Vote YES to AV

[Guy]

 

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

Are you trying to tell me that if A gets 40%, B gets 35% and C gets 25%, then A is not in a majority?

 

So if no candidate commands 50% support, the last placed candidate drops out and their voters’ second preferences come into play.

This goes against the fundamental ideas behind democracy. 1 person, 1 vote. You are simeltaniously saying (lower down in your post) that people don't get two votes, yet the way that AV works is that some votes are counted twice, three times or even four or five times. This means that one single person gets more than one vote.

 

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 won’t be able to take the people for granted any more.

Often, people have a strong allegiance to one party, and really don't care for any of the others. If someone picks candidate A, it means that they want candidate A to be MP. It doesn't mean they want either candidate A, B, or C to get in.

 

Myth 1) AV will cost us £250 million

 

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

 

The No camp’s sums, like their arguments, simply don’t add up. Electronic counting machines aren’t an issue in this referendum.

AV is a lot more complicated than FPTP, thus more expensive. With FPTP, votes have to be counted once and only once. Whichever candidate has a cross next to their name is the one with one extra vote. With AV, vote counters have to count up the first choices, and in the event that no candidate has over 50% (which is extremely likely), then some peoples votes have to be counted again, thus twice. TWICE. Thus some people get to vote twice. That is basically saying 'If you vote for a popular party, those who vote for less popular parties will have more voting power'. This is an unarguably more complex system than a simple FPTP vote.

 

Myth 3) AV helps the BNP

I don't know about AV, but a full PR system would benefit the BNP. A PR system is really what Cleggy wants - he himself called AV a 'miserable compromise'. Last election they got 563,743 votes out of 29,653,638, as a percentage 1.9%. Source. Out of 650 seats, the BNP thus would have got 12. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in theory - anyone has the right to stand. That's not to say I endorse the BNP in any way, shape or form. I'm just countering your point. Looking at those results, it appears minor parties got seats. This is because the majority of people in their area voted for them because they represent the feeling of the people the most. AV would destroy this concept.

 

Myth 4) No one uses AV

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.

Sorry to break the news to you - businesses, charities and trade unions aren't quite as big or important as the UK government. The end goal for political parties is different to the end goal of a nationwide election, thus perhaps AV is better for their goals. You don't talk about the other countries that use it. Those are Australia, Papua New Ginuea and Fiji. 6/10 people in Australia want to get rid of it (is that a clear enough majority for you?). In Fiji they also want to get rid of it. That leaves Papua New Guinea. So, 1 out of 192 countries in the world. Shows just how well AV works, doesn't it?

 

 

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.

As I said before, do you not agree that if person A gets more votes than both person B and C, they have a majority? People make a decision on what party they want to vote for and they stick to that. When you start putting down second, third and fourth choices, you are simply choosing the lesser of the remaning evils, so to speak.

 

 

Myth 5) AV means some people get two votes

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.

So, in other words, you get more than one vote. Your vote has already been counted if you vote for a minority party, and it is being counted AGAIN once your vote is carried on.

 

 

Myth 8) AV weakens the constituency link

 

No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger.

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but tensions are running high between Cameron and Cleggy because they have such differing views.

 

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.

Until you give me any kind of proof for this, I'm going to go ahead and take this as your opinion.

 

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.

People have 'actually voted' for the people who stand as MPs today. What you are saying that, by process of elimination, more people end up voting for the same person. This person can be someones third or fourth choice. This is not them voting for who they want, this is them voting for someone who they have low opinion of. Therefore they don't care about what they do, because to all intents and purposes, their choice of candidate has lost.

 

 

The alternative vote system seems fundamentally wrong because the opinion of some people counts more than others. To me, it seems like a bunch of politicians whining that they don't get their own way. You just have to accept that sometimes, you loose. I think this picture illustrates it beautifully:

[Mercifull]

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...

2 out of 3 MPs were elected with less than 50% support last election.

[Rainy_Day]

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?

This, to be quite honest. I have no intention on voting yes for this currently.

[Sy_Accursed]

 

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

Are you trying to tell me that if A gets 40%, B gets 35% and C gets 25%, then A is not in a majority?

 

40% is a majority. But its not an OVERALL majority. 60% voted agaisnt A.

 

So if no candidate commands 50% support, the last placed candidate drops out and their voters second preferences come into play.

This goes against the fundamental ideas behind democracy. 1 person, 1 vote. You are simeltaniously saying (lower down in your post) that people don't get two votes, yet the way that AV works is that some votes are counted twice, three times or even four or five times. This means that one single person gets more than one vote.

 

No it does not.

You still get 1 vote and 1 vote only.

When the vote is tallied if 1 party does not have 51%+ the party with fewest votes is knocked out.

All votes for them are utterly discounted.

All people who voted for them have their 2nd choice vote counted and so on.

