Typically, in any constituancy there are more than the 3 main parties, with The Green Party. UKIP, British National Party, plus a few independants. As most of the winning candidates don't get more than 50% of the vote then whomever these "minority" canditates voters have chosen as their 2nd & 3rd choices will then get more votes.............not very demoratic, is it !!!
Then again, the best way out of all this is that we all just ignore it - if AV does ever come in then all you have to do is mark a number 1 by your chosen candidate and then leave the rest blank.............if we all did that then AV is blown out the water.
[cite]Posted By: Miserableold-ishgit[/cite]will probably vote for the one the bnp don't want: Any idea what they say ?
The BNP are anti-AV.
[cite]Posted By: Adolf Griffin[/cite] the undemocratic nature of AV is highlighted by the “Yes” campaign's own obsession with "stopping the British National Party"
[cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Ed milliband looks like one of the muppets no way can you take him seriously.
And you can trust a man that has his massive moon face airbrushed on posters?
Two things on AV. Politicians would be even more bland as the winner might be the least objectionable rather than the one who attracts people to vote positively for them. You can end with situations where you end up with a situation where nobody wants. This is an extreme example but party A 45% party B 22% Party C 3% and ten other parties with around 2% each totalling 20%. To me party A has one hands down and has twice as many vote as any other.
However under AV not only could Party B win. Party C could win or even one of the smaller parties. How anybody thinks a party who only 3% voted for should win is beyond me!
[cite]Posted By: redman[/cite]Two things on AV. Politicians would be even more bland as the winner might be the least objectionable rather than the one who attracts people to vote positively for them.
You can end with situations where you end up with a situation where nobody wants. This is an extreme example but party A 45% party B 22% Party C 3% and ten other parties with around 2% each totalling 20%. To me party A has one hands down and has twice as many vote as any other.
However under AV not only could Party B win. Party C could win or even one of the smaller parties. How anybody thinks a party who only 3% voted for should win is beyond me!
But they wouldn't have that amount of the vote would they ? Second preference means that they would indeed have a majority of support.
Sorry Redman, in your example only party a or b could win. Parties are eliminated if they have the fewest votes, and then the preferences of their voters are reassigned. This keeps going until one party has over 50%. in your example as a and b have 67% between them, no other party could get to 50%. I agree with your point in general though, it would be better if one candidate got twice the votes of the second placed candidate they should automatically win, even if theoretically they could lose on some people's 5th or 6th preferences.
SHG - you cant say that as it depends how people put their following votes
McBobbin - I didn't think that was the way it worked although i could be wrong. The way i understood it was that the lowest id knocked out and their votes redistributed, etc etc which means that in my example after the 10 minore parties are elimated it could be Part A 45%, Party B 22% and Party C 33%. Then Bis knocked out and their next votes distributed.
Whichever is another reason why it should not be brought in, when seemingly intelligent people dont know how it works properly.
[cite]Posted By: redman[/cite]SHG - you cant say that as it depends how people put their following votes
McBobbin - I didn't think that was the way it worked although i could be wrong. The way i understood it was that the lowest id knocked out and their votes redistributed, etc etc which means that in my example after the 10 minore parties are elimated it could be Part A 45%, Party B 22% and Party C 33%. Then Bis knocked out and their next votes distributed.
Whichever is another reason why it should not be brought in, when seemingly intelligent people dont know how it works properly.
Does this "seemingly intelligent people" include David Cameron and the conservative party who have already adopted the AV system for elections within their own party. Smacks of hypocrisy to denounce the system when it just might assist the opposition but when it suits then all is fine with AV ?
To me the whole thing is a waste of time, there are far bigger cases of a democratic deficit in our institutions (House of Lords, Europe etc...) & all the parties are using a cheap referendum as a tool to create a smokescreen. The current system is fair, it works & it creates strong governments with the power to create and enact laws & act on our behalf.
However both campaigns have left me a little bit sour & when it comes down to it the differences between AV & FPTP are so slight very little will change so I will be abstaining. I'm going to go to the booth and put 1 next to No & 2 next to Yes, just so that if FPTP loses I can claim that AV was my second choice (or the one I didn't want).
[cite]Posted By: JollyRobin[/cite]To me the whole thing is a waste of time, there are far bigger cases of a democratic deficit in our institutions (House of Lords, Europe etc...) & all the parties are using a cheap referendum as a tool to create a smokescreen. The current system is fair, it works & it creates strong governments with the power to create and enact laws & act on our behalf.
