AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem is if we reject this change they'll use this as evidence that the public don't want electoral reform and we won't get another chance for a generation.

I concede you have a fair point. But this is why we should be voting on PR and not AV "NOW".

I understand you, believe me, but I find the possibility of the most 'first choices' being disregarded just plain wrong. Many will feel uncomfortable if the person doing the job is a second or third choice.

That's true in the real would in employment where a second or third choice gets the job for whatever reason. There's that feeling of "we'll just have to make do". I know that feeling all too well from a job I did a few years ago.
 
I concede you have a fair point. But this is why we should be voting on PR and not AV "NOW".

I certainly wasn't celebrating when the lib dems announced they had managed to negotiate a referendum on electoral reform...... for AV :oops:

I think there would be much more enthusiasm for the yes campaign if we were trying to get PR, but like I said this is our only chance at change otherwise politicians will just say "You had your chance for change..." and it is better than FPTP, if only marginally.

In my opinion it's better to have someone that the majority of constituents can at least accept (as first, second, third choice, whatever), rather than one which a minority really support (or support because of tactical voting). I don't think I'm going to change your opinion but at least you seem to understand AV rather than that "WHAT ABOUT MATERNITY WARDS?" moron earlier in the thread :roll:
 
Anti-AV. A system in which the most popular first choice loses out is just a smack in the face for the constituents, for or against that candidate.

The second and third choices will inevitably be tactical votes designed to keep a main candidate out, potentially leading to confusing situations in which a minor candidate gets in.

At least with true PR in an enlarged constituency, the most popular candidates can't be kept out.
Do you understand what popular means? It implies more people like you than do not like you, something which is a requirement of AV but not of FPTP.
 
RestlessNatives said:
I think the SMB has helped me make up my mind.
Whilst neither system is perfect and I am not overly keen on siding with David Cameron, I think I am voting No.
I believe you should go with the power of your convictions and vote for who you want. If they don't get in, then they weren't popular enough.
There's nothing more frustrating than people who can't make their minds up whether at work, on the road or in Supermarkets. Basing our political system on ditherers is not the way forward for me.

IMHO it's not about ditherers. It's about the party that's likely to win usually being the least worst option but getting a majority to pursue an agenda that most don't agree with on the back of 39% of the vote. Even with a hung parliament the minority party in the coalition has insufficient power and gets crucified because their 25% of the vote translates into 8% of the seats in parliament. And that's not counting all the people who don't vote for the party they prefer, or don't vote at all, because they can't see that party getting in either in their constituency or nationally.

It IS a compromise and it's not ideal. But it means that if the Tories or Labour or whoever are the party you least want, your vote against them, and in favour of the party you do want, counts for more. It is the first step to a more representative form of government and a no vote slams the door on ever addressing the major flaws in FPTP.

Specifically for most people on here, it means all parties have to work harder for your vote. Labour takes the NE for granted and the Tories have stopped even trying, and if they had a genuine shout of your vote going their way they might do more for the ordinary working person and not play so much to middle England and their rich mates.

It's either that or accept that half the electorate won't bother because voting gets them fuck all, and of the other half, most of the votes are worthless because they're either preselected to go to a political party their parents voted for or outnumbered by the preselected votes. That leaves 5-10% of votes for fringe parties which won't count in any system, and ten percent floating voters who decide the entire election and are swayed on the day by whoever has sucked Murdoch's cock the hardest.

The two big arguments are a) people think it'll lead to shitty governments that aren't what you really voted for, which for 60% plus of the electorate has been the case pretty much since 1950 under the current system; and b) that it's the favoured system of a Lib Dem junior coalition partner that has let everyone down. Except in a hung parliament with AV they would have at least three times as many seats and could have influenced the outcome and held back more of the cuts.
 
Do you understand what popular means? It implies more people like you than do not like you, something which is a requirement of AV but not of FPTP.

'Most popular' is not necessarily an absolute majority.

If 42% like person A, 36% like person B, 20% like person C and 2% person D, who is the most popular in that list of people?

In the example I described before, A was the most popular on first choices, however, B got in because of second choice selections by C.

As I said, I don't feel comfortable with 'second choices'. See my original post.

I certainly wasn't celebrating when the lib dems announced they had managed to negotiate a referendum on electoral reform...... for AV :oops:

I think there would be much more enthusiasm for the yes campaign if we were trying to get PR, but like I said this is our only chance at change otherwise politicians will just say "You had your chance for change..." and it is better than FPTP, if only marginally.

In my opinion it's better to have someone that the majority of constituents can at least accept (as first, second, third choice, whatever), rather than one which a minority really support (or support because of tactical voting). I don't think I'm going to change your opinion but at least you seem to understand AV rather than that "WHAT ABOUT MATERNITY WARDS?" moron earlier in the thread :roll:

A Reopen Nominations (RON) option on the AV ballot may help a little (and I think this should be included anyway). ;)

I'm not dead set against AV and I've simply stated my misgivings. If that's what people chose in May, so be it and I'll live with it. If AV was going to be a clear path to PR, I might be tempted. However, I don't see even under AV any pro-PR grouping in Parliament having enough clout to reopen the debate once the votes on 5th May have been counted.

Labour and Tory clearly benefit from the FPTP system and AV is the least damaging reform option to that (still a good chance of forming a single party government on a minority vote) from my understanding.

I'd rather go straight to PR than have a system where there's a chance people are left scratching their heads as to why the most popular first choice candidate has been bypassed. PR (the most popular three or four candidates in an enlarged constituency) would avoid that.
 