 

Nobodies vote gets counted twice in the final outcome, each person is still only having 1 vote counted in the final tally.

 

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.

Often, people have a strong allegiance to one party, and really don't care for any of the others. If someone picks candidate A, it means that they want candidate A to be MP. It doesn't mean they want either candidate A, B, or C to get in.

 

This is true. But if someone wants ONLY candidate A they only mark 1 choice.

If candidate a successfully gets 51% of the vote they get the seat, if they don't another person will and thus win.

This relates to majority vs overall majority, the winning mp must have overall majority and therefore 51%+ of voters had them down as a choice.

 

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.

AV is a lot more complicated than FPTP, thus more expensive. With FPTP, votes have to be counted once and only once. Whichever candidate has a cross next to their name is the one with one extra vote. With AV, vote counters have to count up the first choices, and in the event that no candidate has over 50% (which is extremely likely), then some peoples votes have to be counted again, thus twice. TWICE. Thus some people get to vote twice. That is basically saying 'If you vote for a popular party, those who vote for less popular parties will have more voting power'. This is an unarguably more complex system than a simple FPTP vote.

 

Nobody got twice the vote.

If your second choice vote is counted it is because your first chocie party has been eliminated and all those votes invalidated.

Nobody said it was a simpler system; only that is does not need £250mil of counting machines, it can still easily be done by hand.

 

Myth 3) AV helps the BNP

I don't know about AV, but a full PR system would benefit the BNP. A PR system is really what Cleggy wants - he himself called AV a 'miserable compromise'. Last election they got 563,743 votes out of 29,653,638, as a percentage 1.9%. Source. Out of 650 seats, the BNP thus would have got 12. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in theory - anyone has the right to stand. That's not to say I endorse the BNP in any way, shape or form. I'm just countering your point. Looking at those results, it appears minor parties got seats. This is because the majority of people in their area voted for them because they represent the feeling of the people the most. AV would destroy this concept.

 

Yes full PR would help the BNP. But we are not talking about PR we are talking AV.

In AV minority parties will be the first ones eliminated in the road to getting overall majority.

 

Myth 5) AV means some people get two votes

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.

So, in other words, you get more than one vote. Your vote has already been counted if you vote for a minority party, and it is being counted AGAIN once your vote is carried on.

 

No.

If party D gets least votes they are eliminated. Removed. No longer counted.

Their votes are then redistributed to 2nd choices.

 

Part D is no longer in the running at all and therefore has 0 votes.

 

Myth 8) AV weakens the constituency link

 

No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger.

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but tensions are running high between Cameron and Cleggy because they have such differing views.

 

Thats nothing to do with constituency link.

Constituency link is about each constituencies voice being heard in parliament. If constituencies all have mps that got 51%+ vote the link is stronger as the mp speaks for over half of them.

 

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.

Until you give me any kind of proof for this, I'm going to go ahead and take this as your opinion.

 

You can easily google last yrs election results, only around 1/3 seats were won with overall majority (51%+)

 

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.

People have 'actually voted' for the people who stand as MPs today. What you are saying that, by process of elimination, more people end up voting for the same person. This person can be someones third or fourth choice. This is not them voting for who they want, this is them voting for someone who they have low opinion of. Therefore they don't care about what they do, because to all intents and purposes, their choice of candidate has lost.

 

 

The alternative vote system seems fundamentally wrong because the opinion of some people counts more than others. To me, it seems like a bunch of politicians whining that they don't get their own way, and I think this picture illustrates it beautifully:

 

This is an utter fallacy.

 

People can have as few choices as they like. If they have a low opinion of someone they do not include them in their choices..

Parties are eliminated before their votes are redistrubted (as I covered before).

So no-ones vote counts more than once; in the final result 1 person has had 1 vote.

[Mercifull]

Are you trying to tell me that if A gets 40%, B gets 35% and C gets 25%, then A is not in a majority?

 

That means that 70% of people did NOT want candidate A to win. That is not a majority (at least not under AV). Under AV we would look at the second choices for the people that voted cantidate C and distrubute them accordingly. 95% of the time the winner at round one is the winner overall.

 

 

This goes against the fundamental ideas behind democracy. 1 person, 1 vote. You are simeltaniously saying (lower down in your post) that people don't get two votes, yet the way that AV works is that some votes are counted twice, three times or even four or five times. This means that one single person gets more than one vote.

 

All this one person one vote is bollocks. You still only get one vote under AV. If I ask you to go to the shop and get me a Mars bar but if they havn't got any then get me a Twix, you dont come back from the shop with two chocolate bars. The chocolate bar analogy goes as follows:

 

AV - I give you 50p to get me a chocolate bar. I ask for Mars bar first, 2nd choice a Twix, then Daim bar 3rd. Under av I might get a Mars or a Twix and while it might noy be my first and favourite choice, I am happy with what I have. Happy Mercifull.

