What about AV?

70-plus

Well-Known Forumite
How will you vote? The Lib-Dems don't really want it; they want a proportional system; the tories don't want it; and it was a Labour policy sort of. Surely, it will be rejected - what a waste of money.
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Couldn't care less tbh, going to vote against as the current system can't be administered properly so we have little hope of a more complex system requiring mathematic calculation.

As long as we never see another labour government i'll be happy.
 

db

#chaplife
and for those of us who don't read the FT/private eye, care to elaborate on what AV is? AV to me means Audio Visual, but i'm guessing that's not what you're on about lol

shoes said:
the current system can't be administered properly so we have little hope of a more complex system requiring mathematic calculation.
indeed..
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
In this context AV means 'Alternative Vote'.

I'm more of an STV man myself - Single Transferable Vote.
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
All constituencies the same size, lose 50 odd MPs, next election you have your MPs listed as per, you write 1 by the one you fancy the most, 2 next to the one you'd probably do, 3, 4, 5 etc. next to those proportional to how many drinks before you would....

It gets thrown into the big ol' government computer which elects someone no one voted for.

Nett result is the same.
 

Alan B'Stard

Well-Known Forumite
Spooky, I'd only been discussing this with another forumite at the time that the OP posted, saying that it would be interesting to find out what others thought. :strange:

I'm for PR, not AV and would like to see a campaign against the referendum on the basis that it is not PR rather than against changing the system.
 

db

#chaplife
shoes said:
you write 1 by the one you fancy the most, 2 next to the one you'd probably do, 3, 4, 5 etc. next to those proportional to how many drinks before you would....
wow, i used to use a very similar system to dictate how low i would stoop when pulling birds in the colosseum :teef:
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Surely this is a fiarer representation of what people actually want though? It means you can vote properly, not strategically. Vote for them in order of who will make the smallest cockup of the whole thing, rather than who you may not want in but would rather than the other main lizard. If we ever want to break the stranglehold given by constituency boundaries it seems a logical step, as long as its not the last step anyway.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
I wonder, if they applied this system to Big Brother, X-Factor, and that kind of thing, would people make a bit more effort to understand the principles behind it?
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
Amazing idea! Get the masses behind it by running a chav show that uses it, it'll be the cool new thing and they may even get off their backsides to vote for it. Now if we made elections a phone in vote, at 20p per call, they'd all do it.
 

Trumpet

Well-Known Forumite
0845 number, 60p per minute, phone lines still open after voting closes. Opportunty for another 'stealth tax'. Excellent, chavs paying back some of their dole money. Bring it on I say.
 

70-plus

Well-Known Forumite
Actually AV can be manipulated. Once they have counted all the 1 votes then the person with the lowest number of votes is knocked out and that person's 2 votes are counted. Therefore where you put the 2 votes is very important if you are voting for the candidate who is likely to have the least number of votes! So there will be quite a campaign particularly from the Liberals for the 2 votes. It is not proportional and it is not FPTP so it is unlikely to be agreed to. Judging by the comments so far, this is a no-runner of an idea.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
In my suspicious mind, the idea behind this is to present the people with a choice between the current arrangements and a change to a system which is little better, in the hope that we will 'reject PR' and it can all be forgotten about for forty years. This is essentially the plan that was used ( successfully ) in the Australian monarchy/republic referendum a few years ago. They were offered a change to a blatantly rigged presidential system and wisely rejected it - but that was presented as 'preferring the monarchy'.....
 

Alan B'Stard

Well-Known Forumite
I was going to PM Sofa to ask what the position of the Green Party is, but found the information here.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rupert-read/why-greens-should-get-behind-av

It remains to be debated at the next conference later this year and will be interesting to see the outcome.

The link above argues that AV is at least better than FPTP and eliminates the wasted vote argument.

The link below compares FPTP to AV before concluding, accurately, in my opinion, "they’re both pretty rubbish".

http://nationalconversationforengland.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/alternative-alternative-voting-systems-part-one/

I'll be waiting for the outcome of the Green's discussion with interest as it may or may not generate a subscription from me.
 

Sofa

I'm a Staffooooooordian
Colin Grigson said:
... but found the information here..
The official Green Party stance will not be decided until our Autumn Conference in September. From what I can make out the majority think it is a bad idea because it is not what we are really after.

It is a bit like a kid wanting an scalextric set for Christmas and only getting a car but no track - the parent (the Government) will say "But that is what you said you wanted", pretend they kept their side of the bargain and then mutter "ungrateful" under their breath for ever more.

The danger is that while one side of the argument see it as a step in the right direction others see it as ruining the chances of actually getting what was originally wanted being set back for generations.
 
Top