Vote YES to AV

[Mercifull]

If you give someone 50p (your vote) to get you a packet of crisps (no) from the shop and you want salt and vinegar as first choice, cheese and onion second with roast beef 3rd and the shop doesn't have any s&v you don't end up with multiple packets of crisps.

[Guy]

If you give someone 50p (your vote) to get you a packet of crisps (no) from the shop and you want salt and vinegar as first choice, cheese and onion second with roast beef 3rd and the shop doesn't have any s&v you don't end up with multiple packets of crisps.

I know you don't.. what's your point? You still contradicted yourself in your previous post.

 

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.

I am aware of that, and throught this thread I've explained why I disagree with both the voting method and the winning requirements. You've ignored what I've said, and gone back to square one. I've responded to your points and now you're explaining the rule of AV to me again. I know those rules.

 

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.

I've said before - if 30% of people vote for party A in the first round, and party A end up winning with 51% in round 3, those 21% of extra people aren't going to be true supporters of the candidate. Sure they may agree with them a little bit, but the candidate who they wanted to win who truly represented their views would be the one they voted first for. The british politics system has so many diverse partys with such differing opinion that it is hard to have a third favourite - if your first choice is labour than your third choice is hardly going to be conservative - the two are basically polar opposites. The lib-dems are also very different to both the tories and labor in many aspects. Thus, if you think about it, it's pretty hard to have a second or third choice who you truly trust to convey your opinions. Thus the candidate will only really be expressing the true views of those initial people who voted for them. Don't tell me that those 21% of people can talk to him about what they want - anyone can do that NOW using the FPTP system.

[Sy_Accursed]

Yes your favourite may go; but that does not mean you don't support others.

The point is the ultimate winner is someone who the overall majority DOES support in some way or other even if not their first choice.

 

An example being:

My constituency 34% conservative, 33% lib dem, 33% labour.

Most lib dem and labour people are anti-conservative, but not anti- the other party.

Therefore in AV odds are finaly result would be (in the region of) lib dem or labour 66% vs conservative 34%

That ~66% have an mp who speaks for their views and wants under AV.

Under FPTP that ~66% have an mp who speaks th exact opposite of what they want.

 

tl;dr - most people have 2nd and 3rd choices they would rather see win than some other parties and therefore this method ensures that overall majority speaks on some level for over half that group. Opposed to speaking for as little as 30% of them and quite possibly being the entire opposite of what the other 70% want/think.

 

And you have explained your argument, but you jsut keep coming back with the same points again and again. So you get the same responses.

No matter what way you word it you are saying AV gives some people 2 votes. It does not.

You are saying its unfair as people get 2 votes. They don't and it is fairer as overall majority wins.

And no matter how you spin it you seem to be arguing it is no fairer because the 51+% isn't tht 51% first choice, however no matter what way you spin it that person IS choosen on some level by 51%+ else they would not of got that percentage.

 

You said it yourself uk politics is diverse, it's not like America or other countries where everyone is in camp A or camp B. We all mostly have a multitude of views and opinions about most of the parties, and a lot of voting is based no on "favourite party" but on "which party can I vote for to stop the one I hate winning this seat". Av gives voice to the multitude of views and stops so much tactical voting.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Most lib dem and labour people are anti-conservative, but not anti- the other party.

Don't speak on mine and other Labour party members' behalves, please. I'm just as much opposed to the Liberal part of our coalition government as the Tory part.

[Sy_Accursed]

Most lib dem and labour people are anti-conservative, but not anti- the other party.

Don't speak on mine and other Labour party members' behalves, please. I'm just as much opposed to the Liberal part of our coalition government as the Tory part.

 

I said MOST not ALL

And I was talking about MY constituency and thus my personal experience of local opinion.

[Guy]

Yes your favourite may go; but that does not mean you don't support others.

The point is the ultimate winner is someone who the overall majority DOES support in some way or other even if not their first choice.

