Vote YES to AV

[lizzywizzy]

I have not recieved my voting card so I assume they do not want my vote.

 

My mum had hers, my dad has his and my brothers proxy vote, yet I didnt get one.... Its not even at my old flat, so I guess I wont be voting this time around.

[Guy]

I have not recieved my voting card so I assume they do not want my vote.

 

My mum had hers, my dad has his and my brothers proxy vote, yet I didnt get one.... Its not even at my old flat, so I guess I wont be voting this time around.

I don't think you actually need the card when you go down there to vote - it just speeds it up.

[lizzywizzy]

Our polling station wont let you vote without it, plus I dont know what polling station I am supposed to be using, either the one where I am living now (I am on the electorial role and council tax for this house) or the old polling station for my old flat :-/

[Mercifull]

You don't need your poll card to vote regardless of what the poll clerk says. I've worked at poll booths before, they are being lazy because they can't be bothered to look for you. However if you didn't receive one its possible that you're not on the electoral roll. You can be paying council tax without being on the roll.

[Mercifull]

Noone looks back. All votes are cast before the result is known.

[Sy_Accursed]

Yeah there this odd fixation with "changing your vote after seeing the result"

This is not what occurs AT ALL.

 

You get a voting card.

Your number as few or many choices as you like 1,2,3 etc.

You cast your vote.

No-one in any way shape or form sees the outcome and then votes again you vote is already cast in its entirety before a single ballot is counted.

 

And it still baffles me how people can think its unfair on them if their 2nd choice isn't used.

If your second choice isn't used your party is winning, that's a good thing!

 

I also don't see why allowing extra choices in ludicrous. Every other aspect of life allows it.

University applications let you rank choices.

If you order in a restaurant you are allowed a 2nd choice if they are out.

If you go to see a movie you'll often have a list of choices and compromise on a film that everyone, or at least the majority, want to see using peoples 2nd and 3rd choices.

When you go shopping you have brands/items that you want and 2nd choices if the shop doesn't have them.

 

In this day and age its ridiculous to not allow choices in voting, since the vast majority have multiple parties they like/agree with and aren't strictly a 1 party person; its not like the US where everyone seems to be able to say "I am a republican" or "I am a democrat"

[Ginger_Warrior]

OK, I'll put this as neutral as is acceptable for you guys.

 

* A vote for a third placed or worse party is counted once in the first round, and then counted again in the second round and subsequent rounds via the second preference mechanism;

* A vote for a first or second placed party is counted once in the first round, and then not counted again in any subsequent rounds.

 

Agreed? I mean that is what happens in AV. Losing votes are counted towards second preferences.

[Sy_Accursed]

To be concise its:

All votes are counted. Losing party is eliminated.

All votes are recounted with the 2nd choice vote of those who backed the loser being counted opposed to first choice.

[Ginger_Warrior]

So votes made for a second choice or even third choice candidate effectively make-or-break the whole election, as opposed to our current system where only first choice votes count.

 

This is one of the problems I have with this system. Yes, theoretically you achieve a majority and, yes, theoretically this makes more democratic sense. But the underlying fact of the matter is that a majority still did not vote the winning candidate as their first choice. Unless of course the winning candidate had a majority in the first round in which case they'd still have been elected under FPTP anyway.

[Sy_Accursed]

So what if its not their first choice?

It's still someone the majority did choose.

 

You don't have to vote for everyone, so every vote that made that party win was someone who wanted that candidate on some level.

 

If your poll card had

Conservative

Labour

Lib Dem

Green

BNP

UKIP

Monster Raving Loony Party

 

you're allowed to do:

1) Lib Dem

2) Labour

3) Green

4) Monster raving loony

 

and leave bnp, ukip and conservative blank.

So its not like the party that gets the majority is just a procvess of elimination result. They did get chosen by the majority. Using my example ranking even if Green one I'd still of chosen Green and be glad green got it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Except they didn't choose it. They chose someone else, they lost, and so they chose someone else after that. Yes, I'm aware they can't vote retrospectively.

 

The point is the winning candidate under AV wins using votes that considered that candidate to be second or third best, and I just don't see how that improves representation at a constituency level.

