Or a new party could arise which pushes the Tories into a natural third place, which is pretty much what happened to the Liberals when the Labour party was first formed. I am sure you will continue to insist FPTP is the right voting system in those circumstances even if gives rise to 'perpetual socialism'.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 04:42 AM

Quite so DMcG, which is why "yes" was the only possible vote for a person of proper principles - a point illustrated and emphasised I think by those here who support the "no" vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 07 May 11 - 04:47 AM

Its a sad day for England. the need for voting reform was unanswerable after Thatcher had ruled for the benefit of just her constituencies for so long.

However the reformers were taking on the might of both major parties and the Murdoch media empire. So this first major campaign was doomed. But our day will come. Pray its not too late, and we don't get another extremist asset stripping government like Thatchers in the meantime.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:04 AM

Well the NO vote won the day, so end of story.

Next a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:08 AM

Al, you mean we haven't? Even that bitch did not sell off the health service to the highest bidder.

Amusing how the only thing of interest to Dickie Blackshirt is who won, not whether it was a just victory.

What is has again proved is the venality of our politicians and the sinister influence of the dirty digger.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:15 AM

Oh Hoff you old dog, you are so amusing. Clearly you don't understand the democratic process.

Really, there should be a Hoff appreciation society , so amusing. He's a great character, my fave!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: MikeL2
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:37 AM

hi

As usual there are some emotive comments here.

Without wishing to enter into this type of discussion, I just wish to report that I consider that I and most of the UK voting electorate are intelligent enough to understand the spin and lies that are always attached to these type of events - from both sides!! We don't base our judgements on this but on what we feel is right for the Country.

I voted no because like most other people we want the coalition to get on with the real issues and not meddle about spending money we haven't got on pipe dreams.

Get on with it and start to deal with the real issues I say.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: melodeonboy
Date: 07 May 11 - 05:47 AM

Very disappointing. It's a shame that the referendum was personalised and almost portrayed as a vote for or against Nick Clegg, rather than a matter of fairness of representation.

I certainly don't think it's right to be told that I have to vote either Labour or Conservative (or in some cases Liberal) in order for my vote to count. I always exercise my right to vote but don't vote for any of the major three parties.

I believe there are many people who would vote for parties other than the big three, but end up voting for one of the big three because they feel that, under the FPTP system, their vote will be wasted . This distorts voting intentions and, ultimately, democracy.

Boasting about voting "no" because it keeps the party you support in power is both irrelevant and ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:22 AM

I voted no because like most other people we want the coalition to get on with the real issues and not meddle about spending money we haven't got on pipe dreams.

What is the connection between either a No vote or a Yes vote in the referendum and "spending money we haven't got on pipe dreams"?

The only cost involved in all this was the pretty minimal cost of the referendum itself, and that had already been incurred anyway, and couldn't be affected whatever the result. All that talk about voting machines being needed if AV was introduced, and so forth, was a barefaced lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:23 AM

Very disappointing. It's a shame that the referendum was personalised and almost portrayed as a vote for or against Nick Clegg, rather than a matter of fairness of representation.

This. Just this.

Tbh, there was a good argument for spoil

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:38 AM

MikeL2: I have no problem at all with those who thought about it, detected and allowed for the spin and came to the conclusion that FPTP was the best solution. But the acid test is whether you can still vote NO (or YES) even if the kind of thing I suggested in my post of 4:02 came about and your personal choice of party was severely disadvantaged.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:21 AM

I can't say I was specially for the AV system but I voted yes and had hoped rather more would if nothing else register dissatisfaction with first past the post and perhaps express some interest in change.

Oh well...

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: MikeL2
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:43 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DMcG - PM
Date: 07 May 11 - 06:38 AM

<"MikeL2: I have no problem at all with those who thought about it, detected and allowed for the spin and came to the conclusion that FPTP was the best solution. But the acid test is whether you can still vote NO (or YES) even if the kind of thing I suggested in my post of 4:02 came about and your personal choice of party was severely disadvantaged".

Hi DMG

My answer to that is that I voted "No" despite my political slant to Labour. So in fact I was voting against the possible effect on Labour's future chances - given that there is a general view that the Tories had most to gain from the "No" vote.

I voted "No" because I believe that it is the fairest system that brings about a fair democratic result.

With regard to your question about money in your other message...time is money. All the time spent on planning and organising and promoting etc etc. has meant that it has not gone into what I consider far more important issues that face this Country.

Cheers

Mikel2

Cheers

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:51 AM

In my constituency, I am stuck with Angie Bray (CON) as MP, even though 62% of voters voted against her. FPTP means that voters will not get the MP they want where the opposition vote is split.

The only way forward now would be for parties to reach agreements in back rooms agreeing not to stand against each other in marginal seats.

I am sure that it is far more democratic for a few hundred people on committees to decide who people can vote for than to give voters the decision of who their second choice would be. Of course, if a voter's political party is not standing, he/she can stay at home on polling day as who needs his/her vote anyway???? (I'm being ironic here).

Under FPTP tactical voting is where a party urges it's supporters to vote for another party to stop a third from winning, whereas under A/V voters could show there support for a party, even though it is unlilley they would win, and decide who their second choice would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 07 May 11 - 08:57 AM

I voted for my local counciller and it had nothing to do with their party. I voted for somebody who lived in the same location as me and who I felt would do their utmost for the good of our community.

