I'm not voting dependant on whether FPTP is the perfect system, I accept it is not. I am voting due to voting 'yes' is a vote for change, whereas voting 'no' is voting for the status quo, which entails:
-The last majority government (Labour 2005) gaining just 35% of the vote. This means that 65% voted AGAINST the government yet they still formed.
-Little to no chances of smaller parties or independent views getting a say. The Lib Dems recieved 23% of the voted in the last election yet far less than a quarter of their policies have come into force, the Conservatives by comparison received 36% and almost all their policies have.
-People who live in a safe seat essentially don't have a vote. This is undemocratic and has to be changed.
-David Cameron said with AV it is possible to get a 'second choice' government, totally unlike under FPTP then i suppose, where in 1951 Labour received the most votes, yet we got the 'second choice' Conservative government, or in 1974 when Conservatives had the most votes but again we got the 'second choice' Labour government. Likewise in 2005 Conservatives received the most votes in England, but the country gave more Labour MPs.
AV on the other hand:
-MPs require 50% of the vote. Yes, it will lead to some compromises, but sure consensus politics is an advantage. At least it's preferable to a constituency being represented by an an MP most of them voted against in two thirds of cases.
-Is a bit more representative. People will vote how they really feel, rather than tactically. The fact people are currently doing this is strong evidence our democracy is lacking.
-The 'simplicity' argument by Cameron is pure spin. Firstly I don't understand how being simpler is necessarily an advantage; a Pentium 1 is no doubt simpler than a Pentium 4, though I doubt many would say it was better. Frankly our whole democracy is not simple, is is incredibly bureaucratic, often undemocratic and entrenched in tradition; most people do not not have a full grasp of how it all works, unlike the PM implies. Surely a voting system that enfranchises people is more likely to get people involved in politics, and thus have a greater understanding, than one which just has simpler maths?
For the record:
"Here's a passage from a book detailing how the Alternative Vote system works:
"As the process continues the preferences allocated to the remaining candidates may not be the second choices of those electors whose first-choice candidates have been eliminated. It may be that after three candidates have been eliminated, say, when a fourth candidate is removed from the contest one of the electors who gave her first preference to him gave her second, third and fourth preferences to the three other candidates who have already been eliminated, so her fifth preference is then allocated to one of the remaining candidates."
Do you understand that?
I didn't. And I've read it many times."
-David Cameron
It means that if someone's second vote is for someone already out the running, their third vote will be used instead. I know its not written well, but I don't understand why the Prime Minister is campaigning against something he publicly claims to not even understand.
I voted Tory; it was because I thought they had the best manifesto all things considered, but they are not perfect. I believe any government can benefit with more influence and pressure from smaller often more local and representative parties.
Yes.
The dinosaurs in favour of No convinced me.
Let's face it, it can't be any worse than what we currently have and it might be a whole lot better.
The No campaign seems to be based on the fact that ranking candidates in order of preference is complicated. Well, if people are so thick they find writing 1-2-3 complicated, then we really are in dire straits!
I also like the fact that it gets rid of Vote X, Get Y style campaigning.
If you want PR, AV is a stepping stone to that - if this fails, the Gov will claim that the results proves people are anti-electoral reform and the current system will remain for decades.
I want a really good reason to change the voting system, this would be PR for me. AV is just the price we would have to pay to help keep the Lib Dems in power not a good enough reason for me.
I am also concerned that voters for smaller parties will have more say than those that vote mainstream. Example vote Conservative as first choice and they lead, your 2nd, 3rd etc votes are not counted so only one vote counted. A BNP / UKIP/ Green voter will likely get his 2nd,
3rd and 4th vote etc vote counted. Not sure how that is fair.
I want a really good reason to change the voting system, this would be PR for me. AV is just the price we would have to pay to help keep the Lib Dems in power not a good enough reason for me.
I am also concerned that voters for smaller parties will have more say than those that vote mainstream. Example vote Conservative as first choice and they lead, your 2nd, 3rd etc votes are not counted so only one vote counted. A BNP / UKIP/ Green voter will likely get his 2nd,
3rd and 4th vote etc vote counted. Not sure how that is fair.
