[Closed] Have we had the AV debate yet?

debate done, everyones voting YesToAv.

bit nieve here so please accept my stupidity, but i'm blaming it that I live in a diffrent country....but what is all this about? Will it make such a HUGE change to everyone's lives? Should i move back to the mother land because of it?

It's a tricky one: voting Yes to AV would stick it to Cameron and the Tories, but would be interpreted as support for that treacherous bellend Clegg...

Ironically what we need is a third alternative ... 🙂

Avast.

MSE.

GrahamS is on the money. What it comes down to is the following question

Who do I hate most

a) Call-me-Dave
b) I-Agree-with-Nick

I know were' meant to be having a proper growed-up debate and all that, but its all going to boil down to who you want to stick your tongue out to the most

Audio Visual technicians debate, "is it too early for alcohol?

Voting Yes, not because I particularly want AV, but it could be a step on the way to proportional representation (PR) whereas a no vote would kill the debate for the foreseeable future.

Am I the only-one who feels slightly bad that they don't really give a toss?

its all going to boil down to who you want to stick your tongue out to the most

Voting Yes, not because I particularly want AV, but it could be a step on the way to proportional representation (PR) whereas a no vote would kill the debate for the foreseeable future.

Same here. I am a bit confused though, because as a ex-Lib Dem I'd rather give Nick a slap, than Dave. At least Dave has the decency to fulfil the Tory stereotype, Clegg is just a traiterous little wretch (IMO of course!)

JEngledow. I wasn't feeling bad... should I?

D0NK - Member

its all going to boil down to who you want to stick your tongue out to the most
voting in a nutshell

I wasn't feeling bad... should I?

JEngledow. I wasn't feeling bad... should I?

I don't know, which is why I feel a bit bad 😯

Edit: I think feeling bad / guilt is my default setting!

Well, it's certainly going to change the way you vote if you want to vote tactically.

What amuses me is people who say 'this would have been the result of the last election if we had AV then'. Well that's horse doodah. How can anybody suppose to know what peoples 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc votes would have been?

I'm voting No

AV sounds like a right load a crap and the main reason the labour party now has Ed Millibrain as leader

Do we know if it will be unweighted or Borda? if Borda, what distribution?

How can anybody suppose to know what peoples 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc votes would have been?

Exit polls.

Whatever the outcome, you lot will still have something to moan about.

How can anybody suppose to know what peoples 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc votes would have been?

Exit polls.

No it wouldn't

Voting Yes, not because I particularly want AV, but it could be a step on the way to proportional representation (PR) whereas a no vote would kill the debate for the foreseeable future.

This.

Also, the No campaign has been beyond pathetic. Their claim that everyone's votes count equally at the moment is clearly completely untrue also. If you live in a safe constituency at the moment then your vote is almost worthless.

[url= http://b3ta.com/board/10391777 ]This pro-AV argument from b3ta.com[/url] made me smile...

Junky - you're mean. I have a well thought out and intelligent argument for what I would vote for.

Surely it is a foot in the door, ie. we need a proper system (maybe PR.?), but there is no way that the big parties will allow that at the moment. So, we get AV in place, then in the future we move towards PR?

the BNP don't like AV - and no wonder.

their best hope of getting an MP or 2 is by taking advantage of a split vote - winning without a majority*.

AV should ensure that every election returns a 'winner' with at least 50% of the vote.

surely this has to reduce the number of places where the BNP could win.

i'm voting yes.

No it wouldn't

Yes it would?

That's certainly what the nice man from political science research thingy on Radio 4 said when they were talking about it. He reckoned they had been asking about 2nd/3rd choices in exit polls and voter surveys for 20 years so they could give good estimations of the results under AV of the previous elections - they were mainly the same.

1) I don't get why there is such opposition to Nick Clegg from presumably lib dem voters (or maybe ex lib dem). He has doent he best for your party ever, did you expect the govt to be a lib dem govt? They just added the grease to the lock to let Cameron in and have got a few concession for it. Lib dem policies are further forward now because of Clegg than anyone else in the history of the party.

2) AV is defo better than the current system, but not by much. The problem is that they eliminate the last candidate and use their 2nd choices, which will often not make much difference.. I think.

that is brilliant mintimperial

I cant see how AV will help to change anything.

If a voter always votes Labour there's no way they'd put tory at 2nd 3rd or 4th. So that voter will just end up ticking no other boxes, or ticking minor parties, like the Loonies or Greens or ANOther.

Likewise a tory voter isn't likely to put labour down anywhere on their voting slip.

IMO the only party this helps is the Lib Dems as they may get the odd new MP in a marginal seat.

Seems like a lot of faff for very little change.

If a voter always votes Labour there's no way they'd put tory at 2nd 3rd or 4th.

They might if they are worried that someone like the BNP would get in.

I'm taking the highlander approach and saying No!

