The Alternative Vote (AV)

[thefab444]

Of course, they're far from perfect. The General Election showed that; no-one would have guessed (at that time anyway) that the Lib Dems were to lose seats despite Nick Clegg's sudden popularity rise. Indeed, no-one believed the exit polls until they were proven correct! People do funny things in elections that can't really be accounted for in the run up.

The Lib Dem vote did actually increase by nearly 1,000,000 voters compared to 2005. That's a fairly good example of why FPTP is rubbish.

 

[Zoe]

no-one believed the exit polls until they were proven correct!

It was quite strange as there didn't seem to be a national trend. After the first few results there was even talk of a Tory majority but then the Tories failed to gain some of the seats they had been expected to win.

 

[SS4]

It was quite strange as there didn't seem to be a national trend. After the first few results there was even talk of a Tory majority but then the Tories failed to gain some of the seats they had been expected to win.

A blessed relief to people like me. Although I was shocked upon going to work (public sector) and finding out that many did not know what a hung parliament meant

 

[HST Power]

A blessed relief to people like me. Although I was shocked upon going to work (public sector) and finding out that many did not know what a hung parliament meant

A great shame to the likes of me!

I too was shocked about the hung parliament matter. Many people I knew didn't know what it meant either.

 

[table38]

I shall be voting yes as a stepping stone to PR and because a no vote would kill any change of electoral reform (IMO badly needed) for around a century.

I don't really understand why we don't have a vote between FPTP and some better form of PR than AV.

It occurs to me that what the Lib Dems are saying is that they don't really want AV but it's better than FPTP but not as good as some proper future PR system.

To me, there's a certain element of dishonesty in this approach, as presumably if they win the vote, there will eventually be moves to replace AV with something else.

Given the general public's opinion of the honesty of politicians, I'm not sure this is a smart move.

Will it be like with tutition fees, with Nick Clegg wanting AV until he gets power, then changing his mind and saying AV is rubbish and we whould move to a more proportional system?

Also everyone seems to be concentrating on the constituency result, and not the actual outcome for forming a government. If AV does what it says on the tin, it seems inevitable that there will be more horse trading or other sort of grubby deals done behind closed doors, like what (allegedly!) happened in Oldham East and Saddleworth where the Tories really only paid lip-service to producing a candidate so as not to split the anti-Woolas vote

 

[Zoe]

I believe the LibDems wanted PR but the Tories would never have agreed to that so the compromise was an AV referendum.

 

[HST Power]

I believe the LibDems wanted PR but the Tories would never have agreed to that so the comprimise was an AV referendum.

It certainly was. As soon as Cameron came in, there were hundreds of voting reform protestors running about London shouting 'fair votes now, fair votes now' over and over again.

I arrive in London. 'Fair votes now! Fair votes now!'
I leave London. 'Fair votes now! Fair votes now!'

I honestly wouldn't have been surprised if in my sleep, I heard 'fair votes now, fair votes now!'

 

[Seacook]

If AV does what it says on the tin, it seems inevitable that there will be more horse trading or other sort of grubby deals done behind closed doors, like what (allegedly!) happened in Oldham East and Saddleworth where the Tories really only paid lip-service to producing a candidate so as not to split the anti-Woolas vote

No. This is precisely what AV avoids. If more voters prefer other candidates (who or how many does not matter) then a candidate cannot win. If 55% of the voters place candidate X last on their ballot then someone else will hoover up the votes leaving X with at most 45%. This is regardless of the order in which the 55% place the other candidates.

A more likely consequence is that the parties will have greater consensus on key issues to encourage voters to place their candidates in second place. The cobvergence will tend to be on policies attractive to the general population, not just the party die-hards.

 

[thefab444]

Ideally the referendum would have three options; between keeping FPTP, adopting the "compromise" AV or going for full PR, presumably STV. However, as mentioned Cameron would have never agreed to that, and besides, most of the voting public don't understand the difference between two systems let alone three!

Personally I think Clegg should have pushed for a referendum on using AMS rather than AV.

 

[table38]

No. This is precisely what AV avoids. If more voters prefer other candidates (who or how many does not matter) then a candidate cannot win. If 55% of the voters place candidate X last on their ballot then someone else will hoover up the votes leaving X with at most 45%. This is regardless of the order in which the 55% place the other candidates.

A more likely consequence is that the parties will have greater consensus on key issues to encourage voters to place their candidates in second place. The cobvergence will tend to be on policies attractive to the general population, not just the party die-hards.

