AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I can see mate parties like the liberals and BNP will prosper under this scheme and thats what worries me.

Clegg was everything to everyone before the election and look at him now the two faced tw*t.

At least with the tories and labour you know what you are getting!

I don't get that argument. Perhaps a large proportion of BNP voters are disaffected Labour supporters, who'll put the latter as their second preference. Perhaps not. But either way, it's simply idle speculation.

More to the point, who wins and loses from any change should be irrelevant. What's important is whether the electorate's choices are being more accurately reflected in the make-up of Parliament

Your final sentence is barely worth comment TBH.
 
I don't get that argument. Perhaps a large proportion of BNP voters are disaffected Labour supporters, who'll put the latter as their second preference. Perhaps not. But either way, it's simply idle speculation.

More to the point, who wins and loses from any change should be irrelevant. What's important is whether the electorate's choices are being more accurately reflected in the make-up of Parliament

Your final sentence is barely worth comment TBH.

Here's how I'd reason it:

At the minute, you know you're basically wasting a vote voting Green/BNP in a lot of places.

However, with AV, voters can put them first, knowing that if they're knocked out, their second choice will be used instead. So any politically minded racists/eco-fascists will be inclined to vote for their minority party of choice.
 
Here's how I'd reason it:

At the minute, you know you're basically wasting a vote voting Green/BNP in a lot of places.

However, with AV, voters can put them first, knowing that if they're knocked out, their second choice will be used instead. So any politically minded racists/eco-fascists will be inclined to vote for their minority party of choice.

While thats true, you have to remember that 50% of the voters have to find them acceptable (ie voted in their top 3), which in the case of the BNP, I really don't think that will happen anywhere.
 
While thats true, you have to remember that 50% of the voters have to find them acceptable (ie voted in their top 3), which in the case of the BNP, I really don't think that will happen anywhere.

True, but still, I'm not convinced that I want the voting system to say "never mind, have another go" to people who vote Monster Raving Loony.

And something really grates, knowing that the 3rd choice of a BNP/Green idiot could have as much say in the election as the 1st choice of someone more... (how can I put this?)... more intelligent.
 
True, but still, I'm not convinced that I want the voting system to say "never mind, have another go" to people who vote Monster Raving Loony.

And something really grates, knowing that the 3rd choice of a BNP/Green idiot could have as much say in the election as the 1st choice of someone more... (how can I put this?)... more intelligent.

Minority parties and independant candidates are all necessarily stupid though. I think it would be wrong to look at it in that way.
 
Here's how I'd reason it:

At the minute, you know you're basically wasting a vote voting Green/BNP in a lot of places.

However, with AV, voters can put them first, knowing that if they're knocked out, their second choice will be used instead. So any politically minded racists/eco-fascists will be inclined to vote for their minority party of choice.

Well, it's a theory. Do you know of any modelling data which backs that up, out of interest? I know they've modelled past elections under various assumptions,but the stuff I read focused more on the effect on the three main parties. I mean, it could be that a lot of current BNP votes are protest votes that would be transferred into second or third preferences under AV.

But to be honest, that does seem to me the strength of AV; the more nuanced representation of the choices of voters, even if that doesn't lead to a more representative government. It's best legacy may be in spiking turn-out.

TBH though, if I were a betting man I'd wager that the practical differences to the outcome of elections will be minimal.
 
Well, it's a theory. Do you know of any modelling data which backs that up, out of interest? I know they've modelled past elections under various assumptions,but the stuff I read focused more on the effect on the three main parties. I mean, it could be that a lot of current BNP votes are protest votes that would be transferred into second or third preferences under AV.

But to be honest, that does seem to me the strength of AV; the more nuanced representation of the choices of voters, even if that doesn't lead to a more representative government. It's best legacy may be in spiking turn-out.

TBH though, if I were a betting man I'd wager that the practical differences to the outcome of elections will be minimal.

Can't back it up, sorry. God knows where they would get the data from to model it. Purely a thought experiment.

Is it really a strength of AV? It's certainly a characteristic, but I can never help but think that (in arguably oversimplified terms) the system would go from one where the most popular candidate necessarily wins, to one where the least unpopular candidate stands a good chance of winning.

Obviously, the North-East would still vote for a dead badger in a red rosette.

Minority parties and independant candidates are all necessarily stupid though. I think it would be wrong to look at it in that way.

Not necessarily, no. But they do tend to be - a quick glance down the 2010 general election results list (under the big 3) shows a whole bunch of racists, nationalists, communists and single-issue parties.
 
Last edited:
Can't back it up, sorry. God knows where they would get the data from to model it. Purely a thought experiment.

