The Alternative Vote (AV)

[Ivo]

Even a politics thread isn't safe from the MHC Curse...!

Very good She did look a tad too old for me though, and that's considering the oldest person I've ever been interested in was 43 at the time (August last year)!

As non-Tories go, I think you are probably among the most obvious!

 

[BlythPower]

Even a politics thread isn't safe from the MHC Curse...!

That's you spreading your lustful tentacles throughout RailUK, that is.

Very good She did look a tad too old for me though, and that's considering the oldest person I've ever been interested in was 43 at the time (August last year)!:

So fickle - does Kernowfem know?

As non-Tories go, I think you are probably among the most obvious!

There's plenty of us about on here - usually found arguing with OT and his cronies!

 

[SS4]

Yes, if only as the first step to full PR.

I'm sick of politicians only caring about marginal seats, sick of my vote not mattering because I happen to live in a safe seat, sick of politicians having a job for life.
It is preposterous to state that AV is too expensive, we have spent far more money bringing democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya and yet we still don't have a proper form of it at home!


Why are the BNP campaigning for a no vote? Obviously someone is lying and for once it's not the BNP. The Tories just think Britons are too stupid to know how AV works

AV doesn't work - it works for the conservative party's own elections. The "one rule for us, another for you" is the cornerstone of the government though.

AV is expensive - what price do you put on democracy? You know what's more expensive? War, nuclear deterrents and no-fly zones.

"Don't use AV" - very broad. Most countries don't use AV because they have the better STV. Over 5 billion people are not Indian. True yet says nothing.

No-one wants it - True, many people want full PR but what the website fails to mention is that the Tory party vetoed STV which is what the Lib Dems want.

AV is not proportional - See my point above about STV. It should be remembered that only the Conservatives prevented full PR.



The no arguments hold less water than a bucket without a bottom and instead are relying on fear, trickery and lies to scare voters into voting no.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
OT: We are also going to the polls for local elections on the same day, yet have heard absolutely nothing. I can understand from national news but local news has been silent too.

 

[HST Power]

Me senses a pro-Tory thread on the horizon!

Excellent!

 

[me123]

The "no" campaign really is a load of rubbish. Here are some genuine quotes from them:

I want to:
Defend equal votes
Say NO to unfair elections
Keep one person one vote

Well, that's all irrelevant. Votes are still equal, elections are just as fair, and one person still has one vote.

Schools and hospitals, or the Alternative Vote – that's the choice in this referendum.

I think we're talking about different referendums. The choices aren't "AV" or "schools and hospitals". It's "AV" or "FPTP".

Oh come on. The choice is between two voting system. Not between AV and premature babies dying. Grow up.

I don't think I have the will to continue any more... that is possibly the most stupid billboard ever erected.

You can’t get a hung parliament from a party leader selection.

Congratulations on that excellent observation :roll:

Let's have a look at their campaign video:
[youtube]-obZ9OG_XKA[/youtube]

Oh dear, oh dear...

Let's start with the Alan B'stard part:

• AV doesn't somehow make people vote for idiots
• AV doesn't make hung parliaments more likely
• Hung parliaments can and do happen under FPTP, most recently only a year ago. So using them to scare people away from AV is, frankly, insulting.
• In actual fact the most popular candidate gets elected, because it takes further preferences into account

The horse racing bit:

• To compare an election to a horse race is a load of rubbish
• Although the candidate who comes first under AV has the most votes, (s)he doesn't have the support of the majority of the electorate

And, lastly, the classroom sketch. Well, the only reason they don't understand it is because she's a crap teacher. That's why they don't have any clue. If they went to one of the many fantastic, unbiased and informative websites out there, it would explain it much clearer and they'd probably have a better picture of what's happening.

 

[Ivo]

I'm not going to start criticising the Yes group, but FPTP is a sound system that is proven to work! On the other hand, why should we adopt a system that is virtually unheard of and unproven (and where it is used many do not want it!)? ASI said before, if FPTP works in the States, and others, why not in the UK?

 

[me123]

Doesn't the USA use the Electoral College?

PS: I can also criticise aspects of the "Yes" campaign. They make a few sweeping generalisations. But the desperation of the "No" campaigners just shows me that they can't even come up with cogent arguments to support the current system; therefore, why should I?

 

[SS4]

I'm not going to start criticising the Yes group, but FPTP is a sound system that is proven to work! On the other hand, why should we adopt a system that is virtually unheard of and unproven (and where it is used many do not want it!)? ASI said before, if FPTP works in the States, and others, why not in the UK?