Regardless of how we got there, the choice on the ballot is between two voting systems, and what matters is the merits of one over the other - what's not on the ballot paper is an irrelevance, because we don't get to opt for it.
If you think about it, in constituencies where there is no BNP / UKIP / Green candidate (and there are a lot) they get their second preference counted anyway - if only because their first isn't available.
It's not a "second vote": it's a second preference. Everyone gets exactly one vote, and everyone's vote is counted exactly once in each round (unless their preferences are exhausted). AV is intended to simulate an exhaustive ballot - where each candidate who comes last is eliminated, and every voter has to go back to the polls and put an X in the box in the next round, until there's a winner - but without all the hassle and expense of actually conducting an exhaustive ballot.
What AV does, effectively, is remove the "spoiler effect" where the introduction of irrelevant and/or unpopular candidates influences the final outcome.
Politicians are surely not going to risk the coveted 2nd choice spot by alienating people who might not normally vote for them as first choice but might for 2nd.
So lies and mis-directions on their true ideology would become routine (Big Society anyone?)
In fact the consequences of AV are a total mystery.
Perhaps what we never want again is a government that is not a coalition.
There are three parties, two with different but similar policies (Labour / LibDems) and one (Tories) with policies which are significantly different from those, but compatible enough with some LibDem ones.
Besides, coalitions are about compromise - which usually means exorcising extremist policies.
Whilst I would like to see a Labour party in government the notion of a Tory / LibDem coalition, IF both parties have "similar" power wouldn't fill me with loathing and hatred, and one with Labour and LibDems (or LibDems and Labour) would be just fine.
I do not like the extremists on the right-wing of the Tory party, period. There are only a handful, Chope, Cash, Leigh and a few others, but they seem to be figureheads for some very unsavory characters and policies. I equate some of their ideas with facism and UKIP/BNP. They wouldn't know the meaning of the term Liberalism if I hit them over the head with it.
ANYTHING which creates a government, or coalition (properly apportioned with power) which keeps those wretched and misguided individuals from having any say is fine with me. They represent everything which is wrong with US politics today (and yes, I said US), and we don't want their sort in politics. Anything which can break that cycle at a constituency level should be welcomed.
btw. One permutation I did not put forward was Tory/Labour, because with those right-wingers having too much power that is impossible. Yet plenty on here say that both Labour and Tories are Centre-right. So how far away from each are they really? I'd say without those on the Tory right it would be increasingly possible to have a government which compromised to produce the best outcome for us, it's masters, rather than us having to watch all parties play tribal politics.
What we also don't want, I think, is stagnant politics. 18 years is far too long to be in government. And 13 years is probably too long also.
Leaning towards yes, but want more information about how it works and the consequences of it.
One thing I'd like to know, is will my second and third vote go to the person I've ticked or will my second and third vote be distributed as part of a total total and then handed out in per centage terms to the remaining candiadates once the first person is eliminated? What happens if my second and third person is eliminated in the first round, what happens to my ballot paper then?
Things like this confuse me and I don't know about that I want to know about and I think we all need to know and understand and then we need to know what the liklihood is of another party winning outright again, or will it always lead to coalition governments. Coalitions are only a good thing imo when the main party wants to do bad things and the juniour parnter stops them etc.
Regardless of how we got there, the choice on the ballot is between two voting systems, and what matters is the merits of one over the other - what's not on the ballot paper is an irrelevance, because we don't get to opt for it.
If you think about it, in constituencies where there is no BNP / UKIP / Green candidate (and there are a lot) they get their second preference counted anyway - if only because their first isn't available.
It's not a "second vote": it's a second preference. Everyone gets exactly one vote, and everyone's vote is counted exactly once in each round (unless their preferences are exhausted). AV is intended to simulate an exhaustive ballot - where each candidate who comes last is eliminated, and every voter has to go back to the polls and put an X in the box in the next round, until there's a winner - but without all the hassle and expense of actually conducting an exhaustive ballot.