A one party system works well and creates strong government. Strong government on it's own is not that desirable.
[cite]Posted By: JollyRobin[/cite] it works & it creates strong governments with the power to create and enact laws & act on our behalf.
Strong governments are undemocratic, in my opinion anyway. Look at Labour's last government, rushing through the Digital Economy Bill in less than two hours, as they had a majority then but wouldn't after the election. This is despite much of the industry, and I imagine, public being against it.
Short of having referendums on every issue (e.g. tuition fees), every system of election is undemocratic though. To me, AV is better.
Take the London Mayor elections for example, which are run under AV. Out of the two main runners, I preferred Boris over Ken but I didn't like Boris enough to want him to have my full support. Under FPTP, I would have however probably voted for him as any vote outside of those two would have been 'wasted'. As it was I could vote for a lesser party which I preferred, knowing that they had no chance of winning, but I could still register my support in a manner which didn't waste my vote, as I put Boris as my second choice.
I must add that as the Mayor elections were the first I could vote in, I did then find the General Election, and FPTP, strange and a worse system. Hence I'm a yes man myself.
I'm voting no, it's VERY expensive to implement a new system which will make hardly any difference. I think voting some be made mandatory with a none of the above option.
You could be right actually Redman. My bad. And I thought I understood it. My head hurts! Still voting yes, but I don't think there will be much difference. Whoever you vote for you still get a politician.
My understanding is that if a given party attracts more than 50% of votes cast then second and subsequent preferences are ignored. However if no one party has more than 50% then the party with the lowest percentage drops out and second preferences (from those votes) are allocated amongst all remaining parties. If no party still has more than 50% the exercise is repeated with the second preferences of the lowest party at that point and so on until such time as a single party actually does have more than 50% of the vote when they stop.
Speaking for myself I feel disenfranchised as the 3 main parties are falling over themselves to kow tow to the EU. It therefore makes little difference to me which of Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat is in as, on what I regard as the key issue the EU since so much stems from it that we appear powerless to stop, the 3 main parties are exactly the same.
AV would therefore enable me to vote UKIP and not bother with any other choices should I so wish. I've explained my views about the main 3 and, in my view, Greens are fascist control freaks under a fluffy "save the planet" banner and the BNP are repugnant racist thugs.
I think there are a lot of people disillusioned with the EU and AV just MIGHT allow that disillusionment to be expressed loud and clear through the ballot box.
One of the problems with AV is that it does away with the fundamental "one man, one vote", as depending on how you spread your choices, you could have several votes, just one, or I think even zero!
Len, can't see why the present system stops you voting UKIP or why AV would enable you to.
Full on proportional represenatation would be better, as AV is just a fudge. With PR if 10% voted UKIP across the board, UKIP would have 10% of the MPs, and would have more voice than if they didn't get a single MP. You would almost always have a coalition, but maybe that is the best way to get consensus? You will never please everybody. I don't think my views will ever be properly represented. If they were, there would probably be armageddon!
[cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]One of the problems with AV is that it does away with the fundamental "one man, one vote", as depending on how you spread your choices, you could have several votes, just one, or I think even zero!
Len, can't see why the present system stops you voting UKIP or why AV would enable you to.
The present system hasn't stop me voting UKIP but, as in reality it is a two horse race at best in most constituencies, a lot of people regard it as a "wasted vote" because they perceive no chance of winning and therefore perceive that their vote makes no difference.
As I said AV MIGHT enable people to vote for what they genuinely believe as first preference (eg UKIP as in my case)rather than simply not bother to vote at all or vote for what they regard as the "least worst" of the big 3.
It could well be that because of voter apathy it will end up making no difference as you imply but I'm going to give AV a whirl in the hope that it eventually leads to genuine proportional representation which certainly would be a positive step for people like me.
[cite]Posted By: Friend Or Defoe[/cite]I'm voting no, it's VERY expensive to implement a new system which will make hardly any difference. I think voting some be made mandatory with anone of the above option.
But it's not that expensive to implement. The £250m figure that the No campaign keep quoting is total bullshit. Even their own campaign leaflets don't add up (£91m +£130m +£26m=£247m). The £130m for counting machines is spurious as it'll be just as easy to count by hand as in FPTP, although it'll take a little bit longer, and the £91m for the referendum'll be spent anyway no matter what the result is. Given that they don't cite where they got their figures from, I'm not convinced that or the £26m for voter education is accurate either.
