BS: Any thoughts on AV? (Alternative Vote)

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:34 AM

They never have my first choice!

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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:12 PM

.


         I thought this was fun.


         AV explained




.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.