Vote YES to AV

[Danqazmlp]

This video describes PR, but the core of it, the 5 votes and the better representation are the core of AV too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk

 

For those who do not know, the UK is having one of the most major votes this century. It is the vote to change the countries elections from unfair, disproportionate representation to a much fairer, proportionate representation system. It's called the Alternate Vote, and here is the main jist of it:

 

 

So whats the point?

 

The principle behind AV is just as simple. An election winner should need the support of a majority of the people. So if no candidate commands 50% support, the last placed candidate drops out and their voters second preferences come into play. This continues until one candidate has majority support.

 

Under First Past the Post ('FPTP') you get just one choice. And that has meant that most MPs 2 out of 3 of those elected in 2010 - get to parliament with less than half of voters on their side. With AV successful candidates have to do more to secure majority support.

 

When most employers are selecting a new employee they tend to whittle a long list of candidates down to a final two and then make their choice. AV replicates this approach with our employees in parliament.

 

So whats the difference?

 

The Alternative Vote takes what works with First Past the Post and improves on it.

 

Your MP - You will still have one MP in your area, but they will have to speak for the majority of your community. They will have to work harder and try to represent more of their constituents interests. And they wont be able to take the people for granted any more.

 

Too many MPs have got used to jobs for life in the safe seats the current system has created. AV gives these complacent MPs a wake up call.

 

Your voice You will have a bigger say in picking your MP and more reason to get involved.

 

With AV you will be able to back the candidate you really want, but if your favourite doesnt win your election isnt over any more. For the millions of people forced into tactical voting just to keep out a candidate they dont like, AV offers the chance of an honest vote. And for the parties who prefer just to focus on a handful of voters in marginal seats, it means your voice cant be ignored.

 

Your ballot - An AV ballot paper will look exactly the same as it currently does. Instead of only putting an X in just one box, you will be able to put a 1,2,3' and so on in as many boxes as you please.

 

You can vote for as many or as few candidates as you like. If you only want to support one candidate, you can - just mark an X as you did before. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.

 

 

 

The majority of the No to Av campaighn is pure myth and is from my view, only the choice for those who have no idea of the alternatives.

 

[spoiler=Myths about AV (Why it is actually better)]

Myth 1) AV will cost us £250 million

 

The only piece of equipment you need to vote with AV is a pencil.

 

The No camps sums, like their arguments, simply dont add up. Electronic counting machines arent an issue in this referendum.

 

Australia has hand counted its elections for 8 decades. The £130 million of make-believe machines dont exist in Australia and wont exist in the UK.

 

AV will keep what is best about our current system the link between an MP serving their local constituency but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving voters more of a say. Short on arguments the No campaign are trying to claim we cant afford change. After the expenses crisis we cant afford not to.

 

Myth 2) AV is too confusing

 

Few people would be confused by this. Voters put a 1 by their first choice, a 2 by their second choice, a 3 by their third choice and so on. The logics familiar enough to anyone whos ever asked a friend to pop down to the shops for a coke and said, If theyre out of that Ill have a lemonade.

 

Some people have a very low estimation of the British public.

 

Myth 3) AV helps the BNP

 

The BNP have already called on their supporters to back a No vote. Currently because MPs can get elected with support from less than 1 in 3 voters, there is always a risk that extremist parties can get in.

 

The BNP have learnt this lesson, and have used it to scrape wins in town halls across Britain. With AV, no-one can get elected unless most people back them. Therefore the risk of extremist parties getting in by the back door is eliminated.

 

Myth 4) No one uses AV

 

AV is a tried and tested system. In Britain millions of people in businesses, charities, and trade unions already use it. Political parties use it to elect their leaders. MPs themselves use it to elect their Speaker and their officials.

 

When politicians are the voters when they are electing their own leaders AV is the system they choose. When you need a real winner who needs to speak for the majority AV is the go-to system.

 

Myth 5) AV means some people get two votes

 

No. With AV everyone gets one vote. The difference is that AV gives you a vote that really counts and more of a say on who your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out your vote is transferred to your second preference. Whether you just vote 1 for your favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the ballot only one vote will be counted.

 

If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out of cod, and you choose pie and chips instead, you have still only had one meal.

 

Myth 6) AV means more hung parliaments

 

No. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as you might have noticed First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung parliaments.

