Vote YES to AV

[Furah]

This is probably a dumb question, but what happens to the party that had the least votes? Do all the votes that they had just become worthless? Because to me it seems like the weaker parties are the ones being disadvantaged by this system. Feel free to correct me.

Well currently everyone who doesn't have the most votes have worthless votes in that sense. Weaker parties are the one to most likely benefit from the change to AV. Before you cry about a party like the BNP party being more likely to raise to power, the only way for them to would be more that 50% of the votes, as one way or another 50% + 1 have to support the party for them to gain the seat.

[Mercifull]

Shameless photo of me with Eddie Izzard at the Yes even in Bristol this morning :P

 

[Millard]

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

 

I think UK should have an electoral college like America, because clearly if people want to make this system they must be voting quite stupidly

 

How is wanting a fairer voting system stupid? And electoral college? Don't make me laugh, they're are so many things wrong with that system.

[Will H]

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

 

I think UK should have an electoral college like America, because clearly if people want to make this system they must be voting quite stupidly

 

How is wanting a fairer voting system stupid? And electoral college? Don't make me laugh, they're are so many things wrong with that system.

 

Well, some people don't think it's a fairer system, so they think it's stupid. Reasonable logic, but this thread is about debating whether it's a fairer system or not in the first place. I do agree with you on the electoral college though, the last thing we need is to see the American political system as something to aspire to.

[Millard]

^True

 

Anyway, does anybody actually think the result will be a YES? I haven't decided which way i'm going to vote yet but I just imagine the turn-out will be incredibly low with the NO vote taking it by vast amount.

[Ginger_Warrior]

FPTP currently has a 12-16pt lead over AV, depending on how you ask the question. Turnout is the thing I'm interested in. It won't say much about the state of our politics if only a fractional amount can even be bothered about how we vote.

[Will H]

The result will be a NO if opinion polls and betting odds are anything to go by, it always was right from the start. The battle here really is how decisive it will be. If it's close, and especially if there's a low turnout, this won't be the last we see of the electoral reform debate.

[Sy_Accursed]

The result will be a NO if opinion polls and betting odds are anything to go by, it always was right from the start. The battle here really is how decisive it will be. If it's close, and especially if there's a low turnout, this won't be the last we see of the electoral reform debate.

 

Opinion polls tend to be soooooo misleading though.

Even during national elections the polls are taken in the major hubs and/or by them survey ppl on the streets that everyone who is smart avoids. Always reminds me of I think Russell Howard saying in stand up such polls/statistics don;t show the general populations views, just the views of people not smart enough to dodge when you see someone coming at you with a clipboard.

Plus they can be so wrong, most of them showed a clear lib dem win for 90% of the pre-election run up last time and that hardly panned out.

 

Opinion polls always put me in mind of agenda driven magazines (eg a fundamentalist catholic magazine that opposes gay rights) do a survey on their own readers on an issue then use that to draw conclusions about the entire population (eg 98% said being gay is wrong therefore society as a whole does not like gays) and its like not sh*t sherlock that the readers of a magazine with that agenda largely have that opinion.

I mean like the newspapers all their opinion polls results nearly 100% come out showing the party they support on top. eg telegraph and mirror always seem to have labour on top or close second while the sun and daily mail put tory in that placement.

 

But yeah if its a close call hopefully this electoral reform issue doesn't get side-lined. A decisive yes or no will obviously back seat it for a decade or 2, but hopefully a mid-ground result will keep talks open cause I think most everyone agrees we need SOME sort of electoral reform if not AV.

[Ezkaton]

Only 3 countrys in the world use AV and 2 want rid of it... Doesn't that say something?

 

Personally I voted NO. (Postal vote FTW)

 

 

Put it this way - You watch a F1 race on the TV Button wins - Button wins. Full Stop. End of story. You don't go through all the other times and see where you can get extra seconds and then end up with Alonso coming from 4th to win....

 

Put another way - Football. Man U win the season - you don't go through all the other teams goals and knock them out until Man City come from 5th and win it.

 

 

End of the day First Past the Post is the farest and best voting system out there.

