Alternative Vote, How Will You Vote?

[Hetairoi]

On May 5th along with voting for new Borough Councillors you will be asked to vote on a new way of electing MP's, councillors etc.

Under the new system of Alternative Vote (AV) you will be asked to rank all candidates from your first choice to your last choice.

If one candidate gets over 50% of the votes then they are elected if not then the candidate who got fewest votes has their votes redistributed according to their voters second choice, this continues until one candidate has over 50% of the vote and they are then elected.

I will be voting against AV because it will be confusing and the result, in the end, will be little different to what it is now.

The only way to get true democracy is a Proportional Representation system similar to that used for the European Elections and The Welsh Assembly and Scottish Assembly elctions.

 

[Withnail]

The only way to get true democracy is a Proportional Representation system similar to that used for the European Elections and The Welsh Assembly and Scottish Assembly elctions.

The thing is, though, a 'no' vote will be taken as a vote against any proportional voting system and the whole idea will be put to bed for another decade or two. AV may not be the best system but is a step in the right direction and can pave the way for a proper PR system.

I will be voting against AV because it will be confusing...

Those against the alternative vote believe they can persuade the British that we are too dim to count up to three - Andrew Rawnsley.

 

[tek-monkey]

I shall be voting yes, because it is a very slightly fairer way of voting than FPTP. Just because X-Factor on Ice watchers will be confused does not in my mind make it a worse system, I fail to see how ranking people on how much you like them will actually confuse anyone bar the mentally retarded. The electorate do not have to do anything with the results, we just put them in order of least despisable to most despisable. What is so hard, really?

Also anything that stands even the remotest chance of unseating the vast tory/labour majorities is a blessing, I don't want a government that can just say 'We will do this, we have anough MPs, therefore nobody can stop us'. I don't care if they have to argue into the night constantly to decide what needs doing, make them work for their money. Hopefully then we'll see the people who actually want to make a difference taking the jobs rather than just first class passengers on the gravy train.

To be honest, the whole idea of a FPTP system only works when you have 2 parties. That way the winner represents the majority of the country, I'm fine with that. When you can win despite only representing a third its a bit of a pisstake really.

 

[Hetairoi]

I agree that it is a slight improvement but if AV is implemented then that will be the end of the debate as the Tories will say that they have made changes to the electoral system, end of story.

Anyone who thinks that a lot of people aren't confused by the current system need to go and talk to the staff at the Polling Stations, they tell me that they have to explain in great detail what to do to quite a few people and even go into the booths and help some.

I even heard one lady at the last election ask why Gordon Brown wasn't on the form as she wanted to vote for him.

 

[tek-monkey]

I think the opposite, I think a vote to keep FPTP will be the death knoll for any form of fair government. It will be seen as the public saying we like what we already have, lets keep it. That is exactly the reason we are only being offered AV at present, because enough people think its crap and they can say oh well, we tried but the british public don't want to change the voting system.

If AV got voted in though, they'd need to re-evaluate it after a few goes. This is when we could push for an actual fair voting system, if we stay with FPTP we'll never be offered one.

 

[Withnail]

If people are already confused by the current system, they will be no more confused with a new one.

As for it being the 'end of the debate', that simply isn't the case. Once the principle of electoral reform has been established, what form it takes can be amended over time. A no vote, however, would most likely mean FPTP for many years to come.

 

[highguyuk]

Completely and utterly agree with monkey.

Yes to AV!

 

[Alan B'Stard]

I almost agree entirely with Hetairoi, which is a first.

The difference AV will actually make to a General Election result will be negligible and the amount of constituencies where it will actually be used could probably be easily counted on all of my digits, with some to spare.

It's not PR, it is a measly compromise that it not representational and fails to remove the bias inherent in FPTP.

It's not too complicated, it's just the wrong approach.

Also, one minor change will prevent further changes as complaints against an unfair system will be viewed as wingeing.

"we changed it once already and you still don't like the result, what more do you want?" sort of thing.

As to why the referendum fails or succeeds, I'm sure the pollsters will do a very good post mortem and offer an insight to this.

It's a shady cop out, offering a bastardised form of voting that legitimises a still unfair system.

 

[Gramaisc]

From a previous thread.

Do you think AV will result in less intelligent people not voting, because they don't understand it?

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

I can't help feeling that this is an 'improvement-limitation' excercise - intended to stave off a move to real PR until a time much further into the future. Better than the status quo, though.

 

[Withnail]

Also, one minor change will prevent further changes as complaints against an unfair system will be viewed as wingeing.

"we changed it once already and you still don't like the result, what more do you want?" sort of thing.

But no change will make any further change even less likely.

