Alternative Vote, How Will You Vote?

[tek-monkey]

Did you know that if the Conservative party used FPTP to decide their leader, it wouldn't have been Cameron?

First ballot (Tuesday 18 October)
David Davies 62 votes
David Cameron 56 votes
Liam Fox 42 votes
Kenneth Clarke 38 votes

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-01366.pdf

Luckily for Cameron they don't see FPTP as a fair system for internal voting, and use some form of AV+ instead.

 

[tek-monkey]

Good article on FPTP vs. AV here: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

 

[John Marwood]

Im with Lunar on this

Or should I say Guy...

 

[Withnail]

Good article on FPTP vs. AV here: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Very long but very interesting, will read the rest tomorrow - ta tek.

Im with Lunar on this

Or should I say Guy...

 

[Glam]

Had 2 of our local candidates walking round this evening (satday) did they knock our door? No. Daughter-in-law and myself were sat in the front room and watched them both walk past. I thought my vote was wanted?

 

[70-plus]

Which party were they from? In Castlefields not seen anyone.

 

[John Marwood]

Did they have brown balaclavas?

 

[Gramaisc]

Did they have brown balaclavas?

 

[70-plus]

Must have been the hoodies

 

[Alan B'Stard]

Good article on FPTP vs. AV here: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Fails to convince me on the validity of a system that only only counts the first 50% of the votes and then wastes the rest.

The only other country in recent history to move from FPTP was New Zealand, who had the sense to ask a sensible questions.

1. The first question asked voters if they wished to retain FPTP or change electoral systems.

2. The second question asked voters which new system should replace FPTP. Voters could choose between the following:

blah, blah, blah, choices.

The winner * Mixed Member Proportional (MMP); also known as the Additional Member System used in Germany, Scotland, and Wales (although not at the time); in which roughly half of the seats are elected by FPP; and the remainder are filled from party lists to top-up the local seats so as to ensure a proportional overall result.

Proportional being the key word, which is why i will still be voting no.

If our colonists can get it right, why cant we?

 

[basil]

Did they have brown balaclavas?

Brown hatter, m'lud?.........

 

[tek-monkey]

Proportional being the key word, which is why i will still be voting no.

If I thought we'd get another chance I'd agree, but I suspect this is the one chance I'll get in my lifetime to vote on any type of electoral reform. The main parties don't want change, why would they? Therefore I will vote yes, because if I don't I am sure I'll be stuck with FPTP for the rest of my life.

 

[70-plus]

Additional member system also has its problems. Half of the MPs are elected through constituencies and then there is a top-up to ensure proportionality through the party list system. So half of the MPs represent a constituency and those elected through the party list have to have the support of the party to get themselves near the top of the list. The party therefore decides the order on the list and the electorate have no say. So what do the unelected MPs do? They just need to keep in well with the party.
All systems have pros and cons.

 

[Withnail]

The only other country in recent history to move from FPTP was New Zealand, who had the sense to ask sensible questions.

1. The first question asked voters if they wished to retain FPTP or change electoral systems.

2. The second question asked voters which new system should replace FPTP. Voters could choose between the following:

blah, blah, blah, choices.

If our colonists can get it right, why cant we?

We can't on account of the 'miserable compromise' that you mentioned earlier - but as tek-monkey also mentioned earlier, we have the question we have so must deal with it.

I read an interesting analogy for voting Yes in the hope of further reform - [paraphrase]like buying a can of cheap lager from Asda, putting it in your fridge and hoping that in ten years time it will have turned into vintage Champagne[/parahrase] - which may or may not have the ring of truth about it.

I'm still going to vote Yes on the basis that a no vote will proper kick this into the long grass for many years to come. Establishing the principle of electoral reform and demonstrating an appetite for it is what this is about, as much as anything else, as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Goldilox]

I read an interesting analogy for voting Yes in the hope of further reform - [paraphrase]like buying a can of cheap lager from Asda, putting it in your fridge and hoping that in ten years time it will have turned into vintage Champagne[/parahrase] - which may or may not have the ring of truth about it.