 

 

Also I ADORE the beautiful irony of this vote ;) Yeahs.... Lets have a Referendum on Alternate Voting with FPTP system! :D

 

 

EDIT: Also reading through the first pages of this topic I see so many posts by Sy and Dan mentioning "Well in X constituence 33% voted labour 33% voted Lib dem and 34% voted Tory therefore it doesn't represent the rest of the population when 66% don't want Torys in"

 

Well guys then look at it the other way around - 67% of people didn't want Labour in, or 67% didn't want Lib Dems in. Therefore the majority won. Why complicate it and STILL end up with a winner that 66-67% of the people don't want yet grudgingly want as a 3rd or 4th option? It makes no real sense in it. *Will keep reading* So far Guy has been saying everything I want to xD

 

EDIT 2:

 

 

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.

 

AV "Increases the likelihood of coalition governments. There would need to be a shift to more government by consensus and compromise, particularly in the period following elections when coalition or other agreements were being negotiated. This consequential change to the nature of government formation is a key consideration in the debate about whether PR should be introduced for Westminster, including the subsequent changes to the nature of policy development." Source: Page 9

[Mercifull]

Only 3 countrys in the world use AV and 2 want rid of it... Doesn't that say something?

The UK is the only country in Europe to use FPTP... Doesn't that say something?

 

Put it this way - You watch a F1 race on the TV Button wins - Button wins. Full Stop. End of story. You don't go through all the other times and see where you can get extra seconds and then end up with Alonso coming from 4th to win....

Awful analogy. You dont need to win every race to win the championship.

 

This is Lewis Hamilton coming 5th in the last race of the 2008 grand prix and winning the championship.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLo2NcBdKNI&feature=related

 

Also I ADORE the beautiful irony of this vote ;) Yeahs.... Lets have a Referendum on Alternate Voting with FPTP system! :D

You sir. are an idiot. In a yes/no vote you can only choose one. That's not ironic.

[joke_slayer]

Only 3 countrys in the world use AV and 2 want rid of it... Doesn't that say something?

 

not really, Australia and Fiji both use a different version of the one that is being proposed here,

in both these countries you have to list a preference for all the candidates, or let the party you voted for cast your second preference votes for you,

this is the main problem with AV in Australia, the 6/10 figure for Australia wanting to get rid of it comes from a rather biased poll, where a system like the one proposed in Britain wasn't an option

as for Fiji, they have the added problem that they want vote reform in part because people get to vote in 2-3 different constituencies,

also bear in mind that there was a military coup in Fiji in 2006, and the constitution was dissolved in 2009, so what is being done is not necessarily the will of the people

 

and another thing, when women first started getting the vote, there were only 2-3 countries that had votes for women, didn't that say something?

 

 

Put it this way - You watch a F1 race on the TV Button wins - Button wins. Full Stop. End of story. You don't go through all the other times and see where you can get extra seconds and then end up with Alonso coming from 4th to win....

Put another way - Football. Man U win the season - you don't go through all the other teams goals and knock them out until Man City come from 5th and win it.

 

a more accurate comparison would be a race where the last car was eliminated at the end of every lap, and the last car on track would be declared the winner

these car racing/horse racing/running comparisons are complete bs, because if you have to outright win a race you, it won't just be Party A 45%, Party B 25%, Party C 20%, Party D 10%, therefore party C win, that is just downright stupid

 

 

Also I ADORE the beautiful irony of this vote ;) Yeahs.... Lets have a Referendum on Alternate Voting with FPTP system! :D

 

If there are only 2 options, then AV simply boils down to FPTP, so you could also say we are using AV to vote on AV

The problems with FPTP arise when there are more than 2 serious options to chose from, not the case with a referendum

 

EDIT: Also reading through the first pages of this topic I see so many posts by Sy and Dan mentioning "Well in X constituence 33% voted labour 33% voted Lib dem and 34% voted Tory therefore it doesn't represent the rest of the population when 66% don't want Torys in"

Well guys then look at it the other way around - 67% of people didn't want Labour in, or 67% didn't want Lib Dems in. Therefore the majority won. Why complicate it and STILL end up with a winner that 66-67% of the people don't want yet grudgingly want as a 3rd or 4th option? It makes no real sense in it. *Will keep reading* So far Guy has been saying everything I want to xD

 

The point of AV is that you get to say, "Well I really like this candidate, but if he can't get in I would prefer that this other candidate gets elected"

33% for and 67% doesn't necessarily mean that 33% of the voters want them in power and 67% would rather die than want them in power

it could mean 33% really want them in power, 30% would be happy with them in power even if they liked another candidate more, and 37% would rather die

imo something like this would be so much better than risk getting a party elected that 33% of people really like, but 60% of people would rather die than let them in power

 

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.