What AV does, effectively, is remove the "spoiler effect" where the introduction of irrelevant and/or unpopular candidates influences the final outcome.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I'll admit I'm not sure if you answered my concerns. What I do want is a simple system that we can all understand, I still think the smaller party voter has more power because they will get their first preference and then some. I may be misunderstanding, but if I am that means the system is not straightforward enough. STV I can understand and canbe pro or anti, AV is a nothing.
I'll admit I'm not sure if you answered my concerns. What I do want is a simple system that we can all understand, I still think the smaller party voter has more power because they will get their first preference and then some. I may be misunderstanding, but if I am that means the system is not straightforward enough. STV I can understand and canbe pro or anti, AV is a nothing.
Or I'm crap at explaining things. But FWIW, AV is basically STV with single-member seats. It's not proportional (though STV only approximates to "proportional" with sufficiently large multi-member seats) but it's an improvement on FPTP in a number of ways.
STV and AV are exactly the same - all that changes is the number of members elected in each constituency - one in AV, several in STV.
Your vote is your ballot paper.
As long as a candidate you wrote a number by is still in with a chance, your ballot paper stays on the table and is counted in every round.
If your first preference is for one of the two candidates who reach the final count then your vote will always be in the same pile each time the ballots are distributed and counted, but no ballot paper is counted any more than another.
STV and AV are exactly the same - all that changes is the number of members elected in each constituency - one in AV, several in STV.
Your vote is your ballot paper.
As long as a candidate you wrote a number by is still in with a chance, your ballot paper stays on the table and is counted in every round.
If your first preference is for one of the two candidates who reach the final count then your vote will always be in the same pile each time the ballots are distributed and counted, but no ballot paper is counted any more than another.
But its the case, that only your second prefrence vote is redistributed if the candiadate is still in the race, or if they try and redistribute your 3rd choice and on wards too, how do they do that when we only have one ballot paper to vote on?
But its the case, that only your second prefrence vote is redistributed if the candiadate is still in the race, or if they try and redistribute your 3rd choice and on wards too, how do they do that when we only have one ballot paper to vote on?
Your vote only gets transferred if your most favoured candidate gets knocked out. So if you put Labour as #1 and Labour tops the poll, your #1 preference counts in every round of the poll. If you put Green #1, Labour #2, and the Green candidate gets knocked out in the second round, your vote counts for Green in rounds 1 and 2, and Labour afterwards. Your #3 preference would only count if both Greens and Labour got knocked out.
Perhaps what we never want again is a government that is not a coalition.
There are three parties, two with different but similar policies (Labour / LibDems) and one (Tories) with policies which are significantly different from those, but compatible enough with some LibDem ones.
Besides, coalitions are about compromise - which usually means exorcising extremist policies.
Whilst I would like to see a Labour party in government the notion of a Tory / LibDem coalition, IF both parties have "similar" power wouldn't fill me with loathing and hatred, and one with Labour and LibDems (or LibDems and Labour) would be just fine.
I do not like the extremists on the right-wing of the Tory party, period. There are only a handful, Chope, Cash, Leigh and a few others, but they seem to be figureheads for some very unsavory characters and policies. I equate some of their ideas with facism and UKIP/BNP. They wouldn't know the meaning of the term Liberalism if I hit them over the head with it.
ANYTHING which creates a government, or coalition (properly apportioned with power) which keeps those wretched and misguided individuals from having any say is fine with me. They represent everything which is wrong with US politics today (and yes, I said US), and we don't want their sort in politics. Anything which can break that cycle at a constituency level should be welcomed.
btw. One permutation I did not put forward was Tory/Labour, because with those right-wingers having too much power that is impossible. Yet plenty on here say that both Labour and Tories are Centre-right. So how far away from each are they really? I'd say without those on the Tory right it would be increasingly possible to have a government which compromised to produce the best outcome for us, it's masters, rather than us having to watch all parties play tribal politics.
What we also don't want, I think, is stagnant politics. 18 years is far too long to be in government. And 13 years is probably too long also.