Sorry, I read what you wrote but still don't see how it would have prevented what (allegedly!) happened in Old-Sad.

Of course the fact that I evidently don't understand AV is another reason for me to vote "no"

 

[SS4]

I don't really understand why we don't have a vote between FPTP and some better form of PR than AV.

It occurs to me that what the Lib Dems are saying is that they don't really want AV but it's better than FPTP but not as good as some proper future PR system.

To me, there's a certain element of dishonesty in this approach, as presumably if they win the vote, there will eventually be moves to replace AV with something else.

Given the general public's opinion of the honesty of politicians, I'm not sure this is a smart move.

Will it be like with tutition fees, with Nick Clegg wanting AV until he gets power, then changing his mind and saying AV is rubbish and we whould move to a more proportional system?

Also everyone seems to be concentrating on the constituency result, and not the actual outcome for forming a government. If AV does what it says on the tin, it seems inevitable that there will be more horse trading or other sort of grubby deals done behind closed doors, like what (allegedly!) happened in Oldham East and Saddleworth where the Tories really only paid lip-service to producing a candidate so as not to split the anti-Woolas vote

Like Zoe said I believe it was a compromise between PR and retaining FPTP which is what would happened with a Lib Dem or Tory majority respectively.
I don't think Clegg will backtrack on AV (it remains unknown, to me at least, if this referendum is legally binding) since that would probably be the death of the Liberal Democrat party.

Australia have had fewer hung parliaments (using AV) than us (using FPTP) in the last century. Due to few countries using it (full PR is more representative) it is difficult to obtain data from other countries.
Personally I believe AV will lead to more minority governments rather than coalitions will come to pass yet hung parliaments will remain rare with the consequence of voting along party lines. It's only the markets that prefer FPTP really and in turn those who get donations from those affected by the markets
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course the fact that I evidently don't understand AV is another reason for me to vote "no"

That's a poor reason, possibly the poorest I've seen on this thread (unfortunately I believe it's common). You should at least do some research into what AV is and how it works.
If you prefer to vote no thereafter that's disappointing (to me at least) but at least it's an informed decision

Unfortunately the no campaign's propaganda (I use that word because there is no evidence that FPTP is better and they're using emotive arguments and black propaganda) will convince many people to do the same

 

[Zoe]

it remains unknown, to me at least, if this referendum is legally binding) since that would probably be the death of the Liberal Democrat party.

If the new constituency boundaries are approved then AV will be used.

 

[Seacook]

Sorry, I read what you wrote but still don't see how it would have prevented what (allegedly!) happened in Old-Sad.

Of course the fact that I evidently don't understand AV is another reason for me to vote "no"

There is no reason to field a weak candidate in order to avoid splitting an anti-[whoever] vote. Presumably all the voters who are massively opposed to a candidate will place him or her last. If the majority of the electors think you are the worst possible person to represent them as an MP then it is impossible for you to win under AV because you can never muster a majority of the votes cast.

 

[table38]

I suspect its a joke, but apparently someone asked if they would be able to vote using their TV Remote Control as it has an "AV" button on it

 

[jrhilton]

I suspect its a joke, but apparently someone asked if they would be able to vote using their TV Remote Control as it has an "AV" button on it

The DVD, VCR and Satellite box remotes also have AV buttons, does that mean I get four votes?

But being serious do people think there will be lots of protest votes? Perhaps Labour supporters voting yes as the Conservatives want a no, or former LibDem voters going for a no?

 

[90019]

The DVD, VCR and Satellite box remotes also have AV buttons, does that mean I get four votes?

The AV button on my TV remote doesn't work, does that mean I can't vote?

 

[Tom B]

Ipsos MORI use a greater variety of techniques, but "cold-calling" is almost always going to get a negative response (especially as they'll need demographic information), so I don't think it's quite as wide-reaching as they claim.

Particularly in the case of opinion polls, MORI use a random dialling method which is based on exclusively landline numbers (e.g. if they want to survey Edinburgh they'd call 0131 xxx xxxx where the x's are randomly generated numbers) - this excludes a large percentage of the population (traditionally younger) who simply don't have landlines. They do however aim to get a "representative sample" of the population so that it isn't biased towards a certain demographic (usually 65+ who are more likely to want to do a telephone opinion poll).

Also, I guess there's going to be a skew in that people who are in some way interested in politics are more likely to spend 5 minutes on the phone talking about their views than someone who doesn't care much, but who'll still vote.