10 people go for dinner at FPTP cafe.

4 want a bowl of sick. 3 want steak and 2 want peas and 1 wants mushrooms.

Everyone gets a bowl of sick. 4 people are delighted, the other 6 may or may not be upset. No one has bothered to ask them.


10 people go for dinner at AV cafe.

4 want a bowl of sick. 3 want steak and 2 want peas and 1 wants mushrooms.

Peas and mushrooms are off the menu. Bugger. But the pea and mushroom guys both actually quite like steak too, but really hate bowls of sick. Though they haven't been asked, 2 of the 4 bowl of sick fellas don't mind steak either.

Everyone gets steak. 3 people are delighted, 5 are quite happy and 2 are upset.
 
10 people go for dinner at FPTP cafe.

4 want a bowl of sick. 3 want steak and 2 want peas and 1 wants mushrooms.

Everyone gets a bowl of sick. 4 people are delighted, the other 6 may or may not be upset. No one has bothered to ask them.


10 people go for dinner at AV cafe.

4 want a bowl of sick. 3 want steak and 2 want peas and 1 wants mushrooms.

Peas and mushrooms are off the menu. Bugger. But the pea and mushroom guys both actually quite like steak too, but really hate bowls of sick. Though they haven't been asked, 2 of the 4 bowl of sick fellas don't mind steak either.

Everyone gets steak. 3 people are delighted, 5 are quite happy and 2 are upset.

:eek::lol:

I somehow think food is perhaps the wrong analogy, but quite good all the same!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RestlessNatives said:
I think the SMB has helped me make up my mind.
Whilst neither system is perfect and I am not overly keen on siding with David Cameron, I think I am voting No.
I believe you should go with the power of your convictions and vote for who you want. If they don't get in, then they weren't popular enough.
There's nothing more frustrating than people who can't make their minds up whether at work, on the road or in Supermarkets. Basing our political system on ditherers is not the way forward for me.

Even if it means 60% of people who voted don't want them

Mackem_Beefy said:
First Choices: Tories on 42%, Labour on 36% in a given costituency. Lib Dems back on 20% for sake of argument. Monster Raving Looney Party on 2%.

No result.

Second Choices: Monster Raving Looney Party people opt to split between Tory and Labour. Tories 43%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 20%.

No result.

Third Choices:

Three Quaters of the Lib Dems opt for Labour to keep the Tories. Tories (43+5=)48%, Labour (37+15=)52%.

Labour wins.

How is the most popular candidate on first choice votes losing out fair?

At least with a PR system in an enlarged constituency, the most popular first choice isn't disregarded. Also, the wishes of the other voters aren't disregarded either and everyone has a say.

I'd rather stick with the current system until we can have a debate and vote on full PR.

Is his not the most popular he got 42% of the vote.
 
Even if it means 60% of people who voted don't want them


Is his not the most popular he got 42% of the vote.

Yes. With AV you will still get the same 60% not wanting them but some have said they will "make do". I don't see the difference.
The common complaint at the moment are that all politicians are the same. I can only see that getting worse under AV with them being as vague as possible to try and "at least be second choice".
 
The electorate isnt entirely comprised of Professor Steven Hawking and his 25 million brothers so why we are even considering foisting something only he and they can understand is beyond me..............

And thats before we look at the enormous amount of other countries who have and love this system to bits...........
 
the streaker said:
The electorate isnt entirely comprised of Professor Steven Hawking and his 25 million brothers so why we are even considering foisting something only he and they can understand is beyond me..............

And thats before we look at the enormous amount of other countries who have and love this system to bits...........

It's not even vaguely complicated.
 
The electorate isnt entirely comprised of Professor Steven Hawking and his 25 million brothers so why we are even considering foisting something only he and they can understand is beyond me..............

My 80 year old Gran and Grandad both understand it perfectly well. The both left school at fifteen. One worked in a shop, the other worked down the pit.

The fact that you think it's complex - and I suppose this is a compliment - is utterly mental.
 
The electorate isnt entirely comprised of Professor Steven Hawking and his 25 million brothers so why we are even considering foisting something only he and they can understand is beyond me..............

And thats before we look at the enormous amount of other countries who have and love this system to bits...........

It isn't difficult to understand. Here's some plasticine people to help you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7ydAowkesA&NR=1
 
The fact you all totally and utterly miss the point speaks volumes about why we shouldnt have it in the slightest..

You want it because you do but the bigger picture is something you just refuse to see.........

And thats still before we look at its impressive track record in the world we live in....................

It isn't difficult to understand. Here's some plasticine people to help you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7ydAowkesA&NR=1


You"re as ever on here Wolfie a total utter waste of a lentil............

Still keep on howling..
 
The fact you all totally and utterly miss the point speaks volumes about why we shouldnt have it in the slightest..

You want it because you do but the bigger picture is something you just refuse to see.........

And thats still before we look at its impressive track record in the world we live in....................

You don't understand it. That's not missing the point that's just you being willfuly thick.

It's remarkably disingenuous.
 
You don't understand it. That's not missing the point that's just you being willfuly thick.

It's remarkably disingenuous.

I do so it should be.............. :lol:

You have just reinforced my point more than any post on any message board ever could mate..................
 
I do so it should be.............. :lol:

You have just reinforced my point more than any post on any message board ever could mate..................

Well either you're suggesting you're as intelligent as Stephen Hawking or you don't understand it.

What an odd turn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top