Is it really a strength of AV? It's certainly a characteristic, but I can never help but think that (in arguably oversimplified terms) the system would go from one where the most popular candidate necessarily wins, to one where the least unpopular one stands a good chance of winning.

Obviously, the North-East would still vote for a dead badger in a red rosette.

Obviously involves certain assumptions, but still, useful for working through the inherent uncertainties with a brand new system.

You can, as another example, look at the make-up of the Aussie House of Representatives, which uses AV, and see that there's just the one green and four independents. Again, not a perfect comparison but worthwhile I think.

As for the bold, it that really true with FPTP? It's quite possible to have a candidate hated by 70% and loved by 30% winning a seat because the first preferences of the 70% are spread amongst other contenders, even though second preferences may see one clear winner.

FWIW I my preference is for AV over FPTP, just, and for both by a mile over variants of PR. All have massive flaws, mind.
 
Christ On A Bike said:
What the fuck are you on about? You've got no idea what it is do you?

The AV leaflet you've read is probably from the tories who ironically are the ones who you think fuck the country. The only parties against AV are them and the BNP you know. Doesn't that tell you something?

Are you suggesting there's two or more sides to the story and people should consider them carefully before making important political choices?

This is Britain mate, it'll never f***ing catch on.
 
Obviously involves certain assumptions, but still, useful for working through the inherent uncertainties with a brand new system.

You can, as another example, look at the make-up of the Aussie House of Representatives, which uses AV, and see that there's just the one green and four independents. Again, not a perfect comparison but worthwhile I think.

As for the bold, it that really true with FPTP? It's quite possible to have a candidate hated by 70% and loved by 30% winning a seat because the first preferences of the 70% are spread amongst other contenders, even though second preferences may see one clear winner.

FWIW I my preference is for AV over FPTP, just, and for both by a mile over variants of PR. All have massive flaws, mind.

That's the thing. It comes down to a personal choice in the end about what you think is fairest.

I can't get past the fact that 3rd choice votes in marginal constituencies suddenly become potential election-deciders.

And the Aussie example is a fair once, though, obviously, they don't really need the equivalent of the BNP there.

As you can probably tell, I'm FPTP over AV (just), spitting in the general direction of PR.
 
As no one has came knocking at my door to tell me the ins and outs,I was at a bit of a loss to know what this AV was all about,
Then I saw The celebrity homo Stephen Fry saying vote YES so that was my mind made up a NO vote for me.
Then I opened my Echo up that night and Stabber Watson the leader of our ineffectual council was saying vote NO.
I think I'll Spin a coin on election day!
 
SedgefieldMackem said:
As we know by now, Winston Churchill once said that AV would mean elections were decided by "the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates".

But what did he know, he never knew political visionaries like Christ on a Bike.

Winston Churchill was right twice in his life because even a stopped watch is right twice a day. This was not one of those times.
 
As no one has came knocking at my door to tell me the ins and outs,I was at a bit of a loss to know what this AV was all about,
Then I saw The celebrity homo Stephen Fry saying vote YES so that was my mind made up a NO vote for me.
Then I opened my Echo up that night and Stabber Watson the leader of our ineffectual council was saying vote NO.
I think I'll Spin a coin on election day!

You're going to shit yourself when you find out about the others.
 
That's the thing. It comes down to a personal choice in the end about what you think is fairest.

I can't get past the fact that 3rd choice votes in marginal constituencies suddenly become potential election-deciders.

And the Aussie example is a fair once, though, obviously, they don't really need the equivalent of the BNP there.

As you can probably tell, I'm FPTP over AV (just), spitting in the general direction of PR.

I can see why they don't do it like this, but it would seem fairer to weight the votes by ranked order of preference.

Incidentally, another of the arguments against AV has been that it'll lead to a greater chance of hung parliaments. Although this may be occasionally true, if anything it actually increases majorities in fairly one-sided election contests, if the modelling of previous elections is anything to go by. That might be deemed bad for democracy, I concede (depending on your stance on 'strong governments' of course).

Although in the final analysis I think the potential for electorates in non-marginal constituencies to in some way feel enfranchised again means that it is worth the risk.
 
As no one has came knocking at my door to tell me the ins and outs,I was at a bit of a loss to know what this AV was all about,
Then I saw The celebrity homo Stephen Fry saying vote YES so that was my mind made up a NO vote for me.
Then I opened my Echo up that night and Stabber Watson the leader of our ineffectual council was saying vote NO.
I think I'll Spin a coin on election day!

you could always abstain
 
As we know by now, Winston Churchill once said that AV would mean elections were decided by "the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates".

But what did he know, he never knew political visionaries like Christ on a Bike.

The same Churchill that wanted to machine gun striking miners?

Aye all his opinions on everything are correct because we won a war while he was in charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top