 

An example being:

My constituency 34% conservative, 33% lib dem, 33% labour.

Most lib dem and labour people are anti-conservative, but not anti- the other party.

Therefore in AV odds are finaly result would be (in the region of) lib dem or labour 66% vs conservative 34%

That ~66% have an mp who speaks for their views and wants under AV.

Under FPTP that ~66% have an mp who speaks th exact opposite of what they want.

This is unfair on the said conservative party. They had a majority in the first round, but because labour and the lib dems supporters seem to have the right to group together because the conservatives are not liked. This is not British democracy. Parties cannot selectively combine together - they are all individuals, and that is the way it must stay. In this case, the conservative supporters cast their vote for the conservatives, and the lib dem and labour supporters cast their vote for their respective parties. This is fine. Then the lib dem/labour people somehow have the right to switch their vote AFTER seeing the result. Does this not sound like some kind of cheating? I doubt your figures too - 33%/33%/34% seems very tight.

 

No matter what way you word it you are saying AV gives some people 2 votes. It does not.

You are saying its unfair as people get 2 votes. They don't and it is fairer as overall majority wins.

I think very much differently, so I guess we will just have to differ on this.

[Sy_Accursed]

No-one swaps votes AFTER seeing the result.

All votes are cast blind.

 

Heck the result isn't the result until all the rounds have taken place to acquire an overall majority.

Oh and still using that example how is it fair that my constituency is led and spoken for by a party that ~66% of the voters do no approve of and did not want in power? Cause thats what FPTP does.

 

I think the thing you most need to realise is while views differ, which is fair enough, no-ones gonna legitimately let an anti-Av argument have the last word in a pro-av thread; its an un-winnable battle.

 

And my figures I fine yes I polished them off for simplicities sake in example terms. We had 5 (possibly 6) candidates, the other 3 got like 1% vote between them. Conservatives had 34% possibly a few decimal points over. Lib and lab both had 33%; maybe a few decimal points under.

[Guy]

No-one swaps votes AFTER seeing the result.

All votes are cast blind.

 

Heck the result isn't the result until all the rounds have taken place to acquire an overall majority.

Oh and still using that example how is it fair that my constituency is led and spoken for by a party that ~66% of the voters do no approve of and did not want in power? Cause thats what FPTP does.

 

I think the thing you most need to realise is while views differ, which is fair enough, no-ones gonna legitimately let an anti-Av argument have the last word in a pro-av thread; its an un-winnable battle.

 

And my figures I fine yes I polished them off for simplicities sake in example terms. We had 5 (possibly 6) candidates, the other 3 got like 1% vote between them. Conservatives had 34% possibly a few decimal points over. Lib and lab both had 33%; maybe a few decimal points under.

Hmm yes. I do agree somewhat with one or two of your points, but I will still stick to my guns. I guess we will just have to wait until the fifth to see what happens.

[The Dark Lord]

Can't we all just agree that democracy is a bad system in the first place?

[Guy]

Can't we all just agree that democracy is a bad system in the first place?

I like the way you think. I say Anarchism.

[Sam]

I'm not of voting age yet, but I don't honestly think it needs changing.

[VARN]

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?

 

Why do Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it?

 

I am in Canada; we keep getting a minority government that can call for an election at the drop of a budget.

[Guy]

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?

 

Why do Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it?

 

I am in Canada; we keep getting a minority government that can call for an election at the drop of a budget.

I'm not entirely sure, but I can infer from their wanting to get rid of it that it doesn't work.

[Sy_Accursed]

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?

 

Why do Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it?

 

I am in Canada; we keep getting a minority government that can call for an election at the drop of a budget.

I'm not entirely sure, but I can infer from their wanting to get rid of it that it doesn't work.

 

Not really.

You can only infer that they want a better system.

We have this referendum because people dont want FPTP, but as shown there's too strong sides. So you can't jsut outright infer FPTP does not work.

