As long as you can write 1, 2, 3 you can vote under AV.
What is so difficult - a four year old could do it!
Yes it is incredibly silly to insist that people cannot work out how a voting system works. In elections where proper PR have been used it is amazing how sophisticated people can be with there lower preference votes.
and you would almost certainly still get a coalition in order to be able to govern
No as whoever gets the most national votes gets the job of running the country. Even if it's by 1 vote.
You are trying to bring in parts of the old system where the winner needs more than everyone else combined.
After the winner has been declared the seats are given out in proportion to the number of vote each party got.
If a ridiculous idea of the Government can be out voted by all the combined opposition seats, then that's a good idea and will keep any Government under control.
Not a coalition but all will have to work together and the Government can't just whitewash whatever they want through.
Any Government would then have to come up with sensible ideas that the majority of MPs would support.
So if there is a 20% turnout for the referendum, do we just live with the results or does there need to be a minimum turnout > 50% for the results to be valid?
As I understand it, the Parliament is voting on whether or not to stick with FPTP or to change to AV?
Surely, since FPTP gives parties a better, allbeit more unfair, advantage at winning, the Parliament is likely to just keep FPTP voting?
No - on May 5th, you and me vote on whether to stick with FPTP or change to AV, because it's for our benefit. FPTP is undemocratic with more than 2 candidates (with 2 candidates, it's simply who gets the most votes, but with more than that, the votes divide up and a minority could end up voting in the winner). AV is much fairer.
The Cons are against it so it must be good............:p
Historically we only ever have Conservative governments because the left(ish) vote is split between Lab and Lib
I guess they're worried that (despite the present temporary Coalition) in the long term Lib and Lab would vote each other as second preferences in the main...............
The only reason the Tories are vehemently against AV is because they know it will make it even more difficult for them to gain outright power. Hence their scaremongering recently - claiming AV will assist fascists when it will do nothing of the sort. The BNP themselves are urging their supporters to vote "No" to AV.
The only reason the Tories are vehemently against AV is because they know it will make it even more difficult for them gain outright power. Hence their scaremongering recently - claiming AV will assist fascists when it will do nothing of the sort. The BNP themselves are urging their supporters to vote "No" to AV.
They claim that FPTP has been good for the country for years because it "keeps the wrong people out of power." In other words, it keeps them - the old guard - firmly in power. If people vote for the BNP or whoever, let their vote count! Or do we live in a "democracy" whereby only the "right" people are allowed to participate?
The BNP aren't in any danger of gaining any real power anyway - and I didn't know they were anti-AV! I find that funny given the AV=fascism argument of the Tories!
The Cons are against it so it must be good............:p
Historically we only ever have Conservative governments because the left(ish) vote is split between Lab and Lib
I guess they're worried that (despite the present temporary Coalition) in the long term Lib and Lab would vote each other as second preferences in the main...............
Some analysis this week showed that had the last election been conducted under AV Labour and the Lib Dems would have had enough seats to form a working majority without relying on SNP/Unionist votes.
So we might well have had David Cameron addressing last week's TUC rally complaining about the Lib/Lab coalitions outrageous cuts and how they were being implemented by Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg unfairly leading to more cuts in the NHS than his plans.
We would have had a different government - but the same outcome i.e. cuts!:D
As I understand it, the Parliament is voting on whether or not to stick with FPTP or to change to AV?
Surely, since FPTP gives parties a better, allbeit more unfair, advantage at winning, the Parliament is likely to just keep FPTP voting?
The referendum hands the decision to the electorate. If AV is chosen it will require legislation to be implemented but parliament will be obliged to pass it as the electorate will have chosen it by a majority (of those who vote which will be a minority turnout, but that's no different from any council or European parliament election for the last 40 years.)
The only reason the Tories are vehemently against AV is because they know it will make it even more difficult for them to gain outright power. Hence their scaremongering recently - claiming AV will assist fascists when it will do nothing of the sort. The BNP themselves are urging their supporters to vote "No" to AV.
The last Labour government took power with around a third of the vote. This means that over half the country did not vote for them, yet they were elected into government. FPTP is not a fair system.
AV is simple. You are asked to vote for three, in order of preference, you do not have to use all three votes.
Voting is then done is rounds.
Round 1
Votes are counted according to every 'number 1' vote. If the winner of that round has over 50% of the vote, they are declared a winner.
If the leading candidate has less than 50%, then it goes to round 2.