It means that smaller parties will get the recognition in the results. Even if they don't win and have their votes redistributed it shows that people support their policies.

Voting No just seems bloody minded to me, look how well FPTP worked in the last election!

I'm taking the highlander approach

Distrust of outsiders and an unnatural interest in livestock?

Only 3 political parties are totally against it, the Tories, The BNP and the Commies (unsure which particular strand of commiedom).

So I guess I'm for it.

I'm voting No

AV sounds like a right load a crap and the main reason the labour party now has Ed Millibrain as leader

Cameron was elected via AV too. Oh I see what you mean.

look how well FPTP worked in the last election!

Robbed the Tories of the ability to form a government (how the **** did they not win ?) and forced Nick Clegg and the LibDems to finally show their true colours ?

......works for me.

forced Nick Clegg and the LibDems to finally show their true colours ?

Could we not have used some kind of enchanted mirror or possibly just looked at them in the light of a full moon?

[i]AV should ensure that every election returns a 'winner' with at least 50% of the vote.[/i]

even if that "winner" is second third or even fourth choice for more people than the candidate who would have got most votes in a FPTP system?
Doesn't make sense to me. I will probably vote "no" unless I hear a convincing argument that 51% of the voters' third choice is better than 49% of the voters' first choice

Doesn't make sense to me. I will probably vote "no" unless I hear a convincing argument that 51% of the voters' third choice is better than 49% of the voters' first choice

Picture a constituency where the vote is equally split between LibDem, Tory, Labour and Independent candidates.
Racial tensions in the area mean the BNP decide to field a candidate and he wins with just 21% of the vote - despite 79% who definitely don't want BNP and voted for their usual party.

Under AV the second choice of that 79% would probably prevent the BNP from getting in.

Racial tensions in the area mean the BNP decide to field a candidate and he wins with just 21% of the vote - despite 79% who definitely don't want BNP and voted for their usual party.

Firstly that isn't going to happen - UK constituencies are simply too big for the concentrated votes of the BNP to secure a parliamentary seat.

Secondly, placing electoral obstacles is not the way to deal with the threat of fascism. Fascism and racism can very effectively be defeated through political means.

Fascism and racism relies on fear and ignorance to win support. It is remarkably easy to challenge ignorance with the truth, and fear with facts.

The overwhelming majority of the electorate actually consists of very nice people who, despite possible personal prejudices towards what they don't understand/fear, are very far from being "racist".

A surprising number of BNP voters are actually unaware of the true racist character of the BNP, and it only requires for the BNP's thin veneer of respectability to be shattered, for them to reject the BNP.

A case in point : New Addington is the most deprived council estate in Croydon with very high levels of unemployment, it is sometimes referred to as "the white ghetto". It should be fertile ground for fascism/the BNP, especially during a period of economic hardship and with easy available scapegoats, and indeed it has long been target by them.

Unfortunately for the BNP anti-racists have always been very active in Croydon. And at election time the work put in by the anti-fascists from a range of political parties all united under the auspices of the local trades union council, far exceeds the input the BNP is able to muster.

As a consequence the BNP never manages to make a breakthrough and does remarkably badly. [i]That[/i] is the surest way to beat fascism and racism.......a political campaign which exposes the false premises of fascism and racism. No ethic group is responsible for the mess that Britain, in common with other capitalist countries, today finds itself in.

The most important weapon to fight the BNP however, and the one most ignored, is to take the genuine grievances of ordinary people, which the BNP exploits so effectively, seriously. And on that score, New Labour has a lot to answer for - the BNP does well in Labour strongholds, never in Tory/LibDen strongholds.

I can't honestly see a BNP candidate getting anywhere near 21% in a five party constituency, so that argument simply doesn't wash

Why don't we have FPTP with a "none of the above" candidate? Same difference, and now & again one - yes ONE - of them gets in, e.g. Martin Bell. Hardly enough to make a majority, and usually voted back out again at the next election anyway.

I wondered where that post had gone...

Those that think that AV is the first step towards true PR are (IMO) naive at best, sadly very deluded at worst. Does anyone [i]really[/i] think that the alternating ruling party would actually let true PR happen?

There's certainly more chance of it happening than if people vote no to AV.

I'd be more interested in seeing STV than full PR, I think it would be a much better fit for UK politics. A no to AV vote will nix any chances of electoral reform for a long time though I suspect.

AV should ensure that every election returns a 'winner' with at least 50% of the vote.

even if that "winner" is second third or even fourth choice for more people than the candidate who would have got most votes in a FPTP system?
Doesn't make sense to me. I will probably vote "no" unless I hear a convincing argument that 51% of the voters' third choice is better than 49% of the voters' first choice

Secondly the situation you describe is impossible, some of those 51% would need to be 1st choice votes otherwise the candidate is eliminated at the first round. Even allowing for that with a four candidate election (a small number in today's politics), you are assuming:

49% vote 1st choice A
Say 30% vote 1st choice B
20% vote 1st choice C, 2nd choice D, 3rd choice B
10% vote 1st choice D, 2nd choice C, 3rd choice B
11% vote 1st choice D, 2nd choice B,

It seems very unlikely that A picks up no 2nd/3rd votes. Even if it did happen would you not see this as 51% voting "NOT A".