FPTP - I give you 50p to get me a chocolate bar. I only get one choice so I ask for a Mars bar. You go to the shop and they dont have any, so you bring me back a cabbage. Sad Mercifull.

 

Often, people have a strong allegiance to one party, and really don't care for any of the others. If someone picks candidate A, it means that they want candidate A to be MP. It doesn't mean they want either candidate A, B, or C to get in.

 

More often than not however people live in constituencies which are classed as "safe seats" which means that if I live in Witney my vote for Liberal democrats is wasted. Even if perhaps people only have a preference for one party they might be strongly against another. I might for example prefer the B party to win but if not I want the A party. So I give them a 1 and a 2 accordingly. I do not want the C party so I dont give him part of my vote at all.

 

AV is a lot more complicated than FPTP, thus more expensive. With FPTP, votes have to be counted once and only once. Whichever candidate has a cross next to their name is the one with one extra vote. With AV, vote counters have to count up the first choices, and in the event that no candidate has over 50% (which is extremely likely), then some peoples votes have to be counted again, thus twice. TWICE. Thus some people get to vote twice. That is basically saying 'If you vote for a popular party, those who vote for less popular parties will have more voting power'. This is an unarguably more complex system than a simple FPTP vote.

 

AV is as complicated as writing 1,2,3 on a bit of paper. If you cant do that then you really aught not to be voting at all. I've done vote couting before, its not too difficult but yes time consuming. This is because of the verification. AV is used in other countries with no problems and at no great expense.

 

I don't know about AV, but a full PR system would benefit the BNP. A PR system is really what Cleggy wants - he himself called AV a 'miserable compromise'. Last election they got 563,743 votes out of 29,653,638, as a percentage 1.9%. Source. Out of 650 seats, the BNP thus would have got 12. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in theory - anyone has the right to stand. That's not to say I endorse the BNP in any way, shape or form. I'm just countering your point. Looking at those results, it appears minor parties got seats. This is because the majority of people in their area voted for them because they represent the feeling of the people the most. AV would destroy this concept.

 

AV is not PR. Nothing more to discuss.

 

Sorry to break the news to you - businesses, charities and trade unions aren't quite as big or important as the UK government. The end goal for political parties is different to the end goal of a nationwide election, thus perhaps AV is better for their goals. You don't talk about the other countries that use it. Those are Australia, Papua New Ginuea and Fiji. 6/10 people in Australia want to get rid of it (is that a clear enough majority for you?). In Fiji they also want to get rid of it. That leaves Papua New Guinea. So, 1 out of 192 countries in the world. Shows just how well AV works, doesn't it?

 

Where are your sources for the 6/10 australians that want to get rid of AV... is it by any chance the No campaign?...

 

As I said before, do you not agree that if person A gets more votes than both person B and C, they have a majority? People make a decision on what party they want to vote for and they stick to that. When you start putting down second, third and fourth choices, you are simply choosing the lesser of the remaning evils, so to speak.

 

FPTP works well when you have two canditates, when you have more then you need AV to ensure broad support.

 

So, in other words, you get more than one vote. Your vote has already been counted if you vote for a minority party, and it is being counted AGAIN once your vote is carried on.

 

Again back to the chocolate bar analogy, you only get one vote.

 

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but tensions are running high between Cameron and Cleggy because they have such differing views.

 

He said AV strengthens the contituency link, which is the link between you and your local MP, not the coalition.

 

Until you give me any kind of proof for this, I'm going to go ahead and take this as your opinion.

 

I agree. I'm not keen on that argument for AV.

 

People have 'actually voted' for the people who stand as MPs today. What you are saying that, by process of elimination, more people end up voting for the same person. This person can be someones third or fourth choice. This is not them voting for who they want, this is them voting for someone who they have low opinion of. Therefore they don't care about what they do, because to all intents and purposes, their choice of candidate has lost.

 

It's very unlilely that someone who is 4th in the first round ends up winning. 95% of the time the person who has the most votes in round one still ends up winning under AV.

 

I'm not even going to comment on your meaningless picture.

[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?

This, to be quite honest. I have no intention on voting yes for this currently.

You can easily lookup the voter turnout for your constituency. The average in the UK is 65.1%, the lowest about 44%.

644/650 constituencies has 50% or more turnout. The participation rate is a non-issue.

[Danqazmlp]

This goes against the fundamental ideas behind democracy. 1 person, 1 vote. You are simeltaniously saying (lower down in your post) that people don't get two votes, yet the way that AV works is that some votes are counted twice, three times or even four or five times. This means that one single person gets more than one vote.

Everybody still gets one vote, it just changes which of their votes count. If their candidate has been knocked out, instead of them having no say, they have the chance to have their vote counted.

