Come on then, cards on the table... are you a YES or a NO for AV?

(I can't find a button to create a poll... )

Yes.

Would also like a "write-in/none of the above" option

PL

No

You just have to look at the state of the "government" here in Belgium to realise why

No!
We would finish up like them continentals,holding elections for a new government every three months.
:)

no

far to dangerous

So how does this work? You place a party as a third preference but you really don't want them to get in. They are definitely behind two other parties, both of which you are not entirely sure of anyway. The first two end up not getting enough votes so your third choice actually ends up going toward the eventual winner. How is that democracy?

The continentals don't have to do that, Mr. Draper, nor do the Australians. I'm sick and tired of the Tories and Labour holding massive majorities in Parliament that they can do whatever the **** they like with on less than 40% of the vote. I want a Parliament that is representative of the views of the country, in which they have to take notice of the opinions of the people who elected them, or they'll be dumped.

So a definite YES.

Absolutely!
A lot more of the UKIP and a little of the BNP for balance and the country might have a chance for regeneration. The present system is based upon the fact that it is an ancient (Whigs and Tories) quaint and beloved characteristic of the British Islander that he can only deal with one choice. That's why Hobson's was never a choice at all of course.

Trouble is, whoever (and however) you vote for, the Government allways gets in ......:(

And Flap 5, I understand that in AV, you don't have to put all candidates down - you can just do two or even one.

I'm still voting No tho'......

Under AV, we would have had blasted Brown and his cronies back, so NO! Sadly. because UKIP would be a refreshing change. The LibDems are far too keen on giving everything away to Brussels.

I'll vote for anything that will get rid of the left wing, politically correct huggy fluffing tree huggers and give us a government that will sort out this country.

The AV is unlikely to achieve it.

a big fat NO!

First choice - YES

Second Choice - MAYBE

Third Choice - NO

I may have missed it, but given the vote is not far away I haven't really seen any information about what is proposed, or any sort of Yes/No campaign.

I would like to properly understand before deciding.

It's all out there - all you gotta do is go and look!

The Yes Campaign (http://www.yestofairervotes.org/content/)

And in the interests of fairness, though it pains me to post it:-

The No Campaign (http://www.no2av.org/)

Would have been yes,now definitely NO.The reason: The Cleggster. His world will implode if he loses this and I really,really want to see that happen. Schadenfreude + Nobs.

Kinnock Supports “Yes to AV”Pockets £103,000 in Fees from Electronic Voting Lobbyists - Guy Fawkes' blog (http://order-order.com/2011/03/17/kinnock-supports-yes-to-avpockets-103000-in-fees-from-electronic-voting-lobbyists/)


Kinnock Supports “Yes to AV”
Pockets £103,000 in Fees from Electronic Voting Lobbyists


Neil Kinnock was leader of the Labour Party during the heyday of the SDP-Liberal Alliance. During that period if he had offered the olive branch of electoral reform to the third party he could well have become prime minister. He didn’t out of principle, because in those days he wanted a left-wing Labour government. So what has converted him to the complex cause of electoral reform? Guy News investigates:

£103,000 in director’s fees so far and 30,000 shares in the company poised to make millions in profits from the introduction of electronic voting… what was it exactly that first attracted Lord Kinnock to the cause of the alternative vote system?
Kinnock is a non-executive director of DRS Limited which works closely with ERS Limited, most recently on the multi-million pound deal that unsuccessfully introduced electronic voting systems in Scotland. The multi-million pound business which is ERS Limited funnels money into the not-for-profit ERS which has so far given over a £1 million to the “Yes to AV” campaign. Guido doesn’t think it too cynical to ask why a private profiteering corporation would throw a million quid at a political campaign unless there was something in it for their shareholders. Kinnock isn’t doing it for nothing either, so far he has only pocketed £103,000 in director’s fees from the electronic voting systems profiteers. The fact is, if we get AV, Kinnock’s shares in DRS Limited will rocket up in value…






First-past-the-post is used by 2.4 billion people in 50 countries around the world. Only Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia use AV to elect their MPs. And six out of ten Australians want to go back to FPTP, while Papua New Guinea has only held one AV election and Fiji has made plans to scrap AV.



AV is not a proportional system. In three out of the past four British elections AV would have produced more disproportionate results than First Past the Post. And in landslide elections, AV would have dramatically exaggerated the winners’ majority. For example, in 1997, Tony Blair would have had a majority of 245 MPs under AV, despite only getting 43% of the vote.

I'll voted Yes if it's the same as the Australian system.
However, I think that system works well there because voting is compulsory.
(And that is a good thing too - decreases the amount of fraudulent votes)

The election of the Labour leader was held under AV.

Instead of the 'expected' David, they got the Ed (who was third in the first round of voting).

Go figure. :ugh:

That's a no to AV from me.

I have been in favour of 'proportional representation' since the 1960s, but, having analysed the proposed AV I believe that the current 'first past the post' is 'safer' and less likely to result in 'confusion'.

Maybe there are those who will disagree with my analysis of the Labour leadership election result.

an interesting read...

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/10/25/suppose-uk-voters-accept-the-alternative-vote-in-the-may-referendum%E2%80%A6-but-then-don%E2%80%99t-use-av-to-signal-multiple-party-preferences/?cpage=1

One Man, One vote only.
Saves a load of Faffing around.
I very rarely find that choosing ONE of a load of duffers
is easy, let alone putting the c***s in any sort of order.

One "X" in one box is good enough I think.

The other idea will just lead to even MORE mayhem.

I very rarely find that choosing ONE of a load of duffers
is easy, let alone putting the c***s in any sort of order.



Quality ! nice one norm.

Thanks stuckgear.
I won't bore you with MY party manifesto, Yet!!

Perhaps a military dictatorship of the benevolent sort is the form of government best suited to the British love of well ordered self advantage?

Well, HM the Q IS the head of the Country, and the Armed Forces.
She gets MY vote anytime.
Not too sure about the rest of Her lot though.

I'm voting NO to AV because it will introduce randomness without improving voting quality.

In my neck of the woods most voters don't seem to understand the consequences of their single voting choice now. I see little evidence that people learn from their experience. Giving voters more complex choices isn't going to improve the quality of most people's decisions. Sadly universal understanding doesn't seem to have accompanied universal sufferage.

I'll be a 'no' vote. It seems to me that instead of being first past the post, which is easily understood, it will become first to get almost halfway past the post, therefore more complicated. All this guff about wasted votes, and making everyone's vote count is, well, complete guff (in my opinion). It is a system where the has to be a winner, and some losers. If you have voted your vote isn't wasted: it's only wasted if you don't vote. If you vote, and the party or politician that you voted for loses, you vote was counted, but someone else got more votes: Seemples. The AV way? Why?

And another thing. The Lib Dems campaigned on voting reform to the PR system, and now they are championing the AV system. Maybe not a 'u' turn as such, but not what they campaigned for. Voting reform was not a Conservative campaigning point, and I think that the Conservatives should have told the Lib Dems to keep the voting reform to themselves for the day when they manage to get a majority, and area able to govern in their own right. And is it really a good use of the country's money to have a referendum when all about us there are cuts, savings and redundancies?

If FPTP is like a Rotweiler and PR is like a St Bernard, that makes AV a Poodle IMO :rolleyes:

And Flap 5, I understand that in AV, you don't have to put all candidates down - you can just do two or even one.


It would seem that you are quite well informed and yet you are not sure about this. What about the less well informed voter? How will they understand how to vote? There will be many who will think they have to list every candidate in order of preference. Even ones they detest.

People need to know exactly how they can or can not fill in their ballot paper or it could be discounted as a spoilt ballot paper. How many people are going to be bothered to inform themselves of how to fill in the ballot paper correctly? Or will those people just not bother to vote? As many don't now.

Why aren't we being offered a choice of voting systems in the forthcoming referendum?

(Is the referendum to be conducted under first-past-the-post or according to AV? I think we should be told.)

I can see it now:-

Version 1:-
Please put the options in your preferred order
□ Yes
□ No

Version 2:-
Please place an "x" in the box corresponding to your preference
□ Yes
□ No

:ok:

Extraordinary, that in a forum supposedly inhabited by 'thinking people', there should be such a 'laissez faire' attitude to a topic such as UNIVERSAL suffrage. A great deal of suffering has taken place to allow each and every citizen to exercise his or her political choice in respect of being governed. What has evolved is a system whereby the bureaucrats, not the citizens, decide much of the constitution of this country's Parliament. Individual voting preference is TOTALLY dependent on where you live. If you are a Labour voter in Chelsea your vote DOES NOT COUNT!!! If you are a Tory voter in Scotland, similarly. Why should this be? Because we have put up with this idiotic system of constituency, not National voting. We are, or should be, voting in a NATIONAL Parliament NOT a selection of CONSTITUENCY representatives. It is beyond ludicrous that ANY group should be able to impose policies WITHOUT an OVERALL majority but the present system allows, indeed encourages, just that. The AV suggestion is NOT the answer BUT it is FAR, FAR, FAR better than this 'Buggins turn next' system which we are bedevilled with at present.

Why aren't we being offered a choice of voting systems in the forthcoming referendum?

(Is the referendum to be conducted under first-past-the-post or according to AV? I think we should be told.)

Because the LibDems had PR as the price of joining the coalition, whereas few Conservatives want anything other than FPTP. Compromise was AV, which allowed Clegg to say that he had extracted a price for going into government, and the Conservatives to know that there wasn't a snow ball in hells chance of it being passed.

I would prefer PR to FPTP, but don't think AV goes anywhere near enough to be worth having.

I would prefer to see them ask 'Do you wish the UK to remain in the EU?'

Since they know the answer to that, they won't.

Cornish Jack. You seem to have totally missed the point of the game!!!
For GAME is what it is!!!
My local MP is a Tory. Too bad, I'll have to put up with him until the
NEXT time and Noo Labour get back in.
I certainly DIDN'T vote for him, but he made it into the Parliamentary
Trough despite my small protest, Fair Does I suppose.
But the thing is that HE is still there to"Supposedly" represent his new
Constituency, including even ME, until we get a chance to kick his Ass
out of that position at the next election.
It's a good system really. Even IF we do moan about it a lot.

One has made enquiries, you can still put a tick against the single candidate you despise least and ignore the rest as I shall do if they do vote yes this insanity.
:)

Yer, I knew that anyhow Cap'n Drapes.
But won't it be a waste of paper having to print out a mile
long list of hopefuls for those that don't?
I don't know HOW the Memsahib will get on with the system.
Takes her a week to decide which shoes to wear.

It was a grave error, emancipating Women.
And people that don't own sheep or horses.

One has made enquiries, you can still put a tick against the single candidate you despise least and ignore the rest as I shall do if they do vote yes this insanity.



indeed drapes, the link i posted earlier(http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/10/25/suppose-uk-voters-accept-the-alternative-vote-in-the-may-referendum%E2%80%A6-but-then-don%E2%80%99t-use-av-to-signal-multiple-party-preferences/?cpage=1) explains the problems with this..


Reviewing the evidence from Queensland, which uses the same system as the proposed UK alternative vote, they believe that many voters will treat an AV election as just like ‘first past the post’, and not cast (or perhaps over time stop casting) multiple preferences.
When pollsters ask their respondents how they might distribute their party preferences if faced with the proposed Alternative Vote (AV) electoral system, the vast majority comply with the request and diligently complete a mock ballot paper. The results are then used, as by the British Election Study team (http://bes.utdallas.edu/2009/) at the University of Essex, to simulate how a general election fought under this new system might differ from what went before.
The BES team calculated that the Liberal Democrats would have won 32 more seats in 2010 than they did (89 compared with 57), with the Conservatives and Labour winning 22 and 10 fewer respectively. The political significance of their findings was that such a result would have given Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined a parliamentary majority and made a coalition between them much more feasible, even likely (http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/press_releases/archive/2010/10/08/who-would-benefit-from-av-oct-8-2010.aspx).