 

Britain has experienced hung parliaments in the 1920s, 1970s and in 2010, and had periods in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s where a single party was unable to effectively govern alone. Canada, which uses First Past the Post, has permanent hung parliaments. Australia uses AV, and has returned its first hung parliament in 38 elections.

 

Hung parliaments occur if enough voters support a third party. AV gives voters a greater say over candidates in their constituency. How they vote is up to them.

 

Myth 7) AV means more tactical voting

 

No. AV simply eliminates the need for it. Why should we have to abandon the party we actually support, to prevent the party we least support getting in? The dilemma facing millions of voters is often characterised as the choice between voting with your head or your heart. AV allows people to do both.

 

AV offers an honest vote. It gives everyone a chance to vote sincerely for the candidates they really want knowing their vote can go further.

 

Myth 8) AV weakens the constituency link

 

No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger. Politicians like to talk about their constituency link. And a lot of them seem to enjoy it a lot more than the voters.

 

Many of our MPs currently have a pretty dodgy link to their constituents. Barely a third of MPs can speak for the majority of their voters. AV strengthens the link by giving people the MPs they actually voted for. AV forces complacent MPs to take heed of the interests of their constituents because their jobs depend on it.

 

Myth 9) AV forces you to give a second preference

 

No. You can vote for as few or as many candidates as you like. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.

 

You arent forced to vote for any candidate you dont want. If you only want to support one candidate you can. Just mark an X as you did before.

 

Myth 10) AV means you end up with the least worst candidate

 

No. First Past the Post just lets in winners that most of voters didnt want. AV ensures a winning candidate has to work harder and go further to secure support from a majority. Thats whats needed to be best, and may explain why politicians are so keen on AV when electing their own

 

When Hollywood recently dumped First Past the Post for AV, they didnt change the wording on the statuette to Academy Award for Least Worst Picture. They wanted a Best Picture winner that could deliver on that promise.

 

Myth 11) But First Past the Post is a British tradition

 

Our parliament is not a museum. There has always been evolution in our politics, and today AV is the logical next step - an upgrade to First Past the Post.

 

The secret ballot, votes for women, and votes for working people were all innovations once, and met with opposition. These changes didnt rip up the rule book, but they were necessary to improve the way we do politics.

 

Voters arent looking for a revolution. Theyre looking for a simple change that preserves and improves on whats come before.

 

 

To any people eligible to vote in the UK, I strongly urge you to vote Yes to AV on Thursday the 5th of May, I definitely will be and will be encouraging anybody to do the same. There are no factual reasons why not to do it.

[Will H]

I love a good debate, so I believe that both sides need to be heard here, for balance. How about I make this one into a 'NO to AV' post?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obZ9OG_XKA

 

 

To elaborate on Danq's post, the referendum on whether Britain should change its parliamentary voting procedure from the 'First Past the Post' to the 'Alternative Vote' is on May 5th, often coinciding with many local elections, but in some areas a vote on its own. This was one of the terms of the Coalition Agreement that was demanded by the Liberal Democrats after the 2010 general election.

 

I would say possibly the most strongest argument for saying 'No' to the Alternative Vote is that it completely violates the principle of 'one person, one vote'. For example, if you vote for a popular party in your constituency, your vote is counted once. If you vote for an unpopular party that is eliminated, your second choice is then counted with the same value as someone else's first choice. You have another go in the next round of votes. If you consistently vote for unpopular parties, the more likely your choice is counted again and again.

 

To say that the only piece of equipment to vote in AV is a piece of paper and pencil is completely missing the wider picture of the vote-counting process. In 'First Past the Post', there is a simple method of moving the ballot papers into piles according to the location of the cross then counting the size of the piles. AV is more complicated in that, in the likely event that should no candidate achieves 50% of the votes, the procedure of moving the votes of the eliminated party according to the second preference have to take place. It is likely that this method goes through several iterations, moving on to third preference and so on. This amount of work costs vast amounts of money when you consider the amounts of votes processed. It's expensive and unnecessary.

 

[hide=A statement from the NO to AV campaign about Proportional Representation]

 

It is important to remember this referendum is about the Alternative Vote system. NO to AV does not take an official position on proportional representation.

