Vote YES to AV

[Furah]

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

Simplicity != best.

 

Tactical voting is extremely commonplace in FPTP.

[Jack]

No need to fix something that isn't broken. My family voted no, and I support their votes.

[Danqazmlp]

No need to fix something that isn't broken. My family voted no, and I support their votes.

 

But it is fairly broken. People can be elected when a majority of the country dislike them and don't want them in charge one bit.

 

I totally agree with joke_slayer's post. I had a rant at my friend at uni today who said he was only voting no due to it being a Lib Dem thing. It is so frustrating that people can't vote for the referendum as it is without bringing party politics into it. It isn't about your preference to a party, it's about which system is better.

[Ginger_Warrior]

But the fact is it is a Lib Dem thing, this is just inescapable. An AV referendum was agreed and lost in the wash-up period of the last Labour government but only the Lib Dems have ever put their full weight behind it, and when you consider they're everyone's second party it's not hard to see why they would want that.

 

If it's any consolation, I know some students--who for some bizarre reason beyond my understanding still think Nick Clegg walks on water--voted for AV simply because the Lib Dems would be better off, not because they thought it was better than FPTP.

 

Tactical voting is extremely commonplace in FPTP.

The aim of having an MP rather than an American-style federal system is that we elect one representative to put forward our local issues in parliament. If individuals don't have enough faith in the party they feel best represents them, that's not really my problem, it's that party's. It isn't too much to ask a voter to pick the one candidate that best describes them.

 

EDIT: Daily Mail reporting anecdotal evidence of a No vote, 70%:30%.

[Mercifull]

Just got home from the district council elections in Mendip. From what I could see (I wasn't counting the AV stuff) while I was verifying/counting the district stuff it isn't looking good for the referendum. Counting that starts at around 4pm this afternoon. Been awake for over 26 hours already. Oh the joys of election night.

[Furah]

Tactical voting is extremely commonplace in FPTP.

The aim of having an MP rather than an American-style federal system is that we elect one representative to put forward our local issues in parliament. If individuals don't have enough faith in the party they feel best represents them, that's not really my problem, it's that party's. It isn't too much to ask a voter to pick the one candidate that best describes them.

Australia has MPs too.

 

The problem is that people will vote for a party that they only sort of agree with if it means they could stop a party with an opposing stance to them. Why vote for the party you agree with if it means a party you hate would be more likely to get in power? I know in last years federal election I would have voted for Liberal if we had FPTP, because I cannot stand Labor in government, even though there are many policies I don't agree with. With AV I was able to put my first preference on the Australian Sex party as I agree with all of their policies and still put Liberal above Labor. Labor got in anyway, but at least the ASP know I gave them my first preference.

[obidiah]

It isn't too much to ask a voter to pick the one candidate that best describes them.

 

The things is for many voters it IS to much to ask that under FPTP. - Rather than voting for who they think best represents them. - they'll vote for who they think is the best choice out of the leading two candidates in the seat as no one else stands a chance. - because that's whats more likely to affect the outcome and make an actual difference to who represents them.

 

It creates inertia in a lot of seats. If a seat is seen for example as being between LIB/CON - most people will continue to vote for one of those two parties. - even if in some cases the political attitudes of the people of constituency might have shifted and more people would vote for someone else if they weren't worrying about effecting the race between the front two.

[Rainy_Day]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

[Danqazmlp]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

[obfuscator]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

 

Old fashioned broken system that's worked fine for centuries.

[Danqazmlp]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

 

Old fashioned broken system that's worked fine for centuries.

 

But it doesn't work. The basis of what it is intended to do, which is give people the opportunity to have their voice heard for who they want to run the country/their area is not what happens. = broken.

[joke_slayer]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

 

Old fashioned broken system that's worked fine for centuries.

 

things change, just because because it worked fine in the past doesn't mean it works fine right now, or that it won't get worse in the future

 

there was no need for AV when there were only 2 parties, now that we have 3 main parties (though lib dems have epically collapsed), and other smaller parties starting to come through and getting a reasonable amount of support, the validity of the voting system needs to be reconsidered

[obfuscator]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

 

Old fashioned broken system that's worked fine for centuries.

 

But it doesn't work. The basis of what it is intended to do, which is give people the opportunity to have their voice heard for who they want to run the country/their area is not what happens. = broken.

We have it in here, and it's never resulting in a government being elected that shouldn't have. Everyone has the ability to vote for whatever candidate they feel best represents them.

[Ginger_Warrior]

70% of the electorate doesn't agree that it's broken, if you believe some outlets. It might be closer to 65% but still.

[Guy]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

You just appear to be sour that there is one more person who is disagreeing with you and your opinion. Respect other peoples opinions and then people will respect yours.

[Mercifull]

If you voted no because you were holding out for something "better" than AV such as AV+, STV or PR then its unlikely to happen in our lifetime now.

