Vote YES to AV

[Will H]

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.

 

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

 

Again, again, it's all about opposing the voice of the Government, instead of actually supporting a party. It's not progressive, you can't get any debates moving forward if you're just voting according to a dislike of a party without putting forward the arguments of your own. I'm a self-confessed Conservative, how do you think I feel if someone says to me that they're only voting to, and I quote, "get the Tories out"? How can I have a rational debate with anyone who sticks with that principle?

 

It's better to have the most widely supported cohesive government possible with a distinct set of policies than a fudged coalition that tries to encompass 50% of the vote and in doing so no longer has any direction and plenty of in-fighting. Democracy is not perfect, there is a point where you need to minimise the flaws.

 

Could you elaborate on why AV has less tactical voting than FPTP?

[Ginger_Warrior]

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

[hide=The Tories wanting a strong first preference Labour vote?]

http://blogs.telegra...l-voting-worse/

 

Want an example? Let's invent a seat called, say, West Borsetshire. It was held by the Tories for ages, taken by Labour in 1997, and recaptured in 2010. There is, however, a strong Lib Dem presence, so any of the three parties could theoretically win it. Now, let's assume (taking the minor parties out of the equation) that Tory and Labour voters would probably tend to put the Lib Dems as their second choice, and Lib Dem second preferences would divide a bit more evenly. As a Tory candidate, one of your main priorities, under AV, would be to make sure the Lib Dems finished third, so that you got enough of their votes to take you over 50 per cent. If Labour were eliminated first, and all their votes given to the Lib Dems, the chances of keeping your seat would be far lower.

 

You can change the specifics, and the names of the parties, but the point remains under AV, the order in which the candidates are eliminated can matter hugely, to the extent of determining the result. That turns the ballot into a species of game theory, in which party strategists come up with freakishly complicated scenarios that could deliver victory.

 

The consequence in Australia, at least has been the emergence of party voting cards, in which your chosen party asks/instructs you to list your voting preferences in a particular order, to maximise its chances in that constituency. Under AV, such cards would almost certainly become a common sight in British campaigns further increasing the sway of politicians over voters.

[/hide]

Seems like tactical voting to me. It's just more fancy and infinitely more complicated for a lay person in the electorate to see through.

[Sy_Accursed]

Its nothing to do with voting due to dislike.

Its to do with voting to ensure that the government choosen IS supported by the majority.

 

A government elected by having 50%+ support via AV IS more widely supported than one elected by 30% support.

Colation bs is totally irrelevant. Coalition government is no more or less likely in AV than in FPTP.

 

AV has less tactical voting because you have your whole voice heard.

 

Under FPTP you may hate con, support llb dem but also agree with most of labour policy.

If in your area conservatives usually win and lib dems don;t do well; but labour do ok. You end up voting labour to keep conservatives out and get someone you agree with in; because lib dems are unlikely to win and voting for them just means labour are less likely to get the seat as opposition to conservatives is divided.

 

Under Av:

You put lib dems first choice, labour 2nd choice.

You can afford to do this because if the lib dems DO lose you're voice is still heard in saying you'd prefer labour to conservatives.

 

Ginger_Warrior - that is a clear example of POLITICIANS using tactics to secure their win, not voters voting tactically. Regardless of voting system politicians uses tactics to try and secure votes; tactically invented promises and pledges to appeal to specific groups etc. Yes some one party fanatics might follow such party issued voting orders, but some tactical voting is inevitable. It doesn't mean everyone would.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well if tactical voting is inevitable--by your own admission, and not the first time you've admitted to what we're saying--then why not keep said tactics to the much simplier FPTP system? Why are you even bothering to use 'Under FPTP, tactical voting occurs' as an argument if it would happen under AV anyway?

[Sy_Accursed]

Because FPTP doesn't represent the majority.

FPTP elects mps that up to 70% may complete oppose. You can't represent a community if the majority don't support you.

 

Av ensures mps have majority support.

 

And yes some tactical voting is inevitable, but tactical voting is still far far worse under FPTP than any other system. Also note I didn't bring it up, I only spoke on it because Will_H claimed AV has more tactical voting than FPTP which is factually incorrect. FPTP has more.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh great, back to the majority argument again.