 

Some of our supporters back PR – such as Labour MP Margaret Hodge and Conservative MP Douglas Carswell– while others prefer the current system. There are strong principled arguments for and against PR, and it's a debate worth having. The Alternative Vote, however, is a step backward rather than a step forward.

 

AV combines the weaknesses of both systems; it isn't proportional – three out of the last four elections would have been more disproportional under AV – and leads to more hung parliaments and political deals. AV ensures that the BNP will get more protest votes, giving them more legitimacy, but won't help legitimate small parties like the Greens win more seats (the British Election Study, for example, showed that the Greens would not have won any additional seats under AV).

 

Before it became the principal financial and logistical backer of the Yes to AV campaign, the Electoral Reform Society (who were previously called the Proportional Representational Society) said of AV: "AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP... It does very little to improve the voice of traditionally under-represented groups in parliament, strengthening the dominance of the 'central' viewpoint." This is the wrong referendum at the wrong time, and risks saddling the UK with a system that even the supporters of the Yes2AV Campaign don't want.

 

Nick Clegg has acknowledged that there won't be another change in the voting system in the foreseeable future, saying: "you can't constantly ask people. Referendums have a fairly definitive feel to them...I wouldn't be expecting another one." [/hide]

 

No hard feelings, Danq.

[Sy_Accursed]

I do hate a lot of the no campaign bs.

As you covered 99% of their "arguments" are total myth or misleading wording.

 

Like "AV means the winner doesn't win, but 2nd or 3rd place might" thats totally misleading wording as to win under AV requires an overall majority. So if you got that you won.

and the "AV is a less fair representation of the people's voice".. really? Cause in my constituency (bk home not uni) [rounded this] the vote went 33% labour, 33% lib dems, 34% conservatives. Clearly FPTP isn't representing voices well when 66% did not want conservatives...

 

Fair enough some people are genuinely agaisnt it, but the amount of misinformation and outright lies the no camp propaganda spout is awful. Conservatives just don't want it because they rarely win seats with overall majority. Where as labour and lib dems do and 'trial runs' in some places show tht AV would likely see lib dems and labour become the big 2, or possibly make a 4 party system with green gaining power.

[obfuscator]

Don't feel strongly either way, curious to see how it works out though.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'll be voting 'No' because I don't actually see why the current system needs changing.

 

The biggest issue with this vote is the participation rate. If the poll returns with around a 15% rate or something, how can anyone say, "The majority voted for a change/no change" when the real conclusion is that 85% didn't care enough to oppose the status quo in the first place?

[Furah]

Australian here, why aren't you using AV already?

[Giordano]

It's a great system, probably the one of the best in democracies, but unfortunately in politics the same type of people go in and out.

 

I support this, but I wouldn't really care either way. But hell, I'm not even British so I can't even do anything. :razz:

[obfuscator]

Canada doesn't have permanent hung parliaments as well. That's factually untrue.

[Guy]

I'll write up my thoughts later, but I'm irked by the fact that the first post is in no way any kind of debate, it's just a one sided argument. I'd be fine if someone started a 'NO to AV' thread (no not me - I can't even vote), but this is such an incredibly biased start of any kind of debate. It's not even a debate - we're just being told what appears to be the truth (and, as with all politics, this 'truth' is from one perspective). Moreover, OP is a moderator.

[Sy_Accursed]

I'll be voting 'No' because I don't actually see why the current system needs changing.

 

The biggest issue with this vote is the participation rate. If the poll returns with around a 15% rate or something, how can anyone say, "The majority voted for a change/no change" when the real conclusion is that 85% didn't care enough to oppose the status quo in the first place?

 

That's a totally illogical theory.

 

In terms of an actually election:

Not turning up to vote shows that you do not care who wins.

In a referendum not voting shows you don;t care either way.

 

If you care about the outcome you vote; if you don;t vote it can be assumed you do not care.

So if 85% don;t turn up to vote, then those 85% do not care about the outcome either way and therefore cannot be validly used as a "85% like the way it is but dont vote" argument. If they ACTUALLY proactively liked FPTP they would turn out and vote agaisnt av, not jsut not bother to vote.