 

Often, people have a strong allegiance to one party, and really don't care for any of the others. If someone picks candidate A, it means that they want candidate A to be MP. It doesn't mean they want either candidate A, B, or C to get in.

People can still only vote for one party.

 

AV is a lot more complicated than FPTP, thus more expensive. With FPTP, votes have to be counted once and only once. Whichever candidate has a cross next to their name is the one with one extra vote. With AV, vote counters have to count up the first choices, and in the event that no candidate has over 50% (which is extremely likely), then some peoples votes have to be counted again, thus twice. TWICE. Thus some people get to vote twice. That is basically saying 'If you vote for a popular party, those who vote for less popular parties will have more voting power'. This is an unarguably more complex system than a simple FPTP vote.

It is only more complex for those who have to work it out. For the voter it is still as simple as putting an X. The system overall will be more fair with each vote having more proportional representation.

 

I don't know about AV, but a full PR system would benefit the BNP. A PR system is really what Cleggy wants - he himself called AV a 'miserable compromise'. Last election they got 563,743 votes out of 29,653,638, as a percentage 1.9%. Source. Out of 650 seats, the BNP thus would have got 12. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in theory - anyone has the right to stand. That's not to say I endorse the BNP in any way, shape or form. I'm just countering your point. Looking at those results, it appears minor parties got seats. This is because the majority of people in their area voted for them because they represent the feeling of the people the most. AV would destroy this concept.

Without the majority vote the BNP would get no seats. the FPTP system actually benefits the BNP.

 

Sorry to break the news to you - businesses, charities and trade unions aren't quite as big or important as the UK government. The end goal for political parties is different to the end goal of a nationwide election, thus perhaps AV is better for their goals. You don't talk about the other countries that use it. Those are Australia, Papua New Ginuea and Fiji. 6/10 people in Australia want to get rid of it (is that a clear enough majority for you?). In Fiji they also want to get rid of it. That leaves Papua New Guinea. So, 1 out of 192 countries in the world. Shows just how well AV works, doesn't it?

A majority of the people in the world are starving, it doesn't mean starving is the best or most wanted option. (Ty Ian Hislop) Just because some things are less important doesn't mean the way they do things is less right.

 

 

As I said before, do you not agree that if person A gets more votes than both person B and C, they have a majority? People make a decision on what party they want to vote for and they stick to that. When you start putting down second, third and fourth choices, you are simply choosing the lesser of the remaning evils, so to speak.

Should the party receiving only 10% more votes than another receive over 200% more seats in parliament? AV gives much more proportional representation than FPTP

 

 

People have 'actually voted' for the people who stand as MPs today. What you are saying that, by process of elimination, more people end up voting for the same person. This person can be someones third or fourth choice. This is not them voting for who they want, this is them voting for someone who they have low opinion of. Therefore they don't care about what they do, because to all intents and purposes, their choice of candidate has lost.

I disagree. 35% may have voted for x MP, but 65% voted against them. A majority does not mean they have the support of their constituency. At least with AV, there is much more chance of the majority winner having a larger support.

 

The alternative vote system seems fundamentally wrong because the opinion of some people counts more than others. To me, it seems like a bunch of politicians whining that they don't get their own way. You just have to accept that sometimes, you loose. I think this picture illustrates it beautifully:

The same can be said for FPTP. I voted Lib dem, along with over 6 million others. A majority of our votes were wiped clean off the slate because of a small majority in our constituencies. Lib dems got 23% of the countries votes yet do not get 23% of the representation. That is unfair and should not happen in a democracy.

[Mercifull]

Dan, AV is in no way any more proportionally representative than FPTP.

[Mercifull]

[Sy_Accursed]

Dan, AV is in no way any more proportionally representative than FPTP.

 

Yeah Av is about as simialr to PR as pr is to fptp.

 

FPTP:

You vote for 1 party within you constituency.

Whoever polls most in your constituency wins the seat regardless of overall majority.

 

AV:

You list in order preferred candidates within your constituency. As few or many as you like.

If no party gets overall majority (51%+) party with fewest is completely eliminated and their voters next choice is counted.

Whoever finally gets 51%+ first wins.

 

PR:

You get 1 vote for the national party.

x% of vote relates to 1 seat in parliament.

[Racheya]

I'm voting yes, I just think it's a fairer system.

[Guy]

Are you trying to tell me that if A gets 40%, B gets 35% and C gets 25%, then A is not in a majority?

40% is a majority. But its not an OVERALL majority. 60% voted agaisnt A.

No. 60% didn't vote against A, they simply voted otherwise. This goes back to my point about MPs crying and complaining because they haven't got into parliament.

