Alternative vote

Originally Posted by Bri w

So if A gets 8 votes, and B & C get 7 votes each 14 people don't want A but are stuck with him/her. 65% don't want A

Do you get that with First Past the Post?

I see where you're coming from Bri, but the way I look at it is that even with AV you still have the same situation: -

If after the first round of counting FPTP winner is candidate A who got 45% of the vote say, which yes okay I accept that 55% voted against him, but when you drop out the bottom candidate (probably a far right or far left bunch of neandertal racist thugs like the BNP) and start re-distributing votes it still adds up to the same thing.

55% of people still voted against candidtae A, and if another candidate who came say second or third in the first round of counting went on to win, then that means that even more people were against him/her in the first place.

I base that last comment on the fact that you would be getting into a voters second or even THIRD or FOURTH choice.

WHY??? - the candidate who finishes botton at the first count as I said is likely to be BNP, Monster Raving Loonies, Communists, Facists, Anti-Nazi League; basically the type of candidate with followers who WON'T have a second or third choice - I can see it now "OH YES I AM A COMMITTED BNP FOLLOWER WHO WANTS A WHITE CHRISTIAN HETEROSEXUAL BRITAIN BUT IF WE DON'T GET IN I WANT THE LIBERALS TO WIN!!!!!!!", yeah right as if that's gonna happen.

So does that mean in that most constituencies we go to a third/fourth count so the eventuall winner is someone who more than 50% of the electorate didn't want in the first place.........

That is only the small part of my argument for NO, my main cause for concern is that whatever the rights and/or wrongs of any voting system is that I firmly believe in "ONE PERSON - ONE VOTE".

There is a distinct possibility that under AV, someones vote could be counted a several times. I mean supposing I voted for the chap/chapess who came in last at the first count and my second choice was the person who came in last at the second count and my third choice is whoever came last at the third count.

Even if I didn't actually vote for a winner, I have in effect voted 3 times to your one. This to me is very very very wrong, who gives me the right to have my vote counted more times than you or why should a potential racist far right or far left extremist thug get the right to have his/her vote counted more times than the law abiding citizens like you & me.

Just quickly read over my (lengthy - sorry.....) post before I clicked submit, Bri please don't think for one minute that by saying you & me a lot in the post I was referring to you & me, just using it in general................

Originally Posted by Bri w

So if A gets 8 votes, and B & C get 7 votes each 14 people don't want A but are stuck with him/her. 65% don't want A

yes but even more don't want b or c

[flymo]

there seems to be some misunderstanding on exactly how the AV system will work, no matter how fair it actually ends up being I think this is its main disadvantage. Its complicated and very easy for people to misunderstand and vote incorrectly.

You do not need to place a ranking against every candidate on a voting slip, you only need to vote for your first place preference if thats your wish just like you do today. If you choose to place 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choices against other candidates then you can with as few or as many as you like. If you dont want to include BNP at any preference level then you dont need to include them.

Your 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choices only get used if your 1st preference gets knocked out in the first round and you actually provided those alternative choices.

[flymo]

Originally Posted by ravingdavis

Not really, that poster requires you to make the assumption that the people who voted to go to one of the pubs would then prefer to go to a pub other than their first choice as opposed to the coffee shop. That is an assumption that is unfair to make thus rendering that argument invalid and false.

I totally agree, the poster is very misleading.

[MisterTommyH]

Another point is that AV is change for change sake. It's not even the solution that the Liberal Democrats wanted, it's just all that they could get Cameron to agree too. So if even the Lib Dems don't think it the right system, why would even they vote for it?

Because it gives them more chance of getting into another coalition in future. Only problem with that is that everyone I know who voted yellow as a protest vote has vowed never to do so again after they caved on key issues.

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by Ed

AV = oh dear. Any wonder that only 3 countries in the world use it? Fiji, Papua New Guinea - and, surprisingly - Australia.

Yes, and Australia has made no secret of the fact that they'd rather not have AV.

No system is perfect and our present system may well be flawed, but it's the least bad system available. AV is an expensive way of making our democratic process a little bit poorer.

When one comes to decide I recommend the application of some brain power - this will inexorably lead one to vote no to AV.

So what happened to the Lib Dem preference for Proportional Representation?
Was it negotiated away in the urgency to form a coallition? Did the Lib Dems water down their desire to have a PR referendum for a slice of power?
AV seems on the face of it much less justifiable argument compared to Proportional Representation.

Did Cameroon outflank Clegg into an unwinable position on AV and so put to bed any chance of a fairer voting system for the next decade? mmm?

I don't know, think I've had too much Shiraz!

Hey I have no fancy words and pix. I heard Caroline Lucas from the Green Party on Radio 4. Many years ago, I knew her vaguely - she was a PhD student with wifey at the University of Exeter. She has a PhD in English so she can string a sentence together, she is very eloquent, in fact one of the most persuasive and articulate people I have come across. She is an advocate for all this AV stuff, but even she couldn't say that she really wanted it, she wants full blown PR.

So why argue for something you don't really want? Even the extremely gifted Dr Lucas couldn't explain that.

I have yet to hear a single good reason for AV. As for the coffee/pub thing, f*ck the cappuccino, I'll have the Stella anyday

I like the thought of a ruling oligarchy and a right wing clique that includes such well known right wingers as Dr David Owen (LibDem) Margaret Beckett (Monster Raving Loony Socialist) and Dr John Reid (knocking on Communist). It's what makes us different from the rest of the world

I will vote No.

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by Ed

So why argue for something you don't really want?

Because it's all there is.

It's a difficult one for us pro-PR peeps. I don't think there was any big group pushing for AV.

It's at least some kind of change - an entirely unsatisfactory change but hopefully moving in the general direction of a more representative system.

A danger of a resounding No (from my point of view) is that it's seen as an endorsement of the current system and the issue is killed for another 20 or 30 years.

I'd rather be having a debate about PR but that's not on offer so I may vote for AV purely for the sake of change and hope it sets us towards the debate we should be having (IMO). It's not exactly stirring my soul though.

Originally Posted by TamSV

A danger of a resounding No (from my point of view) is that it's seen as an endorsement of the current system and the issue is killed for another 20 or 30 years.

I would prefer to see this argument killed for the next 20-30 years rather than taking a backwards step to a more unfair system. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.