AV Referendum - FAO Big Red Dog

[Posh]

This will no doubt wind up Posh no end, but couldn't resist it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQ0gw11_MY

And in response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_ ... ata_player

[Posh]

So if theres 15 candidates standing as there can be when there are raving monster loony party and green party etc (the greens could amalgamate with the raving monster loony party!) and I only want to vote for one party as I dont like the other 14 , supposing the party I voted for receive 49% of the first preference votes. It then goes to subsequent further votes where the 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th preference votes of all these people who originally voted for all the barm cake parties end up deciding who will be their M.P. And the candidate I voted for who received 49% of first preference votes ends up not elected.

It would appear that A.V. would make the U.K. as democratic as Zimbabwe !

That's just nonsense. The only possibility that could ever happen is where the electorate is so polarised. For example if the BNP got 49% of the vote and 51% of the people opposed them. In that scenario there is an albeit tiny possibility that they would get defeated.

[Keith]

I don't think that graphic is complete bollocks.

Replace the beers with the phrase "I generally have centre-left views" and the coffee's with the phrase "I generally have centre-right views" and it makes some sense.

No, it still doesn't make sense, because you are still assuming that that all the beer is the same! It isn't. Using your analogy, 'one of the PUBS' will need to be labelled "I have ultra-right-wing views", one of the PUBS will need to be labelled "I have ultra-left-wing views" and one of the PUBS needs to be labelled "green". One of the PUBS needs to be, as you suggested, be labelled "I generally have centre-left views". Not everyone who doesn't want coffee automatically wants beer, which is why it is misleading.

A more reasonable graphic would be to swap the first pub for "shopping", the second pub swap for "ice skating" the third pub would be "football" and the fourth one remains "pub". I'd like to go to football or the pub, but I can live with going to the coffee shop if it keeps most people happy. My second choice goes to 'pub', bit we're still not there.

But the second choice of the ice skaters was to go shopping... suddenly the first choice FPtP 'coffee shop' has been beaten because the ice skaters have two votes for something unpopular. And now, it's not beer for everyone who voted against coffee like you said in your graphic, it's bloody shopping! And it's all your fault, with your broken promise of beer... bloody politicians.

Here's another image...

And again, totally nonsense! If the wife brought back shit because there were no parma violets (I think I'd rather eat dog shit but that's besides the point) AND SHE WANTED DOG SHIT then the graphic makes sense. They both eat the dog shit because she wanted dog shit to eat and she was 'first past the post'. Of course, the reality is that she probably didn't want the BNP either, so she got Smarties because that is what she wanted. And he had five years of eating Smarties instead of parma violets (which are almost as bad as barley sugar) but the BNP remained untouched.

Under AV:
The husband says "well if I can't have parma violets, I may as well have dog shit".
The wife says "I hate parma violets, if I can't have Smarties, I'd rather have dog shit"

And that's how they end up with Lib Dem/BNP/dog shit even though neither of them wanted it.

[Posh]

Trust someone who lives in the Isle of Man and can't even vote in the referendum to waffle on about dog shit and parma violets.

All you need to know.

1. The Tories oppose AV but use the system to choose it's leader because it's better than first past the post.

2. No country adopting a new or their first voting system in the last 30 years has chosen first past the post.

3. AV is more representative of voting intentions making it fairer for all people.

[shrimpnsave]

Children.. if you cant be civil towards each others opinion i WILL LOCK THIIS POST........

[shrimper]

Warning - back of a beermat politics, coming up!

My two main problems with AV are:

1 - It's the second preferences of the worst candidates that are counted first in the event of no-one getting 50%, and
2 - There seems to be a general consensus it'll make people try to court the support of voters who don't share their views and principles (ie they'll dilute their message).

1 - So, for example, it may be the second preferences of the BNP which get taken into account (if they end up last) long BEFORE the second preferences of the party that comes second.

2 - And it could be argued that politicians try to be 'all things to all people' instead of just saying and acting as they really believe.

What about a system something like one whereby you put down your first and second choice, your first choice gets two points and your second choice gets one - then count up the points and it's first past the post?

[RedRedWine1]

AV is a complete farce. The basic nature of the system with it's redistribution of preferential voting means that some people could effectively have four opportunities to vote to another individuals single vote. Of course, it makes perfect sense to tick box slut hippie voting labour bums who would rather vote for anybody else but the conservative party. Eg, AV means four votes for hand-outs and squeezing the productive bit of the economy to supplement money burning in the unproductive part, to another persons one honest rational vote that isn't biased toward historic political party dogmas (which by the way are a complete bore fest). 1 person should equal 1 vote.

[Plain Peter]

The beer example is absolute bollocks and about right for you posh using your usual way of treating us all like idiots.