If AV will not be so different than FPTP so be it, why the opposition to it? Isn't a step in the right direction better than no step at all?

 

[Alan B'Stard]

But no change will make any further change even less likely.

Not if the pollsters show that a sizeable element rejected it because it's not P.R, which is my position.

Why buy a substandard or counterfeit product?

If AV will not be so different than FPTP so be it, why the opposition to it?

Nobody likes change, unless you own the Penny Arcade.

Isn't a step in the right direction better than no step at all?

It's not proportional and it's not representative. How can it be a step in the right direction?

It's a fudge to secure a dodgy coalition.

 

[70-plus]

I shall be voting against AV because firstly it is not proportional and secondly I do not want to put a second or third preference. I only have one preference. There are much better proportional systems - AV merely means that the candidate that wins has more than 50% of the vote but it can be based on second or third preference votes.

 

[tek-monkey]

To me the question is simple, would I prefer AV to fptp? The answer is yes. PR doesn't come into it, its not on the table. The Tories refused point blank to allow a referendum on AV, many of labour feel the same. Anyone thinking a vote against AV will be a step towards PR is deluding themselves.

 

[Gramaisc]

I shall be voting against AV because firstly it is not proportional and secondly I do not want to put a second or third preference. I only have one preference.

There is no requirement in AV to vote for more than your first preference, merely the choice to do so, should you wish. You will be able to vote for a single first preference and no other preference, if that is your postion.

 

[tek-monkey]

I shall be voting against AV because firstly it is not proportional and secondly I do not want to put a second or third preference. I only have one preference.

There is no requirement in AV to vote for more than your first preference, merely the choice to do so, should you wish. You will be able to vote for a single first preference and no other preference, if that is your postion.

I admit that was something I was never clear on, but if that is how it works You can still pretend you are using fptp and everyone is happy.

I have to admit I'm having real issues spotting the problem with AV compared to fptp, what is wrong with it?

 

[Gramaisc]

I shall be voting against AV because firstly it is not proportional and secondly I do not want to put a second or third preference. I only have one preference.

There is no requirement in AV to vote for more than your first preference, merely the choice to do so, should you wish. You will be able to vote for a single first preference and no other preference, if that is your postion.

I admit that was something I was never clear on, but if that is how it works You can still pretend you are using fptp and everyone is happy.

I have to admit I'm having real issues spotting the problem with AV compared to fptp, what is wrong with it?

Just to be clear. In Australian AV elections, I believe that you are required to vote for a set number of candidates, but I also believe that that will not be the case in UK elections under AV rules.

The Alternative Vote (AV) is very much like First-Past-the-Post (FPTP). Like FPTP, it is used to elect representatives for single-member constituencies, except that rather than simply marking one solitary 'X' on the ballot paper, the voter has the chance to rank the candidates on offer.
The voter thus puts a '1' by their first-preference candidate, and can continue, if they wish, to put a '2' by their second-preference, and so on, until they don't care anymore or they run out of names. In some AV elections, such as most Australian elections, electors are required to rank all candidates.
If a candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes (more people put them as number one than all the rest combined), then they are elected.
If no candidate gains a majority on first preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until someone gets over 50 per cent.

I remain worried that refusing AV because it's not much better than FPTP will be taken as a definitive end to the debate over election methods, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[tek-monkey]

I remain worried that refusing AV because it's not much better than FPTP will be taken as a definitive end to the debate over election methods, at least for the foreseeable future.

Exactly my concern, the Tories are dead against it and while the Labour leadership are for it I'm not sure they would be if they were in power. If we get one good thing from the coalition it could be a chance to start the process of a fairer voting system.

 

[basil]

I remain worried that refusing AV because it's not much better than FPTP will be taken as a definitive end to the debate over election methods, at least for the foreseeable future.

Exactly my concern, the Tories are dead against it and while the Labour leadership are for it I'm not sure they would be if they were in power. If we get one good thing from the coalition it could be a chance to start the process of a fairer voting system.

....and then you woke up........

 

[Gramaisc]

I remain worried that refusing AV because it's not much better than FPTP will be taken as a definitive end to the debate over election methods, at least for the foreseeable future.

I also remain worried that accepting AV because it's a little bit better than FPTP will be taken as a definitive end to the debate over election methods, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[basil]

I remain worried that refusing AV because it's not much better than FPTP will be taken as a definitive end to the debate over election methods, at least for the foreseeable future.

I also remain worried that accepting AV because it's a little bit better than FPTP will be taken as a definitive end to the debate over election methods, at least for the foreseeable future.

Dear Worried, the forseeable future is just a state of mind.........