 

I'll write up my thoughts later, but I'm irked by the fact that the first post is in no way any kind of debate, it's just a one sided argument. I'd be fine if someone started a 'NO to AV' thread (no not me - I can't even vote), but this is such an incredibly biased start of any kind of debate. It's not even a debate - we're just being told what appears to be the truth (and, as with all politics, this 'truth' is from one perspective). Moreover, OP is a moderator.

 

There no rule saying it has to be a debate and the thread never claimed to be such. It claimed to be a thread promoting voting yes to av.

 

Also its hardly using political propaganda "truth"; it doesn't even quote any of the propaganda lines used in the pro-av campaign.

It just debunks no campaign propaganda that is based on totally made up rubbish with no statistical or factual support behind it.

[armybuilder]

i do support it. Wil be a yes from me

[Giordano]

I'll write up my thoughts later, but I'm irked by the fact that the first post is in no way any kind of debate, it's just a one sided argument. I'd be fine if someone started a 'NO to AV' thread (no not me - I can't even vote), but this is such an incredibly biased start of any kind of debate. It's not even a debate - we're just being told what appears to be the truth (and, as with all politics, this 'truth' is from one perspective). Moreover, OP is a moderator.

Why does this thread have to be formed as a debate anyway? [opinion, well actually fact] Some things are just naturally better.[/opinion, well actually fact]

 

Okay, seriously, these things evolve into debates anyway...if someone cares enough.

 

But really I hate how in politics everything has to be presented "equally" and "debate-like". Let things go.

[Ginger_Warrior]

So if 85% don;t turn up to vote, then those 85% do not care about the outcome either way and therefore cannot be validly used as a "85% like the way it is but dont vote" argument. If they ACTUALLY proactively liked FPTP they would turn out and vote agaisnt av, not jsut not bother to vote.

I just find it disingenuous to claim that under PR/AV, the majority always wins, when the majority of people in the UK will most likely not actually vote for AV to be introduced or not introduced come 5th May. I know I'm not the only one to think that.

 

There is also the side issue that this referendum would not even be taking place had the third placed Lib Dems not used that as leverage for a coalition deal with the Conservatives, and we all know how the Lib Dems have kept to their pre-election promises on spending cuts and tuition fees don't we? I don't feel that lying point-blank to students in a desperate bid to gain votes and then using that false support to gain favours from your coalition partners is a particularly honourable way to behave in a democratic system, particularly when they more than anyone are lecturing people on the inadequacies of our current system.

 

They frankly don't deserve it.

[Sy_Accursed]

So if 85% don;t turn up to vote, then those 85% do not care about the outcome either way and therefore cannot be validly used as a "85% like the way it is but dont vote" argument. If they ACTUALLY proactively liked FPTP they would turn out and vote agaisnt av, not jsut not bother to vote.

I just find it disingenuous to claim that under PR/AV, the majority always wins, when the majority of people in the UK will most likely not actually vote for AV to be introduced or not introduced come 5th May. I know I'm not the only one to think that.

 

There is also the side issue that this referendum would not even be taking place had the third placed Lib Dems not used that as leverage for a coalition deal with the Conservatives, and we all know how the Lib Dems have kept to their pre-election promises on spending cuts and tuition fees don't we? I don't feel that lying point-blank to students in a desperate bid to gain votes and then using that false support to gain favours from your coalition partners is a particularly honourable way to behave in a democratic system, particularly when they more than anyone are lecturing people on the inadequacies of our current system.

 

They frankly don't deserve it.

 

How is it disingenuous?

Under AV the vote system keeps going until 1 party has an overall majority.

Therefore no matter what happens each seat will always be taken by someone 51%+ of the voters want to some degree.

You can't factor in non-voters. If people care about the outcome they vote, they don't vote therefore they do not care about the outcome and cannot be considered in voting numbers.

In speaking about voting language refers to those who voted. It's like when they do i dunno a breast cancer drug trial and report that the majority of women blah blah.

You don't go oh its disingenuous because only 2% of the women in the world are in the study and it is not a majority therefore; language is relative to context.

 

Sure the majority of the population won't vote for AV or agaisnt AV unless we have a surprise turn out because the majority never votes. But its those that DO vote that matter, if people don't vote they don't care. It'll come down to a majority vote of those that care.

 

And the reason we are getting the referendum and the lib dems behaviour is a whole separate issue that is totally unrelated to voting on a yes or no referendum to the way we vote.