FPTP doesn't really work, it only gives those who live in marginal seats a chance to talk to their prospective representative and marginal seats are rare. FPTP also allows a candidate to be elected without the support of a majority of constituents.

Ideally of course we would use the tried and tested STV (as used in Europe) but the tories shot that one down. FPTP has had it's day, it's time to move a system where most people's vote will count.

It's perfectly apparent that the no camp are making spurious claims about AV because there is no real reason not to switch, tradition is it's best argument. Instead of using cold, hard fact they're using emotional arguments. me123's link to the premature baby is heavily implying "if you vote yes this, and many other, babies will die" which is clearly not true (especially given NHS cuts)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

BTW: There's a suspicion of UKIP about OT if you ask me...

It's the best way to go!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Excellent!

Can't wait!

 

[me123]

The biggest problem with FPTP, for myself as a Scottish voter, is that the election is in the hands of a few marginal seats in England. As proven last year; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland make no real difference to the overall election result whatsoever. This problem won't be completely eliminated by AV (contrary to the claims on the "Yes" website), but it will be a positive step in the right direction.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'd always thought that AV would make certain 'safe' seats less so safe - i.e. Blackburn has had a Labour MP since 1955 (I think), yet vote levels for the Tories, LD, UKIP and the BNP all rose here last year. Does AV make Mr Straw (our MP and resident idiot) less safe or more safe?

Also of note is nearby Padiham electing a BNP mayor (link to follow)

 

[SS4]

The biggest problem with FPTP, for myself as a Scottish voter, is that the election is in the hands of a few marginal seats in England. As proven last year; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland make no real difference to the overall election result whatsoever. This problem won't be completely eliminated by AV (contrary to the claims on the "Yes" website), but it will be a positive step in the right direction.

It's also a problem in English safe seats albeit to a lesser extent. I had to persuade myself to go and vote at the last general election because I knew I could vote for whoever I liked and Labour would win. Sure enough Labour did win as has been the case since 1974 (when the constituency was formed in it's current state)!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Padiham's provisional BNP mayor:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-votes-overwhelmingly-Britains-BNP-mayor.html

 

[SS4]

I'd always thought that AV would make certain 'safe' seats less so safe - i.e. Blackburn has had a Labour MP since 1955 (I think), yet vote levels for the Tories, LD, UKIP and the BNP all rose here last year. Does AV make Mr Straw (our MP and resident idiot) less safe or more safe?

Also of note is nearby Padiham electing a BNP mayor (link to follow)

Less safe but when did it become right to manipulate votes to keep a certain party in or out?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Less safe but when did it become right to manipulate votes to keep a certain party in or out?

Oh good and I don't follow what you mean by 'manipulate' - what are you reffering to?

 

[SS4]

Padiham's provisional BNP mayor:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-votes-overwhelmingly-Britains-BNP-mayor.html

The councillors voted him in rather than the electorate though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh good and I don't follow what you mean by 'manipulate' - what are you reffering to?

The way that FPTP discards all those votes which aren't for the winner. The increasing votes are not noticed and the people go without fair representation. Manipulate is probably the wrong word to use in retrospect

 

[313103]

no!!!

 

[Ivo]

Is it worth pointing out that I grew up deep in Toryland? (Yes, there *is* an "r" there; I did not say Toyland!)

I am intrigued to see if the AV would work, but I do have serious doubts about it. If almost everyone voted for the BNP as their second choice, unless another party had a strong popularity at the top the fascist idiots could well win! Think about it like this:

----- A ----- B ----- C ----- D
- 1 - Lab --- Con --- Lib --- BNP
- 2 - BNP --- BNP --- BNP --- Grn
- 3 - Con --- Lib --- Lab --- Ind

Unlikely I know, but based on the above would the BNP not win - even if D did not turn up?

@ Matt: Sorry to hear about Padiham :?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

@ Matt: Sorry to hear about Padiham :?

Doesn't matter, it's an awful town anyway

 

[me123]

It's also a problem in English safe seats albeit to a lesser extent. I had to persuade myself to go and vote at the last general election because I knew I could vote for whoever I liked and Labour would win. Sure enough Labour did win as has been the case since 1974 (when the constituency was formed in it's current state)!

I have the same problem. I have the honour of living in the safest Labour seat in the UK. Last time around he got a whopping 66.6% of the votes. He's one the MPs who actually got the support of over half the electorate. I don't think there's anyone out there who can claim he was undemocratically elected; whatever system you use, he would get in, and quite rightly so.