[Danqazmlp]

Because then at least they preferred that candidate over the other. Instead of 65% disliking the winner, there is the chance 30% of them at least liked them, just not as much as somebody else.

[Sy_Accursed]

It improves it because the majority choose it.

It does not matter what choice level you put them at its still someone you choose; you don;t put people on your vote if you don;t want them.

 

And its far far far better to have an mp who speaks, on some level, for over 50% of their voters.

Than an mp is the first choice of a minority of their voters; who it is quite possible the majority are strongly opposed too.

 

I don;t see how people can't grasp: the extra choices are STILL your choices, just because its not your first choice doesn't mean you did not pick it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Perhaps what we don't understand is that if after the first round of voting, one candidate has more votes than any other, why that candidate can't just be declared the winner.

[Danqazmlp]

Because even though their 35% of the votes may be higher than the rest, there is still the chance 65% dislike them, but voted for various other parties. Those 65% should still get a say.

[Sy_Accursed]

Perhaps what we don't understand is that if after the first round of voting, one candidate has more votes than any other, why that candidate can't just be declared the winner.

 

1) There's no "rounds of voting" you vote once.

2) Because the whole point is that person rarely has an overall majority and in many cases is some that the majority actually strongly opposes.

 

Good examples are the few seats BNP won, won with just over 30% of the vote. There were protests enmass about it because that other ~70% were strongly opposed to the BNP, yet being spoken for by a BNP mp.

 

It's pure and simple about ensuring MPs do speak for the majority of their constituency

[Ginger_Warrior]

Because even though their 35% of the votes may be higher than the rest, there is still the chance 65% dislike them, but voted for various other parties. Those 65% should still get a say.

They already do get a say. There is nothing stopping my local Liberal club from arranging an appointment with my Labour MP and indeed on many issues, if they're both as congruous as you might imply, they would agree anyway.

 

People 'get their say' at reelection time. If the MP hasn't been doing a good enough job at representing people in his/her constituency, they will be voted out.

 

Good examples are the few seats BNP won, won with just over 30% of the vote. There were protests enmass about it because that other ~70% were strongly opposed to the BNP, yet being spoken for by a BNP mp.

There are no BNP Members of Parliament. I think what you meant to refer to were the two MEPs voted in the north of England who were voted in via PR. This shows why shouldn't be supporting AV, not vice versa.

[Sy_Accursed]

Just because you can talk to an MP doesn't mean they represent you.

If you are violently anti-conservative and conservative mp isn't going to support your views.

And it's not fair if a conservative mp gets a seat as they have 30% of the vote if the other 70% are very anti-conservative.

 

This isn't the same as a race where someone wins and thats it. This person is the peoples representative and voice in parliament; the winner needs to be someone who speaks for the majority of the people.

 

And my bad I was thinking of local elections opposed to the general one.

Point still stands though.

[Will H]

Because even though their 35% of the votes may be higher than the rest, there is still the chance 65% dislike them, but voted for various other parties. Those 65% should still get a say.

 

But those 65% never laid out a coherent and stable alternative to the incumbent, which is an important part of politics. First Past the Post encourages is a positive "I support this party, I'll vote for them" approach, whereas AV encourages a negative and frankly unintelligent "I dislike that party, so I'll vote for the best way that I can see that will get them out of power" approach. Only when the opposition can unify themselves under a decisive and widely supported argument against the government, even if it is born of more than one party, do they have the legitimacy to become the government themselves.

[Ginger_Warrior]

And it's not fair if a conservative mp gets a seat as they have 30% of the vote if the other 70% are very anti-conservative.

So now we're basing our politics on what we're opposed to, rather than what we actually support?

[Sy_Accursed]

Because even though their 35% of the votes may be higher than the rest, there is still the chance 65% dislike them, but voted for various other parties. Those 65% should still get a say.

 

But those 65% never laid out a coherent and stable alternative to the incumbent, which is an important part of politics. First Past the Post encourages is a positive "I support this party, I'll vote for them" approach, whereas AV encourages a negative and frankly unintelligent "I dislike that party, so I'll vote for the best way that I can see that will get them out of power" approach. Only when the opposition can unify themselves under a decisive and widely supported argument against the government, even if it is born of more than one party, do they have the legitimacy to become the government themselves.