[/quote] Does this "seemingly intelligent people" include David Cameron and the conservative party who have already adopted the AV system for elections within their own party. Smacks of hypocrisy to denounce the system when it just might assist the opposition but when it suits then all is fine with AV ?[/quote]
I don't know exactly how the conservative party do it, but I think there's a big difference here in that for the conservative party leadership election they are at least all voting for politicians who are fairly like-minded, AND they will be a lot more clued up about each candidate, than in the average general election, where there is so much voting ignorance.
Personally I'll be voting 'No'. There'll be even more tactical voting, and on the other side of the coin, political parties will be watering down their policies in order to pick up the second choice votes of people who they know won't give them the first choice vote.
The problem with voting reform is that we've just had 12 months of reasons why a fairer system is not necessarily a good thing.
For example, if you voted Lib-Dem last May you might have done so thinking that they would oppose rises in tuition fees, VAT etc only for them to support rises in government. Nick Clegg's justification being that in government you have to make compromises, which is fair enough. But electoral reform will increase the chances of more coalitions and therefore increase the chances of compromises or if you prefer, bare faced lies by one or more constituents of the coalitions. So what do we want - a fairer system, or more broken promises?
The argument is made that most of Europe have coalition governments and not only survive but prosper, but I'm not so sure that in the UK we really have the political parties who have sufficient things in common to form a workable coalition. For example in Germany the FDP and CDP/CSU are in power, but they are both right of centre and I doubt that many voters are that upset at seeing their party in government with the other partner. Similarly the Greens and SDP formed a coalition, ideologically they have a lot in common. In the UK the average Lib-Dem voter does not see themselves as having enough in common with the Tory boy party and that is why Lib-Dem ratings in OPs and in the two by-elections suggest that they are heading for the fringes of the electoral system.
We need electoral reform, but not the system that's being proposed.
I dont think either systems are great so I would'nt vote even if I was old enough. If I had to I'd vote just so Clegg and cable would suffer fat b*st*rds
As it is Labour win. Under AV Lib Dems could go on to win. I wonder why Lib Dems favour AV ;-)
In this case, there are only 10% who have voted for other parties. In order for the Lib Dems to win, they would need to attract all of those minority second preferences, assume you have rounded up the Tory vote, and then collect most of the Tories' transfers.
All in all, I would rate the Lib Dems' chances of winning at exactly 0%
Interesting point made by a poster on the first page. If you don't like AV, just tick one box or write a number 1 and nothing else, then your vote will never be transferred
[cite]Posted By: Saga Lout[/cite]One of the problems with AV is that it does away with the fundamental "one man, one vote", as depending on how you spread your choices, you could have several votes, just one, or I think even zero!
Nope, you still have one vote, it's just the way it gets allocated is different. AV is basically a version of multiple rounds of voting, without you having to trek to the ballot box multiple times. All that's happening is
1) you cast your vote for your favourite candidate left in the ballot
2) the votes are counted
3) if one candidate has 50% of the vote they are THE WINNER (and you can stop now)
If not, go to 4)
4) the candidate with the least votes is eliminated
5) if this leaves only 1 candidate they are THE WINNER (and you can stop now)
If not, go to 6)
6) everyone gets their votes given back to them to cast again, and we go back to 1).
However that would take ages if we did it manually, so you put 1 by your favourite, a 2 by the one you'd vote for once they're gone, a 3 by your next favourite until you get to candidates you couldn't care less about or wouldn't vote for if they were the only candidate on the ballot. So you don't get more than one vote, and you only get zero votes if you spoil your ballot paper by doing something silly like writing "they're all bastards" or putting a 1 in more than one box.
Len, can't see why the present system stops you voting UKIP or why AV would enable you to.
Because people don't just vote to elect a certain candidate or party, they also vote to keep candidates or parties out. With FPTP you can only express one preference, so you have to weigh up your wish to support a particular candidate against the risk that will mean the closest opponent to the candidate you want to keep out will not have enough votes to beat them. Under AV he can give UKIP his first preference, thus giving a true reflection of where his support lies, and then give his second preference to his next favourite candidate etc. You can vote tactically if you want, but it's a lot more difficult to do so effectively.
I've voted No, though I don't like the company I'm keeping.