 

Also from what I've read they don't want AV but they don;t want FPTP either, FPTP is deemed worse than AV, I think one of them even had a change to FPTP referendum and it came out as no. So they may not want AV, but they prefer it to FPTP

[Millard]

I haven't quite decided yet. On the one hand, in my opinion AV is just a comprise between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives and I would defiantly vote PR. Voting AV just seems like an excuse to postpone this entire debate for another century. I also find it disconcerting that only 3 (I think) other countries have AV, Aus and 2 random Pacific Islands.

 

But on the other hand, the entire NO Campaign is so infuriating, they seem to think the entire population has an IQ of 10.

[Mercifull]

AV isn't my 1st choice either but its progress and I worry that if the yes camp loses the referendum then the govt will say that the public aren't into change and we'll be stuck with FPTP because there's no way a conservative govt is gonna propose AV+ or PR

[Sy_Accursed]

I feel like AV would be a tad ridiculous. Let's say three parties split it 45% - 35% - 20%. It goes to second preference, and it turns out that 9/10 of the 2nd preference voters want Party B. Party B ends up winning even though more people chose it as their first choice. The Party C voters' votes effectively count for twice as much as the Party A voter's votes.

 

No, just no.

 

Its spilts 45 35 20.

Party c is wiped out, their 2nd chocies read.

9/10 put B so we have

47 53 spilt.

 

The redistributed votes don;t count "twice as much" they are only counted once.

Its again getting caught up in the fact the first round "winner" doesn't win.

Placement in any given round means squat beyond not being last.

Winning requires over 50% of the vote. That is the qualification of what winning is in AV.

Party A may of been ahead in round 1, but they did not "win"

 

Party C's votes in no way "count twice as much" they are still 1 vote per person.

 

Av is essentially how things are done in day-to-day life anyway.

I mean if a group of 10 friends deciding what to do 4 said go zoo, 3 said cinema, 3 said shopping. Everyone I know wouldnt say zoo won we'll go zoo, they'd see well sure zoo got 4, but that's not the majority of ppl here.

They'd take that and ask if the 6 objected going to the zoo.

Allowing them to say yes or no.

Thereby creating a 2nd round Av style where u can end up with 8 saying yes to zoo and 2 saying no or w/e. Then overall majority and go with the plan.

[Furah]

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.

Australia has used AV for god knows how long, I don't recall ever hearing of this occurring here.

 

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

Actually, it's 50% + 1 vote.

 

 

Why do Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it?

Source please.

[Crocefisso]

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?

 

Tactical voting damaging hopes for smaller parties, regardless of the voters' actual preference, means that the current system is rather inflexible. Smaller parties have little chance, because people feel their only vote "doesn't count". Someone with Lib Dem leanings may vote Labour instead, simply because it's more likely Labour will get in. This is the most obvious flaw in modern democracy, and AV presents a good solution to this.

[Crocefisso]

 

 

Why do Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it?

Source please.

 

The NO Campaign flyers state that Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia are the only countries in the world with AV and that, of these countries, Fiji is "planning to get rid of it" and "6 out of 10" Australians don't like the system. Naturally, as with all persuasive material, it's manipulated nonsense.

[Ginger_Warrior]

PR presents a better solution than AV, only the Lib Dems turned down a PR referendum for a coalition deal with Labour in favour of an AV referendum with the Tories.

 

I personally have no problem with smaller parties receiving more representation, but this isn't a proper solution because it puts the Holy Grail of PR even further away from reality, conversely making it even harder for smaller parties to change the system, and I'm not actually convinced the majority of people are unhappy with the current system as it is because the majority of people aren't too fussed about what the Green Party gets up to anyway.

 

(Though ironically they managed to get an MP into Parliament using the current system which according to some makes it impossible for them to get representation but... there you go)

[Guy]

[hide=snip]

I feel like AV would be a tad ridiculous. Let's say three parties split it 45% - 35% - 20%. It goes to second preference, and it turns out that 9/10 of the 2nd preference voters want Party B. Party B ends up winning even though more people chose it as their first choice. The Party C voters' votes effectively count for twice as much as the Party A voter's votes.