 

This goes against the fundamental ideas behind democracy. 1 person, 1 vote. You are simeltaniously saying (lower down in your post) that people don't get two votes, yet the way that AV works is that some votes are counted twice, three times or even four or five times. This means that one single person gets more than one vote.

No it does not.

You still get 1 vote and 1 vote only.

When the vote is tallied if 1 party does not have 51%+ the party with fewest votes is knocked out.

All votes for them are utterly discounted.

All people who voted for them have their 2nd choice vote counted and so on.

 

Nobodies vote gets counted twice in the final outcome, each person is still only having 1 vote counted in the final tally.

Say Joe Bloggs votes for Party A as his first choice, Party B as his second and Party C as his third choice. His vote is counted for A, but A have a minority so are removed. The same happens for B. Thus his vote is transferred to C, and because they have a majority they win. I see what you are saying about the votes not counting, but the fact is that he has vote for his candidate and he has lost. His vote is transferred, which means he has had more of a say, he has essentially voted for two parties. Just because his first choice has gone out doesn't mean he should be allowed to vote again. I'm not sure how this can be interpreted in any form as being fair.

 

AV is a lot more complicated than FPTP, thus more expensive. With FPTP, votes have to be counted once and only once. Whichever candidate has a cross next to their name is the one with one extra vote. With AV, vote counters have to count up the first choices, and in the event that no candidate has over 50% (which is extremely likely), then some peoples votes have to be counted again, thus twice. TWICE. Thus some people get to vote twice. That is basically saying 'If you vote for a popular party, those who vote for less popular parties will have more voting power'. This is an unarguably more complex system than a simple FPTP vote.

 

Nobody got twice the vote.

If your second choice vote is counted it is because your first chocie party has been eliminated and all those votes invalidated.

Nobody said it was a simpler system; only that is does not need £250mil of counting machines, it can still easily be done by hand.

The votes have been put to two parties instead of only one party, thus have been 'used' twice. This is fundamentally unfair. If this is done by hand it will take absolutely ages.

 

I don't know about AV, but a full PR system would benefit the BNP. A PR system is really what Cleggy wants - he himself called AV a 'miserable compromise'. Last election they got 563,743 votes out of 29,653,638, as a percentage 1.9%. Source. Out of 650 seats, the BNP thus would have got 12. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in theory - anyone has the right to stand. That's not to say I endorse the BNP in any way, shape or form. I'm just countering your point. Looking at those results, it appears minor parties got seats. This is because the majority of people in their area voted for them because they represent the feeling of the people the most. AV would destroy this concept.

 

Yes full PR would help the BNP. But we are not talking about PR we are talking AV.

In AV minority parties will be the first ones eliminated in the road to getting overall majority.

I countered this in my initial post. AV is simply a stepping stone to full PR, I refer back to Clegg saying AV is a 'miserable comproise'. This is what we are letting ourselves in for if we go to AV.

 

 

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but tensions are running high between Cameron and Cleggy because they have such differing views.

 

Thats nothing to do with constituency link.

Constituency link is about each constituencies voice being heard in parliament. If constituencies all have mps that got 51%+ vote the link is stronger as the mp speaks for over half of them.

As I said before, this 51% will only come about because this MP was someones second or third choice. Thus their views aren't being shown by the MPs; their votes are only being counted by default.

 

Until you give me any kind of proof for this, I'm going to go ahead and take this as your opinion.

 

You can easily google last yrs election results, only around 1/3 seats were won with overall majority (51%+)

Perhaps I misinterpreted that quote from Danq. MPs may not be speaking for an overall majority, but nonetheless it is undeinable that they are speaking for a majority of people. Again, the only reason MPs will end up with 51% of the vote is because it is runoff from people who didn't get their first choice. Therefore the opinions of those peoples whos votes count towards that 51% as runoff aren't being shown. Anyway, it is impossible to have one person express over 50% of peoples views. It is only a few places in which an overall majority of people agree on things. In a majority of places many people have many conflicting views, so you will be hard pressed to find places in Britain where over 50% of people agree on everything. FPTP doesn't force people to agree with things they don't agree on, as AV will seem to do.

 

 

The alternative vote system seems fundamentally wrong because the opinion of some people counts more than others. To me, it seems like a bunch of politicians whining that they don't get their own way, and I think this picture illustrates it beautifully:

 

This is an utter fallacy.

 

People can have as few choices as they like. If they have a low opinion of someone they do not include them in their choices..

Parties are eliminated before their votes are redistrubted (as I covered before).

So no-ones vote counts more than once; in the final result 1 person has had 1 vote.

Yes but the fact that peoples votes have the ability to be redistributed at all is almost like 'cheating'. It is unfair on those who only have the oppertunity to side with one party.

 

 

 

Oh, and a rather important question. What happens when no clear majority is found? As I've been told - people don't have to put down a full list, they can only do one. If this is true, what happens when (and it will inevitably happen) there are only three parties remaining, where no one has any more votes or the remaning transferred votes aren't enough to bring a majority?