Two reasons. In the Mayoral elections in 2008 I know people who voted UKIP fist and Conservative second. They knew that their UKIP vote would be recorded ("ooh look UKIP did well, we'd better take more notice of them") even though they actually wanted the Conservative candidate Johnson to win. Like it or not, they had two votes, one of which they gave to a candidate they knew wouldn't win but would get a reputaional boost.
In addition to this, candidates will become even blander. I've been involved in selection contests done on the AV system and candidates have spent a lot of time wondering how to get the second preferences of people who don't support them. Elections will become more about trying to keep everyone happy than trying to carve out a distinct voice.
And as for party list systems, no. Then we will have minority parties deciding govt policy.
Explained AV to my mum using a selection of fruit. Satsuma representing Labour, satsuma representing Conservative & satsuma representing Lib Dem. What we deduced from this is whoever you vote for you're going to end up with a satsuma.
Comments
Typically, in any constituancy there are more than the 3 main parties, with The Green Party. UKIP, British National Party, plus a few independants. As most of the winning candidates don't get more than 50% of the vote then whomever these "minority" canditates voters have chosen as their 2nd & 3rd choices will then get more votes.............not very demoratic, is it !!!
Then again, the best way out of all this is that we all just ignore it - if AV does ever come in then all you have to do is mark a number 1 by your chosen candidate and then leave the rest blank.............if we all did that then AV is blown out the water.
easy peasy
The BNP are anti-AV.
yep i like him he seems alrite
You can end with situations where you end up with a situation where nobody wants. This is an extreme example but party A 45% party B 22% Party C 3% and ten other parties with around 2% each totalling 20%. To me party A has one hands down and has twice as many vote as any other.
However under AV not only could Party B win. Party C could win or even one of the smaller parties. How anybody thinks a party who only 3% voted for should win is beyond me!
But they wouldn't have that amount of the vote would they ? Second preference means that they would indeed have a majority of support.
McBobbin - I didn't think that was the way it worked although i could be wrong. The way i understood it was that the lowest id knocked out and their votes redistributed, etc etc which means that in my example after the 10 minore parties are elimated it could be Part A 45%, Party B 22% and Party C 33%. Then Bis knocked out and their next votes distributed.
Whichever is another reason why it should not be brought in, when seemingly intelligent people dont know how it works properly.
Does this "seemingly intelligent people" include David Cameron and the conservative party who have already adopted the AV system for elections within their own party. Smacks of hypocrisy to denounce the system when it just might assist the opposition but when it suits then all is fine with AV ?
However both campaigns have left me a little bit sour & when it comes down to it the differences between AV & FPTP are so slight very little will change so I will be abstaining. I'm going to go to the booth and put 1 next to No & 2 next to Yes, just so that if FPTP loses I can claim that AV was my second choice (or the one I didn't want).
A one party system works well and creates strong government. Strong government on it's own is not that desirable.
Strong governments are undemocratic, in my opinion anyway. Look at Labour's last government, rushing through the Digital Economy Bill in less than two hours, as they had a majority then but wouldn't after the election. This is despite much of the industry, and I imagine, public being against it.
Short of having referendums on every issue (e.g. tuition fees), every system of election is undemocratic though. To me, AV is better.
Take the London Mayor elections for example, which are run under AV. Out of the two main runners, I preferred Boris over Ken but I didn't like Boris enough to want him to have my full support. Under FPTP, I would have however probably voted for him as any vote outside of those two would have been 'wasted'. As it was I could vote for a lesser party which I preferred, knowing that they had no chance of winning, but I could still register my support in a manner which didn't waste my vote, as I put Boris as my second choice.
I must add that as the Mayor elections were the first I could vote in, I did then find the General Election, and FPTP, strange and a worse system. Hence I'm a yes man myself.
Speaking for myself I feel disenfranchised as the 3 main parties are falling over themselves to kow tow to the EU. It therefore makes little difference to me which of Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat is in as, on what I regard as the key issue the EU since so much stems from it that we appear powerless to stop, the 3 main parties are exactly the same.
AV would therefore enable me to vote UKIP and not bother with any other choices should I so wish. I've explained my views about the main 3 and, in my view, Greens are fascist control freaks under a fluffy "save the planet" banner and the BNP are repugnant racist thugs.
I think there are a lot of people disillusioned with the EU and AV just MIGHT allow that disillusionment to be expressed loud and clear through the ballot box.
Len, can't see why the present system stops you voting UKIP or why AV would enable you to.
