O/T - The Alternative Vote Referendum

[Plain Peter]

This 'once in a lifetime' vote is on 5 May.
Reading what's come through the letter box it looks a good idea.
But having dug a bit I've completely changed my mind.
Why should voters see a need to choose a pecking order, when there are millions of folk who don't bother to vote at all.
The current system of first past the post is simple and efficient.
If it ain't broke then leave it alone.

[marky]

But then there are millions of reasons why people don't vote. For some it's the fact that they live in a safe seat where the incumbent has enough support support to rely on winning elections, even that's only 35-40% of those who actually bother so in many ways to vote another way is a wasted vote. At least under AV, everyone potentially gets a say as all votes will count for something. Indeed, it is believed that Geraldine Smith would probably have retained her seat under AV. I don't wish to get into the rights and wrongs of that, but AV could significantly alter what happens in marginal seats and would also make 'safe' seats significantly less safe. Unlike the mantra of the yes campaign, I don't believe it would erradicate them completely but it would still produce results far more representative of the cross section of societal views than FPtP could ever hope to achieve.

[Plain Peter]

Sorry, but I can't get my neck round someone getting 45% of the turnout vote potentially being beaten by someone who only got 25% of the votes in the first round.
Fptp might have its flaws, but so does low turnout [for whatever reason].

[Heysham_Shrimp]

Sorry, but I can't get my neck round someone getting 45% of the turnout vote potentially being beaten by someone who only got 25% of the votes in the first round.
Fptp might have its flaws, but so does low turnout [for whatever reason].

Im with you on this Heinz.

FPTP asks the question "who do you want to elect as the Government"

Under AV it is quite probable that there will be MPs representing the BNP being elected as they would be the 2nd preference vote of lots of Labour and Conservative voters in some seats. Under FPTP this party is marginalised.

[durhamshrimp]

Actually agree with Heinz on this one. All of the potential systems have their pros and cons but FPTP is probably best (or least worst even). I know the previous election result was a shambles and our PM is only there because he's managed to persuade another toff to whore out his principles for a whif of apparent power, but on a whole its the system most likely to provide a strong stable government. Whichever side that might be.

The reason the Lib Dems want as much proportional representation as possible is that they know that it's more likely to result in hung parliaments. As Labour and the Tories would never form a coalition this would place the Lib Dems (with their fairly flexible polticial conviction) in the position of being the kingmakers election after election and cosying up to whichever party has 'won'.

[Ntini]

The problem though with FPTP is that sometimes over half of the votes are effectively wasted. The Conservatives wanted to try and scrabble some more seats to push them over the winning line, but in reality only 36.1% of the public that voted actually wanted them in Parliament.

I struggle to get my head around that one as how can a Government take office when it is only backed by a third of the country? At least with the AV system, and also with the current system using hung Parliaments, more of the voters are represented (currently 59.1%).

Ultimately the different systems are about how you want the Government to be formed. For me, I want the Government to be made up of who most people want to be there, so that means the AV system. But both have many pros and cons!

[Posh]

Over 30 million people voted in the last General Election but it was the votes of about 100,000 that actually counted for anything (some psephologists reckon it's actually more like 15,000). This is because first past the post does very little in constituencies where there is an inbuilt majority for one party or the other (about 80% of them). In the swing constituencies the number of people who actually change their vote is also then surprisingly few. As a result the vast majority of votes are theoretically wasted votes as they have no impact on the political system.

The problem is that AV really isn't the answer (Clegg, an advocate for PR called it 'a miserable little compromise'). In Australia the majority, given the opportunity to 'rank' parties, actually only vote for one party so making it effectively first past the post anyway. There are better, more proportional voting systems such as STV, which is already used in Scotland and Northern Ireland for most elections bar Westminster.

What AV does though is make politicians work harder. If, for example, you're a Labour MP routinely elected with 40% of the popular vote, while the second party gets say 18%, the MP now needs a further 10% to get the win (Heinze's example is ridiculously unlikely). While he's 95% likely to win he/she needs to show they worked hard for the whole electrorate rather than just one part of it. In FTP there are very few examples, such as Gisela Stewart (Lab), Tim Farron (Lib Dem) who actually reversed national trends by simply being very good MPs.

I'll be voting for AV because I think it's the first step towards a more inclusive electroral system. FTP is lazy and it's no surprise that's the old style politicians responsible for the corrupting, jobs-for-life system we've got who back FTP and the staus quo and its younger MPs fighting for change who back AV.