 

No, just no.

 

Its spilts 45 35 20.

Party c is wiped out, their 2nd chocies read.

9/10 put B so we have

47 53 spilt.

 

The redistributed votes don;t count "twice as much" they are only counted once.

Its again getting caught up in the fact the first round "winner" doesn't win.

Placement in any given round means squat beyond not being last.

Winning requires over 50% of the vote. That is the qualification of what winning is in AV.

Party A may of been ahead in round 1, but they did not "win"

 

Party C's votes in no way "count twice as much" they are still 1 vote per person.

 

Av is essentially how things are done in day-to-day life anyway.

I mean if a group of 10 friends deciding what to do 4 said go zoo, 3 said cinema, 3 said shopping. Everyone I know wouldnt say zoo won we'll go zoo, they'd see well sure zoo got 4, but that's not the majority of ppl here.

They'd take that and ask if the 6 objected going to the zoo.

Allowing them to say yes or no.

Thereby creating a 2nd round Av style where u can end up with 8 saying yes to zoo and 2 saying no or w/e. Then overall majority and go with the plan.

[/hide]

Party C's votes are counted twice. They are counted when they vote for Party C, and then they are counted again if Party C doesn't win. You should only get to vote once, your "second choice" shouldn't matter. It doesn't make logical sense to count the second choices of one group but not count the second choices of another group. Let's say we have a group of 20. 9 say zoo, 6 say movies, 5 say mall. The mall group decides their second choice is movies, which makes 9 for zoo and 11 for movies. However, wouldn't it be legitimate for the zoo group to say that they favor their second choice after seeing those results, and that their second is the mall, making it 14 mall to 6 movies? But then also wouldn't it be just as fair for the movie group to favor their second (zoo) after seeing that, and make it 15 zoo to 5 mall?

 

Basically AV says that x number of people are allowed to vote again after seeing that they didn't win the first time.

 

If anything, the second choice votes should count as some fraction of a vote.

This is put really well. Just because your party of choice has lost should not mean that your vote can be transferred. It is unfair on those people who's votes haven't been transferred. I know someone is going to make a point about you saying

Basically AV says that x number of people are allowed to vote again after seeing that they didn't win the first time.

To those people - don't take it literally! We know that the votes have been cast before counting takes place, and votes can not be changed after seeing the results. This is what is effectively happening though.

[VARN]

I do not understand why it is unfair to group A, they won the first round their numbers can only increase; I do not see a reason why group A would want to change their vote. Spite?

[Guy]

I do not understand why it is unfair to group A, they won the first round their numbers can only increase; I do not see a reason why group A would want to change their vote. Spite?

Sure their numbers may increase a bit, but seeing as both Group B and C hate group A (as is the case in British politics), then it is likely that either group B or C will get a majority of the votes from the other party.

[TrueBeaver]

Don't know all that much about FPTP/AV and certainly didn't read all of the replies, but the implication that "one man, one vote" is violated by AV is silly, as many posters have pointed out.

 

First round: A - 40%; B - 30%; C - 20%; D - 10%

Essentially what happens is there is a new election but candidate D is not an option. If they literally physically held another election without candidate D everyone who voted A, B, and C the first time around would likely vote that way again. It's the D voters who would vote differently (or not at all). Having new elections after each round would be insanely costly so they bypass that by simulating it with preference rankings (1, 2, etc). This means that everyone gets two votes, if it goes two rounds, if you want to look at it that way. People who vote for the larger parties are simply voting for the same candidate twice.

I don't think I explained that very well, but I hope it's understandable.

 

As an outsider, I think I would support AV more. I don't like the idea of a candidate being elected with less than 50% of the vote. However, I don't know all the nuances of your system so my opinion is more of principle than knowledge.