Sure if we were voting in a new general election the lib dems behaviour would play a factor in deciding votes; but its irrelevant in this matter.

[Ginger_Warrior]

In an election, non-voters shouldn't be considered, but in a referendum it's ignorant not to.

 

A referendum is when the entire electorate is asked to accept or reject a certain proposal, if the the vast majority of the electorate has no opinion, you cannot claim that the majority have accepted it. That's fact, not opinion.

 

Abstaining =/= Supporting.

[Sy_Accursed]

Exactly Abstaining =/= supporting.

Abstaining = not caring. Not caring = irrelevant to final outcome.

 

Your whole original point was:

"If polls return 15%, 85% did not care enough to opposed the status quo"

 

Which implies that 85% like the status quo, the status quo being FPTP

Ergo that 85% are pro-FPTP

 

All I'm saying is that's not the case.

The 85% did not care and therefore did not vote.

It doesn't make them pro-status quo (no AV)

Or anti-status quo (yes av)

 

And if its ignorant to ignore non-voter what do you propose should be done about it?

 

You can't say non-voters support AV, they didn't vote to say that.

You can't say non-voters support FPTP, they didn;t vote to say that.

 

So this 85% who didn't care and didn't vote who you just can't ignore; what do you propose to do about it?

[Mercifull]

Paddy Ashdown talks a little about AV.

http://www.frome.tv/2011/04/paddy-ashdown-visits-frome-with-his-yes-campaign-for-the-alternative-vote/

P.s thats me in the black tshirt :D

[Ginger_Warrior]

But the whole point of a referendum is that the majority accept a proposal. If the majority don't care enough to vote, how can the majority accept it?

 

We can choose to conveniently ignore the fact that most people don't want AV enough to vote for it if you'd like, but it isn't adding anything to the debate really.

 

End of the day, if only 15% of the electorate votes, and two thirds of them vote 'Yes', then only 10% of the entire electorate has (or more to the point, 90% hasn't) but it would go through anyway. That's wrong in my eyes.

[Danqazmlp]

But the whole point of a referendum is that the majority accept a proposal. If the majority don't care enough to vote, how can the majority accept it?

 

We can choose to conveniently ignore the fact that most people don't want AV enough to vote for it if you'd like, but it isn't adding anything to the debate really.

 

End of the day, if only 15% of the electorate votes, and two thirds of them vote 'Yes', then only 10% of the entire electorate has but it would go through anyway. That's wrong in my eyes.

 

But they don't like FPTP enough to vote for it either.

 

To be honest, If they don't care enough to vote they shouldn't get a voice.

[Sy_Accursed]

It's not ignoring anything.

People who don;t want AV enough to vote for it equally don;t want FPTP enough to vote agaisnt AV.

 

They DO NOT CARE is the whole point.

If they cared either way they have the option to vote either way, the poll card has "Yes" and "No" options.

Failing to vote means you're not yes or no.

 

Again your logic is mental:

"End of the day, if only 15% of the electorate votes, and two thirds of them vote 'Yes', then only 10% of the entire electorate has (or more to the point, 90% hasn't) but it would go through anyway. That's wrong in my eyes. "

 

Ok reverse that:

15% vote.

2/3 vote no.

How is it any more right that AV is not implemented when only 10% of the population voted agaisnt it?

That's just as "wrong"

[Mercifull]

I'll be voting 'No' because I don't actually see why the current system needs changing.

 

The biggest issue with this vote is the participation rate. If the poll returns with around a 15% rate or something, how can anyone say, "The majority voted for a change/no change" when the real conclusion is that 85% didn't care enough to oppose the status quo in the first place?

I don't know about your constituency but where I live voter turnout is around 75. The lowest turnout of ANY constituency in the whole of the UK at the 2010 elections was in Manchester Central where it was 44%. I think the lowest turnout on record was in 2001 in Liverpool Riverside which had a 34% turnout. I don't think a turnout of 15% has EVER happened. And even if it was lets do some statistical analysis:

 

An electoral division is made up of around 5500 people. If I was doing a survey based on a population and I got 832 back (15%) then I would give that a confidence interval of +/-3.13. I know things are a little different with elections but even if only 15% turnout in theory that's enough for a vote to be statistically valid.