In the first table below, we have used the same pattern of vote transfers between parties as reported by the Essex BES team. But here we have made prior assumptions about the proportion of voters likely to support a single party and use no more of their preferences. If this proportion is set at 35 per cent for Tory and Labour supporters, and lower at 25 per cent for Liberal Democrats and all other smaller parties, the increment in Liberal Democat seats falls from 32 to 19. The Tories seats are down by 16 and Labour by three.



Suppose we now set the proportion of voters who support just one party under AV at 50 per cent for Tory and Labour supporters, and at 35 per cent for Liberal Democrats and all the other smaller parties. These numbers are not unrealistic given the Queensland experience. Now the result is shown in our second Table below. The Lib Dems win only an extra 15 seats, at the expense of the Tories (-11) and Labour (-4). Such an outcome in 2010 would have given a potential Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition an overall majority of just two, not enough to proceed. By contrast, the current partners, Tories and Liberal Democrats would together have enjoyed an advantage of 84 over all other parties.

Stuckgear

You allowed Essex Girls to comment publicly on your voting system?

Your'e F*cked

F'eck Me!!! The study team's based in ESSEX???
That's it, Forget the whole sorry idea.

YES

It's not a perfect system ,and I'd prefer full PR based on the party list system as I'm a firm believer that the party thet gets 10% of the popular vote should be entitled to +/- 10% of the seats.

However I'm fed up with about the most undemocratic of all systems - namely FPTP.

Because we have put up with this idiotic system of constituency, not National voting. We are, or should be, voting in a NATIONAL Parliament NOT a selection of CONSTITUENCY representatives.

I don't think having a direct link between constituencies and MP's is in any way "idiotic". It makes them our direct representatives and will hopefully give them an incentive to pay attention to our complaints. It also means - crucially - that if there's a particular candidate you dislike, regardless of colour of rosette, you can vote to dump them. With a so called 'national parliament' I assume that MP's would be chosen according to some sort of party list, i.e. we get even less say in who represents us. How will that empower the electorate?

My former MP was a certain Jacqui Smith. It was a pleasure to kick her troughing backside out, but it was the constituency system that allowed me to do so. With a national parliament, her party leaders would probably have fixed it for her to be an MP again......

BTW, it's a 'no' from me. I don't see any point in replacing one less than perfect system with another equally flawed one. This AV system is just a con trick, a bit of political smoke and mirrors. All that happens is that the votes are artificially re-distributed to give the impression that one of the candidates has an absolute majority of votes.

As I pointed out earlier, look at the mess over here with there still no government after the elections on 13th June 2010. IRAQ got a government of some sort faster after their post-Saddam election.

Now, think what would happen in the UK when the Tories and Labour have to agree to govern with the Greens, BNP, UKIP, Lib-Dems and god knows who else in some sort of unholy mess which has no order, and no clear leadership, whatsoever.

And some of you think that's actually a good idea? Or is it only a good idea because the Tories are, effectively, the ones in charge and you wouldn't change a thing if Labour had formed a coalition with the Lib-Dems?

Cornish Jack, well said.

Andy S, I disagree with almost every aspect of your post.

In the first place, you appear to imply that there is no direct link between constituents and their MP under AV. If that is what you are saying, that is totally wrong.

There is no national list. MP's are voted in in their own constituencies.

Jacqui Smith, even under FPTP, could have been "parachuted in" to another constituency at a later bye-election. This doesn't change under AV. Bye-elections will still happen.

AV is not "equally flawed" as FPTP. It is more representative and comes closer to permitting the makeup of PArliament reflect the political preferences of the electorate. This is called democracy.

You appear to have not the slightest idea what AV is about. And yet you feel qualified to comment on it... :ok:

You appear to have not the slightest idea what AV is about. And yet you feel qualified to comment on it...


well, if Andy S is a UK voter he's perfectly qualified to comment on it as a voter, and that is what democracy is about it. not redistributing votes and tinkering till the minority has control over the majority.:ugh:

stuck, Andy clearly has no idea what AV is about, and yet he has announced that he is opposed to it. Go figure!

And the problem you quote is exactly what AV is intended to solve (to a degree) - that of the minority having control over the majority.

I'm fed up with being ruled by either Tory or NooLabour governments elected on a minority of the franchise, yet holding a huge majority of the seats in Parliament.

I'm fed up with my vote effectively being totally wasted. I'm fed up with the self-satisfied smugness of the politicians with their front trotters in the feeding trough knowing that it matters not a damn what they said before the election, they're in for the next five years and can do as they like until then.

I want a little bit of democracy in the country.

CS,


I want a little bit of democracy in the country.


i hear you and agree with you, however, AV though is like taking a screwdriver to crack a nut.

the problem we have in the political system is not the method of voting, but the candidates being voted for and the abject to failure to present any coherent policy or maintain coherent policy once elected. And once elected to be removed from position on discovery of conflict of interest or pushing forth agendas for personal gain.

we have had the requisite mechanisms in place to prevent such activities, however, they have been diluted, ignored and perverted along with democracy.

the problem i have with AV is that it opens the door to too many minorities each with a personal agenda and of course democracy becomes ever more impossible to uphold.

AV thus, is a screwdriver to crack a nut, if the proponents of AV in the political frame actually gave a toss for democracy, they would be campaining with the same vigour to root out the bad elements in westminster, not add to it and give disporoportinate power to a minority group, which in effect perverts democracy even further. But of course, they wont because it doent serve their personal agenda, so AV actually plays into their hands.

maybe we should have a form of mid terms for elected officials, if they dont perform 'as it says on the tin' they get a heads up that they will be booted out.

we also need a media that is less inclined towards whomever katie price may be f:mad:king this week and more toward objective journalism and not toeing the line of whatever the editors choose ie. impartial reporting.

so all AV is, is smoke and mirrors to let the people think they are getting a new form of democracy and a greater voice, when in reality they are getting less, and we're more likely to be stuck with a tosspot that no one wants, like Clegg, Cable and Huhne. :ugh:

Andy S, I disagree with almost every aspect of your post. In the first place, you appear to imply that there is no direct link between constituents and their MP under AV. If that is what you are saying, that is totally wrong.:

That is NOT what I'm saying.

There is no national list. MP's are voted in in their own constituencies..

Yes I know.

Jacqui Smith, even under FPTP, could have been "parachuted in" to another constituency at a later bye-election. This doesn't change under AV.

Yes I know that as well.

You appear to have not the slightest idea what AV is about. And yet you feel qualified to comment on it....

I'll do you the courtesy you've denied me; I'll take it as read that you are an intelligent person. Please go back and read my post again. If you do so, I'm sure you'll realise that the bulk of it was unrelated to AV. My comments were actually directed at Cornish Jack's call for a 'national' parliament and rejection of the constituency based system.

If you feel the need to pepper your responses with insults, I'm inclined to think you've already lost the argument.......

classic !



The BBC’s two hour attempt (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00ztf0h) to sell AV to the listeners of Radio 5 backfired spectacularly. Not only did Labour win with the Greens in second, something which is sure to go down with their core audience of cabbies and truckers, but it also went out of its way to prove the complexity of the system. And to top it all off, it didn’t work.

Because some people refused to put anything other than a first preference. Something that will happen in reality, the winning candidate could not get over 50% of the vote, rendering the whole basis for the change useless. The election would have been void. Guido can’t imagines the pious and godly Yes campaign staff being the sweary type, but they must have come pretty bloody close when Victoria Derbyshire read out the flawed result.

AV Too Much for BBC - Guy Fawkes' blog (http://order-order.com/2011/03/30/av-too-much-for-bbc/)

Here in Australia, at the last election, the Liberal/National coalition won the majority of the Primary vote but the ALP, as the sitting government, with the preferential voting system, managed to cobble together an unholy alliance between them selves and the Greens and two Independents.

We now have a situation where the Greens are running the show and insisting on a Carbon Tax for a country that contributes less than one percent to world carbon pollution. It doesn't end there either, the Greens have a number of crackpot schemes they are pushing, the price for their support of the ALP on immigration and other issues, (the ALP don't have policies, only issues!).

Be careful what you vote for, having extreme minority factions running the country isn't my idea of a democracy.

So, I'd be able to vote for just the candidate I wish to see elected? That means those who vote for one of the first round winners get just one vote. Those who vote for a loser get a second, third or even fourth chance. How is that fair or proportionate? I want to have as many shots as the next man and if I choose to put them all onto one candidate thats my business and that would be fair. How about making second votes count as half a vote, third votes as a third and so on? That might persuade me to go for it.

"First-past-the-post is used by 2.4 billion people in 50 countries around the world. Only Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia use AV to elect their MPs. And six out of ten Australians want to go back to FPTP, while Papua New Guinea has only held one AV election and Fiji has made plans to scrap AV. "

Stuckgear
Where did this come from?

You should all be aware of mis-information being presented as fact in this discussion. No way do 6 out of 10 Australians want to change our system of elections.
And to my knowledge Australia has never had a FPTP system, so how can we "want to go back to FPTP"?
There is general and great satisfaction in Australia with the current system which has been inplace for over 100 years. The only people who occassionally bring up a proportional rep system as an alternative are the minority parties who want a disproportionate amount of power to their support.

We are going off topic a bit here but it would be fair to say, based on polls and news reports at the time, that when Gillard got the go ahead from the Governor General to form the present government 6 out of 10 Australians did not approve of the system that gave her that opportunity.

Proportional Representation is alive and well in Australia, being the method by which the Senate and most of the State Governments are elected.

The Electoral Act came in in 1918.

For people who may be interested;

Electoral Council of Australia (ECA) - ECA Website (http://www.eca.gov.au/index.htm)


You should all be aware of mis-information being presented as fact in this discussion
;)

Parabellum
Whilst technically correct your post is misleading to those who do not live in Australia.
FPTP is not used Federally nor at a State level ie for government.
Proportional voting is only used in the upper house (both federally and in the states).
As in UK, in Australia the lower house is where government is formed and is the main focus of this discussion.
There is no way a majority (or even a substantial minority) would want to change our lower house preferrential voting system nor compulsory voting (only semi compulsory as if you don't vote you are later sent a please explain and threat of fine, and almost any excuse is accepted (eg I was ill that day - no corroboration needed).
This is not to say I am pleased with the last election, but that is not a reason to change the system of voting, just get better (or fewer) independent members.

Andy S - you are quite right. I completely misread the thrust of your post. I apologise unreservedly, having got the mistaken impression that your comments were objections to AV.

As for Blacksheep's plea for transferred votes being worth less than the first choice, this is an element of STV. I would have no objection to that, either. The only slight niggle with it is that it does complicate the counting process, and therefore slow it down. Dimbleby would have to find more inanities to spout for hours on end... Either that, or we'd have to fork out for electronic voting machinery, and I'm not keen on that.

I'll stick my oar in.

YES.

Not because AV is a good system but because it is not the terrible undemocratic FPTP system we have now.

I'm sick and tired of my vote being pointless.

I'm fed up with minority governments (of whatever denomination).

I want ultimately, PR and this is a step in the right direction, not perfect but lets give it a go.
It cannot be any worse.


By the way, I listened to the BBC R5 program and it was in no way as ill received as Guido Fawks makes out. The counting took a bit longer and the winning candidate won with 49% of the vote, however, as all admitted on the program, 2000 voters was not a large enough group to give a completely accurate outcome compared to a national vote.


I nearly chucked the radio through the window however when a 19yr old young lady admitted to "not understanding how to vote so didn't vote in the last general election" :mad::ugh::ugh:

I think all the Greens should be composted.

As an add-on. The young lady that didn't know how to vote
is not unique in that respect. Most young people nowadays
seem to have very little, practically zero, interest in anything
to do with REAL life.
They seem obsessed with the trivia churned out by the "meejah",
and that's about all. There is NO future I'm afraid.
We're all DOOMED!!!