 

OK... here's a circle. I'll just leave it here since it saves people reading six pages. In fact just to be colourful, I'll post three circles:

[hide=][/hide]

[Sy_Accursed]

The majority argument IS the argument.

People want AV because it represents what the MAJORITY think.

AV gives fairer representation to peoples views.

 

End of debate.

[Danqazmlp]

The majority argument IS the argument.

People want AV because it represents what the MAJORITY think.

AV gives fairer representation to peoples views.

 

End of debate.

 

You have basically said everything I would want too. I cannot logically see how AV cannot be seen as giving the majority view better than FPTP thus representing the opinion of the public more.

[1_man_army]

To me AV isn't the ideal system but I would much prefer it to FPTP so I'll vote in favour of it. The reason AV was chosen for the referendum was because the Tories felt that they could get enough votes out against it, clever (and somewhat cynical) political planning I suppose since a truly PR system would batter the Tories.

[joke_slayer]

 

[Will H]

To me AV isn't the ideal system but I would much prefer it to FPTP so I'll vote in favour of it. The reason AV was chosen for the referendum was because the Tories felt that they could get enough votes out against it, clever (and somewhat cynical) political planning I suppose since a truly PR system would batter the Tories.

 

No it wasn't, the reason it was chosen was because it was a very clear demand by the Liberal Democrats when the 2010 election produced a hung parliament, when the Coalition Agreement had to be drafted. The referendum wasn't planned by the Tories at all, they just reluctantly agreed when the alternative was a minority government or a weird Lab-Lib coalition that the public would be really unlikely to accept, and the referendum would have happened anyway.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Furthermore an AV referendum was agreed by the Commons prior to the calling of the 2010 election but was lost in the wash-up period as the Labour Party rushed to complete its business in government. The only reason it was lost was thanks to staunch opposition to the proposal by the Conservative party, else it would have gone through in time and there'd be no issue with the Lib Dems having to renegotiate it as part of the coalition deal.

 

Had a Labour-Liberal alliance been formed, we'd be talking about PR, not AV since that was the offer made from Brown to Clegg.

[Guy]

Regarding the true majority thing. If people can transfer their votes (I know certain people will take me incredibly literally even though that is not my intention) to other parties, which are not their first choice, then it is not so much support but instead a grudging compromise. It also happens that the Lib-dems will benefit hugely from this - someone who sides with labour is incredibly unlikely to side with the conservatives, and vice versa. We can not debate only on the theory of AV, we must look also what impact this will have on the UK as a specific example, and thus this point is vaild. The lib-dems are a mix of the two, so I forsee that a majority of second votes would go to them - thus why Clegg & his crew, as well as lib-dem supporters, are all very happy about the referendum and want it to pass.

 

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.

Similarly to what I said above, while perhaps it is not intentional that x is kept out (although it is easier to use this tactic in AV, and I do not doubt that this will happen), it will inevitably happen because con supporters will not put down lab candidates, and conversely lab supporters will not put down con candidates. FPTP can not really get much simpler - saying that FPTP promotes keeping one party out of power is like saying democracy keeps one party out of power. By voting for one party to win you are simeltaniously not voting for party x.

 

AV will let parties who get a miniscule percentage of the vote in the first round to win. Let us take the Green party, for example. Say they get a 5% vote in the first round. Second round goes through, they get a small number more, as do labour/conservative/lib dem, but no clear winner is announced. Because of the unliklihood of con/lab supporters voting for the opposite party, they will start listing minor parties as their third choices. This means this small party, who only 5% initially wanted, get the seat. This is unfathomably illogical and makes no sense at all.

[Sy_Accursed]

Its not illogical in the slightest.

 

You chose ALL your votes.

You DO NOT include anyone you oppose.

 

Therefore you SUPPORT all your choices to varying degrees.

 

After that its essentially using FPTP with a require of 50%+ to win.

Only difference is you cast 1 ballot one 1 day and all the tallys are done from this to avoid tactical vote swapping.

 

So what if they got 5% in round one but won overall?

If they go 50% in the end it means 50% support them in some capacity. Its FAR more logical and fair than giving power to a party with 30% of the vote that by no means have a majority support.

 

Besides that's entirely unlikely; in AV whoever places first or 2nd in the first round usually wins. If they only got 5% they'd be eliminated.

 

Also FPTP hugely promotes keeping a party out.

Most voters with any common sense vote tactically.