 

When you get anything with low turnouts, AV is a better voting method. It is in low turnout areas that extremist parties get elected. Because under FPTP you can win an election with less than 30% of the vote the BNP for example get only 250 votes (based on your 15% turnout) and win the election. In my view that is a ridiculous system. Under AV you would need to get 416 votes in your hypothetical election.

 

These numbers of of course hypothetical because voter turnout in the UK rarely falls below 45%, the UK average is 65% and the highest turnout was over 77%.

[Will H]

But the whole point of a referendum is that the majority accept a proposal. If the majority don't care enough to vote, how can the majority accept it?

 

We can choose to conveniently ignore the fact that most people don't want AV enough to vote for it if you'd like, but it isn't adding anything to the debate really.

 

End of the day, if only 15% of the electorate votes, and two thirds of them vote 'Yes', then only 10% of the entire electorate has but it would go through anyway. That's wrong in my eyes.

 

But they don't like FPTP enough to vote for it either.

 

To be honest, If they don't care enough to vote they shouldn't get a voice.

 

So you're happy with ending up with a result that isn't supported by 50% of the population.

 

The principle behind AV is just as simple. An election winner should need the support of a majority of the people.

 

Uhhhh...

[Sy_Accursed]

I'll be voting 'No' because I don't actually see why the current system needs changing.

 

The biggest issue with this vote is the participation rate. If the poll returns with around a 15% rate or something, how can anyone say, "The majority voted for a change/no change" when the real conclusion is that 85% didn't care enough to oppose the status quo in the first place?

I don't know about your constituency but where I live voter turnout is around 75. The lowest turnout of ANY constituency in the whole of the UK at the 2010 elections was in Manchester Central where it was 44%. I don't think a turnout of 15% has EVER happened. And even if it was lets so some statistical analysis:

 

An electoral division is made up of around 5500 people. If I was doing a survey based on a population and I got 832 back (15%) then I would give that a confidence interval of +/-3.13. I know things are a little different with elections but even if only 15% turnout in theory that's enough for a vote to be statistically valid.

 

If anything with low turnouts AV is a better voting method. It is in low turnout areas that extremist parties get elected. Because under FPTP you can win an election with less than 30% of the vote the BNP for example get only 250 votes (based on your 15% turnout) and win the election. In my view that is a ridiculous system. Under AV you would need to get 416 votes in your hypothetical election.

 

These numbers of of course hypothetical because voter turnout in the UK rarely falls below 45%, the UK average is 65% and the highest turnout was over 77%.

 

Heck to further that the percentage you can "win" with in FPTP is entirely dependant on the number of parties running.

In my constituency few years back (for local elections) we had 15 choices.

Taking 5500 as average electoral division and 15% turn out that'd be a total of 825 votes.

Between 15 parties that means in FPTP you could possibly win with as few as 56 votes aka under 6% of the vote.

 

Though obviously we do have the 30% rule in place to avoid this. It still goes to show how fptp can be easily "won" on small numbers.

[Mercifull]

The referendum is to use AV for GENERAL elections. In local elections you normally have 2-4 seats available. Local elections will continue to use FPTP...for now

 

Question: "At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?"

[Sy_Accursed]

But the whole point of a referendum is that the majority accept a proposal. If the majority don't care enough to vote, how can the majority accept it?

 

We can choose to conveniently ignore the fact that most people don't want AV enough to vote for it if you'd like, but it isn't adding anything to the debate really.

 

End of the day, if only 15% of the electorate votes, and two thirds of them vote 'Yes', then only 10% of the entire electorate has but it would go through anyway. That's wrong in my eyes.

 

But they don't like FPTP enough to vote for it either.

 

To be honest, If they don't care enough to vote they shouldn't get a voice.

 

So you're happy with ending up with a result that isn't supported by 50% of the population.

 

The principle behind AV is just as simple. An election winner should need the support of a majority of the people.

 

Uhhhh...

 

I don;t see why some people have a hard time with this:

 

People are given the choice to vote and use their voice.

If they do not vote they do not care.

Do not care cannot be taken as support for either side.

51%+ of those who DO care enough to vote will get the system they care about; all those who didn't vote still won't care.

 

Also ppl anti AV banging on about less than 50% voting for something is kinda shooting yourself in the foot when in FPTP most seats are not won with 50% vote...