Hmmm....
We're talking about electoral reform here. I really don't see where the parallel is. Anyone who knows a bit about history knows that the reforms tend to come through a series of acts, not in a single burst.

The reform act of 1832 enfranchised more people, who used those votes to elect new MPs, who then passed further reforms in 1867, 1874 and 1884.

 

[Hetairoi]

Good article on FPTP vs. AV here: http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Fails to convince me on the validity of a system that only only counts the first 50% of the votes and then wastes the rest.

The only other country in recent history to move from FPTP was New Zealand, who had the sense to ask a sensible questions.

1. The first question asked voters if they wished to retain FPTP or change electoral systems.

2. The second question asked voters which new system should replace FPTP. Voters could choose between the following:

blah, blah, blah, choices.

The winner * Mixed Member Proportional (MMP); also known as the Additional Member System used in Germany, Scotland, and Wales (although not at the time); in which roughly half of the seats are elected by FPP; and the remainder are filled from party lists to top-up the local seats so as to ensure a proportional overall result.

Proportional being the key word, which is why i will still be voting no.

If our colonists can get it right, why cant we?

It's rare that you and I agree on things Colin but i'm with you on this one!

Do we vote Yes to a poor compromise in the hopes that it will promote further discussion and another change or do we vote No and hope that the LibDems use their muscle to push for a fairer system?

The current system is blatantly unfair on the LibDems and the smaller parties and the new system is not much better.

If AV is passed then it will cost a lot of money to implement, they are hardly likely to change it again in the near future!

 

[tek-monkey]

Do we vote Yes to a poor compromise in the hopes that it will promote further discussion and another change or do we vote No and hope that the LibDems use their muscle to push for a fairer system?

The current system is blatantly unfair on the LibDems and the smaller parties and the new system is not much better.

If AV is passed then it will cost a lot of money to implement, they are hardly likely to change it again in the near future!

If this doesn't come through the LDs will have no muscle left, they will be kicked back into third place and ignored for a few elections I suspect. After all, what have the LDs really done so far?

How much will AV cost to implement? Only the noToAV lot seem to have given figures and they were lies.

 

[Hetairoi]

Do we vote Yes to a poor compromise in the hopes that it will promote further discussion and another change or do we vote No and hope that the LibDems use their muscle to push for a fairer system?

The current system is blatantly unfair on the LibDems and the smaller parties and the new system is not much better.

If AV is passed then it will cost a lot of money to implement, they are hardly likely to change it again in the near future!

If this doesn't come through the LDs will have no muscle left, they will be kicked back into third place and ignored for a few elections I suspect. After all, what have the LDs really done so far?

How much will AV cost to implement? Only the noToAV lot seem to have given figures and they were lies.

You may be right, is it better to go for half-hearted change than none at all?

I was talking to one of the LibDem candidate's for the Council election and he claim's that they have had a huge moderating effect on the Conservatives and that if it wasn't for them then their policies would have been far more radical than they have been.

 

[Withnail]

The reform act of 1832 enfranchised more people, who used those votes to elect new MPs, who then passed further reforms in 1867, 1874 and 1884.

So on that time-scale we can expect something acceptable to Colin Grigson by 2063 at the earliest.

 

[tek-monkey]

You may be right, is it better to go for half-hearted change than none at all?

I was talking to one of the LibDem candidate's for the Council election and he claim's that they have had a huge moderating effect on the Conservatives and that if it wasn't for them then their policies would have been far more radical than they have been.

Then why don't they broadcast this?!?!? They should be shouting it from the rooftops, instead they are seen as spineless pansies.

EDIT: Just to add, this is exactly why I voted for them. I wanted them to temper the tory policies, as I couldn't stand Labour in again nor a full on tory guv. I suspect they have done a lot, but we never see it. All we see is Tory policies that may or may not have been altered to keep the LDs happy - but we never actually know.