 

AV "Increases the likelihood of coalition governments. There would need to be a shift to more government by consensus and compromise, particularly in the period following elections when coalition or other agreements were being negotiated. This consequential change to the nature of government formation is a key consideration in the debate about whether PR should be introduced for Westminster, including the subsequent changes to the nature of policy development." Source: Page 9

 

Assuming AV actually does make coalitions more likely (even though Australia under AV has had less coalitions than the UK in the same time period, where as Canada has had a lot more coalitions by using FPTP)

if there is no clear preference of a specific party, then a coalition is more representative of the population

certainly better than a party getting 40% of the votes getting 60% of the seats, while a party with 25% of the vote would only get 9% of the seats

and just because Nick Clegg has no clue of how coalitions are meant to work does not mean coalitions are necessarily a bad thing, Britain had a coalition government during the second world war, are you saying that they were useless and didn't get anything done in that time?

 

and by the way the bit you quoted is talking about PR, AV may give a more proportional distribution of seats, but it won't be anything like PR

[exodus199]

Voted Yes, I wasn't planning on voting but the No campaign was so irritating and stupid I decided to vote. AV seems like a more logical system than FPTP anyway.

 

For example saw a video with Darren Gough:

 

“I talk sport every single day, four till seven, so I know a level playing field when I see it. In cricket, you’re either in or out. So when I played cricket for England, when I was given out, I had to walk, I had to go. You didn’t get a second chance, so why should it be any different in politics?

“In cricket, we have what they call the corridor of uncertainty, and if you vote yes to AV, that’s exactly what you’re getting, but in politics. That’s why you’ve got to vote ‘no’ to AV on 5 May.”

 

WTF??? He's basically just saying " I play cricket, vote no" The other videos were also quite terrible.

[Ginger_Warrior]

He's using an analogy to explain why he opposes the AV system. Hardly treason.

[Mercifull]

He's using an analogy to explain why he opposes the AV system. Hardly treason.

Except cricket is hardly as simple as he makes out, especially when determining a the target score for the team batting second in a one-day cricket or Twenty20 cricket match interrupted by weather or other circumstance.

[Furah]

Terrible analogy. It'd only work if in Cricket the spectators got to decide what the ruling was, and even then it's only 2 options, meaning that AV and FPTP will give the same answer and thus rendering the argument invalid.

[Ginger_Warrior]

He's using an analogy to explain why he opposes the AV system. Hardly treason.

Except cricket is hardly as simple as he makes out, especially when determining a the target score for the team batting second in a one-day cricket or Twenty20 cricket match interrupted by weather or other circumstance.

...I don't understand how that disagrees with me. You've posted a video that shows the flaws of making a system so complex that a lay person no longer understands it. By lay person I mean that Cox doesn't follow cricket, not that he's necessarily below average when it comes to intelligence. This is exactly why I oppose AV so... thanks for proving my point.

 

FPTP is the simpliest of the two systems, therefore it requires the least burden on those voting. You're voting for one representative ∴ you vote for the one person who best represents you. Easy.

[Mercifull]

I wasn't aware that people found it difficult to count to three.

[Johannas]

I haven't read the thread, but i voted

 

 

To AV

[Racheya]

Voted yes today ;)

[Guy]

This really appears to be attempting change just for the sake of change. I guess we'll have to see what form the results take tomorrow.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I wasn't aware that people found it difficult to count to three.

I wasn't aware that was needed to vote for one person.

 

This really appears to be attempting change just for the sake of change.