I also voted YES for AV. I am not upset at all, that the majority voted not to have AV. That is democracy.

The problem appears, that if you are a staunch party supporter of Labour or Conservatives, you are blinded by their doctrine and refuse to see any good in anybody outside your own party. I call that blinkered stupidity. But never the less, that's always been the case and I doubt will ever change.

You only have to see the hatred posted on these political threads on Mudcat. It's always the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:32 AM

Excellent result - QED!!

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:48 AM

All the time spent on planning and organising and promoting etc etc. has meant that it has not gone into what I consider far more important issues that face this Country.

The crucial word in that sentence is has. Money and time already spent on all that has already been spent - whatever the outcome of the vote makes no difference whatsoever to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: MikeL2
Date: 07 May 11 - 11:13 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: McGrath of Harlow - PM
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:48 AM

<"All the time spent on planning and organising and promoting etc etc. has meant that it has not gone into what I consider far more important issues that face this Country.

The crucial word in that sentence is has. Money and time already spent on all that has already been spent - whatever the outcome of the vote makes no difference whatsoever to that.">

Hi McG

OK but maybe they will think about it more in the future

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:26 PM

"the fairest system that brings about a fair democratic result" That of FPTP? You have to be joking. That's precisely the point. It is simply not true of FPTP.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:34 PM

In the wonderful world of acronyms;

AV RIP


And don't come back till you can offer something demonstrably better than the somewhat flawed but sometimes successful FPTP.

You see, for me I accepted FPTP was not brilliant for all the reasons mentioned but failed to see that the alternative offered addressed the flaws. If you mend a car, you need the right spanners and we were handed a sewing kit.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:38 PM

But now the car won't go for 30 years or more.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:40 PM

the system used in Ireland is better, SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: MikeL2
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:35 PM

<"Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 07 May 11 - 12:26 PM

"the fairest system that brings about a fair democratic result" That of FPTP? You have to be joking. That's precisely the point. It is simply not true of FPTP.">

hi richard

I have always been brought up to believe that " one person one vote" is a bulwark of democracy. AV does not offer this.

A paraphrase of a quote by Winston Churchill maybe applies here. FPTP may not be perfect but it's better than all the others".

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:42 PM

" one person one vote" is a bulwark of democracy. AV does not offer this.

One of the worst misdirections of the NO campaign: unless you are in a marginal for all practical purposes for many people it is one person, no vote. AV is closer to the true OMOV, but even that falls short.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:50 PM

They never had a referendum the last time they significantly reformed the voting system and gave women the vote.

Reforms that extend democracy don't come about that way, then or now.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DrugCrazed
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:05 PM

I was disappointed that ~40% of people showed up to vote. It actually made me sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:35 PM

And don't come back till you can offer something demonstrably better than the somewhat flawed but sometimes successful FPTP.

The question to me there is why Cameron would only allow the referendum to be FPTP vs AV.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:47 PM

No idea on that one, Jon. You would have thought he'd be on safer ground to allow AV and, say, AV+ and be almost certain of splitting the non-FPTP vote. Putting STV as an option would have been a risk because as it so widely used, so the 'Only 3 countries use it' horse would not have run.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 May 11 - 02:58 PM

"It actually made me sad"

Me too, DC, though that's not actually a bad turnout. Nevertheless, they still failed to motivate 60% of the population who are the clear majority. Without compulsory voting, no system is democratic.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: GUEST,Jonny Sunshine
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:14 AM

As I've seen pointed out elsewhere:

32% voting for AV = 'a resounding rejection'

35% voting for the Tories = a 5 year mandate."

Which seems to me to to sum up exactly why electoral reform is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Brian May
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:09 AM

Strikes me that for AV to work, you need to know what each set of lying bastards are saying.

Simply leave the illusion of 'freedom to vote someone in or out' alone, it's simpler this way.

However they set out, they end up being self-serving hypocrites.

There, I feel better now.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 11 - 12:15 PM

Strikes me that for AV to work, you need to know what each set of lying bastards are saying.

I can't say that would particularly help, since if they're lying bastards they'd say anything. (And they do.)

But basically you just need to know the people you really don't want as your MP. Which isn't too difficult in most cases. And that applies under any system - it's just that with AV you can also vote for the one you'd like to vote for without the risk of helping the one you hate sneaking in the back door.

Which is why the BNP like the present system that we are now stuck with.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 11 - 03:08 PM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: Brian May
Date: 08 May 11 - 04:31 PM

Totally agree with 'the lying bastards would say anything'.

Whatever the system, someone will find a way to manipulate it.

On a personal basis, I've just lost all faith in the integrity and honesty of politicians (I bet you hadn't guessed that eh?).

Sorry for the interjection, I'm off out of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)
From: goatfell
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:44 AM

I agree The BNP like this system and all the people that voted NO I hope they don't complain if a BNP perosn gets voted in, because if they voted YES the BNP person would find it hard to get voted in.
So Thank you everyone that voted NO.
I Voted YES to make it harder for the BNP to get voted in