However change needs to tied to compulsory voting. It is a joke that people in this country don't undertake their democratic duty. People died for the vote and are still dying around the world today for the right. Ignorance, stupidity and a lack of responsibilty, reasons much of our society is suffering is the reason. We shouldn't pander to their ignorance we should force people to vote and offer none of the above as an alternative on the ballot paper. We should then work to overhaul the electoral laws and provide a better system.

[marky]

Under AV it is quite probable that there will be MPs representing the BNP being elected as they would be the 2nd preference vote of lots of Labour and Conservative voters in some seats. Under FPTP this party is marginalised.

It actually makes it significantly less likely the BNP and their ilk would be able to gain representation in parliament because they are likely to be knocked out on first preference votes alone, hence why they are AGAINST AV. It also isn't any more likely to result in hung parliaments. Indeed, in the time Australia has used this system, there have actually been MORE hung parliaments in the UK under FPtP

[Lloydie]

However change needs to tied to compulsory voting. It is a joke that people in this country don't undertake their democratic duty. People died for the vote and are still dying around the world today for the right. Ignorance, stupidity and a lack of responsibilty, reasons much of our society is suffering is the reason. We shouldn't pander to their ignorance we should force people to vote and offer none of the above as an alternative on the ballot paper. We should then work to overhaul the electoral laws and provide a better system.

Completely agree, I think in Australia you get fined if you don't vote (could be wrong!) with technology today you could make it a lot easier for people also.

[SupermarketShrimp]

FPTP asks the question "who do you want to elect as the Government"

No it doesn't.

[Plain Peter]

However change needs to tied to compulsory voting. It is a joke that people in this country don't undertake their democratic duty. People died for the vote and are still dying around the world today for the right. Ignorance, stupidity and a lack of responsibilty, reasons much of our society is suffering is the reason. We shouldn't pander to their ignorance we should force people to vote and offer none of the above as an alternative on the ballot paper. We should then work to overhaul the electoral laws and provide a better system.

Had to work hard to stay awake before getting there, but I'm onboard with that.
I was going to say basically the same at the beginning, but thought people would say it'd be impossible to enforce. But if it isn't that difficult, then that surely should be goal, instead of introducing AV when turnouts are generally average to poor.

[wijit]

However change needs to tied to compulsory voting. It is a joke that people in this country don't undertake their democratic duty. People died for the vote and are still dying around the world today for the right. Ignorance, stupidity and a lack of responsibilty, reasons much of our society is suffering is the reason. We shouldn't pander to their ignorance we should force people to vote and offer none of the above as an alternative on the ballot paper. We should then work to overhaul the electoral laws and provide a better system.

In spite of agreeing with myself to never bother posting here again, this got me.
I agree with everything you said, apart from this bit. I vote without fail, and it annoys the hell out of me that people don't. But it's not their democratic duty to vote, it's their democratic right to choose to vote or not. They would argue that they didn't ask anyone to die for that right. Selfish attitude as it is, it still is their right. What value does a vote have when it's been forced? Threats to make people vote will, without a doubt, lead to thousands, many thousands of wasted votes on candidates who otherwise wouldn't get a look in. It is possible, and I'd suggest probable that the very organisations suggested as not getting a look in, would in fact get closer. If you didn't want to vote, you would naturally be against AV (which is just a very poor effort to appease those who want Proportional Representation, after all), it would be a natural thing to vote for those who were against it from the start.
Forcing people by law to vote, really is barely better than not allowing them to do so in the first place. Yes they should vote, but we will achieve nothing by forcing them to do so.

[bigreddog]

while the compulsory vote argument has merits on both sides, my main issue is with the AV referendum.

some claims have been made by both the yes and no camps that are less than accurate.

one argument is that the result of the general election would have been massively different, when the evidence shows that's not the case. The electoral reform society have done a study which shows that under AV the tories would have got 281 seats instead of 307, labour 262 instead of 258, others stay on 28 seats and the main beneficiaries would be the lib dems getting 79 seats instead of 57. or to put it another way, Nick Clegg as permanent deputy prime-minister whichever system we had.

further to that is the argument that a more marginal constituency means MP's will work harder and be more honest. well the harder working part will have to be proved, but the MP in the most marginal constituency in the country at the last general election is presently serving 18 months at her majesty's pleasure.

To some AV would mean to gain second preference votes, candidates would have to "reach out" to minority parties. one man's "reaching out" is another man's "pandering". unlike some who argue it would allow the bnp to progress, I actually think it would kill them stone dead electorally, and that is one attraction to AV. my opposition isn't the kind of politics that AV means but the kind of politicians it would produce, the kind who say nothing to upset anyone atall, and end up saying zero. it's not a victory for blue, red or yellow, but a victory for beige. that's why I'm voting no.

