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.
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.
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.
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
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…
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