Over the campaign, he knew he was going to get in, and the others knew it too. So I received two election leaflets. Pretty pathetic I would say, compared to those in more competitive seats. This obviously won't change things here. But it will in other seats.

But there are many other places out there where the majority is less than 50%, and in those cases the formerly "safe" candidate has to fight to keep his seat. This can only be a good thing. More marginal seats means more choice for the electorate as a whole. It's often said that you can put a coloured rosette on a donkey in certain areas and they'd get in... well, by that analogy, there's plenty of asses in Westminster at the moment...

 

[jrhilton]

.... sick of politicians having a job for life.

A very good point. If AV makes them work harder for votes then it is a good thing in my view. No system is perfect anyway.

I also think it should be easier for local people to oust their MP too. A limit on the number of terms as MP would be good too, maybe 3 as a maximum. More people who have lived a life outside politics first would be good than the same people in there for forty years.

 

[Ivo]

I also think it should be easier for local people to oust their MP too. A limit on the number of terms as MP would be good too, maybe 3 as a maximum.

A maximum term of 3 would never work. It would require a whole wave of changes to the perliamentary set up in this country. If an MP is permitted a maximum of 3 terms, would that not then dictate a potential PM who aims for the maximum possible term to be either (a) unelected at Commons level or (b) breaking the Law? Also, am I right to think that Churchill actually had more than three terms, albeit it across two terms?

I do support this idea to a point, but it would be difficult to introduce. I personally would probably suggest a maximum of 5 (i.e. 20 years).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I have the same problem. I have the honour of living in the safest Labour seat in the UK.

Is your constituancy Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill? I know Glasgow East is second or third safest.

 

[me123]

I also think it should be easier for local people to oust their MP too. A limit on the number of terms as MP would be good too, maybe 3 as a maximum.

Why? Some of the best politicians have been in parliament for longer. Their experience adds to the parliament. To be fair, we've currently got a great mix of young and old in Westminster, and

If you only had three terms, we'd end up with some very inexperienced ministers in government, which I would argue is a bad thing.

Besides, the "safe" seats would still be safe; only difference is you'd get a different person every 12-15 years! The only place I know to elect people (for all posts) based on the candidate and not primarily for party politics is Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

 

[WestCoast]

AV doesn't make hung parliaments more likely

I am in the "yes" camp but I disagree, I feel it does make hung parliaments and coalitions more likely.

There's strong arguments for both sides, but First Past The Post is not a fair system. It may work but that doesn't make it fair or indeed, legitimate. The question is do we want to risk losing 'strong and stable governments with decent working majorities in the Commons' in favour of more coalitions (or minority governments)? Then again, there's a question of elective dictatorship and whether coalitions limit this.

The "no" campaign are clearly working on those who know little of the benefits of AV, using health spending is designed to target those who are oblivious to any voting system.

 

[me123]

Is your constituancy Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill? I know Glasgow East is second or third safest.

Yup; My votes never count unless you use a PR system (as we do for Europe, Scottish Councils, and as we will do on the 5th of May for the Scottish Parliament).

Actually, Glasgow East isn't as safe as it would appear. It went to SNP from 2008-2010 following a by-election.

 

[jrhilton]

I do support this idea to a point, but it would be difficult to introduce. I personally would probably suggest a maximum of 5 (i.e. 20 years).

True, three could be short, can we meet half way at four.

 

[ainsworth74]

Sure enough Labour did win as has been the case since 1974 (when the constituency was formed in it's current state)!

Used to be the same in my constituency since it was formed (I think 1974 as well) it's been Labour. Until the last election when we got rid of the incumbent (no loss there!) and got a Lib Dem instead. Only took a swing of 21% (which I think was either the largest or one of the largest in the country).

 

[me123]

I am in the "yes" camp but I disagree, I feel it does make hung parliaments and coalitions more likely.

The system itself doesn't. It just gives more people a say than FPTP does. If enough people vote for a third party, then that's what will happen. It happened last year, and has happened before.

 

[Greenback]

FPTP is an archaic system that has had it's day. It means that a party with 33000 votes across 3 cosntituencies may not win a seat, yet one with 30000 may win one or two. For instance, Labour wins Swansea East and Swansea West with a majority of 1124 and 856 respectively, but gets trounced in Gower by theTories who have a majority of 15000. Plaid Cyrmu come second in each constituency but get diddly squat, despite having more votes overall.

(Feel free to switch parties and constituencies to somewhere more local to you!)