[Danqazmlp]

Maybe I shouldn't use the term proportional when I describe how I feel about the vote as it does get confused with me saying PR. I feel that it gives the overall view of the voters more weight than just their first choice. It's more reflective of what the majority really want.

[Mercifull]

If you are going to keep on an on about this one vote issue then think of it this way.

 

EVERYONES VOTES are counted as many times as necessary

 

If I vote the following:

A 1

B 3

C 2

D 4

 

And you vote the following:

 

A 2

B 4

C 3

D 1

 

If all the votes are counted and B has the majority but not 50% and for whatever reason D is removed we begin round 2. In round 2 my second preference for party B is counted and if you consider that as a second vote then consider that YOUR vote is also counted up again.

[Sy_Accursed]

Its virtually impossible to not get a result from AV.

 

They go down to 2 parties.

Only way to not have a winner is if somehow both have 50%

But the odds of this are as slim as they odds of not getting a winner with FPTP.

 

And its not cheating at all.

Or some peoples votes counting more.

It pure and simple comes down to 1 person has 1 vote counted.

 

It's not unfair on those who's vote is only counted one time; that means their first choice is doing well.

 

 

And the 51% does mean peoples voice are better ehard. It means each mp is elected by 51% of the constituency, sure its not everyone's first choice; but 51% still registered them as a choice.

 

And Yes 60% did not vote no to party A, by against I mean the opposite of for.

Still doesn't change the fact however that the overall majority did not vote for party A.

[Guy]

This goes against the fundamental ideas behind democracy. 1 person, 1 vote. You are simeltaniously saying (lower down in your post) that people don't get two votes, yet the way that AV works is that some votes are counted twice, three times or even four or five times. This means that one single person gets more than one vote.

Everybody still gets one vote, it just changes which of their votes count. If their candidate has been knocked out, instead of them having no say, they have the chance to have their vote counted.

It changes which of their votes count. So their party looses, so they get a second and third chance! In no way at all does that seem fair to others who only got one chance.

 

 

AV is a lot more complicated than FPTP, thus more expensive. With FPTP, votes have to be counted once and only once. Whichever candidate has a cross next to their name is the one with one extra vote. With AV, vote counters have to count up the first choices, and in the event that no candidate has over 50% (which is extremely likely), then some peoples votes have to be counted again, thus twice. TWICE. Thus some people get to vote twice. That is basically saying 'If you vote for a popular party, those who vote for less popular parties will have more voting power'. This is an unarguably more complex system than a simple FPTP vote.

It is only more complex for those who have to work it out. For the voter it is still as simple as putting an X. The system overall will be more fair with each vote having more proportional representation.

More time = more money. More time also = more time, takes ages to find out who is in parliament.

 

I don't know about AV, but a full PR system would benefit the BNP. A PR system is really what Cleggy wants - he himself called AV a 'miserable compromise'. Last election they got 563,743 votes out of 29,653,638, as a percentage 1.9%. Source. Out of 650 seats, the BNP thus would have got 12. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in theory - anyone has the right to stand. That's not to say I endorse the BNP in any way, shape or form. I'm just countering your point. Looking at those results, it appears minor parties got seats. This is because the majority of people in their area voted for them because they represent the feeling of the people the most. AV would destroy this concept.

Without the majority vote the BNP would get no seats. the FPTP system actually benefits the BNP.

In last years FPTP election, the BNP got 0 seats. If PR came into play, which the Lib Dems want (quote Clegg 'miserable compromise'), then the BNP would have 12 seats.

 

Sorry to break the news to you - businesses, charities and trade unions aren't quite as big or important as the UK government. The end goal for political parties is different to the end goal of a nationwide election, thus perhaps AV is better for their goals. You don't talk about the other countries that use it. Those are Australia, Papua New Ginuea and Fiji. 6/10 people in Australia want to get rid of it (is that a clear enough majority for you?). In Fiji they also want to get rid of it. That leaves Papua New Guinea. So, 1 out of 192 countries in the world. Shows just how well AV works, doesn't it?

A majority of the people in the world are starving, it doesn't mean starving is the best or most wanted option. (Ty Ian Hislop) Just because some things are less important doesn't mean the way they do things is less right.

....what? I'm not sure how you equate starving to elections. Everyone agrees that starving is bad. It's not something we choose. It's not something that can be, comparitively, easily changed. Voting systems CAN be easily changed. The fact that only 3 countries in the world choose AV, 2 of which want/are getting rid of it, shows that it simply doesn't work. Using your example, you seem to say that these 3 countries have AV because they have no choice, or something...? In other words (I'm not sure the above actually makes sense), the world says no to hunger because its bad, but there is little we can do. The world seems also to say no to av, but this is out of CHOICE, not out of bad luck. Countries could easily choose to go with AV, but the fact that there are only 3 shows that it simply doesn't work. It's like buying something that has horrible reviews, but you figure 'hmm they might be wrong. I'll try it, and be ignorant of what everyone says'. You get it and it's a broken mess. This is the same concept.