 

No it does not. FPTP is notorious for tactical voting; people vote for party x to keep party y out despite supporting party z.

And just because that 65% don't all support 1 party as first chocie doesn't mean they aren't a majority, a majority who can be strong opposed to the winner.

Av promotes more truthful voting as you can honestly pick your choices as you like and know that sure your first choice may not get it, but your later choices still can represent your voice opposed to being stamped out by a party you oppose just because they got a slightly larger minority of the vote.

 

And it's not fair if a conservative mp gets a seat as they have 30% of the vote if the other 70% are very anti-conservative.

So now we're basing our politics on what we're opposed to, rather than what we actually support?

 

No.

Its all about support.

AV ensures the majority get an mp they in some way support.

Rather than a minority speaking for the majority.

[Ginger_Warrior]

So a majority of tacit support based on 'Let's keep the Tories out' campaigns is better than a third of the electorate giving absolute support to one candidate?

 

This doesn't strike me as particularly progressive. But then not standing for one thing or another is what the Lib Dems are best at I guess...

[Sy_Accursed]

So a majority of tacit support based on 'Let's keep the Tories out' campaigns is better than a third of the electorate giving absolute support to one candidate?

 

This doesn't strike me as particularly progressive. But then not standing for one thing or another is what the Lib Dems are best at I guess...

 

But under AV its not based on lets keep x out.

Thats what FPTP promotes.

 

Under AV you get mps that over half the people support. Always.

It's not fair to allow what only 1/3 of people vote for be representative of the entire community; because it doesn't represent the community.

[Will H]

Because even though their 35% of the votes may be higher than the rest, there is still the chance 65% dislike them, but voted for various other parties. Those 65% should still get a say.

 

But those 65% never laid out a coherent and stable alternative to the incumbent, which is an important part of politics. First Past the Post encourages is a positive "I support this party, I'll vote for them" approach, whereas AV encourages a negative and frankly unintelligent "I dislike that party, so I'll vote for the best way that I can see that will get them out of power" approach. Only when the opposition can unify themselves under a decisive and widely supported argument against the government, even if it is born of more than one party, do they have the legitimacy to become the government themselves.

 

No it does not. FPTP is notorious for tactical voting; people vote for party x to keep party y out despite supporting party z.

And just because that 65% don't all support 1 party as first chocie doesn't mean they aren't a majority, a majority who can be strong opposed to the winner.

Av promotes more truthful voting as you can honestly pick your choices as you like and know that sure your first choice may not get it, but your later choices still can represent your voice opposed to being stamped out by a party you oppose just because they got a slightly larger minority of the vote.

 

I don't doubt that tactical voting does happen in FPTP, but it discourages it in the most effective way that a voting system can: If you vote for a party you don't really support, you are renouncing your vote for a party you actually support. Short of brain-scans, you can't get any better than that.

 

You second statement proves my (and Ginger's) point, you're treating a vague group of people who's only common factor is that they don't support the incumbent government as one that could be strong enough to form a government itself (isn't that the definition of a fudged coalition?). The sole policy of "We don't like the government" isn't enough to form a government itself. I vote to support a party, not to oppose a different one.

[Sy_Accursed]

The point is:

In FPTP the majority is not spoken for, many of them can strongly oppose the voice thrust upon them by the minority.

In AV the voice is heard in full and it is 100% undeniable the people elected have overl 50% of the support.

 

It's far better to have leaders we can categorically say over 50% of the population has chosen and in some way wanted and approve of opposed to leaders chosen by 30% of the population that 70% might strongly object to.

It's not "treating them as a group who can form a government" its treating them as a group who makes up the MAJORITY of the population and have a RIGHT to have their voices heard and so no. We do not agree with that 30% who want party A. We oppose party A and would much rather see party C D or E who at least stand for some of what we believe if party B has lost outright and thus hearing the voice of the majority in who they really want to lead.

 

Just cause you can win a slightly larger minority of the vote than someone else does not make you better qualified to speak for the majority. To speak for the majority you need to be elected by the majority.

 

And FPTP IS the WORST electoral system for tactical voting. It's a fact, all other systems have far lower degrees of tactical voting.