The present system hasn't stop me voting UKIP but, as in reality it is a two horse race at best in most constituencies, a lot of people regard it as a "wasted vote" because they perceive no chance of winning and therefore perceive that their vote makes no difference.
As I said AV MIGHT enable people to vote for what they genuinely believe as first preference (eg UKIP as in my case)rather than simply not bother to vote at all or vote for what they regard as the "least worst" of the big 3.
It could well be that because of voter apathy it will end up making no difference as you imply but I'm going to give AV a whirl in the hope that it eventually leads to genuine proportional representation which certainly would be a positive step for people like me.
I don't know exactly how the conservative party do it, but I think there's a big difference here in that for the conservative party leadership election they are at least all voting for politicians who are fairly like-minded, AND they will be a lot more clued up about each candidate, than in the average general election, where there is so much voting ignorance.
Personally I'll be voting 'No'. There'll be even more tactical voting, and on the other side of the coin, political parties will be watering down their policies in order to pick up the second choice votes of people who they know won't give them the first choice vote.
For example, if you voted Lib-Dem last May you might have done so thinking that they would oppose rises in tuition fees, VAT etc only for them to support rises in government. Nick Clegg's justification being that in government you have to make compromises, which is fair enough. But electoral reform will increase the chances of more coalitions and therefore increase the chances of compromises or if you prefer, bare faced lies by one or more constituents of the coalitions. So what do we want - a fairer system, or more broken promises?
The argument is made that most of Europe have coalition governments and not only survive but prosper, but I'm not so sure that in the UK we really have the political parties who have sufficient things in common to form a workable coalition. For example in Germany the FDP and CDP/CSU are in power, but they are both right of centre and I doubt that many voters are that upset at seeing their party in government with the other partner. Similarly the Greens and SDP formed a coalition, ideologically they have a lot in common. In the UK the average Lib-Dem voter does not see themselves as having enough in common with the Tory boy party and that is why Lib-Dem ratings in OPs and in the two by-elections suggest that they are heading for the fringes of the electoral system.
We need electoral reform, but not the system that's being proposed.
In this case, there are only 10% who have voted for other parties. In order for the Lib Dems to win, they would need to attract all of those minority second preferences, assume you have rounded up the Tory vote, and then collect most of the Tories' transfers.
All in all, I would rate the Lib Dems' chances of winning at exactly 0%
Interesting point made by a poster on the first page. If you don't like AV, just tick one box or write a number 1 and nothing else, then your vote will never be transferred
1) you cast your vote for your favourite candidate left in the ballot
2) the votes are counted
3) if one candidate has 50% of the vote they are THE WINNER (and you can stop now)
If not, go to 4)
4) the candidate with the least votes is eliminated
5) if this leaves only 1 candidate they are THE WINNER (and you can stop now)
If not, go to 6)
6) everyone gets their votes given back to them to cast again, and we go back to 1).
However that would take ages if we did it manually, so you put 1 by your favourite, a 2 by the one you'd vote for once they're gone, a 3 by your next favourite until you get to candidates you couldn't care less about or wouldn't vote for if they were the only candidate on the ballot. So you don't get more than one vote, and you only get zero votes if you spoil your ballot paper by doing something silly like writing "they're all bastards" or putting a 1 in more than one box.
Because people don't just vote to elect a certain candidate or party, they also vote to keep candidates or parties out. With FPTP you can only express one preference, so you have to weigh up your wish to support a particular candidate against the risk that will mean the closest opponent to the candidate you want to keep out will not have enough votes to beat them. Under AV he can give UKIP his first preference, thus giving a true reflection of where his support lies, and then give his second preference to his next favourite candidate etc. You can vote tactically if you want, but it's a lot more difficult to do so effectively.
Two reasons. In the Mayoral elections in 2008 I know people who voted UKIP fist and Conservative second. They knew that their UKIP vote would be recorded ("ooh look UKIP did well, we'd better take more notice of them") even though they actually wanted the Conservative candidate Johnson to win. Like it or not, they had two votes, one of which they gave to a candidate they knew wouldn't win but would get a reputaional boost.
In addition to this, candidates will become even blander. I've been involved in selection contests done on the AV system and candidates have spent a lot of time wondering how to get the second preferences of people who don't support them. Elections will become more about trying to keep everyone happy than trying to carve out a distinct voice.
And as for party list systems, no. Then we will have minority parties deciding govt policy.