BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?
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?
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Apr 11 - 09:21 PM

99, 100, change hands...

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Smokey.
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 08:49 PM

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

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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 04:16 PM

I shall vote against AV of course.