Listening to the performance of Ed Milliband on R4 this morning i thought it was a good example of what to expect when the chap who originally came third in the vote somehow wins and gets the job.
Enough to make me vote for FPTP..

Tinkering with the voting system will not change the immutable fact that many are just too apathetic to vote. Changing to the proposed AV system will only allow more minority interests to gain seats with little or no overall improvement in the way we are governed, which in itself is the chief reason for the apathy. It's a circular problem and won't change with minor tweaks which is exactly the reason they have decided to offer it up to us as the new Jerusalem.

It's simple, don't vote or spoil your paper, voting only encourages the grasping, power hungry muppets.

I'll be voting no. FPTP may not be perfect, but I see the other methods as letting minority parties/groups have more influence than they deserve. Several people have commented that their vote has never counted, as the person/party they voted for has never won. That is a failure of the candidates/parties, to put over their views and aims, to influence enough people to vote for their vision of how the country or constituency should be run. Minority parties don't get votes, because the majority of voters have not been swayed by their argument.

Dan, the logical extension of your argument is that nobody should be represented in Parliament except the winning party. And, in effect, currently that is what the system produces (bar the current coalition).

I never quite understand the enthusiasm for FPTP, unless your are a politician in a safe seat. Essentially you elect a government the majority of the voters don't want? So the government is unpopular the day it's elected. I'm not sure how that is supposed to be democratic?

While the alternatives are not perfect they have to be better than the essentially undemocratic FPTP system.

The young lady on Radio 5 who didn't know how to vote. She wasn't complaining that she didn't know which party to vote for, she was saying that she (and her mates, apparently) didn't know how to cast a vote, ie fill in a ballot paper. :ugh: She was saying that schools should teach it. :{

With the AV system she may have a point but FPTP??? Jeeesus don't they teach em how to draw X ?

X is the "A" level course.
There are 23 other letters in front of it.

Andy S - you are quite right. I completely misread the thrust of your post. I apologise unreservedly, having got the mistaken impression that your comments were objections to AV.

Cheers - apology accepted. :ok:

Now we can get back to disagreeing on electoral reform......

So where have we got to?
Stormin Normin says that I have missed the point ... hmm. Well, let's see. For the first time in my adult life (at 75) my vote has the same value as anyone else's!!!:ok: I moved, some two years ago, to an area which could be classed in FPTP system as 'marginal'. For the whole of the rest of my adult life I have moved from one 'safe' constituency to another - some Tory some Labour. The only voting process during that time in which my vote (for Lord Sutch's chaps) was valid was the referendum for the EU. Now, as a youngster, I was encouraged to believe that I lived in DEMOCRACY, a State in which the opinion of the MAJORITY was the driving force for political action. But what did we have? Continuous MINORITY government, accepted , indeed applauded in some quarters. as being an example to the rest of the world.:mad::mad: The apparent driving force for this 'Buggins turn next' syndrome was that (Horror of Horrors) we might allow one or two non-conformist viewpoints to be represented in our Parliament. I really don't know whether to laugh or scream at the reasoning behind the retention of FPTP. so all AV is, is smoke and mirrors to let the people think they are getting a new form of democracy and a greater voice, when in reality they are getting less, and we're more likely to be stuck with a tosspot that no one wants, like Clegg, Cable and Huhne Hmm, how grown up is that as a basis for political argument?
If one ignores all of the above, and many will, just consider, for a moment ... In many parts of the world, at the moment, people are DYING in their attempts to introduce changes to allow INDIVIDUAL views to be represented. Something of a pity, then, that we are prepared to put up with so much less.

But, Cornish Jack (and others) WHAT will actually change?

Most "seats" are pretty much safe ones, no change in the voting system will make the people of Hull vote in anyone else apart from Labour (Labour since 1964), same as no change will make Westminster vote for anything apart from Tory. You could put a tub of lard in as the candidate and the result will be the same! It's only in the "marginals" where there may be a change, so nothing will be new there.

Let's face it, stuckgear is right. It's all just smoke and mirrors. And bloody expensive ones at that.


PS. Until someone has the guts to start compulsory voting, you'll never get a government that is voted in by the "majority" of the people. Best remember that.

hellsbrink, Reddo made the same point about compulsory voting.

I don't think it would be such a bad thing at all. They don't have to vote sensibly, they can write "Mickey Mouse for King" on the ballot papers for all anyone cares, but they have to turn up at the polling station (unless they have an excuse such as being out of the country), register their presence, take a ballot paper, put something on it and stick it in the box.

Then perhaps people will take their civic duties a bit more seriously. After all, people did die so that they could have the vote in the first place.

Then perhaps people will take their civic duties a bit more seriously. After all, people did die so that they could have the vote in the first place.


If only that were acheivable CS ! not voting is not as bad those that perpetually vote the same way and have not one iota of comprehension of the policies of the party they vote for. at least not voting is withdarwl of support for any party rather than blindly voting for a party 'cos that's what they've always done' or its 'the party their grand-dad voted for'.

i wholeheartedly agree with you on the desire for democratic representation, and as such remain a firm NO to AV.


edit to add:


stuckgear is right.


i'm going to print that out and wave it at the wife from time to time, as needed.

not voting is not as bad those that perpetually vote the same way and have not one iota of comprehension of the policies of the party they vote for

Exactly, and there lies the issue. As I said, in many inner city/former industrial areas you could put a red rosette on dog turd and the sheeple would vote it in as a Labour MP. In many "rural" areas you could put a blue rosette on a pavement pizza and that would be their Tory MP. It's the way things are, and these things will not change just because of "AV".

Changing the voting system will not change that, they would still vote for a monkey wearing a red rosette in Hartlepool (but kill one that was wearing blue).

Correct, hellsbrink - there will always be safe seats because of the nature of the constituency, because of local loyalties, or simply (and probably rarely) because the MP is a damned good type.

But none of that is an argument to stay with FPTP.

So, if you agree that your vote under AV can mean as much as it does under FPTP, what is the point in changing the system, at great expense to the taxpayer during a time of huge budget cuts, as a sop to the Lib Dems who, arguably, would not even gain any more seats under AV?

Where would be the "advantage" of having a hung parliament after every election, with the potential for a mess like over here where we STILL don't have a government following the last election (it's still a "caretaker" government made up of the lot who had to call an election due to their coalition falling apart) and the potential of being like Italy and having more elections than a chinaman on his honeymoon?

your vote under AV can mean as much as it does under FPTP"can" does not mean always will.

Because things won't change much, if at all, in safe seats doesn't mean they won't change in the more marginal seats.

In those, things might change quite significantly.

Hells,

And that is the answer, AV will not change things worth a jot and I am more than a little surprised at the amount of "intelligent" folk that think it will.

FPTP has gotten us a coalition gov't where the Tories can't do everything they want and likewise for the Lib Dems and whilst it's going to be feckin painful I expect most folk will look back in 4 years time and think the hurt was worth it.

FPTP may not be ideal but AV is certainly not the answer.

AV will not change things worth a jot and I am more than a little surprised at the amount of "intelligent" folk that think it will.

FPTP has gotten us a coalition gov't...What a load of rubbish.

AV will change things - if it didn't there'd be bugger all point in pushing it. Even the No2AV website doesn't claim it won't change anything.

I'm not sure why you put the word intelligent in inverted commas there, unless it was to try to be insulting.

And can you remember when we last had a coalition government? Discounting the WWII government of National Unity, the last one was Lloyd George's, which left office in 1922. The result of the last election was a freak in psephological terms.

The last result was the verdict of those in the country who voted, simple as.

The majority of folk in the country have either voted Labour or Conservative for all their voting lives and I doubt that will ever change.

It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out that safe seats will ever thus be and that in every marginal the main parties will point out over and over again the folly of an AV likely foisting an unwanted candidate on a constituency.

In that case people will do as they always have done and simply place one tick on the AV slip, none of this is difficult to understand. As a concept AV is totally flawed and the major parties will drive a bus through it come election time.

I disagree with you totally.

But if you happened to be right, and you're happy with the degree to which Parliament reflects the wishes of the electorate, then you need have no problem with the system changing.

I disagree with you totally.

But if you happened to be right, and you're happy with the degree to which Parliament reflects the wishes of the electorate, then you need have no problem with the system changing.

Apart of course from the squilions it's going to cost the UK tax payer for yet another public service that is not fit for purpose.

She wasn't complaining that she didn't know which party to vote for, she was saying that she (and her mates, apparently) didn't know how to cast a vote, ie fill in a ballot paper.

I worked in an Electoral booth at the last Federal election here & our standard greetings to the punters included an explanation of what they had to do. If they were from a NES background, we were allowed to assist them cast their vote. Quite a few people took up that offer too.

hellsbrink, Reddo made the same point about compulsory voting.
And quite a valid point it is. If you can't be arsed getting out of your chair to let them know what you think, then you deserve what you get.

Apart of course from the squilions it's going to cost the UK tax payer for yet another public service that is not fit for purpose.

How, precisely, do you work out that it's going to cost "squillions" that are not already being spent on the election process?
What "public service" is new?
What evidence do you have that it will not be fit for purpose?

All you have come up with are standard scare-mongering pieces of total garbage with not a shred of evidence, based on nothing but emotive nonsense.

FPTP is a blatantly unfair system which penalises anyone wishing to vote for anyone but the two main parties. It is being opposed by Tories and Labour in three-way marginals for one reason and one reason alone - they'll have to justify their policies after they get elected, if they get elected. They'll be more accountable to their electorate and, once in government, will have to think a lot more before they push through their own (previously undeclared) hobby-horse policies, and will have to justify them to the House of Commons. Cabinet Ministers will therefore be more accountable to Parliament rather than to the Whips' Office and the PM.

THAT is why they don't like it - because the hands of the electorate will be a little more in control of the reins.

[list=a]

How, precisely, do you work out that it's going to cost "squillions" that are not already being spent on the election process?

All you have come up with are standard scare-mongering pieces of total garbage with not a shred of evidence, based on nothing but emotive nonsense.

.

The beauty of democracy is we are entitled to an opinion and it's clear you and I have different stances however the notion you offer that my opinion is based on nothing more than emotion detracts from your argument.

Your opinion is no doubt based on your own reasoned thought process as is mine, the main difference being I am not rubbishing you for having an opposing view.

According to the same BBC R5 program, there will be no change to the cost of AV elections due to the fact that most of the cost is to pay the counters.

Which is a fixed fee. They may have to work twice as long though. :E

The referendum on the other hand may well be a kings ransom. :suspect:

The referendum on the other hand may well be a kings ransom. :suspect:

My point precisely :ok:

Sfp, it will evade nobody's notice that you haven't answered any of my points. I challenged you to come up with any evidence for your assertions of cost (even the Daily Mail, having made that assertion, fails to back it up) and you failed. I challenged you to state what "public service" would be new, and you failed. I challenged you to come up with any reasoning whatever that the new system, if implemented, would be a failure, and you failed to do that.

What are we to assume? That you have your reasons and evidence, but are too shy to present them? That you would like to argue further, but are due to wash your hair right now? Or that you quite simply can't?

The referendum will cost very little more than the other local government elections taking place at the same time. More rubbish. Furthermore, if that was your point it was very well disguised, since what you actually posted was "Apart of course from the squilions it's going to cost the UK tax payer for yet another public service that is not fit for purpose." No mention of the cost of the referendum.

CS you are almost as demanding as Mrs SFFP and it would appear almost as cyclic.

It's my opinion that

In every safe seat up and down the land the AV voting slip will be nothing more than a source of mirth as the majority voter will be free to tick any box he/she likes safe in the knowledge that it makes not a jot of difference as the safe candidate will always get in.

In every marginal seat the Party Political campaigning of each of the big 3 will be along the lines of tick one box to avoid getting lumbered with a minority candidate.

The up coming referendum will cost the taxpayer squillions to potentially put in place a public service that is simply not fit for purpose.

The above is not based on fact, figure or even media influence it's simply an opinion arrived at and based on reading and listening to a variety of information.

