AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
As John Reid helpfully pointed out today, voting was made compulsory in Australia because turnout dropped significantly after AV was introduced.

The year after AV was introduced, turnout at three consecutive Aussie elections was at 71-72%, higher than each of the last three British general elections under FPTP.

I'm not even that into AV, there's just a whole ton of shite being spoken.
 
Eh? You aren't obliged to make more than one preference.

Apologies, I understood that you would be obliged to make more than one choice - so I'm happy to be corrected. I don't actually agree with that - you either mark one or them all in my book - no inbetween.

Er, right. Literally no idea on the relevance like.

Sorry, I haven't explained myself very well (at work!)...
 
Last edited:
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.

You won't like...

If some people don’t put multiple preferences the winner doesn’t necessarily have 50% of votes cast but simply 50% of votes counted.

If four or five people were running for a position, no-one may get to the 50% mark, because many people only put one or two choices, rather than numbering every candidate. This means it will remain that some MP's won't have the support of the majority of the constituency - yet this is one of the main arguments for AV!

The year after AV was introduced, turnout at three consecutive Aussie elections was at 71-72%, higher than each of the last three British general elections under FPTP.

I'm not even that into AV, there's just a whole ton of shite being spoken.

Definitely. On both sides. Because people don't fully understand the system which makes them easier to exploit with simple political statements rather that intellectual discussions of the merits of the system.

I'm still voting no like.
 
Apologies, I understood that you would be obliged to make more than one choice - so I'm happy to be corrected. I don't actually agree with that - you either mark one or them all in my book - no inbetween.

So the only way it'd be fair is if you're not obliged to make more than one preference? And when you aren't obliged to make more than one preference that's now not on?

Special.
 
Definitely. On both sides. Because people don't fully understand the system which makes them easier to exploit with simple political statements rather that intellectual discussions of the merits of the system.

I'm still voting no like.

Mmmm. Like John Reid's horseshite.
 
We have the Single Transferable Post system in Ireland, which is basically AV on steroids.

Honestly, once you've voted in an election with STV or AV, you'll realise just how ridiculous and undemocratic the FPTP system is. I've experienced both as a voter, and if everyone in the UK had then AV would win by a landslide.

You should all vote Yes to AV, no matter what you political persuasion is.
 
I'm surprised at the confusion. COAB assured me everybody fully understood how it worked.

Oh so funny, however i never said that before. I'm the first to admit there's a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

What i do say is once provided with the facts on how it works rather than a scare story to attempt to stop people voting for it it's not complicated in the slightest. :roll:

Why campaign on lies instead of the truth? Because the truth might be popular.

There is no explanation why the NO campaign are running such a cynical campaign other than the fact they think confronted with the truth voters might think it's a good idea.

So the only way it'd be fair is if you're not obliged to make more than one preference? And when you aren't obliged to make more than one preference that's now not on?

Special.


Aye a rather hilarious stance to take, proving he doesn't really care what AV is all he knows is he is against it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
 
So the only way it'd be fair is if you're not obliged to make more than one preference? And when you aren't obliged to make more than one preference that's now not on?

Special.

It's only fair if everybody has to do one thing or the other.

If everybody marks one candidate we pick a winner - the person who gets the most votes.

If everybody marks all the candidates we pick a winner using the AV system.

If we end up in a situation where some people pick one, some people pick two and some people pick three or more how is that possibly fair to the candidates who people have only voted for once - some candidate gets more than one bite of the cherry..

Nothing special about it at all - just common sense.

Now please go and drink from your cup marked sarcasm. :lol:
 
Last edited:
It's only fair if everybody has to do one thing or the other.

If everybody marks one candidate we pick a winner - the person who gets the most votes.

If everybody marks all the candidates we pick a winner using the AV system.

If we end up in a situation where some people pick one, some people pick two and some people pick three or more how is that possibly fair to the candidates who people have only voted for once - some candidate gets more than one bite of the cherry..

Nothing special about it at all - just common sense.

Now please go and drink from your cup marked sarcasm. :lol:

It is fair, as it is a fair representation of the person who voted.
 
safc_till_i_die said:
As John Reid helpfully pointed out today, voting was made compulsory in Australia because turnout dropped significantly after AV was introduced.

Which by all accounts is not true according to some bloke on sky
 

I've seen the debates and read what both side have had to say. I agree with the No campaign.

Plus COAB is pushing for people to vote Yes, taking into account his awful record with anything politics that set alarm bells ringing.
 
Hardly surprising. The No campaign has been a tissue of lies and misrepresentations from the start.

Reminds me a lot of the way the Lisbon Treaty referendum was run over here.

The NO vote was a well-funded hoodwink by a load of shady organisations that came from nowhere and disappeared into the ether. They scared people into voting NO by spreading absolute bullshit.

I can see it happening in the UK. There are lot of gullible fear-junkies out there.

I've seen the debates and read what both side have had to say. I agree with the No campaign.

Plus COAB is pushing for people to vote Yes, taking into account his awful record with anything politics that set alarm bells ringing.

Like this absolute moron.
 
If everybody marks one candidate we pick a winner - the person who gets the most votes.

If everybody marks all the candidates we pick a winner using the AV system.

If we end up in a situation where some people pick one, some people pick two and some people pick three or more how is that possibly fair to the candidates who people have only voted for once - some candidate gets more than one bite of the cherry..

Candidate A: 4 first preference. 0 second preference.
Candidate B: 3 first preference. 5 second preference.
Candidate C: 1 first preference. 0 second preference.

Noone has a majority thus second preferences come into play. Candidate B was impressive enough that all four of Candidate A's supporters and Candidate C's one supporter were moved enough to actively mark him down as a perfectly acceptable preference. They had the opportunity not to, or to choose in that place Candidate C.

Why is this an unfair scenario?
 
Reminds me a lot of the way the Lisbon Treaty referendum was run over here.

The NO vote was a well-funded hoodwink by a load of shady organisations that came from nowhere and disappeared into the ether. They scared people into voting NO by spreading absolute bullshit.

I can see it happening in the UK. There are lot of gullible fear-junkies out there.

I'm not scared at all. I'm voting No out of spite. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top