Extreme left wing is worse than extreme right wing imo. Also the BNP or UKIP are NOT right wing, they are 'right wing' in one god damn policy: immigration.
No, the idea that your second or third choice are even close to your first is a false one. It is false legitimacy when you give a full vote to a second or 3rd choice candidate.
No, the idea that your second or third choice are even close to your first is a false one. It is false legitimacy when you give a full vote to a second or 3rd choice candidate.
But you do it if your preferred candidate doesn't stand, and you go and vote anyway, don't you?
Woohoo, yes has the majority, even on a forum full of right wingers like this.
Bodes well.
Fingers crossed the bias of ITV won't turn enough of the general population off it.
Extreme left wing is worse than extreme right wing imo. Also the BNP or UKIP are NOT right wing, they are 'right wing' in one god damn policy: immigration.
UKIP are without a doubt right wing, they're like old school tories.
The BNP are far right. Sure, some of their lesser policies are just carbon copies of standard old labour stuff, fairly leftist...but these matter about as much to the BNP and what they are as the Swiss Government's policies on naval defence. They're a single issue party; that issue being 'we hate brown people'.
Its quite funny to read a list of BNP policies from the last election. Even on stuff like the environment they say 'We recognise the reason of environmental problems in the UK is over population caused by immigration'.
This BNP scare mongering is bollocks anyway. Just Cameron trying to spin his lies and half truths to mislead people about AV.
The BNP in many of the seats they ran in ranked bottom, or very near to it at least (narrowly beating the Loonies or what have you- also a scare tactic) their votes would be being passed on to more reputable parties right away.
Even should they put in a good showing in a seat...do you have so little faith in the British public that they would put a bunch of fascists as their second choice?
Seats currently with concrete majorities would be likely to remain so under AV. AV would not mean the end of safe seats.
True, though it would mean that people could stand as independent {liberals/social-democrats/conservatives} without risking a "spoiler effect" - i.e. letting an opposing candidate through the middle by splitting their target vote. Which may open an avenue to shaking up the system a little - local parties and people have greater latitude of action if Party HQ attempts to impose a candidate on them, or fails to remove/deselect one who has been naughty.
So from that perspective, even "safe" seats can become less safe - as far as the party machine is concerned.
That can happen occasionally at present, but the spoiler effect acts as a deterrent.
Comments
-The last majority government (Labour 2005) gaining just 35% of the vote. This means that 65% voted AGAINST the government yet they still formed.
-Little to no chances of smaller parties or independent views getting a say. The Lib Dems recieved 23% of the voted in the last election yet far less than a quarter of their policies have come into force, the Conservatives by comparison received 36% and almost all their policies have.
-People who live in a safe seat essentially don't have a vote. This is undemocratic and has to be changed.
-David Cameron said with AV it is possible to get a 'second choice' government, totally unlike under FPTP then i suppose, where in 1951 Labour received the most votes, yet we got the 'second choice' Conservative government, or in 1974 when Conservatives had the most votes but again we got the 'second choice' Labour government. Likewise in 2005 Conservatives received the most votes in England, but the country gave more Labour MPs.
AV on the other hand:
-MPs require 50% of the vote. Yes, it will lead to some compromises, but sure consensus politics is an advantage. At least it's preferable to a constituency being represented by an an MP most of them voted against in two thirds of cases.
-Is a bit more representative. People will vote how they really feel, rather than tactically. The fact people are currently doing this is strong evidence our democracy is lacking.
-The 'simplicity' argument by Cameron is pure spin. Firstly I don't understand how being simpler is necessarily an advantage; a Pentium 1 is no doubt simpler than a Pentium 4, though I doubt many would say it was better. Frankly our whole democracy is not simple, is is incredibly bureaucratic, often undemocratic and entrenched in tradition; most people do not not have a full grasp of how it all works, unlike the PM implies. Surely a voting system that enfranchises people is more likely to get people involved in politics, and thus have a greater understanding, than one which just has simpler maths?
