AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
You say that, and then tell him to vote for a new electoral system because he doesn't like the tories :lol: It's about a hell of a lot more than that as well.

I'm attempting to show that you can play it party style on both sides if that's the way you really want to.

I don't think that's the right way to decide like as i've stated loads of times.
 
Is it fair that the referendum on AV is being run as FPTP?

No. We need AV for the referendum, then people who want FPTP can vote FPTP first and then make no other choice, while the AV supporters can vote for AV, but still be able to put FPTP as their second choice.
 
No. We need AV for the referendum, then people who want FPTP can vote FPTP first and then make no other choice, while the AV supporters can vote for AV, but still be able to put FPTP as their second choice.

Well it's not is it. There's only 2 options so automatically one has has to get over 50%. Unless this is supposed to be some sort of hilarious joke which i suspect it is. . . .
 
You usually talk sensibly but this time I disagree with you. Currently, say you wanted a minority party (greens for eg), with FPTP you might not vote for them because your vote would be wasted so you vote for your preference of the big 2. With AV you can give your vote to your first choice (Greens) because you know other people might vote for them too on AV, so it does give the underdog a better chance of securing votes.

Exactly.

It benefits minority groups and the unpopular. It supports second or third choices over first choices. It's unfair.

Right of center party gains 49% of vote. None of these voters state a second preference.

Center party gains 26% of votes. All their voters state a second preference of right of center party.

Left of center party gains 25% of vote. All their voters state a second preference of Center party, not because they want them in but because the don't want the right of center party.

In this simplified but clear demonstration the party who is clearly most popular doesn't get in.

Yet if the left of center party do 1% better at the expense of the center party the right wing party will get in on a landslide.

(I think. I'm tired.)

It's an extreme and unrealistic scenario, but it does highlight that AV is by no means fair, nor is it necessarily a better representation of the electorate's wishes.
 
I can see your arguement mate but PR or AV will give more power to minority parties is the way I see it. The current system isnt perfect but at least you know where you stand.

By the way I have lost my job thanks to that c*nt Clegg who has allowed the tories to do whatever they like.

Clegg didn't lose you your job. Surely the cuts that the Tories have introduced have cost you your job. I don't like him but you can't blame him for everything.

My own take on the AV debate - for the last 20 years I've been a voter it's been boom and bust politics. FPTP has allowed this so why not try something different. Let's be honest it can't get much worse.
 
Scaremongering then, are we? ;)

Nope that would involve exaggerating facts or saying things that aren't true.

Exactly.

It benefits minority groups and the unpopular. It supports second or third choices over first choices. It's unfair.

Right of center party gains 49% of vote. None of these voters state a second preference.

Center party gains 26% of votes. All their voters state a second preference of right of center party.

Left of center party gains 25% of vote. All their voters state a second preference of Center party, not because they want them in but because the don't want the right of center party.

In this simplified but clear demonstration the party who is clearly most popular doesn't get in.

Yet if the left of center party do 1% better at the expense of the center party the right wing party will get in on a landslide.

(I think. I'm tired.)

It's an extreme and unrealistic scenario, but it does highlight that AV is by no means fair, nor is it necessarily a better representation of the electorate's wishes.

It is like, because whoever wins has at least a degree of consent from over 50% of the electorate. The people chose to pick that party as a second or third option, they did not have to pick an alternative choice. If it was compulsory to vote for one than one party i've be voting against AV.
 
Big Sharp Teeth said:
Exactly.

It benefits minority groups and the unpopular. It supports second or third choices over first choices. It's unfair.

Right of center party gains 49% of vote. None of these voters state a second preference.

Center party gains 26% of votes. All their voters state a second preference of right of center party.

Left of center party gains 25% of vote. All their voters state a second preference of Center party, not because they want them in but because the don't want the right of center party.

In this simplified but clear demonstration the party who is clearly most popular doesn't get in.

Yet if the left of center party do 1% better at the expense of the center party the right wing party will get in on a landslide.

(I think. I'm tired.)

It's an extreme and unrealistic scenario, but it does highlight that AV is by no means fair, nor is it necessarily a better representation of the electorate's wishes.

With respect, that's the most extreme scenario you can think of, and it's not much worse than the current system that saw a government get nothing like half the popular vote and still govern.

And of course, the extremes of FPTP are way less representative of the public will. AV isn't perfect, but it is a big step in the right direction.
 
Exactly.

It benefits minority groups and the unpopular. It supports second or third choices over first choices. It's unfair.
I'll think about your example before I comment on it.

But on First Past the Post (Assume I am a minor party supporter for the argument) - If I decide to forego my vote for Minor Party as they obviously wont be first past the post, I am already on my second choice vote if I vote for CON or LAB. So FPTP benefits the big two. It supports second choice votes. It's unfair.
 
I got my leaflet today. It was so badly written, and gave such poor description that I have changed my mind and will be voting for AV.

Does anyone know where the funding for it came from?
 
What scenario would have to happen, before the voters third choice is counted towards the vote?
 
What scenario would have to happen, before the voters third choice is counted towards the vote?

Everyone's second choice votes being counted and there still being no one with 50% of the vote, which is an extremely unlikely circumstance.
 
Keep it up lads, Sunderland will be a safe Conservative seat at this rate, vote Yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top