[Rainy_Day]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

Which has worked for years, and it seems a vast amount of the country agree with the current system. I apologise that a majority of the country disagrees with AV. :mellow:

[Sy_Accursed]

If you voted no because you were holding out for something "better" than AV such as AV+, STV or PR then its unlikely to happen in our lifetime now.

 

This is the one thing I didn't follow.

People who agreed AV is better than FPTP, but voted NO because they want a system even better than AV.

Surely if the choice of the two is given and odds are a decisive vote is gonna get us stuck on tht system for aaaggggggges it would of been better to vote yes to attempt to get the system you agree is better in; even if its not the one you ideally want.

[Danqazmlp]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

You just appear to be sour that there is one more person who is disagreeing with you and your opinion. Respect other peoples opinions and then people will respect yours.

 

The problem is that a lot of the opinion is just misguided. AV is statistically better than FPTP. It is there to give a better representation of the view of the country, over a system which favours voting for a party which you do not favour as much. Many opinions are not taking into account the breadth of data out there, instead just looking at which party proposed it and the oppositions blatant lies in their campaign. I do not respect an opinion which is wrong just because the person refuses to look at the facts.

 

I know this is wikipedia, but it sums up the facts quite nicely:

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

 

We are now stuck with a system which does not work as well as it should. We have passed the opportunity to create a greater democracy, a country where those in power would have more support than ever before and would possibly give them greater opportunity to lead the country instead of being second guessed all the time by the 70% of the population who did not vote for them in any way shape or form.

[Guy]

For the record, I voted no to AV. :thumbup:

 

You just stopped the country progressing into the 21st Century. We are now stuck with our old fashioned broken system.

You just appear to be sour that there is one more person who is disagreeing with you and your opinion. Respect other peoples opinions and then people will respect yours.

 

The problem is that a lot of the opinion is just misguided. AV is statistically better than FPTP. It is there to give a better representation of the view of the country, over a system which favours voting for a party which you do not favour as much. Many opinions are not taking into account the breadth of data out there, instead just looking at which party proposed it and the oppositions blatant lies in their campaign. I do not respect an opinion which is wrong just because the person refuses to look at the facts.

 

I know this is wikipedia, but it sums up the facts quite nicely:

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

 

We are now stuck with a system which does not work as well as it should. We have passed the opportunity to create a greater democracy, a country where those in power would have more support than ever before and would possibly give them greater opportunity to lead the country instead of being second guessed all the time by the 70% of the population who did not vote for them in any way shape or form.

This is your opinion and you are very well entitled to it, just as everyone else is also very well entitled to their own opinion. However, people should not be ridiculed for choosing the option which you deem unfit. What you think is ridiculous is what someone else thinks is amazing.

 

And I ask you, if AV presents such an oppertunity to create a "greater democracy, a country where those in power would have more support than ever before and would possibly give them greater opportunity to lead the country instead of being second guessed all the time by the 70% of the population who did not vote for them in any way shape or form.", then why do only 3 other countries in the world use it? Surely if it is such a magical problem-solving solution than it would be widespread throughout the democratic world?

 

I also find it convenient that you yourself haven't answered some of my, and others, main rebuttal and points put forward in the course of this thread. Of course you don't have to, but it would give your argument more credibility.

[Sy_Accursed]

All your points were answered; just cause you don't agree with the logic required to reach that answer doesn't make it not an answer.

 

It's why this thread kept circling it all boiled down to 1 issue, which do you deem "fair":

1) The largest minority winning from 1 round of votes.

2) An overall majority winning from several rounds of votes as required.

 

All other "answers" come from these two logics and depend entirely on which you agree with.

[Guy]

It's why this thread kept circling it all boiled down to 1 issue, which do you deem "fair":

1) The largest minority winning from 1 round of votes.

2) An overall majority winning from several rounds of votes as required.

 

All other "answers" come from these two logics and depend entirely on which you agree with.

This is pretty much my point to Danq - it's what you agree with, there is no real right and wrong answer. If there was we wouldn't even need a referendum.

[Danqazmlp]

If you voted according to that then full power to you. My point is that so many did not. ALL of the people I know personally who voted NO voted because of party allegiance or the lies spread by the NO campaign, not due to having an opinion on the core matter but because of things which in an ideal world would not no bearing whatsoever.

 

Even then however, it seems (in my opinion) logical that the AV system is fairer due to it giving a clearer view of the overall majority of the country.

[Sy_Accursed]

Iagree Av is fiarer; but hey in this case it was a yes or no vote; the winning campaign regardless of what gartered it the votes has an overall majority.

Can't begrudge the victory.

[Danqazmlp]

I still can't help feeling utterly cheated by the No campaign and in part by Cameron though. Partly because of the myths and lies spread, and then by Cameron's decision not to take actions against it. I feel that he did this because of his views on the matter which compromises his position as leader of the country.