In FPTP it is FAR better to cast a vote for a party with a chance of winning that is not your first choice in order to keep the party you oppose out than it is to actually vote for the party you want. Voting for the party you actually want (unless it is labour or conservative) just means you increase the odds of the major party you oppose getting power.

 

It all boils down plain and simple to:

FPTP awards power to the minority that happens to be slightly larger than the other minorities and thus fails to voice the true opinion of the majority.

AV ensures those given power speak for the majority.

[Ginger_Warrior]

On the one hand, we have a loosely affiliated bunch of relative strangers who yes, make up the majority of a constituency's electorate but are rallied in no common goal apart from the desire to oppress one particular party in that constituency and have no agreed direction or policy, or even a general consensus on where they fit on the political spectrum, backing a candidate (probably Liberal) who's desperately making wild promises in an attempt to appease all the various parties that ended up supporting him/her despite being pulled in four or five different directions.

 

On the other hand, we have the most popular candidate in the constituency, backed by strong grassroots support with a clear direction and policies they want to see debated in the Commons.

 

I know which one I'd rather have representing the good folk of Preston and making sure my local hospital receives its fair share from Westminister and, oh look, so does my MP.

[Sy_Accursed]

On the one hand, we have a loosely affiliated bunch of relative strangers who yes, make up the majority of a constituency's electorate but are rallied in no common goal apart from the desire to oppress one particular party in that constituency and have no agreed direction or policy, or even a general consensus on where they fit on the political spectrum, backing a candidate (probably Liberal) who's desperately making wild promises in an attempt to appease all the various parties that ended up supporting him/her despite being pulled in four or five different directions.

 

On the other hand, we have the most popular candidate in the constituency, backed by strong grassroots support with a clear direction and policies they want to see debated in the Commons.

 

I know which one I'd rather have representing the good folk of Preston and making sure my local hospital receives its fair share from Westminister and, oh look, so does my MP.

 

No.

Your first thing is total bs.

People don't vote randomly. They vote for people they support on varying levels.

 

Second one is also bs; getting 30% =/= "most popular". Getting 50% is most popular.

 

Both cases equally have grassroot support, the AV option more so as 50% support them.

And all candidates have clear policies and direction.

[Guy]

On the one hand, we have a loosely affiliated bunch of relative strangers who yes, make up the majority of a constituency's electorate but are rallied in no common goal apart from the desire to oppress one particular party in that constituency and have no agreed direction or policy, or even a general consensus on where they fit on the political spectrum, backing a candidate (probably Liberal) who's desperately making wild promises in an attempt to appease all the various parties that ended up supporting him/her despite being pulled in four or five different directions.

 

On the other hand, we have the most popular candidate in the constituency, backed by strong grassroots support with a clear direction and policies they want to see debated in the Commons.

 

I know which one I'd rather have representing the good folk of Preston and making sure my local hospital receives its fair share from Westminister and, oh look, so does my MP.

 

No.

Your first thing is total bs.

People don't vote randomly. They vote for people they support on varying levels.

 

Second one is also bs; getting 30% =/= "most popular". Getting 50% is most popular.

 

Both cases equally have grassroot support, the AV option more so as 50% support them.

And all candidates have clear policies and direction.

Let's go back to the maths classroom. If A has 30%, B has 25%, C has 25%, and D has 20%, then A is the most popular. B is not the most popular because they got 5% less. C is not most popular because they also got 5% less, and D is the least popular because they got 10% less. Until (if) ground-breaking mathematical discoveries are made, this is true.

 

Yes, perhaps people like you (I mean that in no derogatory manner) will vote tactically. But I would argue that a majority of people do not devote a lot of time to thinking about what happens if x y and z happens. They will vote for the party they want to win, in order that they have more chance of winning. It is an awful and naive mentality not to vote for the person you want, simply because you don't think they will win. This also brings into question how many people really care enough to put more than two options down. It will end up being like FPTP, but with a small number of people using their ability to vote twice (yes they aren't physically voting twice, but the fact that their vote is transferred is fundamentally unfair and means that they have both voted for the party that has lost, and the 'new' party). That now harks back to what I said before, about how the fact that the lib-dems are a middle ground between con/lab, thus will get more more votes, and this is also unfair; leaving us with a system where EVERYTHING is a compromise between what left and right people want (that's not to say the lib-dems are in the middle of the political spectrum).