No, this is the Lib Dems knowing that a coalition deal with the Conservatives was politically unpalatable so they used the deal to forge themselves a better position for the next general election by effectively rigging the voting system.

 

Do the Lib Dems care about the Greens? No; they're political rivals, why would they?

[mcneilp]

Voted yes to AV earlier.

Also had to vote for the Scottish parlimentary elections as well. Voted Labour as I don't think the SNP should have another term in office and seeing Alex Salmond's gurning mug in all the papers is kinda off putting.

[joke_slayer]

I wasn't aware that people found it difficult to count to three.

I wasn't aware that was needed to vote for one person.

 

This really appears to be attempting change just for the sake of change.

No, this is the Lib Dems knowing that a coalition deal with the Conservatives was politically unpalatable so they used the deal to forge themselves a better position for the next general election by effectively rigging the voting system.

 

Do the Lib Dems care about the Greens? No; they're political rivals, why would they?

 

This was a referendum on a voting system, ideally what party is supporting what should have no bearing on the result, and everyone should vote for the system that they think is fairer

 

<rant>

The lib dems have been completely pathetic during this parliament, they gave up pretty much everything they had promised to get this feeble compromise of a referendum, and if this doesn't get voted through they will have absolutely nothing to show for throwing large amounts of their voters under the bus.

 

They have absolutely no idea of how a coalition works, that you form a coalition with a party with which you have at least some agreement with.

 

They have let the conservatives do everything they wanted, while getting a much larger amount of the blame for everything that was unpopular.

 

They absolutely suck at politics, and deserved to be dragged out of parliament kicking and screaming, and be pelted with rotten eggs and tomatos at the next elections.

 

But that should have no bearing on the campaign!

 

What has really annoyed me about this was the campaigning, both sides have been guilty of some bad stuff, though the NO campaign has been much worse, it has spread lies ( http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/campaign-figure-blunkett )

And what was even more effective from them, they used the massive unpopularity of the lib dems to get votes. This really annoys me because a campaign on a voting system should be based on what will actually change for the better/worse as a result, not lower itself to saying "vote YES/NO to make X mad", that is just wrong, and I am unhappy that this stuff has been used more than the actual merits/issues of the system.

</end rant>

 

Just wanted to get that out of my system, was not directed at anyone on here, just not happy with the people responsible for the main NO campaign. The points raised by the regular posters on this thread were decent enough, some people think that being able to have your vote reassigned is fairer, some people don't. AV is undoubtedly more complicated than FPTP, some people think its still pretty straight forward and that this won't be a problem, others disagree, we all have different views, and thats how it should be.

 

That being said, this is a referendum to choose the voting system we think is fairer/better, personally I don't think either of the choices was particularly good, just that AV was a bit better than FPTP (as you can probably tell from my previous posts).

If we (the public) think AV is better then AV will be voted in otherwise it will not (at the moment this looks more likely :| ), and I shall accept the result either way.

I am just upset that the campaign outside these forums was focused so much on mudslinging rather than the actual issue.

 

Look forward to having similar debates on here in future ;-) .

[Guy]

Now that voting is closed I'm anxious to hear the results.. This is really the first political issue I've really cared about, so I'm somewhat anxious.. It has the ability to change the method in which I vote in the next elections (that's assuming they don't call an early one.. :unsure: )

 

Anyway yes, it was good to have a well thought out debate on something so close to home, as opposed to some of the issues I've previously talked about.

[joke_slayer]

Now that voting is closed I'm anxious to hear the results.. This is really the first political issue I've really cared about, so I'm somewhat anxious.. It has the ability to change the method in which I vote in the next elections (that's assuming they don't call an early one.. :unsure: )

 

Anyway yes, it was good to have a well thought out debate on something so close to home, as opposed to some of the issues I've previously talked about.

 

as a student, the first political issue i really cared about was the tuition fees fiasco a few months ago.....

 

that as a rude awakening to the world of politics <_<

 

still quite a long time to wait for the results of the referendum though, counting for it will start at 4PM tomorrow, after most of the local results will have been declared

 

well time to to just sit on the bbc website, with the TV on through the night and enjoy the lib dems getting a (imo) well deserved thrashing in the local elections :shades: