AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
The current system is unfair, no one can say otherwise, it needs changing.

And I don't buy the too complicated argument.

If you can't be arsed to work out how the voting system works, then what are the chances you've considered who to vote for rather than just doing what you did for the last 20 years?
 
Which other parties do you think are against it like?

There are a lot of Labour politicians both for and against it. Its a crap system that as far as I understand massively increases the likelihood of a coalition Government making the Lib Dems the most influential party in British politics.
 
There are a lot of Labour politicians both for and against it. Its a crap system that as far as I understand massively increases the likelihood of a coalition Government making the Lib Dems the most influential party in British politics.

Individual politicians but not the party as a whole who are broadly for it. I suspect the Labour politicians who are against it are those who don't currently get an automatic majority or who's seat would be in danger of becoming a marginal meaning they'll actually have to start working on constituency issues instead of just advancement within the party & lining their own pockets.

I'd agree its a crap system but its less crap & more democratic than first past the post where someone can get around a third of the vote yet still get elected.
 
Yes at the moment for me.

And if want to still vote for 1 person then you still can.

Seems simple to understand and the current system Is shite.

At least this way you will need 50% of the votes cast to get in.
 
Just trying to get this whole AV thing around my head. It's a bit like what we have in Ireland. So if you have seven candidates to vote for you rank them 1-7 or you just give one vote for the person you want and nothing to the others? If there is only three seats and qota is 10,000 votes, are the votes transferable? ie. two Lim Dems our in the running. One loses on the first count with only 2,500 but the other has 7,500 votes. The elimitated candidate can give his votes to the order Lim Dem candidate. Just wondering what it is?
 
^ This

I've always found it funny that the Census compulsory, yet voting in local/general election is not. :roll:

I think it should be, even if the papers get spoiled as a sign of discontent. It gets the lazy off their arses if nothing else.
 
From my understanding, currently the party who wins the most seats in an election gains control.

Under the AV system if a candidate in any ward doesn't take more than half the votes then the 'loser' of the ranked election drops out and the people who voted for them have their second choices counted instead.

In my opinion the current system is correct.

Or in the words of Auf Wiedersen Pet, we could be in a scenario where everybody gets what nobody wanted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uet4f3QwRQw

That's democracy, Dennis.
 
From my understanding, currently the party who wins the most seats in an election gains control.

Not really. A majority is required.

Under the AV system if a candidate in any ward doesn't take more than half the votes then the 'loser' of the ranked election drops out and the people who voted for them have their second choices counted instead.

In my opinion the current system is correct.

Or in the words of Auf Wiedersen Pet, we could be in a scenario where everybody gets what nobody wanted:

But everyone who puts further preferences on their ballot slip 'wants' those candidates, otherwise they wouldn't have, and don't have to, do this. As I've said before, the current electoral system quite commonly produces outcomes that the majority do not want.

For instance, in FPTP if there are 10 candidates and 11% vote for one, 9% for another and 10% for each of the rest then a candidate is elected. In this outcome, it's possible that almost 9 out of 10 of that constituency despise the victor.
 
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!
Glad to see that you have given the matter such careful consideration.

Rosemary West is in favour, while Gary Glitter is viscerally opposed, if that helps further...
 
Not really. A majority is required.

But everyone who puts further preferences on their ballot slip 'wants' those candidates, otherwise they wouldn't have, and don't have to, do this. As I've said before, the current electoral system quite commonly produces outcomes that the majority do not want.

A majority of seats in the house is what I meant.

For instance, in FPTP if there are 10 candidates and 11% vote for one, 9% for another and 10% for each of the rest then a candidate is elected. In this outcome, it's possible that almost 9 out of 10 of that constituency despise the victor.

The only way an alternative vote would be fair is if you're not obliged to make second and third choices etc - and because it then becomes unfair if some people do and some people don't it's not managable.

The people who argue against the AV system are those who forget that you don't vote for your leader or PM. You vote for your local MP to win a seat in parliament. And the reason for this is because if you voted for the person you wanted to lead then the parties would simply roll up in the biggest cities or where turn out is highest and canvass for votes there - forgetting the North and rural communities.
 
No but we should. IIRC the system in Australia is that voting is compulsory but there's a fairy low standard fine for those that don't.

As John Reid helpfully pointed out today, voting was made compulsory in Australia because turnout dropped significantly after AV was introduced.
 
The only way an alternative vote would be fair is if you're not obliged to make second and third choices etc - and because it then becomes unfair if some people do and some people don't it's not managable.

Eh? You aren't obliged to make more than one preference.

The people who argue against the AV system are those who forget that you don't vote for your leader or PM. You vote for your local MP to win a seat in parliament. And the reason for this is because if you voted for the person you wanted to lead then the parties would simply roll up in the biggest cities or where turn out is highest and canvass for votes there - forgetting the North and rural communities.

Er, right. Literally no idea on the relevance like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top