please empty your brain below
So, main advantage of AV is that we will need a new set of cliches (paradox intended) for all the electioneering junk mail.
If you like/prefer the result then maybe AV's the system for you.
I totally agree with you.
BUT if there is a 'no' vote now, the issue will come up again in the future. When other, more sensible, versions of proportional representation can be considered. If there is a 'yes' vote, the system won't be changed again for aeons.
So, vote 'no' for more choice in the future.
If anything, a "No" vote would lead to claims that the people are happy with the current system and it'll be used as an excuse not to do anything at all
It also means just as many safe seats where the encumbent knows they will be returned no matter how bad they are.
It usually doesn't take all that long to find out which government you are going to get, but deciding on close individual seats can take weeks. Some find that unsettling, I occasionally liked not having a politician representing me.
No matter which system is used, 60% of voters will get a government they don't really want.
Do you think that the winning MP reflected the overall will of the electorate, or would it have been good to know which of the top two candidates would have been preferred by those who originally backed the third, fourth and fifth placed candidates?
But, it's a complicated issue, and I think there is likely to be a very low turn-out, especially in areas where there isn't another local/district election at the same time.
But when they are fronted by career grinning idiots like Kriss Akabusi,I find it patronising and, to be frank, rather nauseating.
In the ten reasons to support AV , 2 and 6 seem to be exactly the same, while 7 claims that "To be sure of winning a seat with AV, candidates will have to get over 50% of the votes in that area". Depending on how you read the sentence it's either wrong (what if everyone just votes for the single same candidate as at present) or misleading.
TimE - At least the AV campaign can come up with a list of 10 reasons to vote for it. The FPTP campaign has no positive reasons on its website, just 3 negatives of AV, and they're all misleading half truths
I will always vote for "better than what we have now", rather than hold out for something that may or may not come up in my lifetime.
I have a voting paper for tomorrow - and a quick check of LBTH web site also says the vote is tomorrow.
Yet your blog post, and Radio4 Today this morning says not for another month.
I am seriously confused.
I was torn too, but in the end I think I'll vote yes.
35% vote Diamond 1st, Club 2nd, Heart 3rd
33% vote Heart 1st, Club 2nd, Diamond 3rd
32% vote Club 1st, Heart 2nd, Diamond 3rd
Despite being everyone's first or second preference, Club is eliminated in the first round.
Not just FPP or AV, I want propotional representation!
I fear no matter what the result of this it will be 25years before we get the opportunity to change it again... in frustration I will abstain.
But I do see it as a win-win situation - if the referendum fails then the Lib Dems will probably ditch the coalition, if it passes then we get a better voting system.
It really is a simple system and very easy to use. You can find out about it here:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/hor_count.htm
You want a proper form of 'proportional representation' - but this is mainly used for multi-member constituencies - i.e. the Australian Senate. Being a democracy we elect our upper house - but we don't just vote for one person. Each of us can vote for (usually, let's not get technical) six people each election. There is one voting paper to do this, and voted are counted according to a PR method. This is very complex and gives me the sweats whenever I have to teach it... But you can find out about it here:
http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/senate_count.htm
Unless you are saying that you'd like (a) your entire House of Commons to be a multi-member constituency (i.e. getting rid of the idea that you are represented by one MP) OR (b) unless you want to move to a system like Germany (mixed member proportional representation) I'm not sure what you mean.
This is known as the single transferrable vote, proportional representation or 'AV' voting.
To say 'preferential voting'.
The First Past the Past system gives one person, one vote.
It has been used in British general elections for hundreds of years, and is now used by 2.4 billion people around the world in elections, whilst only three countries use AV.
Under Alternative Vote, everyone gets to vote, but whilst some votes are counted only once, others are counted two, or three or four times, or even more. Votes for some losing minority candidates get counted again and again, and get to determine the final result, whilst other votes are landlocked on stronger candidates and counted only once.
Under First Past the Post everyone gets to vote, each vote is counted once, and the candidate with the most votes wins.
AV is most easily dismissed as a stitch up to keep the Lib Dems as king makers. If you like that DG, vote Yes, if not vote no.
The campaign has been awful, but you can't debate these things properly without getting into some fairly theory based political science. You have to think about what kind of government you want, not what voting system.
Median Voter Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_Voter_Theory) is why I think the two party system is a good idea. I know people have strong opinions on some issues (environment, immigration etc) but I think you get better conclusions when Parties have to represent all issues within a collective philosophy.
I don't want a parliament of single issue groups who trade off with each other - I want a group of people supported by competing interests who consider what is in total the best for the greatest number.
That's why I'm voting no.
It sounds like you want full PR, with all its consequences, in which case voting yes is the more likely of the two options to achieve that by keeping the LDs in office.