[Plain Peter]

But it's not their democratic duty to vote, it's their democratic right to choose to vote or not.

I agree with that too!
Perhaps that shouln't be the line taken to encourage them to vote.

[P/T Indie]

Under AV it is quite probable that there will be MPs representing the BNP being elected as they would be the 2nd preference vote of lots of Labour and Conservative voters in some seats. Under FPTP this party is marginalised.[/quote]


I agree isn't this to some extent how Hitler got into power?

The smaller parties will get all the 2nd votes as a Labour supporters will never vote Tory and vice versa so they will go for the other parties.

If the smaller parties win a seat they will then start forming coallations with other parties and gain more power.

[Plain Peter]

The smaller parties will get all the 2nd votes as a Labour supporters will never vote Tory and vice versa so they will go for the other parties.

You'll also get a fair few people who aren't interested in giving a 2nd preference.
This could mean that no candidate reaches 50% because too many voting cards have had to be discarded.
What happens then?

[marky]

You keep counting until there are only 2 candidates left, one of whom will always get more than 50%. This is why the BNP are against AV. They will never get enough first preference votes to remain in a count this far, which is why AV makes it harder for extremist parties to gain a foothold. Like all parties, all they need with the present system is to get one more vote than anyone else. They'd need much more support with AV, support they are never likely to get.

[Heysham_Shrimp]

Its all academic anyway as the "no" s will win.

It will be a small turnout and even if the "yes" s have a small majority Parliament will not change the system.

[Heysham_Shrimp]

FPTP asks the question "who do you want to elect as the Government"

No it doesn't.

well it might not say that on the ballot paper but when we go into a voting booth we have one vote only and we vote for the party we want to see running the country.

[Plain Peter]

You keep counting until there are only 2 candidates left, one of whom will always get more than 50%.

Sorry you're right. It's 50% or more of the votes remaining.
Which makes AV even more stupid, as loads of voters could have no 2nd preference, and have their cards discarded. The winner, who could have attracted well below 50% in the first round will turn out to have less than 50% eventual support(!) over an already poor turnout.
What sort of system is that?

[SupermarketShrimp]

FPTP asks the question "who do you want to elect as the Government"

No it doesn't.

well it might not say that on the ballot paper but when we go into a voting booth we have one vote only and we vote for the party we want to see running the country.

Again, no you don't.

[Posh]

You keep counting until there are only 2 candidates left, one of whom will always get more than 50%.

Sorry you're right. It's 50% or more of the votes remaining.
Which makes AV even more stupid, as loads of voters could have no 2nd preference, and have their cards discarded. The winner, who could have attracted well below 50% in the first round will turn out to have less than 50% eventual support(!) over an already poor turnout.
What sort of system is that?

A better one than the one that exists. No vote will get discarded and every vote counts.

Had to work hard to stay awake before getting there, but I'm onboard with that.

And your point being? Sorry but you really are so full of your own self-importance and pomposity that it makes you look such a prat.

[SupermarketShrimp]

You keep counting until there are only 2 candidates left, one of whom will always get more than 50%.

Sorry you're right. It's 50% or more of the votes remaining.
Which makes AV even more stupid, as loads of voters could have no 2nd preference, and have their cards discarded. The winner, who could have attracted well below 50% in the first round will turn out to have less than 50% eventual support(!) over an already poor turnout.
What sort of system is that?

At the end of the day, if someone cannot number 1-5 on a ballot paper and read it properly they don't deserve to have the right to vote that other people died to get. It's a pathetic argument.

[Posh]

My opposition isn't the kind of politics that AV means but the kind of politicians it would produce, the kind who say nothing to upset anyone at all, and end up saying zero. it's not a victory for blue, red or yellow, but a victory for beige. that's why I'm voting no.

This is where I disagree. Politicians are becoming beige because they are central office clones with very little experience of the outside world. The first past the post system encourages the main political parties to shove their beige cronies into safe seats in the heartlands. Meanwhile all I hear is Red Tory and Blue Labour and the kind of consensual politics that dominated the 1960s with Milliband after the middle class centre, Shameron going on about protecting the NHS to suck up to Labour's core and Blair who just couldn't get quite right wing enough. We have beige politics (at least until the hand the reins of power to the likes of Eric Pickles) and it is getting worse. In my view AV will encourage MPs to take alternate views, right or left, because they can get more votes by simply being populist or taking a radically different view to that of their own party.

Finally you lost by 6 votes in Heysham South. I reckon with AV you would have won it as the rest of the votes up to the MBI would have had you as second preference.

[Bare Ben]

Why can't Peter/Heinz talk about anything other than politics? I am sick of people posting non-productive crap on this board.