<sigh>

I have presented you with reasons why the referendum will not cost "squillions" since it will occur at the same time as the local government elections. Yes, it will cost more since local elections are not being held everywhere, but very far from "squillions".

I disagree with you on people's reasoning and actions in marginal constituencies since in marginal Tory seats quite a lot of people will vote (1) Tory (2) Lib Dem or Independent or Green in order to keep Labour out. To act as you imply by not expressing a second or third preference will not achieve the end they want. If they don't get their (preferred) Tory candidate, they will most likely end up with the candidate they least want. People may be stupid, but not as stupid as all that.

On the expense, the fitness for purpose, the (apparently new) public service, you simply reiterate yet again what you said before, with no evidence, no reasoning.

I can understand where Mrs. SFFP is coming from.

Grins

Squillions/millions/zillions you put a price on it that suits you but sure as eggs are eggs the British taxpayer is going to get hooped.

I have yet to read a comment from anyone credible that says that AV is the perfect answer to FPTP so why are we even considering it. Either do the right thing and vote on PR or leave things as they are as it's cheaper and not pointless in the long run.

The whole AV thing is nothing more than the political trade off that is now the coalition which anyone with an ounce of common sense can see.

The Electoral Commission is to run TV adverts and distribute leaflets explaining the current FPTP system and also the proposed AV system.

Expect your copy among the junk mail any day soon.

Squillions/millions/zillions you put a price on it that suits you but sure as eggs are eggs the British taxpayer is going to get hooped.I have no idea where you think the extra expense is going to go. Counts will take longer, yes. But the people carrying out the counts are paid anyway. Schools, church halls etc. will stay open the same length of time for polling so there will be no more expense in hiring them, and sports halls, civic centres etc. where counts are held aren't much in demand overnight so there won't be any more cost there.

If anything, the bill will result in lower costs since the number of constituencies is being reduced.
I have yet to read a comment from anyone credible that says that AV is the perfect answer to FPTP so why are we even considering it. Either do the right thing and vote on PR or leave things as they are as it's cheaper and not pointless in the long run.Nobody has claimed it to be "the perfect answer". There is no "perfect" voting system. AV is merely fairer than FPTP, will result in MPs being more answerable to Parliament and in governments having to think a little more before they force through their doctrinal hobby horses. AV will also result in constituency MPs remaining responsible and accountable to their own constituencies, unlike PRSTV.
The whole AV thing is nothing more than the political trade off that is now the coalition which anyone with an ounce of common sense can see. Of course it is.

It's the LibDems quid pro quo for having thus far supported the Tories in office. LibDems have been in favour of a more equitable electoral system for years, for reasons that any fool can see. Now they have the opportunity to further that aim. Labour and Tories have opposed it for years, also for reasons any fool can see. And the reason is the same on both sides - because a more equitable electoral system will break up the nice little Tory/Labour undemocratic cartel they had running.

The Electoral Commission is to run TV adverts and distribute leaflets explaining the current FPTP system and also the proposed AV system.

Expect your copy among the junk mail any day soon.

Wonder who is paying for all that.................

And the reason is the same on both sides - because a more equitable electoral system will break up the nice little Tory/Labour undemocratic cartel they had running.

Do you seriously believe AV with all its potential for abuse will achieve this?

What potential for abuse?

And yes, I believe it will (at very worst) go a long way towards achieving that.

AV as a concept is brilliant, you vote in order of preference and if the expected candidate does not get enough votes the "alternative" gets in.

But in order for this to happen everyone needs to fully complete the voting slip which is sadly not a pre requisite of the suggested system, hence abuse.

That AV is flawed is not in doubt but what is in doubt is what, considering the cost of asking the country the question the actual benefits are.

For most folk an AV ballot paper may as well be a FPTP paper as they will simply vote as they always have done.

Failing to list all your preferences is hardly abuse of the system. Hardly fraud, is it? All it is is, in effect, stating that after your first preference, all others are equal in your opinion. It's no more "abuse" than leaving a FPTP ballot form blank. What's your problem?

I think even the British public are able to understand that they can now put 1,2,3,4 etc. against their preferences instead of merely a cross against their first preference. Even my old mother, were she not now pushing up daisies, could follow that much. And she wasn't the brightest.

The people who most wish to express further preferences will, I am sure, do so. Alternatively, as I pointed out previously, they might end up with the candidate they least want. Their look-out.

"can" does not mean always will.

Because things won't change much, if at all, in safe seats doesn't mean they won't change in the more marginal seats.

In those, things might change quite significantly.

How?

Under the present system, a marginal can mean a protest vote where, like last year, people pissed with ZaNu Labour voted Tory or LD. The MAJORITY, as in "the highest number of the people who voted", of those who voted will have voted for someone based on the fact that it wasn't <insert demon of choice here>.

How will AV change that? The person with the most votes will still win. Unless you are happy with someone who DOESN'T get the most votes being elected as MP and that makes a mockery of the word "democracy" as it means the wishes of the people, the wishes of the MAJORITY, is being overruled.

The person who wins the most votes will still win.

What is different under AV is how those votes are counted.

If you are worried that the person with the most first preference votes might not win, then that's a different matter.

First Preferences:-
Candidate A gets 40%
Candidate B gets 35%
Candidate C gets 25%

No candidate has got over 50% (an absolute majority) so Candidate C is eliminated. If his second preference votes went 30% to A and 70% to B, A then has a further 7½% and B has a further 17½%.

Second Preferences:-
A:- 40% + 7½% = 47½%
B:- 35% + 17½% = 52½%

B is elected.

This does not mean that a minority candidate is elected, or that someone "who doesn't get the most votes" is elected. It means that, instead of the most popular candidate being elected, the one who is least unpopular gets the job.

Now if one assumes that those who voted for C absolutely hated A but didn't express any second preference thinking, like Seldomfitforpurpose, that not putting down a second preference would help their case, it is demonstrated that their doing so actually lets their bête noir in. Bad mistake!

So under AV, people in a marginal Tory constituency can safely vote for their first preference (assume Tory) without having to vote tactically just to keep Labour out. They can vote Tory first, LibDem second, UKIP third, BNP fourth and Monster Raving Loony Party fifth. Therefore the "wishes of the people" as you put it, are expressed far more cogently and the person they all hate (whomever that might be) remains a prospective parliamentary candidate. Democracy in action - you gotta love it!

Just two weeks before (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-want-to-push-this-all-the-way-declares-clegg-1950668.html) the last election, Nick Clegg dismissed AV as a “miserable little compromise”. In a speech on Friday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12504941), however, he claimed it would “make a big difference” and solve everything from voter apathy to dishonesty in politics.
Of course, Clegg’s remarkable conversion hasn’t been gaffe-free. Not content with parroting the Yes to AV campaign lines (http://www.no2av.org/tag/yes-to-av/), Clegg went further and claimed that London’s mayoral elections use AV. As dozens of journalists immediately pointed out (http://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/38527207865466880), this is categorically wrong – London elections use the more limited system of the Supplementary Vote.
Clegg also seemed to forget which system he’s campaigning for when he claimed that under AV “no one’s vote is wasted”. The system the Lib Dems used to support – the Single Transferable Vote – does deliver a proportional outcome and eliminate so-called ‘wasted votes’, but AV doesn’t.
Indeed, as Roy Jenkins told us back in 1998, AV can actually be more disproportional than our existing system. Even under the Yes campaign’s definition of a ‘wasted vote’, all votes for non-winning candidates have been wasted – and the others get cobbled together as a hodge-podge of first, second and fourth preferences.
Mr Clegg also managed to downgrade one of the Yes campaign’s messages. The Yes campaign have previously (and erroneously) claimed that AV would ensure that winning candidates get 50% of the vote. But Clegg said they will just “need to aim to get half of their constituents to choose them.” This weasel-worded claim says nothing at all – under first past the post, of course, candidates also “need to aim to get” as many votes as they can!
Moreover, research by Professors Rallings and Thrasher has shown that ‘more than four out of ten’ MPs still won’t get 50% of the vote under AV. So Nick Clegg and the Yes campaign’s best reason to vote for AV simply doesn’t stack up.
Mr Clegg went on to say, “for years, politicians and parties have courted the votes of a few thousand people in marginal seats and ignored the rest.” AV, however, doesn’t get rid of swing seats – and it would do nothing in the more than 200 constituencies where sitting MPs already have more than 50% of the vote. Again, Mr Clegg seems to be confused whether he is campaigning for PR – which would reduce the impact of marginal seats – or AV.


Unfortunately, the UK has some severe problems, the result of many years mis-management and exponentially increasing debt.

I really don't know what result people were expecting after the general election last year, that it would all just go away? It wont, not for many years, if ever. That is the hard truth.

Often we routinely hear claims like 'we need a great statesman, like Churchill' or whomever and frankly that is f:mad:king bolloaux. No matter how great a statesman, even if arisen from the dead of history, the debt and failures will not go away. What it seems 'we' want and hope for is a miracle. Will AV will give us this miracle person from a fringe party ?

It isn't going to happen.

If anything, AV will just lead to more minority parties cutting backroom deals with larger parties. Fringe policies, which in all reality in are unworkable, becoming more prevalent, further reducing any capacity for the problems to be actually dealt with. And cost, its not the cost of vote counting that's the problem, it's the costs to country both now and in the future in not dealing with the immediate problems rather than debating fringe issues. The new democracy isn't a new democracy at all its an abomination of democracy, it is just smoke and mirrors.

But then I believe in a democratic system; I may not trust it, but I believe in it, that's why if anyone chooses to vote yes, that's their choice, in as much as if they want to vote for 'X', 'Y' OR 'Z' in FPTP; and I'll be voting a big fat 'NO' to AV.

The person who wins the most votes will still win..........

First Preferences:-
Candidate A gets 40%
Candidate B gets 35%
Candidate C gets 25%

No candidate has got over 50% (an absolute majority) so Candidate C is eliminated. If his second preference votes went 30% to A and 70% to B, A then has a further 7½% and B has a further 17½%.

Second Preferences:-
A:- 40% + 7½% = 47½%
B:- 35% + 17½% = 52½%

B is elected.

But candidate B doesn't have the most votes. Not on first preferences anyway. So with the (very plausable) scenario you describe, someone who gained the preference of little more than one third of the electorate will actually win.

How can this be any fairer than FPTP? The only legitimacy candidate B will have is that they will be, as you put it, the "least unpopular" candidate.

I agree andy.

also it could be considered that 40% is the majority vote. Thus 65% of the voters do not have political representation for which they voted for and the 35% minority party dominates the representation. that's hardly democratic.

AV is an abomination of electoral representation and if the objective is democratic representation then this clearly indicates the converse is the case.

still a No to AV here.

Do we have to have a simple yes or no vote on AV voting?

Can we have a first or second choice system??:E:E

If anything, AV will just lead to more minority parties cutting backroom deals with larger parties. Fringe policies, which in all reality in are unworkable, becoming more prevalent, further reducing any capacity for the problems to be actually dealt with.

I thought that was the argument against PR? :confused:


Surely, under AV, backroom deals will have to be broadcast to the electorate so that they can vote accordingly. A more open system perhaps?

EG.

Candidate A agrees with Candidate B on policy 'xyz'.

Canditate C agrees with Canditate B on policy 'efg'.

If there is a secret backroom deal cut between A & B or C & B, the voter can't vote accordingly as he/she has no knowledge of it. However if A & B and C & B come out of the closet and openly express an honest accord between the two then the voter ticks the box as required and we get the government that is most favourable to the most voters.





According to the Electoral Reform Society (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55) this AV system is quite popular....



•Leadership elections for Labour and Liberal Democrats

•Elections for UK parliamentary officials including Select Committee Chairs.

•Elections for the Academy Award for Best Picture
•Australian House of Representatives.
•Millions of people in membership organisations, businesses and trade unions internal elections.

•Most Student Union elections.
•Irish Presidential election.
•Numerous American City, Mayoral and district elections.