To use the example that 70% of people want a beer is just plain wrong and misleading. Why can't you leave the left wing tunnel vision behind and try and argue that something is best for the country or is that beyond you?

Bravo that man

[Keith]

WILL LOCK THIIS POST........

sorry mum

Trust someone who lives in the Isle of Man and can't even vote in the referendum to waffle on about dog shit and parma violets.

At least you now accept we aren't all going down the pub like you promised at first!

[Posh]

The beer example is absolute bollocks and about right for you posh using your usual way of treating us all like idiots.

Sorry you feel that way. I've provided articles from the national press, an independent article from the Electoral Commission, one from the Electoral Reform Society, evidence from other countries choosing electoral systems and illustrating how the Conservative Party use AV to choose their leader. I then use one image, which to be honest I put in for fun and didn't refer to in the original post and apparently I'm treating you like an idiot. So thanks for the personal abuse.

Of course it's not that simple and everyone has illustrated it isn't that simple. Yet the underlying message is there, yes Greens (Gregson) aren't the same as the Labour (Litton Tree) but the point is the agree that they share common things such as NHS, investment in public transport etc (drinking beer). Of course it may mean they share things with Conservatives too (the principle of going out for an evening out). Even though it's fun and too simplistic it isn't so simple that people can't see how the example can be applied.

Here is an example of how av might work.

Imagine our club has decided to ask the fans who they wanted to manage the club next season. The options were Sammy mac, John Coleman, Mark Wright, Graham Westley or Aidy Boothroyd. Using fptp whoever won could still not be the choice of say 50% of fans. However using av we could (and I stress the could here) end up with a majority choice.[/quote]

[Posh]

Sorry posting messages on phones screws up posts. I was going to say Ego Tripping your example is a good one of the underlying principle.

[PottedShrimp]

Don't do it Darren. By voting against AV you would be doing the Tories and David Cameron's bidding. Progressives have dominated British politics since the war in terms of votes won, yet the Tories dominate government.

AV - where the losers get two votes - really fair .... not

[Posh]

Don't do it Darren. By voting against AV you would be doing the Tories and David Cameron's bidding. Progressives have dominated British politics since the war in terms of votes won, yet the Tories dominate government.

AV - where the losers get two votes - really fair .... not

Is that not better than tactical voting where you have to abandon your preferred political party in order to defeat an incumbent? Surely it's only the same thing.

Why isn't David Davies leader of the Conservative Party? These are the results of the first vote in 2005. Under FPTP Davies would be leader but Cameron went on to win under proportional voting.

David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38

[Plain Peter]

Posh, how about a pie-graph covering all posters on this thread, and whether they are 'Yes' or 'No' to AV?

[Heysham_Shrimp]

Don't do it Darren. By voting against AV you would be doing the Tories and David Cameron's bidding. Progressives have dominated British politics since the war in terms of votes won, yet the Tories dominate government.

AV - where the losers get two votes - really fair .... not

Is that not better than tactical voting where you have to abandon your preferred political party in order to defeat an incumbent? Surely it's only the same thing.

Why isn't David Davies leader of the Conservative Party? These are the results of the first vote in 2005. Under FPTP Davies would be leader but Cameron went on to win under proportional voting.

David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38

This is not really a fair comparison.

There was fresh ballot after the first candidate was eliminated , a fresh ballot after the 2nd candidate was eliminated and then a final fresh ballot when they were down to 2 candidates. It bears no resemblance to the pigs ear system that is being advocated by the "yes" campaigners.

and I think after the first 2 ballots had reduced the candidates down to 2 it was put to a vote of all party members. This was then certain to be won by one of the candidates who had over 50% so could be argued to be FPTP. I may be wrong but I think Cameron won with around 66% of the members votes.

We have one of the oldest democracies in the world and we have always pressed less democratic countries to adopt "one person one vote" and then people here are wanting to change it to "one person several votes" !

[HALMA 1983]

Forget all this nonsense, Just make sure you vote and it's never for the Tories!

Quite simple really

[Plain Peter]

There was fresh ballot after the first candidate was eliminated , a fresh ballot after the 2nd candidate was eliminated and then a final fresh ballot when they were down to 2 candidates. It bears no resemblance to the pigs ear system that is being advocated by the "yes" campaigners.

One-Hundred-and-heyyyyyyteee

[Posh]

Why isn't David Davies leader of the Conservative Party? These are the results of the first vote in 2005. Under FPTP Davies would be leader but Cameron went on to win under proportional voting.

David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38

This is not really a fair comparison.

There was fresh ballot after the first candidate was eliminated, a fresh ballot after the 2nd candidate was eliminated and then a final fresh ballot when they were down to 2 candidates. It bears no resemblance to the pigs ear system that is being advocated by the "yes" campaigners.

