AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember, we can only have one or the other:

So you pick:


This?

Logon or register to see this image


Or This?

Logon or register to see this image



Remember now, as the nice "No to AV" people have clearly stated, you can only have one - our country can't afford it. Time to pick.



f***ing wankers :lol::lol:
 
Remember now, as the nice "No to AV" people have clearly stated, you can only have one - our country can't afford it. Time to pick.

f***ing wankers :lol::lol:

There are valid reason for voting No as demonstrated on this thread, but tbh those posters just make me think that the No to AV people don't know what they are.
 
not spavin said:
There are valid reason for voting No as demonstrated on this thread, but tbh those posters just make me think that the No to AV people don't know what they are.

Well what's swayed me is the number of full stops at the end of sentences in the No arguments on this thread.
 
There are valid reason for voting No as demonstrated on this thread, but tbh those posters just make me think that the No to AV people don't know what they are.

:?:

I'm pro a fair voting system.

First past the post skews a bias towards the largest party even if they are only a couple of percent ahead, but at least is most likely to result in a more decisive Government (in theory).

Proportional representation creates a system in which the number of seats is closer to the proportion of the votes, however, creates a system in which coalition governments are the norm. Policy then becomes horse trading between major and minor parties.

The Alternative Vote is the counting of first, then second, then third choices until one candidate is over 50% or only one candidate is left.

The alternative vote is the only system where the most popular first choice candidate might not get in, my main misgiving. It might give minority parties a few more seats from marginal constituencies. Majority governments would still prevail, meaning a push towards the full PR debate still may be a long time coming.

I'd rather this situation did not arise and thus would prefer to be debating first past the post versus proportional representation, both of which have their merits and weaknesses but both of which allow the most popular first choices to be elected.

AV seems to me seems a half measure.
 
There are valid reason for voting No as demonstrated on this thread, but tbh those posters just make me think that the No to AV people don't know what they are.

Certainly mate. There are some reasons against AV. IMO there are more in favour, but that's why I'll vote for it.

What I'm against is 3 things:

1 - Political Parties telling people its great/shite just because it will increase/descrease their change of election in future

2 - The absolutely insane poster campaigns telling people that babies will die if you vote yes!

3 - People who are just knock anything that people try to put forward. Or "Wankers" as I call them.
 
:?:

I'm pro a fair voting system.

First past the post skews a bias towards the largest party even if they are only a couple of percent ahead, but at least is most likely to result in a more decisive Government (in theory).

Proportional representation creates a system in which the number of seats is closer to the proportion of the votes, however, creates a system in which coalition governments are the norm. Policy then becomes horse trading between major and minor parties.

The Alternative Vote is the counting of first, then second, then third choices until one candidate is over 50% or only one candidate is left.

The alternative vote is the only system where the most popular first choice candidate might not get in, my main misgiving. It might give minority parties a few more seats from marginal constituencies. Majority governments would still prevail, meaning a push towards the full PR debate still may be a long time coming.

I'd rather this situation did not arise and thus would prefer to be debating first past the post versus proportional representation, both of which have their merits and weaknesses but both of which allow the most popular first choices to be elected.

AV seems to me seems a half measure.

To clarify, you've stated your reasons for voting No and they are entirely valid. I also agree that it's a half measure.

My view would be it's better that FPTP and therefore worthy of change. I also fear that a No vote now will mean any notion of getting towards STV or PR is off the table for many years. That's a subjective opinion however, and I respect your take on it too.

Those posters, however, don't address any issue, and instead seek to scare people though a misleading point.

Certainly mate. There are some reasons against AV. IMO there are more in favour, but that's why I'll vote for it.

What I'm against is 3 things:

1 - Political Parties telling people its great/shite just because it will increase/descrease their change of election in future

2 - The absolutely insane poster campaigns telling people that babies will die if you vote yes!

3 - People who are just knock anything that people try to put forward. Or "Wankers" as I call them.

Agree with all that.
 
Certainly mate. There are some reasons against AV. IMO there are more in favour, but that's why I'll vote for it.