Begs the question, Why?

But candidate B doesn't have the most votes. Not on first preferences anyway. So with the (very plausable) scenario you describe, someone who gained the preference of little more than one third of the electorate will actually win.The corollary of that is that 60% of the electorate don't want Candidate A. So where is his legitimacy?

It's not that one version is fair and the other is unfair - it's a question of which system gives the most representative House of Commons given the popular franchise?

And according to that criterion, AV wins over FPTP every time.

The corollary of that is that 60% of the electorate don't want Candidate A. So where is his legitimacy?.

But equally, 65% don't want candidate B, who is ultimately the winning candidate. Is candidate B therefore any more legitimate?

It's not that one version is fair and the other is unfair - it's a question of which system gives the most representative House of Commons given the popular franchise?

Now we're singing from the same hymnsheet. Almost.

I agree with the first part of your statement. In fact as far as I'm concerned there is no entirely fair system. They're all less than perfect and they all have inherent contradictions. I think we have to be grown up enough to accept that when it comes to choosing a parliament, we can't necessarily have what we - personally - would like every time.

As regards a representative House of Commons, you could argue that the fairest system in this respect would be straightforward PR. Is that something you would find agreeable?

But equally, 65% don't want candidate B, who is ultimately the winning candidate. Is candidate B therefore any more legitimate?But significantly more of those who had wanted C but were told couldn't have him as their MP said they wanted B rather than A. Therefore, yes, B has more legitimacy, I would contend. However, had C's second preferences split 50:50, indicating that people couldn't give a damn which of the other two they'd prefer, A would have been elected on the basis of having polled more first preference votes.I agree with the first part of your statement. In fact as far as I'm concerned there is no entirely fair system. They're all less than perfect and they all have inherent contradictions. I think we have to be grown up enough to accept that when it comes to choosing a parliament, we can't necessarily have what we - personally - would like every time.Agreed, with the following proviso - that the makeup of Parliament should as far as is possible reflect the wishes of the electorate. FPTP almost never achieves that.

It is quite conceivable that Tories could win 35% of the national vote, Labour 34%, LibDems 31% and that every seat be held by Tories. (Yes, I know they don't put candidates up in every constituency but I'm talking about the system.) This, I think you would agree, would hardly be democratic.

So if total harmony between the national poll percentages and the percentage of seats in the House of Commons is not possible, I think it is democratic to try to approach it more closely than we do at present under FPTP.
As regards a representative House of Commons, you could argue that the fairest system in this respect would be straightforward PR. Is that something you would find agreeable?If you are talking about PR by STV, in principle, yes. In practice, however, no, since as you have already pointed out, we would have to lose at least some of the direct representation of the constituents by their MP. Multi-member constituencies might be a possibility, but the reorganisation would be phenomenal, the upheaval and confusion unconscionable.

Perhaps the best reason for adopting AV, if you absolutely have to have a form of PR, is the sheer practicality of application.

When the vote gets stalled you simply take the lowest candidate, open his/her ballot boxes, and recount the votes, looking at the second line instead of the first. There will be only a small number of papers to count and these can be added to the existing totals for the other candidates.

It may not be the fairest theoretical way of implementing PR but it is certainly the easiest to operate.

Good point, mike, and another mark against PR by STV, which is very very complicated and time-consuming to operate.

Given that we're in the 'Don't confuse me wth the facts, I've made my mind up' style of JetBlast political 'discussions', allow me to 'adjust' Hellsbrinks previous contribution - Unless you are happy with the Party who DOESN'T get the most votes being elected as Government and that makes a mockery of the word "democracy" as it means the wishes of the people, the wishes of the MAJORITY, is being overruled.
Interesting, n'est ce pas?

Interesting, n'est ce pas?


oh yes.

perhaps we need to flush the houses of commons and lords through and revert to monarchic governance.

is there going to be a tick box for that on an AV vote ?

Do we have to have a simple yes or no vote on AV voting?

Can we have a first or second choice system??:E:E


I'd like three choices......
1-No
2-Never
3-Not while I have a hole in my arse!

And the poor old British tax payer is forking out 6 million on an advertising campaign to tell us all about this magical system where we can all elect the odd candidate that nobody really wanted to start with.

So that he/she can go to Westminster and apart from the occasional meddle will sit on the outside of everything and have the same effect as a damp squib.

Sounds like money well spent to me.........NOT!

1) Do you have any evidence for that figure of £6m?
2) If nobody wanted a candidate in the first place, he/she would not get elected
3) If there is some problem with what MPs do once elected, it's nothing to do with the voting system.
4) You think keeping people informed of developments, options and government proposals is not wisely spent? Very strange. If you prefer to be kept in the dark - oh - sorry - I see you already prefer to be in the dark.

BBC News - Ad campaign to raise awareness of voting referendum (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12929457)

Have a little read. One listens to Radio 5 whilst in the car and BBC news is on in the office and as I do occasionally pay some attention it would seem not so in the dark this end, oh and do try to keep it polite chap :ok:

The corollary of that is that 60% of the electorate don't want Candidate A. So where is his legitimacy?

His "legitimacy" is that the MAJORITY of voters wanted him or his party. That is the bottom line.

Let's use a nice analogy for you, a simple one that everyone can understand.

Chelsea finish 1st in the Premiership at the end of the season, but the "champion" title is given to Man U, who came in second, because over half the footie fans in Engerland don't like Chelsea. Or Ferrari come in second in the F1 Constructors Championship but get the title because there are more Ferrari fans than any other fans. Do you think that would be an acceptable outcome, that people would think it "fair" or "right"? You wouldn't, so why is it acceptable in politics when the person who wins, loses.

so, i just got back from picking my wife up from the station from her week in london, she knew toss all about the AV referendum.

as noted, it's the first referndum since 1975, you'd think there would be more fanfare about it.

and with SFFP's note one the beeb, here's a question. does there have to be a turn out level for the AV referendum vote. i mean, if say only 10 percent of voters turn out for it and many will not be aware, or able to attend the vote then will the results between the cast votes actually stand, our whole political electoral system changed drastically with many people not knowing about may 5th...

doesnt seem very... democratic.

There was a proposal from the House of Lords that the forthcoming referendum would only be valid if a minimum of 40% of the electorate voted.

This was defeated during several returns to the Commons.

ConservativeHome's Parliament Page: House of Lords finally concedes over 40% referendum threshold (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/02/house-of-lords-finally-concedes-over-40-referendum-threshold.html)

His "legitimacy" is that the MAJORITY of voters wanted him or his party. That is the bottom line.No they didn't. The majority wanted one or other of the other candidates. Given that one group of them is effectively told they can't have their first choice (I assume you will agree this step is fair), and to choose between the remaining two, they make that choice, and B gets it. B has the majority. No, he didn't have the majority or even the largest number of first preference votes, but the way the system works gives people a second or further choice if their first choice happens to be eliminated. Thus people are given MORE say in who is sent to Parliament.

Simples!

You final paragraph has no relevance whatsoever.

If you would like a better example, there's one here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system#Example_II). Admittedly it concerns a two-round system (such as that used by the Tories and Labour to elect their leader, also the French President) but the principle is exactly the same.

stuckgear, polling cards will be sent out exactly as for local elections, parliamentary elections etc., so I assume there won't be much excuse for not knowing it's happening.

Same shit(houses), different system.

Lid

so your third choice actually ends up going toward the eventual winner
No, it doesn't.

stuckgear, polling cards will be sent out exactly as for local elections, parliamentary elections etc


thats good to hear, thanks for the heads up CS.

will be sent out exactly as for local elections, parliamentary elections etc., so I assume there won't be much excuse for not knowing it's happening.

So about that 6 million squid, did you read up on it :ok:

If the IOC use it, it must be fair...right?:E

No they didn't. The majority wanted one or other of the other candidates. Given that one group of them is effectively told they can't have their first choice (I assume you will agree this step is fair), and to choose between the remaining two, they make that choice, and B gets it. B has the majority. No, he didn't have the majority or even the largest number of first preference votes, but the way the system works gives people a second or further choice if their first choice happens to be eliminated. Thus people are given MORE say in who is sent to Parliament.

There is no "fair" when the person with the most votes come second, CS, that person got the most people expressing they wanted that person as their elected MP, that is the legitimacy.

And, as has been pointed out, since most people won't vote in the first case, and since most who do will not give "alternatives" then the person who wins could, quite easily, NOT be the one who represents the views of the electorate, he will not represent any sort of "majority", it will still be a minority.

Bring in compulsory voting with this, and a complete revamp of the whole system so it is PARTIES and NOT INDIVIDUALS who are voted in and then you MIGHT say that it is viable. But this current shambles will merely result in absolute confusion when it comes to an election, it will possibly result in a government that the people do not want (Labour come in second abut win? How can that be right?), and, probably, result in unstable governments where, like here/Israel/Italy/etc, a coalition falls apart on a regular basis meaning new elections MUST be called. How can that instability be good for the country, you just have to look here to see how that is not good.

BTW. A posy earlier mentioned that the House of Lords wanted a 40% turnout to legitimise the referendum and that was blocked. How can you say that any referendum would be legitimate with a minority, and maybe a very small minority, of the population "wanting change". How is that "democratic"?

So do I then understand, hellsbrink, that you maintain the only "fair" electoral system is FPTP?

And no, Seldom, I can find nothing on that £6m.

BBC News - Ad campaign to raise awareness of voting referendum (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12929457)

Here you go chap, I have reposted the link for you and if you go two thirds of the way down you will find the following paragraph

"The watchdog is spending £6m on its information campaign ahead of the elections, the most significant test of public opinion since last year's general election"

As I said not in the dark this end chap:ok:

Thank you, dear chap - most kind.

£6m is not really much for an ad campaign, and a drop in the ocean when one considers the extent of government finances. That works out at 10p per person in the country. Not bad value for informing people about the issues in democracy on which their opinion is to be sought!

I hope that also reassures stuckgear, who was worrying about people not knowing.

The most disappointing aspect for me is the fact they are having to spend the 6 million in the first place, does rather put the countries attitude toward electoral reform into context.

I suspect that the main reason the vast majority of UK citizens have no idea about AV is because most, like me, are of the notion that if you get the majority of the votes cast you get elected.

As opposed to you get the majority of the votes cast but don't get elected because some new system works out that the person with less initial votes actually had more "well if I can't have the one I want in power I suppose he/she will do" votes.

I support the Tories, always have and always will but I would rather see a Labour candidate elected who would help form a government than an ineffectual marginal candidate who would have zero influence on anything.

So do I then understand, hellsbrink, that you maintain the only "fair" electoral system is FPTP?

The person who gets the most votes wins, that's fair. Just because there are those who do not wish that person/party (for you are actually voting for the party, in general) to be elected does not matter one jot as the person you voted for who lost obviously did not do enough to persuade enough of the people to vote for him/her.


The good thing that will happen is that far more BNP nutjobs will be elected. I can't wait for the day when one of the major parties has to negotiate with them to be part of a coalition. And, after that day comes, I can't wait to see how long it will be before the voting system is "reformed" again. But, hey, you'll get your wish and you'll get your shambolic coalition governments where nothing will actually be done for the good of the country. Hell, maybe one day you'll break the Belgian record for failing to form a government. And on that day I will laugh my guts out at the whining about the shambolic AV/PR system you wanted that will follow.

hellsbrink, do you think that Australia has a "shambolic coalition governments where nothing will actually be done for the good of the country"?

Once again, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, we ought to abolish Parliament entirely and have a dictatorship - strong, stable, not in the least shambling...

Or do you want democracy? By which I mean genuine democracy in which the makeup of the House of Commons reflects the political preferences of the electorate?

That's a good one, CS, especially when you read the Oz politics thread or even some of the comments in this thread. But why just look at Oz when you can look at Ireland, Belgium, Israel, Canada, Pakistan, etc? Or do these countries not appear on your radar due to the coalitions collapsing?