I happen to live in a constituency which follows your "split", it is a safe labour seat but the labour candidate had a 49.9 and 47.7% share of the vote at the last two elections. On a FPTP vote 51.1 and 52.3% of the electorate said "not him" - yet he gets elected. In my seat I think it is still very likely he will win again, because he will pick up some second and third votes; but it is possible that some of his votes were tactical to keep others out - but even with them more than half his constituents didn't want him.

Junkyard - Member

and av lets you vote for everyone but the one/s you really hate so the winner can claim you really support them despite them being your fourth choice

Still with this? There's no "claim" or "despite", if you vote for them you're supporting them.

AV is the first step towards removing the emphasis on tactical voting and avoiding 'wasting your vote', because you could actually vote for who you wanted rather than merely against the lesser of two evils.

I've voted no

"a miserable little compromise" was that Clegg's description of AV or Cameron's description of Clegg? - probably both

As far a I can see, there's not a jot of evidence that should we vote for AV that a discussion on full PR would follow - just wishful thinking.

I don't buy the tactical voting angle either, there's a bunch of seats now where tactical voting is rife, if we bring in AV there still will be albeit different ones probably.
And as someone else mentioned, there's an awful lot of people would put loonie down as their 2nd vote rather than Labour or Tory, or whatever party they really didn't like.
e.g. I would never - in a million years - put a mark next to a Tory candidate on a ballot paper, unless there was an option for which one should be put in stocks in the market square twice a week.

AV will mean I get to vote for who I DON'T want as well as who I DO want. Bonus! More power to me. What's not to like about being given more voting power?

Doesn't make sense to me. I will probably vote "no" unless I hear a convincing argument that 51% of the voters' third choice is better than 49% of the voters' first choice

OK, flip this around. Assume we already have AV and are voting on introducing FPTP. Give me one convincing argument why someone who is not the preferred choice of most of the electorate should be declared the winner.

AV will mean I get to vote for who I DON'T want .......

Well it doesn't actually - it simply gives you the opportunity to express your next preferred choice.

But I can see how the whingeing middle-classes with their incessant moaning concerning everything under the sun, would like to see it in the context of giving them power to be negative and "anti".

The ideal voting system for your miserable grumbling Daily Mail reader, I would have thought 💡

The ideal voting system for your miserable grumbling Daily Mail reader

Ooh please say I'll be able to denote my preferences with overly emotive nonsense!

give it a try.. we can always have another vote to change it if we dont like it..

http://pre65trials.blogspot.com/

we few we happy few

I'm still unclear what the problem (or requirement) is to which AV is the proposed solution.

Ecky-Thump - Member

I'm still unclear what the problem is to which AV is the proposed solution

2/3rds of all current MP's were elected without a majority.

in other words, they 'won' with less than half the vote - and that's not a mandate in my book.

to win an election under AV rules, they'd have to get at least 50% of the vote.

and that's a proper mandate.

and of course it'll reduce tactical voting - you won't have stop yourself voting Green because you've got to vote for A to keep B out. you can vote Green, and then put A as your second choice.

easy - and we'll get to see how people really want to vote.

Actually ernie I DO get to register who I DON'T want by simply not giving them a number at all while ranking the rest. Giving a number to all candidates is not mandatory. In fact all the FPTP fans can just use ,'1' and not rank any other candidates. No votes to transfer then. Everyone is happy! 🙂

Just a thought here but with AV FPTP fans can still just give one vote. But I expect they wouldn't do that because the AV fans would use their full armoury of options most likely and the FPTP fans would likely feel a bit 'left out' because why should those AVers get more of a say than them eh?

Which is sort of the point of AV. It gives the voter a greater 'ownership' of the result

[img] [/img]

I DO get to register who I DON'T want by simply not giving them a number at all

You mean like now ? If your criteria to [i]"get to vote for who I DON'T want"[/i] is simply that you "don't vote" for them, then that option already exists.

As I said, the alternative vote simply allows you your next preference........if you want to see it as an "anti" vote, then hey, be my guest - I know how important it is to some to be negative.

.

The bag of dogshit analogy works well if a substantial amount of people choose a bag of dogshit as their preferred choice when shopping for sweets, but as no one actually does, it's a really crap comparison.

The reality is that whilst the most popular choice might not be the punters first choice of sweets, it won't something such as dogshit which isn't even a sweet.

Still, don't let that stop the alarmist from blowing things out of all proportion.