 

As I said before, do you not agree that if person A gets more votes than both person B and C, they have a majority? People make a decision on what party they want to vote for and they stick to that. When you start putting down second, third and fourth choices, you are simply choosing the lesser of the remaning evils, so to speak.

Should the party receiving only 10% more votes than another receive over 200% more seats in parliament? AV gives much more proportional representation than FPTP

This varies because of the size of constituancies. It is unfair to compare the number of overall votes to number of seats, because some constituancies have very small electorates, thus in PR they would have little say.

 

People have 'actually voted' for the people who stand as MPs today. What you are saying that, by process of elimination, more people end up voting for the same person. This person can be someones third or fourth choice. This is not them voting for who they want, this is them voting for someone who they have low opinion of. Therefore they don't care about what they do, because to all intents and purposes, their choice of candidate has lost.

I disagree. 35% may have voted for x MP, but 65% voted against them. A majority does not mean they have the support of their constituency. At least with AV, there is much more chance of the majority winner having a larger support.

It is a fact of life that people don't always get what they want. 65% didn't vote against them - they just voted otherwise. Voting against someone (which is not possible in our democratic system) is very very different from not voting for someone.

 

The alternative vote system seems fundamentally wrong because the opinion of some people counts more than others. To me, it seems like a bunch of politicians whining that they don't get their own way. You just have to accept that sometimes, you loose. I think this picture illustrates it beautifully:

The same can be said for FPTP. I voted Lib dem, along with over 6 million others. A majority of our votes were wiped clean off the slate because of a small majority in our constituencies. Lib dems got 23% of the countries votes yet do not get 23% of the representation. That is unfair and should not happen in a democracy.

23% of the vote does not take into account the size of constituancies. There could be large consituancies where many people vote, say 50000 for Lib Dem. However that 50000 may be comparitively small for the electorate of that constituancy. That 50000 still counts towards overall votes for the country though. (I use 50000 as an example - I have no clue as to the size of electorate of large constituancies)

[Sy_Accursed]

How is it unfair that you only got "one chance" because one chance means your party was no eliminated?

Thats like complaining that you beat the cullinormancer in rs first try, but others got 2 or 3 tries.

 

Again with PR, arguing about PR is irrelevant to AV.

Yes some ppl see Av as a stepping stone to PR, doesn't mean everyone does.

Most people pro-av are anti-pr.

And what would happen under pr is a non issue in a chocie between fptp and av.

 

Still with saying people didn't vote agaisnt.

In a vote with 1 choice: you for FOR someone and AGAINST the rest as your vote counts against them.

And semantics isn't the issue; the issue is simply put: in 2/3 of seats at least election were not won with a overall majority.

Overall majority is fairer as it means over 1/2 the votes wanted them.

[Guy]

How is it unfair that you only got "one chance" because one chance means your party was no eliminated?

Your opinion has been counted, that was your chance. Just because you don't win doesn't automatically mean that you are more important than others, and therefore have the right to have your vote transferred.

 

Thats like complaining that you beat the cullinormancer in rs first try, but others got 2 or 3 tries.

Killing a monster is very different from electing MPs. Killing monsters is similar to binary, yes or no. Perhaps the end result of elections is the same, but the steps are different.

 

And semantics isn't the issue; the issue is simply put: in 2/3 of seats at least election were not won with a overall majority.

Overall majority is fairer as it means over 1/2 the votes wanted them.

So what happens if there is no clear majority after all transfers are exhausted? It is virtually impossible to find a solution that will please everybody. If people have directly contrasting views, then you will have a difficult time convincing them otherwise. If people hate a party so much, then they will not vote for them leaving the possibilities of hung constituancies due to all transfers being exhausted. These are likely. If voters do not know how AV works and think they must vote for everyone in order - ie. they cant miss some out - then their votes will still count, although it doesn't reflect their opinion. This is likely to happen because I'm guessing the british public won't fully get it. That said, I have no idea about the British public, having lived here for a short amount of time.

[Sy_Accursed]

This whole chance thing is bs.

 

Everyone has equal chance.

Everyone gets the same ppl to pick from and same chance to order their list as few or many as they like.

Just cause your extra choices get counted doesn't mean you have "more chances" or "more of a voice" or "matter more"

you still only get 1 vote under the exact same system as everyone else.

 

And the whole what if you get 50/50 thing, is jsut as much an issue for FPTP. Any electoral system can reach a 50/50 deadlock.