As far as the "political wishes" of the country, when you consider that most of the people who vote vote in one of two ways, for either Labour or Conservative. Generally, their "wishes" are either fulfilled or destroyed depending on who gets power. It's only the small minority who want the LibDems in power who never have their "wishes" represented and that is right since they are a small minority of the people.

Of course, the AV proposal will give them an unbalanced and unjust voice due to the small matter of them getting an unrepresentative result in any election as they would get "votes" they would never normally get. So the actual "wishes" of the population will not represented as these "wishes" will be twisted by the results of AV.

That's a good one, CS, especially when you read the Oz politics thread or even some of the comments in this thread.The point of the question is whether Australian governments are particularly unstable or shambolic - a question which you have not answered.But why just look at Oz when you can look at Ireland, Belgium, Israel, Canada, Pakistan, etc?As far as I know none of those use AV, so there's not a lot of point.As far as the "political wishes" of the country, when you consider that most of the people who vote vote in one of two ways, for either Labour or Conservative. Generally, their "wishes" are either fulfilled or destroyed depending on who gets power. It's only the small minority who want the LibDems in power who never have their "wishes" represented and that is right since they are a small minority of the people.In the 2010 election, Tories won 36% of the vote, Labour 29%, LibDems 23%. In the previous election the results were 32%, 35% and 22% respectively. Hardly a "small minority.

You can also reckon that, if people thought their vote for parties other than the two main ones was more likely to count, the proportion of LibDem votes would increase. As it is, most people opposed to the most likely candidate to win in their constituency will vote for the likely runner-up in an attempt to keep the front-runner out.

As it is, the Tories on 36% of the vote won 47% of the seats.
Labour, with 29% of the vote won 39% of the seats.
LibDems, with 23% of the vote won less than 9% of the seats.

LibDems share of seats in the House dropped from the previous election, despite increasing their popular vote.
Of course, the AV proposal will give them an unbalanced and unjust voice due to the small matter of them getting an unrepresentative result in any election as they would get "votes" they would never normally get. So the actual "wishes" of the population will not represented as these "wishes" will be twisted by the results of AV.It looks to me like things are quite twisted enough.

We need AV to sort out the disgraceful inequalities of the House of Commons. In a democracy the seats in the government should be allocated roughly according to the popular vote. You are either in favour of democracy or opposed to it.

Which is it?

Surely the best way of seeing more honest election results would be to be to make voting compulsory?
I understand it is compulsory in Australia.
:)

Is the government shambolic in Aus? When you see them kow-towing to the MINORITY Green party wishes (think carbon tax) instead of their own promises/policies, then you can say "yes". When you see open discussion, not only here, about the leader being knifed in the back for incompetence, etc, and replaced mid-term, like her predecessor, then you can say "yes". When you see the ruling party being MASSACRED in a state election less than a year after keeping power then you can say "yes".

As far as the other places I mentioned, Belgium uses a form of PR, Ireland has a form of PR (and uses your beloved AV for the president), Israel uses a form of PR, Pakistan uses a form of PR, etc. The Av proposal is a form of PR. Do you see a link here in regard to stable governments? All have collaped in recent times, and a hell of a lot of PR elected coalition governments collapse on a regular basis. So why would the UK, with the proposed AV-form of PR be any different? After all, bets were being made on the current Lib-Tory coalition collapsing from day one, and many on both sides wish that to happen. But you want that to happen after EVERY election.....

So why waste money on this shambles called "PR-Lite"? The info campaign from ONE government office is £6million, that doesn't include the money wasted on "studies", on "consultations", on the referendum itself, etc. And for what? So a minority party can gain power over the choices of the majority of voters (after all, over 75% of those who voted did NOT want Clegg & co anywhere near government, shpould their wishes now be overruled?) and to suit their egos (for that is what this is about, the Lib-Dems using a means to manipulate things so they gain power irrespective of the wishes of the electorate)? That has to be wrong, even by your standards.

I have no quibble with any mainstream political party being elected to parliament and being invited to form a government.

The problem seems to be that the incumbents become entrenched and lose sight of what the electors want, whilst those who don't get elected lack the experience to govern.

Some years ago (almost 50) I began to question my Conservative upbringing (who didn't question the faith of their parents at some stage) and pondered what would be needed to increase the number of Liberal MPs (I wasn't ready for a sea-change) as most of the candidates (and the few MPs) seemed level-headed and not extremists.

PR seemed to be the answer.

At university I succumbed to the attractions of the Liberal club (they had better wine at their social events as well as not having Hooray Henrys or Trotskyites among their ranks) and (in a small way) I assisted in the election of David Steel in 1965.

Such people as DS, Paddy Ashdown and David Owen seemed intelligent and level-headed, I thought. Even Shirley Williams . . .

In recent years I have felt that, as stated above, the lack of success meant lack of experience and the presence of a third party (yes, I know there are others) served only to polarise the two main parties rather than them being reasonable.

Then Tony Blair pulled-off a PR coup by adopting Tory ways and many Tories wavered and changed sides. Whether PR (or AV) would have averted the change from Tory to NewLabour I cannot tell, however, without either we ended up with a hung parliament last time.

Now we seem to be hell-bent on adopting (or at least proposing) a system that could well perpretrate hung parliaments in the future.

My current thinking (as recorded much further up) is that the proposed AV is a poor alternative to the current system and should be avoided.

Maybe you cannot please all the people even some of the time?

hellsbrink, calm down! Breathe in - breathe out - breathe in, breathe out! Yes, lots of countries use various forms of PR! Well done! But PR is not the cause of an Australian politician's incompetence. Nor can you blame all of any counties problems on PR. You'll be blaming PR for HIV/AIDS next... Nor is AV anything like the only form of PR. Your last paragraph is so full of baseless nonsense and invective that I shan't bother answering it. Suffice it to say that's it a complete load of bolleaux. The problem seems to be that the incumbents become entrenched and lose sight of what the electors want, whilst those who don't get elected lack the experience to govern.Agreed. Or, if it's not that they lose sight of what the electors want, it's that they lose the desire to care what the electors want, or delude themselves that their policies are right and that anyone who disagrees with them either doesn't have the facts or the understanding, and if they did they would agree. The long years of Thatcher, followed by the long years of Blair/Brown meant that in each case there was very little ministerial experience on the opposition benches. This is not good news when they get into office. Neither Tony Blair nor David Cameron had any ministerial experience whatsoever before becoming Prime Minister. I don't equate PR necessarily with hung Parliaments, although I grant that they are significantly more likely, nor do I equate hung parliaments with "weak" or unstable governments. I believe that they will lead to much more government by consent rather than government by Presidential diktat, which is what we have had far too much of in recent years.

Up to now I have been fairly indifferent on FPTP vs. AV but, since that Izzard creature and the other one are promoting the latter I think I'll stick with what we have.

Compulsory voting.

Now that is an idea, it wouldn`t work of course.

But if the turnout was less than ..... think of a figure, 60% ? ..... then the promises and lies would have to be modified until the voting public was moved enough to get off it`s arse and vote.

The political leeches would not like that.

hellsbrink, do you think that Australia has a "shambolic coalition governments where nothing will actually be done for the good of the country"?



No need to spend too much time thinking on this one Hellsbrink, right now Australia has a shambolic coalition government where nothing does actually get done for the good of the country.

(Voting in Australia is not compulsory but turning up and registering is, after that you can do what you like with your ballot paper).

Is compulsory voting democratic?

In some countries they will vote for you - even if you don't turn up.

Sometime they even vote for you when you do turn up.

And they vote for people who don't exist . . .

Question for the more knowledgeable, based on Capt Stable's A,B,C example some pages ago;

What if no-one got 50% of the vote, but no voter for candidate C had expressed any second preference? How are C's votes re-allocated?

Thanks
M

Currently, the position of the Coalition government between Conservative and Liberal Democrat is that there will be a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, but not AV+.

Jenkins dismissed plain AV as "disturbingly unpredictable" and "unacceptably unfair".

Current proposal:- Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Vote)

Jenkins Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_Commission_(UK)) proposal:- Alternative Vote Top-up - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Vote_Top-up)

All this blather about alternate voting makes me think
of Turkeys voting for Christmas Day, or Boxing Day.
ONE vote, one vote only. I certainly don't want to have
to wend my way through a list of candidates trying to
decide which particular one should get in if the one I do
vote for in the first place doesn't get elected. That's NOT
the way it should work.
I vote for ONE candidate, and that's the one I WANT to win.
I couldn't care less about all the others, and I refuse to offer
those that I DIDN'T vote for ANY support.
And I should NOT be forced into giving the losers that support.

What if no-one got 50% of the vote, but no voter for candidate C had expressed any second preference? How are C's votes re-allocated?They are not redistributed. C is eliminated and if any of the remaining candidates has more than 50% of the remaining total votes (in my example A does) then he is declared elected.
And I should NOT be forced into giving the losers that support.You're not. You can vote for only one candidate (or as many or as few candidates) if you so wish. No worries! :ok:

I've a humorous feeling that the British public is about to go from something it understands and is mentally qualified to take part in to something it doesn't and isn't. Hogarth might have been amused. Perhaps he'd have drawn up a preparatory series of sketches entitled 'Mob Rule'?

Having read the the booklet (through my letter box today) I note page 8......

"The alternative vote will be used after a review of the boundaries of the area each MP represents"

Further...." At the end of the review, the UK Parliament will VOTE on implementing the new boundaries"

Now this is the punch line..."If the new boundaries are implemented, the 'alternative vote' system will be used for all future elections"

So it's still down to the MPs to decide, not the people who may have voted 'yes/no' what a bloody waste of time!!!!!

Let us hope that common sense prevails.

I'm surprised at the level of trust of your average voter in this country given the levels of apathy and lack of political understanding in recent years. Your average voter will see x number of boxes and think he/she will HAVE to put a tick in each one and duly do so without understanding the consequences.
I haven't yet read up on details of either system to form an opinion on the vote (I WILL) but I can foresee a mess.
Democracy= majority rule does it not? Think of the recent votes on the EU treaties and or EURO votes (Denmark, Eire), you will (naughty naughty public) vote again and again until we get the result WE want. Just exactly how insulted/ignored/dictated to do you want to be? Why do you think that we will NEVER get the referendum on Europe?
Unfortunatley we are stuck with a system of democratic dictatorship in which a party gets voted in and does exactly what it wants, when it wants, regardless of manifesto or any kind of promise no matter what the voting system is. How many times did the last government say that " We are really going to start listening to the public/voters" in the 19 years they were in power..and did they ever?:ugh:
Saying that I would rather live here than anywhere else in the world, with all it's faults and quirks.:ok:

And The Winner Is….? (http://order-order.com/2011/04/05/and-the-winner-is/)


http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/irish-stv.png?w=480&h=282
Say what you like about First Past The Post, but you know who the winner is without the need for 8 recounts or electronic voting machines. Complexity is the key feature of AV, STV and PR…





And The Winner Is….? - Guy Fawkes' blog (http://order-order.com/2011/04/05/and-the-winner-is/)

So, stuck, you're arguing against AV based on STV? That's like arguing against Renault cars because you don't like Peugeot.

AV is not complex in the least. As one of the replies to Guido's blog states:-AV isn’t actually complex to count at all, you put people into piles based on first preference. Smallest pile gets redistributed due to second preferences. Continue until someone gets greater than 50% in any given round. SimpleAs the same post there says "all you have to do is rank candidates in order of preference, something any cretin can do" - but some people here seem to think that's beyond them... :ugh:

AV is not complex in the least.

Really :confused:

In that case there is obviously no need to spend £6,000,000 on a national advertising campaign with the sole aim of explaining how it works :p

In that case there is obviously no need to spend £6,000,000 on a national advertising campaign with the sole aim of explaining how it worksNo, quite correct.