Round 2
The candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and has their votes redistributed. The 'number 2' votes on their papers are totted up and added to those of the remaining candidates.
If the leading candidate has over 50% of the vote, they are elected. If not it goes to round 3, which works the same as before.
This is why every vote counts in AV. It's not PR, but it's a step in the right direction.
I take an interest in politics, always vote and encouraged the OH to form an opinion when she was eligible to vote for the first time at the last GE.
I fully get the grasp of AV, but I am not really convinced it will be a change for the better.
FPTP seems to work for us, but that always has the stigma that a party can be in power without a majority of the popular vote.
Likewise with AV the possibility of a power sharing government is maybe higher, which is not particularly a bad thing, but then, as has to happen, comprise between parties is reached to form government and then people feel betrayed on some level.
On the way back from work today, I caught the repeat of Any Questions on R4, this was being discussed, and from what I could catch the implication was that AV, if voted for would be the first step in voting reform.
All a bit silly if you ask me. When I vote I want that person to win and not anyone else.
So why ask me what my second choice is as there isn't one?
Why can't they forget this winning a seat thing and just count everyone's vote? Under this (old) system if the one I vote for doesn't get the local seat, then my vote gets thrown in the bin along with anyone else who didn't vote for the seat winner.
Just make it simple and count everyone's vote in the country and the most votes get to form a Government? Why is that too simple for them? Or is it a case of it's to simple to fix?
Exactly!
If this goes through we will likely get more coalition governments & everyone will start moaning again.
The current system has flaws sure, but nowhere near as many as AV does. Deals for what becomes law will done by parties AFTER the election behind closed doors as manifestos get binned.
Lets just hope enough people vote against this nonsense
On the way back from work today, I caught the repeat of Any Questions on R4, this was being discussed, and from what I could catch the implication was that AV, if voted for would be the first step in voting reform.
Yes the plan is that this is the first step towards full proportional representation.
They know the public won't buy that straight off, so they want it introduced more slowly
No. It just means that if their candidate gets eliminated their vote won't be carried forward to any the the remaining candidates.
If you don't write a number but use the traditional 'x' against one name only does it still count?
And what's to stop additional numbers being 'added' to such polling papers? Yes I'm a cynic.:o:rolleyes:
What happens if AV is introduced and people who are against it just write 1 in the box for their preferred candidate and leave the others blank?
Would that invalidate their vote?
No, it would just mean you'd chosen to excersice one vote instead of three. Your one vote would count, but if a second round was necessary you would have no say in how that panned out.
If this goes through we will likely get more coalition governments & everyone will start moaning again.
The current system has flaws sure, but nowhere near as many as AV does. Deals for what becomes law will done by parties AFTER the election behind closed doors as manifestos get binned.
Lets just hope enough people vote against this nonsense
It's rather a lot of hyperbole with regards the idea that we'll always have coalitions. AV gives a far more representative voting system and so clear winners are the end result.
It's true that coalitions could/would happen, much like we have now with the FPTP system.
With backroom deals etc, you're obviously thinking of full PR, which AV is not. It's not even a little bit PR.
Coalitions are not all bad at all. Even though many of us are unhappy with the current situation, the alternative would have been a minority ruling government (which we've had for decades anyway - just that with FPTP we call it a majority). At least this way, the more extreme of the right wing policies have been tamed and are more 'middle of the road' suiting most people.
If you don't write a number but use the traditional 'x' against one name only does it still count?
And what's to stop additional numbers being 'added' to such polling papers? Yes I'm a cynic.:o:rolleyes:
One X would count, as long as your intent to vote for that candidate is clear you can put what you like. A tick, a smilie face, your coat of arms, anything.
Three X's would not count as the intention of how you place those votes would not be clear. I wonder if we could do a smilie face, a straight face and a sad face?
Comments
No as whoever gets the most national votes gets the job of running the country. Even if it's by 1 vote.
You are trying to bring in parts of the old system where the winner needs more than everyone else combined.
After the winner has been declared the seats are given out in proportion to the number of vote each party got.
If a ridiculous idea of the Government can be out voted by all the combined opposition seats, then that's a good idea and will keep any Government under control.
Not a coalition but all will have to work together and the Government can't just whitewash whatever they want through.
Any Government would then have to come up with sensible ideas that the majority of MPs would support.
Democracy!
FPTP is a con. Minorities voting in governments? That's not democracy.
Surely, since FPTP gives parties a better, allbeit more unfair, advantage at winning, the Parliament is likely to just keep FPTP voting?
No - on May 5th, you and me vote on whether to stick with FPTP or change to AV, because it's for our benefit. FPTP is undemocratic with more than 2 candidates (with 2 candidates, it's simply who gets the most votes, but with more than that, the votes divide up and a minority could end up voting in the winner). AV is much fairer.
Historically we only ever have Conservative governments because the left(ish) vote is split between Lab and Lib
I guess they're worried that (despite the present temporary Coalition) in the long term Lib and Lab would vote each other as second preferences in the main...............
They claim that FPTP has been good for the country for years because it "keeps the wrong people out of power." In other words, it keeps them - the old guard - firmly in power. If people vote for the BNP or whoever, let their vote count! Or do we live in a "democracy" whereby only the "right" people are allowed to participate?
The BNP aren't in any danger of gaining any real power anyway - and I didn't know they were anti-AV! I find that funny given the AV=fascism argument of the Tories!
Some analysis this week showed that had the last election been conducted under AV Labour and the Lib Dems would have had enough seats to form a working majority without relying on SNP/Unionist votes.
So we might well have had David Cameron addressing last week's TUC rally complaining about the Lib/Lab coalitions outrageous cuts and how they were being implemented by Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg unfairly leading to more cuts in the NHS than his plans.
We would have had a different government - but the same outcome i.e. cuts!:D
The referendum hands the decision to the electorate. If AV is chosen it will require legislation to be implemented but parliament will be obliged to pass it as the electorate will have chosen it by a majority (of those who vote which will be a minority turnout, but that's no different from any council or European parliament election for the last 40 years.)
Suddenly I'm all for AV!
AV is simple. You are asked to vote for three, in order of preference, you do not have to use all three votes.
Voting is then done is rounds.
Round 1
Votes are counted according to every 'number 1' vote. If the winner of that round has over 50% of the vote, they are declared a winner.
If the leading candidate has less than 50%, then it goes to round 2.
Round 2
The candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and has their votes redistributed. The 'number 2' votes on their papers are totted up and added to those of the remaining candidates.
If the leading candidate has over 50% of the vote, they are elected. If not it goes to round 3, which works the same as before.
This is why every vote counts in AV. It's not PR, but it's a step in the right direction.
Would that invalidate their vote?
No. It just means that if their candidate gets eliminated their vote won't be carried forward to any the the remaining candidates.
I fully get the grasp of AV, but I am not really convinced it will be a change for the better.
FPTP seems to work for us, but that always has the stigma that a party can be in power without a majority of the popular vote.
Likewise with AV the possibility of a power sharing government is maybe higher, which is not particularly a bad thing, but then, as has to happen, comprise between parties is reached to form government and then people feel betrayed on some level.
On the way back from work today, I caught the repeat of Any Questions on R4, this was being discussed, and from what I could catch the implication was that AV, if voted for would be the first step in voting reform.
Exactly!
If this goes through we will likely get more coalition governments & everyone will start moaning again.
The current system has flaws sure, but nowhere near as many as AV does. Deals for what becomes law will done by parties AFTER the election behind closed doors as manifestos get binned.
Lets just hope enough people vote against this nonsense
Yes the plan is that this is the first step towards full proportional representation.
They know the public won't buy that straight off, so they want it introduced more slowly
If you don't write a number but use the traditional 'x' against one name only does it still count?
And what's to stop additional numbers being 'added' to such polling papers? Yes I'm a cynic.:o:rolleyes:
No, it would just mean you'd chosen to excersice one vote instead of three. Your one vote would count, but if a second round was necessary you would have no say in how that panned out.
It's rather a lot of hyperbole with regards the idea that we'll always have coalitions. AV gives a far more representative voting system and so clear winners are the end result.
It's true that coalitions could/would happen, much like we have now with the FPTP system.
With backroom deals etc, you're obviously thinking of full PR, which AV is not. It's not even a little bit PR.
Coalitions are not all bad at all. Even though many of us are unhappy with the current situation, the alternative would have been a minority ruling government (which we've had for decades anyway - just that with FPTP we call it a majority). At least this way, the more extreme of the right wing policies have been tamed and are more 'middle of the road' suiting most people.
One X would count, as long as your intent to vote for that candidate is clear you can put what you like. A tick, a smilie face, your coat of arms, anything.
Three X's would not count as the intention of how you place those votes would not be clear. I wonder if we could do a smilie face, a straight face and a sad face?
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1372383/Video-babies-talking-YouTube-sensation.html