 

[me123]

I think the biggest problem with cold calling, whatever method is used to get the numbers (be it getting actual phone numbers, or calling random numbers) is that people will hang up. I actually have a huge problem with advertising calls, so if I get someone asking for a survey I'll probably just hang up, and I think most people would do the same. You've also got the numbers that don't exist, and the numbers that lead to businesses and other people who really aren't going to answer a survey; if you randomly call an A&E department or a supermarket (for example) then they won't be able to do it for you, regardless of whether or not they want to. It must work for them, but I reckon it's rather ineffective.

I'm not so sure about the myth that young people don't have landlines. They do, but they don't tend to use them as much (London seems to be the worst for this in my experience, but that'll be down to the way life in such a big city is).

 

[Teaboy1]

I shall be voting NO, simply because I see it as producing a string of weak coalition governments that are there without a majority of MP's. This system we currently have has served us well for hundreds of years, I see nothing wrong with it as it is and so it does not need "fixing".
It appears as though Mr Clegg wishes to meddle with all sorts of things he does not quite like, such as succession of female/ male monarchs to the crown, etc.
Stop meddling, its fine the way it is IMHO.

NO!

 

[gordonthemoron]

In Australia, AV hardly ever produces coalition governments

The current system has only been in place since the 1920s

 

[Seacook]

I shall be voting NO, simply because I see it as producing a string of weak coalition governments that are there without a majority of MP's. This system we currently have has served us well for hundreds of years, I see nothing wrong with it as it is and so it does not need "fixing".
It appears as though Mr Clegg wishes to meddle with all sorts of things he does not quite like, such as succession of female/ male monarchs to the crown, etc.
Stop meddling, its fine the way it is IMHO.

NO!

For most of those "hundreds of years" most people did not have a vote at all. I am pleased that some "meddling" took place otherwise women would still not be able to vote, there would be a property qualification for men and a number of MPs would represent pocket boroughs with only a handful of voters.

 

[HST Power]

The AV button on my TV remote doesn't work, does that mean I can't vote?

I noticed one of those as well, but I don't have a clue what it does!!!
And funnily enough, I noticed it when I was watching BBC Parliament. Rather appropriate, considering the topic!

 

[Ivo]

In Australia, AV hardly ever produces coalition governments

The current system has only been in place since the 1920s

Australia also want to get rid of it.

 

[SS4]

Australia also want to get rid of it.

The only place I saw that was on the no party's propaganda material. Even then I don't think it stated whether or not they wanted FPTP or PR.

 

[HST Power]

I just watched yet another new AV video on the Conservatives website.

As a lifelong Tory, who has and always will vote Conservative, I was pretty ashamed.

If you want to see this utter shambles, click here.

http://www.conservatives.com/

 

[thefab444]

A quick browse of both the Labor (sic) and Liberal party websites revealed no plans for a change of the electoral system, although there are plenty of plans for government reform, and "accountability" seems to be the buzz word as it is over here.

As SS4 says, the "they want get rid of it in Australia" myth seems to have been founded by the No Campaign. I'm sure one person in Australia wants to change it, but it's hardly mainstream. Besides, I imagine any change would be to STV for the House elections so as to match the Senate.

Also worth bearing in mind that Australia has compulsory voting, so using their experiences to predict what may happen in the UK may be less relevant.

 

[Ivo]

I just watched yet another new AV video on the Conservatives website.

As a lifelong Tory, who has and always will vote Conservative, I was pretty ashamed.

If you want to see this utter shambles, click here.

http://www.conservatives.com/

I don't know what to say about that

Apart from this: It would work with the Conservatives because we won't finish any lower than second in any normal election. And to have someone loser from Labour or the LDs win when the Conservatives get the most votes in a level playing field would not be fair!

Am I the only one who is wondering exactly how they chose the colours for the "uniforms"?

 

[devon_metro]

I just watched yet another new AV video on the Conservatives website.

As a lifelong Tory, who has and always will vote Conservative, I was pretty ashamed.

If you want to see this utter shambles, click here.

http://www.conservatives.com/

Makes the point pretty well anyway.

I'd vote no - but don't know if my voting location has been changed since I moved house!

 

[SS4]

I just watched yet another new AV video on the Conservatives website.

As a lifelong Tory, who has and always will vote Conservative, I was pretty ashamed.

If you want to see this utter shambles, click here.

http://www.conservatives.com/

why you need to vote 'No'

Nobody "needs" to vote yes or no. The video should be instructing you as to why (in their opinion) you should vote no.

Horrible video

 

[Zoe]

I'd vote no - but don't know if my voting location has been changed since I moved house!

It depends on where you registered when they did the electoral register at the end of August last year.