It's merely needed to counter the lies of the No2AV campaign spreading a load of nonsense about how it will need electronic voting machinery, blah blah blah because it's so complicated... :rolleyes: :=

I haven't received my 'leaflet' yet, but my neighbour has and he informs me that "if you only vote for one candidate, your vote isn't counted . . . " :hmm:

No, quite correct.

It's merely needed to counter the lies of the No2AV campaign spreading a load of nonsense about how it will need electronic voting machinery, blah blah blah because it's so complicated... :rolleyes: :=

Right, so this campaign will not contain any information on what AV is all about, how it works, what happens on voting day, how to fill in your voting slip etc etc :confused:

I have no idea what it does or does not contain. Apart from anything else, I am out of the country at present, and have been for the last month.

You were the one who stated that it was "with the sole aim of explaining how it works", thus implying that "will not contain any information on what AV is all about, how it works, what happens on voting day, how to fill in your voting slip etc etc"

When you want to have sensible discussion on the subject, feel free to drop all the petty attempts at point scoring.

See when I had a brief read through this


http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/file/0005/109877/Eng-web.pdf

it did seem to be telling me what AV is all about, how it works and what it's implications are. It does not seem to contain any counter to the No campaign as you suggested but does seem to be aimed at the lowest common denominator.......which does sort of fly in the face of your assertion that

"AV is not complex in the least"

Yes, it does explain what AV is about.

Yes, it does counter one or two "misconceptions" put about by No2AV.

Yes, it is pretty simple.

No, AV is not complex in concept or practice for either voters or returning officers.

There are actually those who might argue against Renault because they didn't like Peugeot. They're the wise ones who'd buy German.

Yes2AV or No2AV? A conundrum worthy of Hamlet's decision making capabilities? But AV is beloved of socialists of whom Margaret Thatcher said on February 5th, 1976

"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

So far as recent British economic history goes she's been proved correct and a positive AV vote, pandering to socialist influences, would be disastrous for the economic welfare of the country. Britons should put patriotism ahead of party politics and vote for the continuance of the democratic principle of one man, one clear, concise and dedicated vote.

Bwwwwaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!!!!!! :}

Good one! :ok:

To be quite honest, I don't think I've ever seen a funnier post on PPRuNe! :p

Considering what a socialist government has just done to this country I think I may just have seen a funnier post :p

There are about as many Labour MPs and supporters opposed to AV as Tory
There are about as many Labour MPs and supporters supporting AV as Tory
This thread is not about party politics. It's about methods of voting in order to elect the MP you want to represent you.
AV is no more likely to elect Labour than Tory. It all depends on the preferences of the voters.
If there was nothing else to make me vote for AV, the thought that Margaret Thatcher was opposed to it would convince me to vote for it.
I hold no brief whatsoever for Labour.
If you think the last NooLabour government was "socialism", demonstrably you have no idea whatsoever what the word actually means
It sounds to me as if cavortingcheetah would prefer to sacrifice democracy if it meant keeping Labour out.

Now, can we discuss the merits of AV vs FPTP rather than idiocies like "AV panders to socialism" or worrying about one leaflet?

Britons should put patriotism ahead of party politics and vote for the continuance of the democratic principle of one man, one clear, concise and dedicated vote.

And perhaps not be an exile?

Can we stop for a minute just to think about one thing regarding how "easy" voting by AV will be?

At the last general election a hell of a lot of the UK were also voting for their local government (all of the 32 London boroughs, all 36 metropolitan boroughs, 72 second-tier district authorities, 20 unitary authorities) and 4 "Mayors" (all in London, thought they already had one?).

So add in AV to the humungous paper that was used in 2010, along with the boundary changes they are talking about, and people think that it will be EASY to vote properly to the choice you actually want?

So add in AV to the humungous paper that was used in 2010, along with the boundary changes they are talking about, and people think that it will be EASY to vote properly to the choice you actually want?

Er, yes.

It isn't rocket science.

Er, yes.

It isn't rocket science.

If thats the case why are we spending 6,000,000 explaining it..............:confused:

But, since so many people did get confused over the election paper in 2010, it may not be "rocket science", "brain surgery" or even "electrician" but it sure won't be "easy".


Oh, if it is so "easy" then why is the information explaining how AV works so big whereas FPTP only needs a few paragraphs?

just look at some of those supporting the yes vote,two poofs,a lefty,and two hand wringers,ALL theatrical lovies,I VOTE NO:ok:

If thats the case why are we spending 6,000,000 explaining it..............

Now now, SFFP, that's only the Electoral Commission. After the referendum is over, the true figure will come out and you can bet that a hell of a lot more taxpayers' money will be spent on the Yes/No campaigns, and that squillions has also been wasted on the "consultations".


All just to please a minority party, a party who have ridiculed the AV system......

AV, a european con trick,funny how those who support it lack the guts to live here and fight for our traditions

But it's not European. Only 3 countries use AV for parliamentary elections and none of them are in Europe. Over here it's PR and not "PR-Lite". What they are proposing is a form of PR, without going all the way to full PR.

In other words, a shambles.

If thats the case why are we spending 6,000,000 explaining it..............

Perhaps because there is so much garbage written about it colouring the voter's perception before any facts are known.



A rumour will get half way around the world before the truth has even got it's boots on....

Can't remember who said that. :\

A very wise man

garbage

A different view point possibly but garbage, please explain :confused:

ER,perhaps he can't too many mess ports in my case,I still say NO

A different view point possibly but garbage, please explain

I don't mean specifically any misinformation on JB. What I consider as garbage is the headline grabbing nonsense that is being spouted for public consumption. It gets in the way of accurate and informed debate.

This diiscussion has been a revelation as most posts have avoided the standard rhetoric of newspaper editorials.

RIGHT,lets go for it taking the pubics eye off the ball whilst the so called powers that suposedley be have their very dodgey way, YOU WILL NOT DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE,BE WARNED

Too many typos there for me. I'm off to bo-bose..:zzz:

I don't mean specifically any misinformation on JB.

Neither did I :ok:

At the last general election a hell of a lot of the UK were also voting for their local government (all of the 32 London boroughs, all 36 metropolitan boroughs, 72 second-tier district authorities, 20 unitary authorities) and 4 "Mayors" (all in London, thought they already had one?).

So add in AV to the humungous paper that was used in 2010, along with the boundary changes they are talking about, and people think that it will be EASY to vote properly to the choice you actually want?The number of ballot papers will be the same. The size of the ballot paper will be the same.

All that will change is the text at the top.

One will say something like "Place one cross ("X") in the space next to the name of your preferred candidate".

The other will say something like "Vote for your preferred candidates in order of your preference by writing a number ("1", "2", "3"...) in the boxes next to the candidates' names."

Rocket science it is not. Brain surgery it is not.

Simples it is.

Simples it is.

If so why are they spending so much money to explain how it works :confused:

Beyond explaining the principles and counting method, I have no idea.

Do you contend that it is more complex than has already been outlined?

Incidentally, the 2001 General Election cost £80m to run. Less than 15% of that is spent on explaining the issues of the referendum, which will cost very little indeed, being run at the same time as the local election.

All I contend is that if it is so "simples" why is there a multi million pound campaign that has no other aim than to tell the whole country how it works :confused:

Like Hells posted earlier if there is anyone out there daft enough to actually believe this is only going to cost 6 million then they must be living on planet plonker, the UK tax payer is no doubt going to fork out an absolute shed load of money explaining the "way ahead"

No, that's not a contention, that's a question.

I ask again - do you consider that it is more complicated than has already been outlined in this thread?

Whether you or I find it complicated or not is neither here or there, but I know you completely understand that.

What you can't answer is why, if it is so "simples" the country is spending millions on explaining it to the average man/women in the street.

No, I can't answer that.

You WON'T answer my question. Others can draw their own conclusions from that.

My posts on here to date have answered your question, you have simply chosen to ignore that fact.

For you and I the complexity or simplicity of what's being proposed is not the issue. I know it will sound quite boring but I will say it again anyway if the whole AV thing is so "simples" why is there a need to spend millions on explaining it to the whole country:confused:

<sigh> :hmm:

Jeeez, how hard is it to give a straight answer to a straight question? :confused:

You and I appear to have a full understanding but opposing view of AV

You and I appear to have a full understanding of the lack of complexity of the AV process.

However you and I are quite obviously not representative of the country at large which is why there is a real need to spend millions upon millions educating the average person in the street, hence it is clearly not "simples"

I hope that is clear enough for you chap :ok:

Finally.

Thank you. So you and I are agreed that AV is a simple system. Where you and I differ is on the understanding of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

How thick does he have to be to be unable to write "1" "2" "3"... on his ballot paper?

Apologies if this has already been mentioned but I've received my request for postal ballot form today for the AV referendum and attached to it is a letter from the chair of the Yes to Fairer Vote campaign.

The letter gives me three reasons to say YES! (sic) - MPs working harder for me, Tackling jobs for life in Westminster and giving me a stronger voice. It tells me that I can't let MPs return to business as usual after the expenses scandal and voting yes will change the way they get their jobs. It goes on to say that my MP will need to aim for more than 50% support in the consituency, they won't be able to win with 1 in 3 votes anymore. Apparently ranking the candidates means that if my favourite doesn't win I still get a say and, importantly the extremists like the BNP will be shut out. A host of 6 celebrities adorn the edge of the letter all saying that they will be saying YES! to AV, the reasons they give echo the points made in the letter.

Now I consider myself reasonably educated and can see through propaganda in a flash but I'd like to know why this has come through attached to a document issued by the electoral registering officer. The notice of ballot form didn't have such a wealth of information attached to it, I even have a poster to put in my window to show that I support the YES! campaign. Where is my letter telling me the pitfalls of AV?

Having had an attempt at brainwashing foisted upon me simply for requesting a postal ballot I am sorely tempted to not bother finding anything out about AV (I know nothing thanks to the widely publicised campaign about it) and vote NO! (sic).

CS,

Boring I know but if it's that simples why the multi million pound campaign :confused:

In fact let's spin it another way.

If there was no multi million pound campaign and no info or literature out there about AV how well do you think polling day in May would go :ok:

The number of ballot papers will be the same. The size of the ballot paper will be the same.

All that will change is the text at the top.

One will say something like "Place one cross ("X") in the space next to the name of your preferred candidate".

The other will say something like "Vote for your preferred candidates in order of your preference by writing a number ("1", "2", "3"...) in the boxes next to the candidates' names."

Rocket science it is not. Brain surgery it is not.

Simples it is.

That's simply not true. This is not about changing the wording at the top of a vote slip, but changing the way in which votes are made and the results apportioned between the candidates.

to say that this about changing the wording at the top is disingenuous at least, it about changing the form of apportionment of the democratic vote.

Note: Ken Livingston is Pro-AV.

Nothing i have read either here or anywhere else has given a justification to reconsider my previous stance and i have remained open minded, if anything the justifications presented for the change have been lacking in any firm justification, remaining based on smoke and mirrors and the more i research into it, the poorer it becomes.

I'm still a firm NO.

StudentInDebt (is there any other sort of student? ;) ) - UKC or what we used to call C4? ;)

Your post surprises me. I would have expected literature from both sides of the debate to be included.

One wonders if the NO campaign are running out of money due to lack of support...

If there was no multi million pound campaign and no info or literature out there about AV how well do you think polling day in May would go :ok:Probably not very well. A good turnout is important to validate whatever result there is. You keep harping on about the "multimillion pound campaign". As I have pointed out already, this is minuscule compared to the cost of a General Election. The referendum itself is being piggy-backed on the cost of the local government elections, so that expense would have occurred anyway, and was the reason people wanted May 5th as the date for the referendum. Without that, people would have had a more valid reason to query the expense of a referendum.

As for the advertising campaign itself, I think people would have objected quite vociferously had we launched into a referendum without an explanation of the issues involved.