 

I personally fail to see any reason why someone would be legitimately agaisnt a system that ensures overall majority wins and thus overall majority get mps they wanted opposed to a system were a non overall majority speaks for everyone.

[Guy]

 

Just cause your extra choices get counted doesn't mean you have "more chances" or "more of a voice" or "matter more"

Yes it does. The fact that some people have more choices counted than others do is fundamentally unfair in whatever form it manifests its self in.

 

 

And the whole what if you get 50/50 thing, is jsut as much an issue for FPTP. Any electoral system can reach a 50/50 deadlock.

Of course there is chance for deadlock in FPTP. It is much more likely though with AV.

 

 

As I have said before, and I will say again - you will rarely get 50% of people in any place to side with one person with one set of views. We are too diverse to assume that this is possible at all. What will happen is that the person with the third least votes in the first round will end up winning. Take a step back and think, how is this fair to everyone else who voted and only had the oppertunity to have their votes counted once? It is just punishing more popular parties who get 40-something%, which is detrimental.

[Sy_Accursed]

No its not.

Everyone gets counted ONCE.

One person one vote.

 

No-one gets 2 votes.

If only your first choice gets counted you are WINNING its good.

If you vote A and A stays in your vote still gets counted a 2nd time. It's just still a vote for A.

If 500 ppl voted each round has 500 total votes. No-one is getting counted more or less than anyone else.

 

no gets "more chocies" counted. Everyone has 1 choice counted.

So what if its your third choice?

That means your 1st and 2nd choice are eliminated and not counted. You've still been counted once and once only.

 

Its perfectly fair.

Everyone gets a chance to rank all candidates and the ultimate winner is someone 51%+ voted for.

Its much fairer than FPTP where the winner does not gain an overall majority most of the time.

 

And deadlocks are no more likely in AV than in FPTP. The statistical likelihood of a 5 way 20% split, 4 way 25% split or 2 way 50% are extremely slim.

[Guy]

No its not.

Everyone gets counted ONCE.

One person one vote.

They get counted TWICE, you said so yourself. They are counted for your first choice, and then if your first choice loose, then they are added to the second choice. The fact that you can change your vote if your party looses is just being a bad loser. Its odd, unnecessary and extremely unfair to the party who places in first in the inital choices, seeing as they have a large chance to lose now.

 

If only your first choice gets counted you are WINNING its good.

And then in the second and third rounds of voting, you loose because your rivals had loads of people who had them as their second choice. Thus the person who came first in the first round now come second or third. Ludicrous.

[Mercifull]

That's bs about the person winning in round 1 having a large chance of losing overall. 95% of the time the person winning in round 1 DOES win overall.

[Guy]

That's bs about the person winning in round 1 having a large chance of losing overall. 95% of the time the person winning in round 1 DOES win overall.

If so, is it really worth the time, effort and expense of AV? If the person who would be chosen with FPTP is also chosen with AV 95% of the time, or so you say, it's not really worth it. You've contradicted yourself.

[Sy_Accursed]

No its not.

Everyone gets counted ONCE.

One person one vote.

They get counted TWICE, you said so yourself. They are counted for your first choice, and then if your first choice loose, then they are added to the second choice. The fact that you can change your vote if your party looses is just being a bad loser. Its odd, unnecessary and extremely unfair to the party who places in first in the inital choices, seeing as they have a large chance to lose now.

 

If only your first choice gets counted you are WINNING its good.

And then in the second and third rounds of voting, you loose because your rivals had loads of people who had them as their second choice. Thus the person who came first in the first round now come second or third. Ludicrous.

 

 

Its not unfair at all, the system is about being fairer as the end result is am mp who got an overall majority.

And so? Coming first in the first round without 51% =/= winning.

The criteria to win in AV is getting 51% of the vote.

People are too fixated on the wrong thing. Getting highest % in first round in no way meets the winning criteria.

The "chance to loose" doesn't change. Everybody goes in knowing they need 51%+ of the vote to win.

And again EVERYONES vote gets counted twice. It's not like in the 2nd round your vote is ignored if it hasn't changed. It's still validly counted.

So you voted for the same party two rounds in a row opposed to those who vote 2 different parties.

 

Also big whoop of you then lose, you still lost because the overall majority voted agaisnt your party; its just being a sore loser.

People in the No camp seem to determined in my experience to apply things that do not fit to the system on it as arguments agaisnt it.

Like the whole person who wins does not win. Bs AV stipulates 51%+ vote to win; until that's achieved no-one has won.

 

End of the day regardless of how votes are tallied it boils down to:

Which do you prefer a system where a party with under 1/3 of the votes can win. Despite the fact 2/3 did not vote for them.

Or a system where the winner HAS to have an overall majority.

 

When its about electing people to speak for the people I can't see how making sure the elected people speak for the overall majority is in anyway a bad thing.