To AV, or not to AV?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Gary L

No.
as long as it's the right one

you should be in politics you have some great answers to peoples questions

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, why is the vote on AV done under first-past-the-post system?

Because it's a binary choice, obviously

(I assume you were joking but there's not smiley!)

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

No. I don't bother with politics.

Me neither, actually.

[Taf]

Our area has still not received the much-heralded pamphlet that explains AV.

I looked it up on the net, and have decided it's a mash-up that makes no real sense, and is not true PR, so it's a NO from me.

[peanut]

This short clip from Auf Wiedersehen Pet explains AV in more detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTI3Xpkp0Y

[spanna]

Originally Posted by peanut

This short clip from Auf Wiedersehen Pet explains AV in more detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTI3Xpkp0Y

yep

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

Another thought - I've had more people turn up (as opposed to leaflet drops) to try to get me to vote for / against AV than for the actual local election thing.

I've got enough leaflets to wallpaper the toilet..

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by peanut

This short clip from Auf Wiedersehen Pet explains AV in more detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTI3Xpkp0Y

No it doesn't because it's wrong. There's no "points", it's a ranking system. So that clip does not accurately represent AV at all.

Besides, if you can't have your first choice, wouldn't you rather have your second than basically have your vote wasted and therefore your voice not heard at all?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Rob

If anyone thinks that changing the voting system would prevent politicians having their snout in the trough, they will be mistaken.

The key thing with this, which is what I have failed to see discussed in any meaningful way from any camp in the av discussion is whether politicians would be more accountable to their electorate, rather than their party policy and would thus vote and promote their local electorate's concerns rather than party issues. Will av end up with a risk of hung parliaments or favour a particular party to a greater degree than the current system. How likely is it that a minority, perhaps the third running candidate on first preference votes gets in because of the countback system.

The theory goes that because any politician has to win 50 % of the vote in their area to get in, they are less likely to favour small groups of voters that they think can help them win.

Under the current system, it is theoretically possible for a politician to stay in because he or she has a small but dedicated group of followers that are just enough to tip the balance in their favour..


There is also the perception that if you live in an area that supports a party particularly strongly, and you vote against that party, your vote is essentially wasted. I know that, as I am Liberal and live in an area that (apart from a few months in 1998 when it was hung) has had a strongly tory council since the 60s. This leads to people becoming disillusioned with the system.

I don't know for sure if AV will be better, but I do know one thing. If we are not to be gradually overtaken by the far right parties (who do seem to have a dedicated following more so than the mainstream or left wing parties), we need to get more people voting. One way I think that might happen is if they feel their vote will achieve something.

As such, something needs to change. Now.

[LondonRoad]

It'll be a massive Yes for me. It's not the ideal form of PR but it's a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

No it doesn't because it's wrong. There's no "points", it's a ranking system. So that clip does not accurately represent AV at all.

Besides, if you can't have your first choice, wouldn't you rather have your second than basically have your vote wasted and therefore your voice not heard at all?

What if there isn't (in my eyes) a suitable second choice - does that mean that someone else has more choice than me? I want to vote for who I support, not someone who I really don't support, which means there will be a lot of tactical voting (2nd and 3rd choices against a party, rather than for).

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Hugh

What if there isn't (in my eyes) a suitable second choice - does that mean that someone else has more choice than me? I want to vote for who I support, not someone who I really don't support, which means there will be a lot of tactical voting (2nd and 3rd choices against a party, rather than for).

Agreed, in many case my vote is less about who I do want, and more about who I don't want. Damage limitation, especially when manifestos are no longer single issue, but multiple ones. None of the politicians ever do me any favours. I can rarely envisage a time when I am would have a second candidate preference.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Hugh

What if there isn't (in my eyes) a suitable second choice - does that mean that someone else has more choice than me? I want to vote for who I support, not someone who I really don't support, which means there will be a lot of tactical voting (2nd and 3rd choices against a party, rather than for).

Not a bad imho. There's been a few politicians over the years who manage to get returned in their constituencies because they're traditional Party seats. Quite a few of those were responsible for the worst excesses of expense fiddling. If a bit of tactical voting had been used against them we'd all have been better off.

I understand where you are coming from (and agree), but I believe most of them were in extremely safe seats (Labour and Tory) where they weigh the votes, not count them, so I am not sure if this is a valid proposition.

[Derek]

Ed Milliband thinks it's a good idea. That'll be a firm NO from me then.

Originally Posted by Derek

Ed Milliband thinks it's a good idea. That'll be a firm NO from me then.

C4 Factchecker on EM's statements on AV.

In his attempt to shatter the myths about AV, Ed Miliband has himself spun a yarn. The evidence from Down Under doesn’t work in his favour, and AV does create complications – even if the British public are well up to the task of working it out.