While we're at it, it's also fallacy that modern democracy allows people to choose exactly what they want. The only thing it is really good for is allowing voters to kick the Government out if they're doing a bad job, and FPTP produces majorities, making it a better - albeit still rather blunt - tool to allow that.
@Tom - votes are for candidates, not parties in the AV system. Also - every voter has a hypothetically equal chance of being that voter whose vote in counted more than once. So all go in with equal chances.
I am not an expert in electoral systems or psephology but I don't know of a fairer way of dividing the votes other than on a 50% plus one vote as quota (at least in a SMC), and this is a fairer measure than 30% or 70%. Yes, just under 50% are not happy, but 50% plus one vote plus whatever are.
I am no great fan of the AV system. But a NO vote would be interpreted as "The Great British Public want us to stay exactly as we are."
I don't, so I know how I will be voting.
At the last election, it was my belief that the majority of the electorate were tired of the Labour Government, but were not particularly enticed by what the Conservatives had to offer. At the same time they were frustrated by the Liberal Democrats refusing to say which party they would prefer to support in the event of a hung Parliament. I suspect that a large proportion of the people that voted Liberal Democrat would have liked to see a LibDem-Labour coalition following the election. However I have no way of knowing if this is the case because we don't record if those LibDem voters would prefer Labour over the Tories. If we did have that kind of information it would have lead to a more informed debate both before the election and during the Coalition negotiations.
I think that what I hate most is that I will end up voting not for the system that I consider best, but for the system whose opponents and their arguments make me puke more.
That's perhaps not a good thing. But what are we to do when politics, politicians and parties and the media that surround them are incapable of grown-up and sensible discussion?
However, I can honestly assure you that AV is really easy to understand and count once you have done it once or twice. If you want to learn to vote strategically it takes a little more work and a good knowledge of your local electorate ... but not everyone does this.
I teach it to 18 YO UG's and most of them get it really quickly. The PR system used in the Australian Senate (a multi-member constituency) is, on the other hand, really quite complex.
I am still curious to know what it is that advocates of 'full PR' want? What would a voting system / constituency look like with full PR?
Let's say I really like candidate X, could live with candidate Y but would hate to be represented by candidate Z.
Under AV I can vote for X and indicate that I prefer Y over Z. Under FPTP I would have to try to guess whether X or Y has a better shot at beating Z and then decide whether to express my opinion that I want X or express the opinion that I really don't want Z. For that reason FPTP seems much more complicated to me and I like living in a country which uses AV (albeit at federal elections, Australians have to vote and we have to number every square).
Tom,
Just because a vote ends up being 'counted' more than once doesn't mean that it 'counts' for more than other votes. Votes are only counted more than once so they can be put into different piles and this isn't any real difference to what happens when votes are checked or a recount takes place.
This seems to be a spurious argument put about by some advocates of FPTP.
Also, Australia doesn't seem to be more prone to hung parliaments than the UK. We both had a hung parliament at our 2010 elections but these were the first in a long time and reflect unusual situations.
Hung parliaments and odd coalitions have happened in recent times in Australia, NZ and Germany as well as the UK - all have very different electoral systems.
Compare this to a truly proportional system, where all votes are equal, and you can see why this argument is important, though obviously truly proportional systems have their downsides, not least putting more of the power in the hands of party elites in the form of a list system.
But I like the suggestion to look at who's saying Yes and who's saying No, and decide whom you find most revolting. Nick Griffin, Caroline Flint, David Blunkett... the No camp win out on revoltingness in my book.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/02/how_av_made_cameron_tory_leade.html
The YES campaign is lying because it's built entirely on lies. Nobody wants this system, it's *not* proportional, it *doesn't* guarantee a more representative parliament, it *doesn't* get rid of tactical voting, it *doesn't* ensure that the winner has 50% support even if you consider ninth preferences as valid as first preferences (which is disgusting), it *doesn't* make a move to STV or another proportional system more likely (arguably less, because it will take several parliaments to bed in, while FPTP will still remain a 'running sore' in the eyes of many), it *is* a partisan fraud on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
I'm not a massive lover of FPTP, I just think AV is a genuinely terrible system, that is being built on a foundation of lies. Vote NO, despite the buffoonery of the campaign.
I'm an Aussie, and am astounded at the LACK of sensible argument going on in the media on this topic.
Several times I've seen reports which had the NO campaign mention (in a denigrating fashion) that one of the three places in the world with Proportional Representation is Australia. So why hasn't either side actually checked with the Aussie voters about what they feel works / doesn't work about the system?
Oh wait - that might have led to some sensible debate, as opposed to the drivel which is being endlessly replayed at the moment.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy