|
Post by Hippo on Apr 26, 2011 11:45:51 GMT 1
So I want a very popular plain with salt and vinegar as second choice then a few idiots who wanted something obscure and horrible like prawn cocktail flavour gets their second choice counted before mine, because not many others agreed with them, but that may be enough to swing it without my second choice being counted Yeah but, why would you want your second choice counted if your first choice was still in the reckoning? People still, ultimately, only get one vote, so if your second choice was counted, you'd actually not be voting for Ready Salted, but Salt and Vinegar, and that would probably allow Cheese and Onion to swoop in and win the.. crisp.. contest.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Apr 26, 2011 13:57:25 GMT 1
Yeah but you'd be able to state that your absolute least favourite 'roast beef' is ranked below all the other candidates. Then at least it's likely you'll be able to get a packet you at least like a little rather than one you hate.
There seem to be only three arguments being presented against AV 1. It's too expensive - really?? How is it so much more expensive exactly, the only thing that will change is that i'll be using slightly more ink on my voting slip in writing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th instead of X.
2. Only three other countries use it including Papa New Guinea - so what?
3. It's too complicated for people to understand - i.e. the electorate is too thick. Yes that's a great argument isn't it, really nice to know how exactly our wonderful politicians feel about us. We're all in it together!
As I see it this is a far better system than first past the post. For one I will be firmly able to categorically state who i do not want elected - BNP and Conservative - and then select from the remaining candidates rank them in order of favour - so the ones with most policies i agree with get the top vote. I'll no longer have to think, damn i want to vote x, but if i do then that might mean a tory gets in so i'll vote tactically.
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on Apr 26, 2011 14:29:43 GMT 1
4 - we could end up with elected representatives who next to no-one wanted as their first choice
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Apr 26, 2011 15:08:18 GMT 1
4 - we could end up with elected representatives who next to no-one wanted as their first choice Would be interested to know how many of the 2010 election results would have been different if av had been in place? Genuinely don't know the answer to that one? In Shrewsbury daniel kawczynski got 44% of the vote for the conservatives and lib dems were second with 29% and labour on just under 21% and others got 6%, so even if all the "others" voted lib dem as their second choice the lib dems would be someway behind the conservatives. (unlikely as I can't see Bnp and ukip voters putting lib dem as their second choice) The interesting thing would be if the conservatives didn't get to 50% of the vote and then the 3rd place labour votes were counted - at a guess I'd say most labour voters would have chosen lib dem as second choice rather than conservative so the lib dems might just have scrapped home ahead of conservatives - however you would need some one much brighter than me to work out if that was really the case!
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Apr 26, 2011 19:45:09 GMT 1
4 - we could end up with elected representatives who next to no-one wanted as their first choice Would be interested to know how many of the 2010 election results would have been different if av had been in place? Genuinely don't know the answer to that one? Impossible to say as no one knows how many votes were tactical or protest.
|
|
|
Post by captainpike on Apr 26, 2011 20:12:18 GMT 1
4 - we could end up with elected representatives who next to no-one wanted as their first choice No one is forced to pick more than one candidate.
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on Apr 27, 2011 10:19:32 GMT 1
Don't follow how that relates to my concern at all Timothy - many/most people will do so, surely
|
|
|
Post by captainpike on Apr 27, 2011 10:30:40 GMT 1
Don't follow how that relates to my concern at all Timothy - many/most people will do so, surely Well Andrew, the way I see it is thus. Even with second and third recounts brought in to the equation the winner will still have to have polled a decent first round total and if a large minority of people only make on or two choices on their ballot paper then the eventual winner is still going to have been a popular choice. I can only speak for myself but if at the last election I'd been able to vote in order of preference then I'd have been happy to see my second preference get in if my first had not. So I'm not sure that concerns that we could end up with someone who not many people voted for as their first choice hold much water. After all, under FPTP the majority very rearely end up with a candidate of their choosing - at least under AV we would get a more accurate result.
|
|
|
Post by gingashrew on Apr 28, 2011 11:44:09 GMT 1
Link------> This is an explanation by Dan Snow on AV.I am voting yes. I'm sick of living in a safe seat and having to second guess how other people are voting rather than choosing based purely on my preferred manifesto. Every time I see a NO campaigner politician they seem to have a safe seat. Says it all, for me.
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on Apr 28, 2011 13:18:58 GMT 1
Don't follow how that relates to my concern at all Timothy - many/most people will do so, surely Well Andrew, the way I see it is thus. Even with second and third recounts brought in to the equation the winner will still have to have polled a decent first round total and if a large minority of people only make on or two choices on their ballot paper then the eventual winner is still going to have been a popular choice. I can only speak for myself but if at the last election I'd been able to vote in order of preference then I'd have been happy to see my second preference get in if my first had not. So I'm not sure that concerns that we could end up with someone who not many people voted for as their first choice hold much water. After all, under FPTP the majority very rearely end up with a candidate of their choosing - at least under AV we would get a more accurate result. I don't think anyone could argue with 'I'd have been happy to see my second preference get in if my first had not' - but are we not going to see an even less-proportional system, with smaller parties getting more votes overall but probably fewer seats? My concern is that the eventual winner is not a popular choice as you suggest, and rather a bland and inoffensive one who has come in third place, but, in comparison to an outspoken and principled candidate, doesn't seem too bad to the (sometimes extremist) voters whose candidate has been quickly eliminated in the early rounds. I don't fully understand this, I don't think, and am still not sure which way I will vote.
|
|
|
Post by captainpike on Apr 28, 2011 13:25:46 GMT 1
The possible move towards more centrist policies due to courting of votes is a concern, but no-one is arguing it is a perfect system - but it is markedly better than FPTP. I think it is worth a go.
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on Apr 28, 2011 13:46:25 GMT 1
Pretty sure I'm not convinced of it enough to vote Yes at this stage. Sure, I'd prefer a"progressive majority" to oust a Tory candidate wherever possible, but (regardless of whether that is an apt term or not) I'm not sure that that this is either likely to happen or that such selfish views should form the basis of any personal decision on which system to vote for
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ha Ha on Apr 28, 2011 13:55:02 GMT 1
I don't think it'll make the difference the Libdems are hoping for. The electorate have been keeping the Lib's out of power for a reason i.e they don't wont them in power. If people really thought that AV would give them added influence over running the country then they would be more inclined to vote for anybody else but them as their second or third option.
I can only see the monster raving loonies and the lord buckethead's of the world benefitting from this alternative waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 28, 2011 14:12:00 GMT 1
My position is clear, AV = more libdem influence in british politics = a bad thing. So you prefer more Conservative influence then? Interesting. AV allows people to say "OK, I really want A to be my representative in Parliament, but if the rest of the constituency doesn't agree, I'd rather be represented by C than B, as at least they have some common ground with my ideals". 1)A, 2)C. FPTP MAKES you say "OK, I really want A to be my representative in Parliament, but because 85% of the constituency is die-hard for B and C, I'll have to vote for C to keep B out and let the rest of the constituency think that A has no support whatsoever, otherwise I'm going to end up with B for sure. But I'll probably never get my true choice reflected again, as A won't bother standing again if our support can't be seen at the ballot box, so HOW DO I VOTE? Screw it, I'll stay at home." FPTP may have the simpler final counting system, but it has the more complicated decision system for the 3rd/4th/5th-party voter at the ballot box itself - Your ideals can lose precedence over tactical voting. AV allows you to simplify your actual voting decision(s), and makes sure it's taken into full account in the final count. You vote for who you want to win, then you pop down your each/way choice. Not rocket surgery. Excellent summary. AV isn't perfect (or difficult) but it's far better than FPTP, where a relative handful of voters in a minority of marginal seats decide who forms the government, every time and without exception. Not remotely democratic. I've been voting since 1979 and never had an MP I voted for. If you only want one candidate to win, you only put down one preference. Nasty extremist parties won't get a look in because people still won't vote for them, even as 2nd, 3rd or 4th choices. Any Labour supporter voting No so as to give Clegg a kicking needs their head examining. Labour will suffer the consequences of a No vote long after Clegg has gone. The only winner from a No vote will be the Tories.
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on Apr 28, 2011 15:13:09 GMT 1
Surely both leading parties will suffer to some extent - that much at least is clear.
A recent poll had Labour losing 13 seats under AV (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/labour-voters-win-lib-poll), and the Tories unchanged. I know that's not clear-cut, but it's not as simple as a blind positive for Labour
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Apr 28, 2011 16:46:45 GMT 1
Surely both leading parties will suffer to some extent - that much at least is clear. A recent poll had Labour losing 13 seats under AV (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/labour-voters-win-lib-poll), and the Tories unchanged. I know that's not clear-cut, but it's not as simple as a blind positive for Labour I'm sceptical of polls on AV - difficult enough to assess voters' first intentions, but their 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc? And how would they weigh up those who would only put one preference, or two etc? Besides which the Tories plan to change the constituency boundaries again, which is expected to benefit them at Labour's expense. I'll be reading a lot more on this before 5 May but it seems to me that "No to AV" is a Tory vote. I don't think their MPs would be unanimously rejecting AV otherwise, whilst Labour are split.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Apr 28, 2011 17:53:09 GMT 1
AV may also lead to more coalitions.
I believe one man one vote....to have you vote counted once and lose as the other operson has had his vote counted 2 or 3 times is wrong.
As for the Lib Dems I feel they have damaged themselves for a while yet.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Apr 28, 2011 18:00:39 GMT 1
AV may also lead to more coalitions. I believe one man one vote....to have you vote counted once and lose as the other operson has had his vote counted 2 or 3 times is wrong. As for the Lib Dems I feel they have damaged themselves for a while yet. There is no actual evidence to suggest there will be more coalitions. Equally each vote is counted exactly the same number of times. Anything that means that no longer any MP is elected with less than 50% of the vote must surely be more democratic.
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on Apr 28, 2011 18:05:58 GMT 1
Just had my No leaflet... LMAO. Apparently, someone's 5th vote is worth the same as mine.
Personally I prefer to read that as my 5th vote is worth the same as someone who votes Tory in my Town. Result.
As for the coalitions, that's on mine too - I just figured that was good though, if it means more views being taken into account (aka beaten into submission on current evidence but bear with me) and more people being represented in government. Majority rule for me, I'd dump the party system entirely.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Apr 28, 2011 20:17:51 GMT 1
AV may also lead to more coalitions. I believe one man one vote....to have you vote counted once and lose as the other operson has had his vote counted 2 or 3 times is wrong. As for the Lib Dems I feel they have damaged themselves for a while yet. And what the hell do you know about polytechnics..... There is no actual evidence to suggest there will be more coalitions. Equally each vote is counted exactly the same number of times. Anything that means that no longer any MP is elected with less than 50% of the vote must surely be more democratic.
|
|
|
Post by dshrew on Apr 28, 2011 21:56:07 GMT 1
I voted for " Yes, i will support Alternative Vote"
|
|