[Sy_Accursed]

FPTP is know for tactical voting.

Heck 95% of the pre-election coverage is about tactical voting.

To claim otherwise shows severe ignorance to the world we live in.

 

At the end of the day AV is better; it ensures all elected mps represent over half their constituencies views and thus better represents them.

Anyone who thinks an mp who only speaks for 30% of their people is fairer or better at representing peoples views has serious issues. It just promotes inequality, minority rule, tactical voting and voter disdain with the political system.

 

You can arguetil your blue in the face; mps voted in by AV ARE more representative of the peoples views and thus the system is fairer to the voter.

 

@rocco or its totally fair because EVERYONE has the same rules applied to them?

And anyone who some how thinks its "unfair" their second choice isn't used because their party is winning is an utterly stupid; you're moaning that your party is doing well? Really?

Also "knowing your first choice has lost" doesn't make that big an impact of your second choice. You can't judge how OTHER parties have done from this, it's not like you can say right my first choice was green and they will of lost therefore I should go labour to keep conservatives out; for all you know conservatives placed just above green. And of course its entirely possible for your later choices to be knocked out before you even get to them.

[Ginger_Warrior]

So why do only three countries in the world have it, and at least one of them wants shot?

 

Everyone in a democratic society wants better representation--why do you think AV campaigners have had so much trouble elsewhere in the world?

[Sy_Accursed]

Because everyone wants one of the many other voting systems?

Av is by no means the best; but it is better than FPTP.

 

Only 60 countries use FPTP and a lot of them aren't exactly top of the democratic world or barely install democracy.

Like most African nations. Zimbabwe, North Korea, Ghana.

 

Run-Off and Party List are the most widely used methods. And Run-Off is pretty much the same as AV.

[Ginger_Warrior]

60 and a few bad eggs compared to just three is still a pretty good vote of confidence in any situation. Of course, not agreeing with that would be to show severe ignorance to the world we live in.

[Sy_Accursed]

Actually its mostly bad eggs plus a few democracies set up by uk and usa after wars and then countries tht use it out of long standing tradtion (eg uk); in-spite of the fact expert opinion has stated for years FPTP is pretty much the worst electoral system going.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Experts in three countries, you mean?

 

And this expert doesn't.

[1_man_army]

To me AV isn't the ideal system but I would much prefer it to FPTP so I'll vote in favour of it. The reason AV was chosen for the referendum was because the Tories felt that they could get enough votes out against it, clever (and somewhat cynical) political planning I suppose since a truly PR system would batter the Tories.

 

No it wasn't, the reason it was chosen was because it was a very clear demand by the Liberal Democrats when the 2010 election produced a hung parliament, when the Coalition Agreement had to be drafted. The referendum wasn't planned by the Tories at all, they just reluctantly agreed when the alternative was a minority government or a weird Lab-Lib coalition that the public would be really unlikely to accept, and the referendum would have happened anyway.

 

For some reason I had in my head that the Lib Dems while wanting electoral reform where pushing for another system and after the coalition negotiations this was the compromise. My bad though, my memory has been failing me lately lol.

[joke_slayer]

So why do only three countries in the world have it, and at least one of them wants shot?

 

if you are referring to fiji

 

the av system used in fiji is different to that being proposed in the uk

people have a choice to either grade 75%+ of the candidates, or vote for their party and then if their party loses their party choses where to allocate those second choice votes (which leads to backroom deals before the elections since these parties had a big say in the final outcome of the election, this will not be the case in the UK as the candidates will actually have to convince the voters to put them down as first, second, etc. and its not up to the parties), and these are the reasons why av isn't very popular in fiji

the form of av that is being proposed lets you rank as many or as few candidates as you like whether you only rank 1, or you rank all of the ones in your constituency, and the party you vote for will have no say as to where your second votes are allocated (there is some room for parties to encourage tactical voting here, but it won't be as bad as what happens with fptp)

 

also in 2006 there was a military coup in fiji, and in 2009 the constitution was suspended, so whatever the government of fiji is trying to do, keep this in mind when you hear that fiji is going to stop using AV

 

http://yestofairervotes.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/in-a-right-old-fiji-fudge/

http://epress.anu.edu.au/fiji/pdf/note.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Fiji#Voting_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_of_Fiji