What I'm against is 3 things:

1 - Political Parties telling people its great/shite just because it will increase/descrease their change of election in future

2 - The absolutely insane poster campaigns telling people that babies will die if you vote yes!

3 - People who are just knock anything that people try to put forward. Or "Wankers" as I call them.

There I agree (all three points). :confused:

No. 2 represents childish scare tactics.
 
Remember, we can only have one or the other:

So you pick:


This?

Logon or register to see this image


Or This?

Logon or register to see this image



Remember now, as the nice "No to AV" people have clearly stated, you can only have one - our country can't afford it. Time to pick.



f***ing wankers :lol::lol:

I wonder if the authors of those posters will look back in a few years time and think "I wish I'd never done anything so cringeworthy." I don;t think so, as someone is paying (wasting) good money for them (that could be spent on...).
 
After much thought, I decided to vote yes. It's the first chance for significant voting reform in decades, even if it isn't close to enough.
 
The main advantage of AV, as I see it, is the opportunity it gives supporters of minority parties to express their opinion without feeling they have wasted a vote. At present, there are doubtless thousands of voters per constituency who broadly support The Green Party say, or UKIP. But casting a vote for them is seen as counter-productive, as they have little chance of polling the most votes, and voting for The Greens may, for example, split the beardy vote, and let in a Tory candidate who is the last person the Green voter wanted in. (The same applies to voting for UKIP splitting the right-wing vote and letting in a Labour guy.)

Under AV, however, voters can safely opt for their preferred first choice, safe in the knowledge that if that candidate comes last, their vote now moves to their preferred ‘mainstream’ choice. The benefit here is that fringe parties, whose views can safely be ignored at present by the cosy big three, would have demonstrable proof of their appeal. This would necessitate at least a recognition of their views by the major parties, as they chase for the 2nd choice votes, and could possibly lead to a groundswell of support as people suddenly perceive their first choices as actually having a realistic chance of winning.

As stated by others, the benefits/drawbacks of either system should not be mistaken for which would be better for whichever party you happen to support, it should be about which is the fairer of the two. They both have plenty of drawbacks, but FPTP has more, and most of AV’s are shared by FPTP anyway.
 
The main advantage of AV, as I see it, is the opportunity it gives supporters of minority parties to express their opinion without feeling they have wasted a vote.

The main disadvantage of AV, as I see it, is that it gives far too much weight to the supporters of minority parties.

As a supporter of a minority party several of your preferences could be considered, with your 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice, for example all being given as much weight as the 1st choice of a supporter of a mainstream party.

If you are a supporter of a mainstream party there is a good chance your second preference won't even be considered, even if your preferred candidate loses narrowly.

It's more than possible that a candidate who has the most 1st and 2nd preference votes, when taken as a total, could still lose if another candidate, has a large number of alternative preference votes with the minority parties. As these parties are eliminated the less popular candidate could cross the threshold before all the 2nd preference votes have been considered.

It's an unfair system.
 
The main disadvantage of AV, as I see it, is that it gives far too much weight to the supporters of minority parties.

As a supporter of a minority party several of your preferences could be considered, with your 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th choice, for example all being given as much weight as the 1st choice of a supporter of a mainstream party.

If you are a supporter of a mainstream party there is a good chance your second preference won't even be considered, even if your preferred candidate loses narrowly.

It's more than possible that a candidate who has the most 1st and 2nd preference votes, when taken as a total, could still lose if another candidate, has a large number of alternative preference votes with the minority parties. As these parties are eliminated the less popular candidate could cross the threshold before all the 2nd preference votes have been considered.

It's an unfair system.

You make a fair point.

But to say that this is more unfair than under the current system, where 2/3 of the people may HATE the party that wins, isn't correct imo.
 
You make a fair point.

But to say that this is more unfair than under the current system, where 2/3 of the people may HATE the party that wins, isn't correct imo.

I suppose that's what it comes down to - which of those less-that-ideal circumstances you consider to be most fair. There's no black or white answer to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top