And if, as you seem to think, the average voter is so thick he can't understand anything beyond the price of beer, you ought to be demanding that lots more is spent on the information campaign.

stuckgear, that reply of mine was in response to hellsbrink's post saying:-So add in AV to the humungous paper that was used in 2010, along with the boundary changes they are talking about, and people think that it will be EASY to vote properly to the choice you actually want?It was not talking about the counting process or the requirement in first instance to achieve 50% or any of the mechanics. It was simply talking about the ballot process. So to say "That's not true" is not the best response, really.

The wording at the top of the ballot form merely explains to the voter how to vote - under what rules the election is taking place and how it differs from other elections occurring at the same time.

Where you and I differ is on the understanding of the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

How thick does he have to be to be unable to write "1" "2" "3"... on his ballot paper?



Ahh and there's the rub.

its not just a case of placing a 1,2 or 3 in a box, its about the policies and positions not just in part but as a whole of those and the parties to whom 1,2 or 3 is next to.

We say that the electorate doesnt have enough interest in the political system to vote on the policies of the party or the candidate to actually read and understand the policies of the party or candidate of the main three, now the electorate will have to implicitly understand the policies of a large number of candidates and gain a full understanding of the associated agendas to each policy in order for the vote to actually mean anyhting, or else the voter will be merely voting 2nd or 3rd choice not predicated on any policy value, but what sounds ok. so a labour voter wont vote tory as a 2nd or 3rd choice despite what the policy value is and will likely vote a fringe group without any concept of the policies of that party and the same on the right side of the line.

Ergo, the largest vote base under AV is elected on neither policy values or worth as a political party.

yep that's an abortion of democracy.

No to AV.

now the electorate will have to implicitly understand the policies of a large number of candidates and gain a full understanding of the associated agendas to each policy in order for the vote to actually mean anyhtingAnd he didn't before?

And he didn't before?


Of course not.

With three main parties, there's three main parties to consider the policies of. As I pointed out;

its not just a case of placing a 1,2 or 3 in a box, its about the policies and positions not just in part but as a whole of those and the parties to whom 1,2 or 3 is next to.

We say that the electorate doesnt have enough interest in the political system to vote on the policies of the party or the candidate to actually read and understand the policies of the party or candidate of the main three, now the electorate will have to implicitly understand the policies of a large number of candidates and gain a full understanding of the associated agendas to each policy in order for the vote to actually mean anyhting, or else the voter will be merely voting 2nd or 3rd choice not predicated on any policy value, but what sounds ok. so a labour voter wont vote tory as a 2nd or 3rd choice despite what the policy value is and will likely vote a fringe group without any concept of the policies of that party and the same on the right side of the line.

Ergo, the largest vote base under AV is elected on neither policy values or worth as a political party.


So in more simple terms a tory voter is not going to vote for labour as a 2nd choice, and a labour voter is not going to vote tory as a second choice. so the lib dems (who are pushing this adjusted change) stand to gain a disporoprtinate power base based on the second vote. then you have parties like UKIP, the BNP, the Greens, etc etc, who as governmental base do not have the policy base that would present a viable or effective administration of a country, yet would gain significant appoprtionment through AV.

its quite simple to understand, unless of course you dont want to.

simples.

No to AV.

At the last General Election (I keep mistyping that word) in my constituency as I recall we had something like 7 candidates. I had a broad understanding (but only broad) on the policies of most of them (not the Independent bloke who hadn't even bothered to put a leaflet through my letterbox), not comprehensive, but quite enough to know which I wanted to vote for.so the lib dems (who are pushing this adjusted change) stand to gain a disporoprtinate power base based on the second voteI disagree. I don't think they stand to gain a "disproportionate" power base. I think the way Parliament is at present is extremely disproportionate (figures in a previous post of mine). I want it to be proportionate.

Yes, I suspect that most Tories will vote LibDem second (unless it is UKIP or BNP - but a minority), ditto Labour (unless they vote SWP or Communist - ditto minority). Therefore, I suspect that the extremist parties will find themselves alienated and more centrist policies will receive most attention and support. I would contend that this is no bad thing for the country, ruling out extremism.

At the last General Election (I keep mistyping that word) in my constituency as I recall we had something like 7 candidates. I had a broad understanding (but only broad) on the policies of most of them (not the Independent bloke who hadn't even bothered to put a leaflet through my letterbox), not comprehensive, but quite enough to know which I wanted to vote for.


the thing is CS, the likes of some us here on JB are perhaps more inclined to read and absorb and evaluate the data, but then again as a Professional Pilot board, we're more attuned to this.

the problem is the populace is also inhabited by those who watch x-factor, BGT, big brothah etc etc. and that is the vote base also.


I disagree. I don't think they stand to gain a "disproportionate" power base. I think the way Parliament is at present is extremely disproportionate (figures in a previous post of mine). I want it to be proportionate.



personally i want it to have an enema.


Yes, I suspect that most Tories will vote LibDem second (unless it is UKIP or BNP - but a minority), ditto Labour (unless they vote SWP or Communist - ditto minority). Therefore, I suspect that the extremist parties will find themselves alienated and more centrist policies will receive most attention and support. I would contend that this is no bad thing for the country, ruling out extremism.


unfortunately, the converse is also true in that as the electorate, who can't be arsed to read, or understand or grasp the wider concepts, manipulations and agendas in play, become disaffected with the main parties in attending their groups, they will invaribly move to extremist parties that represent that minor demographic group giving the opposite; the rise and disproportionate power base to extremist groups. all the meanwhile the country goes further down the tubes with minority parties bickering and jostling for power at the expense of the country at large.

Well, yes.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (Winston Churchill).

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." (Winston again)personally i want it to have an enemaWho could argue with that? :}

We shall have to agree to differ. I don't think the results will be what you say. We shall see, if the vote on May 5th. goes the way I hope and the way you fear.

Probably the single most dangerous thing about this whole process is that traditionally the public at large have chosen at these sorts of elections to stick two fingers up at the incumbents as a sort of "its Ok as its not like its a real election is it"

Because the average Joe in the street is generally as informed about politics and all its machinations as I am about lunar geology there is a better than even chance that AV will get voted in.

Not because the average Joe has a basic understanding of its concept, in recent surveys etc the average Joe things AV is something to do with a television connector, it will simply be a protest vote against the Dave and Nick combo.

The average voter in May will, as has always been the case, not have a real clue as to what they are actually voting for or, which is even more sad, what the implications of their X is.

The problem is that just like Turkeys dont vote for Xmas once we have it we will be stuck with it.

With only 18 months before I retire to a warmer climate I really should not give a rats arse about it but my kids and theirs will be hooped in the same way that Hells and the previous poster from Oz are :suspect:

it will simply be a protest vote against the dave and Nick combo.So they'll vote which way? Dave wants people to vote "no". Nick wants them to vote "yes". How does one vote "against" that?

So they'll vote which way? Dave wants people to vote "no". Nick wants them to vote "yes". How does one vote "against" that?


with an AV system ? :p

Place your preference in the box provided:

I'm with Dave __

I'm with Nick __

I'm against Dave __

I'm against Nick __

I hope there are 3 boxes.
X I'm for AV
X I'm against AV
X I know that politician is lying - he opened his mouth

You forgot the "Stick it up your A**e" box.

X I know that politician is lying - he opened his mouthUnless he is Eric Pickles, in which case it's 50:50 that he opened his mouth to stuff food in it. :E

In addition to all this 'Yes'/'No' palaver, when it comes to an actual General Election and we are confronted by a list of candidates, can we have an additional box on the voting form which states 'None of the above'. OK, if that box gathered the most votes, there would have to be another election. But it would exclude all of the original candidates as the electorate have declared they didn't want any of the lot that put themselves forward in the first place. Might also make a few of the smug bug****s who occupy safe seats, actually think about representing the electorate instead of themselves......just a thought.

4mastacker, I like that idea. I also like the idea of compulsory voting and also the right of recall (given certain necessary limitations, of course).

Your all missing the point...The AV will only become legislation if the UK Parliament would vote 'yes' on implementing the new boundaries.

If they don't, AV is out the window. Read page eight of your booklet!!!!:ugh:

Daz

Nice one Daz, thank the lord this whole process is simples :ok:

Read page eight of your booklet!!!!:ugh:



still havnt got mine.

Archiving Britain's Web: The Legal Nightmare Explored (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-03/05/archiving-britains-web-the-legal-nightmare-explored)

A proposal that could give select institutions the power to take snapshots of websites without their owners' permission is being ruminated by our Government. Civil servants at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport are now processing opinions on whether we should be archiving websites for future generations.

Does anybody think this is actually a good idea? Is there a serious potential for privacy abuse? What are your opinions?

I've just received a leaflet for the Yes campaign giving three reasons for a Yes, all of which were saying in different words that it would bash MP's.

When there is a bashing MP's campaign I'll be the the first in the queue, but to my mind there needs to be a much better reason if we are to change our democratic system.

Today's leaflet is from the No campaign.

Shame that they've got some 'facts' wrong, but, if it persuades those who might vote Yes to change their mind, then I suppose it serves its purpose.

I wonder how many voters will be confused and will vote Yes when they mean to retain the current system?

Since it's all about AV, when voting AV or FPTP will we be allowed a second choice?

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-03/05/archiving-britains-web-the-legal-nightmare-explored


Does anybody think this is actually a good idea? Is there a serious potential for privacy abuse? What are your opinions?

Jane

How in hell's name does a snapshot of something that is freely put into the public domain have any "privacy" protection?

Oh, I think it could be a good thing as we could see the "evolution" of the internet as the years go on. Dunno, but something that could go from the way things were back in the days of Prestel to how they are now, and in the future, could be pretty damn interesting.

Dunno what it has to do with AV though.

Well, I'm unsure of which way to vote in the upcoming referendum on AV, but I know that Jet Blasters will have a wide range of opinions, so let's have it both barrels! (plus some humour please - it's a bit of a boring subject).

WP

I always vote at elections. However, voting does appear to be a very illogical thing to do. Given that you can tell when a politician is lying - it's when s/he opens their mouth - then why on earth vote for them?

Where I live my vote counts for nothing. Cameron would have to kill the Queen for anyone other than a Tory to get in, so at least I can vote for the local Loony party.

As to AV - given that voting is an illogical thing to do, and as no-one agrees about whether or not it is good or bad, I'll be voting against it.

I will vote 'No' or 'Yes' :ok:

Will you be able to have No (or Yes) as your alternative choice?


What we should have had is a choice of STV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) . . .

OK...I start this by saying I HATE the current Australian government...but we have PV (AV?) voting..we have had coeliton (spelling) goverments for years..like about 70...it seems to work ok. I mean..we may hate the party/partys in power.or love the the same, but civil war has never been close...so I say enjoy AV, I tyink its better

Yes, I suspect that most Tories will vote LibDem second (unless it is UKIP or BNP - but a minority), ditto Labour (unless they vote SWP or Communist - ditto minority). Therefore, I suspect that the extremist parties will find themselves alienated and more centrist policies will receive most attention and support. I would contend that this is no bad thing for the country, ruling out extremism.

Surely, under the AV system it is the 2nd and 3rd preferences etc of the minority party voters that will determine the outcome, not the other way around.

EG BNP 1st Tory 2nd UKIP 3rd etc

It is probable (based on recent polling figures) that in most constituencies the BNP will be one of the first to have it's votes redistributed as thay will have the least votes in the first count. In the above case to the Tories.

But as the BNP also does well (relatively) in inner city traditional Labour areas the ballot paper could just as easily read...

BNP 1st Labour 2nd Ind 3rd etc


Either way, it will be the major party candidate that will be elected, not the fringe nut jobs such as the BNP.

Ok, it's three in the morning and my thinking is a bit wooly, but you get my drift I hope.
Night, night. :zzz:

Got booted out, thank the lord for common sense :ok:

Got booted out

Are you sure? With 60% saying "no" - once preferences had been taken into account then on an 8% affirmation the system has been voted in. :}

Are you sure? With 60% saying "no" - once preferences had been taken into account then on an 8% affirmation the system has been voted in. :}

Damn the BBC they said this tosh had not got in :E