For the record:
"Here's a passage from a book detailing how the Alternative Vote system works:
"As the process continues the preferences allocated to the remaining candidates may not be the second choices of those electors whose first-choice candidates have been eliminated. It may be that after three candidates have been eliminated, say, when a fourth candidate is removed from the contest one of the electors who gave her first preference to him gave her second, third and fourth preferences to the three other candidates who have already been eliminated, so her fifth preference is then allocated to one of the remaining candidates."
Do you understand that?
I didn't. And I've read it many times."
-David Cameron
It means that if someone's second vote is for someone already out the running, their third vote will be used instead. I know its not written well, but I don't understand why the Prime Minister is campaigning against something he publicly claims to not even understand.
I voted Tory; it was because I thought they had the best manifesto all things considered, but they are not perfect. I believe any government can benefit with more influence and pressure from smaller often more local and representative parties.
I will vote yes.
The dinosaurs in favour of No convinced me.
Let's face it, it can't be any worse than what we currently have and it might be a whole lot better.
The No campaign seems to be based on the fact that ranking candidates in order of preference is complicated. Well, if people are so thick they find writing 1-2-3 complicated, then we really are in dire straits!
I also like the fact that it gets rid of Vote X, Get Y style campaigning.
If you want PR, AV is a stepping stone to that - if this fails, the Gov will claim that the results proves people are anti-electoral reform and the current system will remain for decades.
I want a really good reason to change the voting system, this would be PR for me. AV is just the price we would have to pay to help keep the Lib Dems in power not a good enough reason for me.
I am also concerned that voters for smaller parties will have more say than those that vote mainstream. Example vote Conservative as first choice and they lead, your 2nd, 3rd etc votes are not counted so only one vote counted. A BNP / UKIP/ Green voter will likely get his 2nd,
3rd and 4th vote etc vote counted. Not sure how that is fair.
If I do vote No, I'll probably vote Yes as my second preference though
Regardless of how we got there, the choice on the ballot is between two voting systems, and what matters is the merits of one over the other - what's not on the ballot paper is an irrelevance, because we don't get to opt for it.
If you think about it, in constituencies where there is no BNP / UKIP / Green candidate (and there are a lot) they get their second preference counted anyway - if only because their first isn't available.
It's not a "second vote": it's a second preference. Everyone gets exactly one vote, and everyone's vote is counted exactly once in each round (unless their preferences are exhausted). AV is intended to simulate an exhaustive ballot - where each candidate who comes last is eliminated, and every voter has to go back to the polls and put an X in the box in the next round, until there's a winner - but without all the hassle and expense of actually conducting an exhaustive ballot.
What AV does, effectively, is remove the "spoiler effect" where the introduction of irrelevant and/or unpopular candidates influences the final outcome.
It's unatural... or something. AV is the sound of kittens being eaten by bears.
How can anyone vote to change a system to a total unknown? Beware! Pull the string! Pull the string!
That was a referendum broadcast on behalf of the Say No to AV Campaign.
So lies and mis-directions on their true ideology would become routine (Big Society anyone?)
In fact the consequences of AV are a total mystery.
There are three parties, two with different but similar policies (Labour / LibDems) and one (Tories) with policies which are significantly different from those, but compatible enough with some LibDem ones.
Besides, coalitions are about compromise - which usually means exorcising extremist policies.
Whilst I would like to see a Labour party in government the notion of a Tory / LibDem coalition, IF both parties have "similar" power wouldn't fill me with loathing and hatred, and one with Labour and LibDems (or LibDems and Labour) would be just fine.
I do not like the extremists on the right-wing of the Tory party, period. There are only a handful, Chope, Cash, Leigh and a few others, but they seem to be figureheads for some very unsavory characters and policies. I equate some of their ideas with facism and UKIP/BNP. They wouldn't know the meaning of the term Liberalism if I hit them over the head with it.
