To AV, or not to AV?

[spiderplant]

Assuming the polls have now closed, we have a very interesting result. "No" wins on FPTP, but "Who is Nick Clegg" would hold the balance of power under AV. Hmm...

Why change an easy system thats worked for 100's years.

I Voted No.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Assuming the polls have now closed, we have a very interesting result. "No" wins on FPTP, but "Who is Nick Clegg" would hold the balance of power under AV. Hmm...

'No' wins on AV as well as it's got 50% of the vote.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Why change an easy system thats worked for 100's years.

Did you type that on your manual typewriter

Not much of an argument really. I'd argue that it hasn't always worked at times and could have worked better at other times.

The self interest of both the Tories and the Labour parties when they have large majorities has been, imho, detrimental to this country too often in my lifetime.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

'No' wins on AV as well as it's got 50% of the vote.

It was 49.something% when I posted. Someone has voted since.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

Did you type that on your manual typewriter

Not much of an argument really. I'd argue that it hasn't always worked at times and could have worked better at other times.

The self interest of both the Tories and the Labour parties when they have large majorities has been, imho, detrimental to this country too often in my lifetime.

if you count a succesful government meaning the voting system works then yeah maybe.

but as a democratic system its a failure because only part of the country is democratic during general elections. More than half is safe seats, its not even a minority problem.

What is this constant nonsense about safe seats being undemocratic? Everybody in that seat has one vote. If the majority in the seat wish to support the same party time after time, that's their democratic right.

[Ignitionnet]

Well the vote on here is probably flattering the 'yes' side compared with the national result, unsurprisingly, although the turnout is probably similar to London's

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Why change an easy system thats worked for 100's years.

I Voted No.

It's debatable whether it has on national level. There has been at least one election where the winner got well under a third of the vote.

As i saw it represented on TV av means if i vote for numpty number one and he doesn't get anywhere near enough support my vote then gets counted for numpty number two and so on till a 50% margin is achieved that to me is my vote getting counted more then once which i don't believe is fair. Seems to me AV rewards the ignorant as they can vote willy nilly and get better returns whilst those who look into the issues have some understanding and vote for credible candidates only get their vote counted the once.

I may be wide of the mark but thats how it came across to me so who is to blame me for getting the wrong end of the stick or the people explaining it for not doing a better job. Pretty irrelevent really seems certain the country (well those that bothered) has voted to bin it so.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

As i saw it represented on TV av means if i vote for numpty number one and he doesn't get anywhere near enough support my vote then gets counted for numpty number two and so on till a 50% margin is achieved that to me is my vote getting counted more than once which i don't believe is fair.

Grrr! Pet hate #1! Sorry... moving on...

You are not getting more that one vote though. AV is simply an elimination system.

Seems to me AV rewards the ignorant as they can vote willy nilly and get better returns whilst those who look into the issues have some understanding and vote for credible candidates only get their vote counted the once.

True to an extent I suppose, but then FPTP has it's flaws too.

The idea with AV (and, of course, PR) is that if you don't get your first choice then at least you get your second, or third; whatever. Bascially at least you get someone in who you preferred over someone you didn't.

And even my explanation isn't brilliant

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

What is this constant nonsense about safe seats being undemocratic? Everybody in that seat has one vote. If the majority in the seat wish to support the same party time after time, that's their democratic right.

because the votes for anyone but the winner are discarded instead of been added to the national pool. Thats not democratic. also votes above the winning margin get wasted. 19 million in 2005.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=54

The fact is under FPTP only the marginal seats are important, there is occasional freak results in what should be safe seats but the marginals is where the campaigning is aimed at and where the leaders focus on. I am curious where your seat is since you defending FPTP.

Originally Posted by Stuart

It's debatable whether it has on national level. There has been at least one election where the winner got well under a third of the vote.

It seems to me that politicians on the whole don't care about falling electorate numbers which in part is due to the fact that many of us have for years been represented by someone we have no faith in and indeed despise and therefore see no point in voting because we never get anyone different.
In my own case it was the Duck House MP whom we had for over 30 years and it took the expenses furore to get rid of him.

If they did care then they would go for a system which gets more people voting..such as fining those who don't bother to vote, if they must stick with FPTP.

[Chrysalis]

FPTP will eventually be under more pressure again, most objection to it is from younger people, eventually older people will die off and the support for it will thin down, maybe not in my lifetime but eventually.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

because the votes for anyone but the winner are discarded instead of been added to the national pool. Thats not democratic. also votes above the winning margin get wasted. 19 million in 2005.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=54

The fact is under FPTP only the marginal seats are important, there is occasional freak results in what should be safe seats but the marginals is where the campaigning is aimed at and where the leaders focus on. I am curious where your seat is since you defending FPTP.

There is no "national pool" of votes, as you put it. In a general election we all elect a local representative to a national assembly. The weakness that exists in our system lies in the strength of political party machines which seek to ensure that once at Westminster, your local representative adheres to a Party line.

Proportional systems exacerbate this problem by weakening, if not entirely eliminating, the link between an individual MP and an individual constituency. AV seeks to avoid that problem but at the same time, because it is not electing one person to one post, but simultaneously many people to many posts, it is not remotely proportional either (and neither does it generate a 'national pool' of votes, or even a regional pool for that matter - election of members is still confined to one member from one constituency).