It's a very similar system and one of proportional representation. Instead of having follow-on ballots, its dealt with through preference so it can be concluded in one go.

I notice you don't deal with the fundamental question of why the Tories use PR for their leader and not first past the post? Of course it's much easier to slag off a perfectly good question than it is to actually answer it.

We have one of the oldest democracies in the world and we have always pressed less democratic countries to adopt "one person one vote" and then people here are wanting to change it to "one person several votes" !

Show me one example of where Britain has 'pressed' another country to adopt First Past The Post as their electoral system. I bet you can't.

And if Britain is so wedded to FPTP why have we adopted Proportional Representation for European Elections, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembley Elections and Northern Ireland local elections?

Perhaps you should talk to the Conservative Campaign for Democracy, a group of MPs, councillors and Conservative members fighting for PR and a fully elected House of Lords. They're not all daft.

[Heysham_Shrimp]

Why isn't David Davies leader of the Conservative Party? These are the results of the first vote in 2005. Under FPTP Davies would be leader but Cameron went on to win under proportional voting.

David Davis - 62
David Cameron - 56
Liam Fox - 42
Ken Clarke - 38

This is not really a fair comparison.

There was fresh ballot after the first candidate was eliminated, a fresh ballot after the 2nd candidate was eliminated and then a final fresh ballot when they were down to 2 candidates. It bears no resemblance to the pigs ear system that is being advocated by the "yes" campaigners.

It's a very similar system and one of proportional representation. Instead of having follow-on ballots, its dealt with through preference so it can be concluded in one go.

I notice you don't deal with the fundamental question of why the Tories use PR for their leader and not first past the post? Of course it's much easier to slag off a perfectly good question than it is to actually answer it.

We have one of the oldest democracies in the world and we have always pressed less democratic countries to adopt "one person one vote" and then people here are wanting to change it to "one person several votes" !

Show me one example of where Britain has 'pressed' another country to adopt First Past The Post as their electoral system. I bet you can't.

And if Britain is so wedded to FPTP why have we adopted Proportional Representation for European Elections, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembley Elections and Northern Ireland local elections?

Perhaps you should talk to the Conservative Campaign for Democracy, a group of MPs, councillors and Conservative members fighting for PR and a fully elected House of Lords. They're not all daft.

Its not really a similar system to AV. Each of the MP's had just one vote on the first ballot The MP's didnt rate them 1st preference , 2nd preference etc

Its all academic anyway. The smart money is on "No" win on Thursday. Even a small "yes" win would have no chance as most Conservative MPs and a good number of Labour MP's especially the ones that win with around 40% of the vote are against it.

The European elections have to be under PR due to the vast size of areas represented and the number of representatives for each area.

[marky]

Its all academic anyway. The smart money is on "No" win on Thursday. Even a small "yes" win would have no chance as most Conservative MPs and a good number of Labour MP's especially the ones that win with around 40% of the vote are against it.

A non-implimented yes win would end the coalition and result in an unexpected General Election that would almost certainly see Labour win or a Conservative attempt at minority rule that would end up being impotent and would also result in a general election that Labour would win.

[Heysham_Shrimp]

Its all academic anyway. The smart money is on "No" win on Thursday. Even a small "yes" win would have no chance as most Conservative MPs and a good number of Labour MP's especially the ones that win with around 40% of the vote are against it.

A non-implimented yes win would end the coalition and result in an unexpected General Election that would almost certainly see Labour win or a Conservative attempt at minority rule that would end up being impotent and would also result in a general election that Labour would win.

A "yes" vote is extremely unlikely fortunately but the Lib Dems will not want an election before the agreed date of May 2015.

[marky]

Given the way the Lib Dems are set up as a party, the rank and file membership would almost certainly demand an immeidate withdrawal from the coaltion which the leadership would be duty bound as part of their constitution to adhere to.

[outsider]

Majority for AV 6/1

Majority against AV 1/12


The bookies seem to think its close

[Posh]

Majority for AV 6/1

Majority against AV 1/12


The bookies seem to think its close

I agree. The polls show the vote roughly 60/40 against. This thread though will change it in the 'Yes' camps favour though .

The unknown though is the assembly elections in Scotland and Wales. Turnout there is likely to be around 70% whereas in England turnout in those local elections that are happening is likely to be more like 30% (thus around 20% overall). I can't see the referendum changing these figures much. It's possible that the increased turnout in two parts of Britain where they use AV and have more of a left-wing bias could cause an upset. Unlikely though.

[Plain Peter]

There was a Question Time programme on BBC3 last night about the AV.
Australia was mentioned.
When they went down the AV route, turnout at elections went down by 15%.
That resulted in Compulsory voting.
Australians in general aren't in favour of AV.