ANYTHING which creates a government, or coalition (properly apportioned with power) which keeps those wretched and misguided individuals from having any say is fine with me. They represent everything which is wrong with US politics today (and yes, I said US), and we don't want their sort in politics. Anything which can break that cycle at a constituency level should be welcomed.
btw. One permutation I did not put forward was Tory/Labour, because with those right-wingers having too much power that is impossible. Yet plenty on here say that both Labour and Tories are Centre-right. So how far away from each are they really? I'd say without those on the Tory right it would be increasingly possible to have a government which compromised to produce the best outcome for us, it's masters, rather than us having to watch all parties play tribal politics.
What we also don't want, I think, is stagnant politics. 18 years is far too long to be in government. And 13 years is probably too long also.
No, I am. It's self-contradictory. Or is it?
Which bit don't you understand?
One thing I'd like to know, is will my second and third vote go to the person I've ticked or will my second and third vote be distributed as part of a total total and then handed out in per centage terms to the remaining candiadates once the first person is eliminated? What happens if my second and third person is eliminated in the first round, what happens to my ballot paper then?
Things like this confuse me and I don't know about that I want to know about and I think we all need to know and understand and then we need to know what the liklihood is of another party winning outright again, or will it always lead to coalition governments. Coalitions are only a good thing imo when the main party wants to do bad things and the juniour parnter stops them etc.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I'll admit I'm not sure if you answered my concerns. What I do want is a simple system that we can all understand, I still think the smaller party voter has more power because they will get their first preference and then some. I may be misunderstanding, but if I am that means the system is not straightforward enough. STV I can understand and canbe pro or anti, AV is a nothing.
Or I'm crap at explaining things. But FWIW, AV is basically STV with single-member seats. It's not proportional (though STV only approximates to "proportional" with sufficiently large multi-member seats) but it's an improvement on FPTP in a number of ways.
Your vote is your ballot paper.
As long as a candidate you wrote a number by is still in with a chance, your ballot paper stays on the table and is counted in every round.
If your first preference is for one of the two candidates who reach the final count then your vote will always be in the same pile each time the ballots are distributed and counted, but no ballot paper is counted any more than another.
But its the case, that only your second prefrence vote is redistributed if the candiadate is still in the race, or if they try and redistribute your 3rd choice and on wards too, how do they do that when we only have one ballot paper to vote on?
Your vote only gets transferred if your most favoured candidate gets knocked out. So if you put Labour as #1 and Labour tops the poll, your #1 preference counts in every round of the poll. If you put Green #1, Labour #2, and the Green candidate gets knocked out in the second round, your vote counts for Green in rounds 1 and 2, and Labour afterwards. Your #3 preference would only count if both Greens and Labour got knocked out.
But you do it if your preferred candidate doesn't stand, and you go and vote anyway, don't you?
Bodes well.
Fingers crossed the bias of ITV won't turn enough of the general population off it.
UKIP are without a doubt right wing, they're like old school tories.
The BNP are far right. Sure, some of their lesser policies are just carbon copies of standard old labour stuff, fairly leftist...but these matter about as much to the BNP and what they are as the Swiss Government's policies on naval defence. They're a single issue party; that issue being 'we hate brown people'.
Its quite funny to read a list of BNP policies from the last election. Even on stuff like the environment they say 'We recognise the reason of environmental problems in the UK is over population caused by immigration'.
This BNP scare mongering is bollocks anyway. Just Cameron trying to spin his lies and half truths to mislead people about AV.
The BNP in many of the seats they ran in ranked bottom, or very near to it at least (narrowly beating the Loonies or what have you- also a scare tactic) their votes would be being passed on to more reputable parties right away.
Even should they put in a good showing in a seat...do you have so little faith in the British public that they would put a bunch of fascists as their second choice?
True, though it would mean that people could stand as independent {liberals/social-democrats/conservatives} without risking a "spoiler effect" - i.e. letting an opposing candidate through the middle by splitting their target vote. Which may open an avenue to shaking up the system a little - local parties and people have greater latitude of action if Party HQ attempts to impose a candidate on them, or fails to remove/deselect one who has been naughty.
So from that perspective, even "safe" seats can become less safe - as far as the party machine is concerned.
That can happen occasionally at present, but the spoiler effect acts as a deterrent.