AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll be taking the sensible option and voting yes.

With AV, you get to choose who your first choice is and, should they not get in, who you're next favourite candidate is, and should they not get in, who your third favourite candidate is. What's unfair and what's not to like?

At least with AV, you get closer to the idea of the winner having more of a mandate than with FPTP.
 
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?

In that case then it must be compulsory to pick a 2nd preference etc or else your vote becomes null and void. The system needs consistency.

I'll be taking the sensible option and voting yes.

With AV, you get to choose who your first choice is and, should they not get in, who you're next favourite candidate is, and should they not get in, who your third favourite candidate is. What's unfair and what's not to like?

At least with AV, you get closer to the idea of the winner having more of a mandate than with FPTP.

It needs mandatory voting and that everyone has to pick 2nd & 3rd preferences then.
 
In that case then it must be compulsory to pick a 2nd preference etc or else your vote becomes null and void. The system needs consistency.

Why though, it's ok to think absolutely nothing but your first choice is acceptable surely? By not ticking any more choices you are making are making a selection, a conscious choice to abstain from any further voting.
 
In that case then it must be compulsory to pick a 2nd preference etc or else your vote becomes null and void. The system needs consistency.

It needs mandatory voting and that everyone has to pick 2nd & 3rd preferences then.

It doesn't.

The purpose of a vote is to indicate will. If someone chooses to indicate 1 preference, then that is their will.

I had 10 preferences on my last ballot. I used 9, as there was a Sinn Fein candidate on the paper. No one loses out, as I indicated exactly what my preference was.
 
Windypants said:
I'll be taking the sensible option and voting yes.

With AV, you get to choose who your first choice is and, should they not get in, who you're next favourite candidate is, and should they not get in, who your third favourite candidate is. What's unfair and what's not to like?

At least with AV, you get closer to the idea of the winner having more of a mandate than with FPTP.

That's the way I see it
 
AV certainly has many flaws, but all of its flaws are also to be found in First Past The Post, and AV has benefits that FPTP doesn’t. The perceived complexity of AV is a strange objection, given that it’s already used in parts of the UK - unless you think the electorate as a whole is somehow dumber than in those particular areas. I’m not aware of any major complaints about AV where it is in place.

The idea that people whose first choices are minority candidates are somehow receiving “more” votes than someone voting, say Labour (because as their first choice is eliminated early, their second choice comes into play) is completely spurious. It’s best treated as completely separate rounds of voting, so everyone votes again.

“Unpopular” MPs are far less likely to be elected under AV, as currently it is commonplace for seats to be won by someone with as far less than 50% of the vote - and possibly a lot more than half the electorate actively hostile to them; this flaw at least is solved by AV.

And if some people wish to make only one choice, or two, or however many, this has no bearing at all on the fairness of the election. AV is the least bad choice of the two on offer.
 
Mmmm. Like John Reid's horseshite.

He actually presented a few coherent arguments this morning in a well-mannered debate, widely praised by commentators.

The shite doesn't come from the lead poltical figures but from the campaigners and campaigns.

He's still right that turnout dropped significantly after AV was introduced in Australia. Even if their turnout figures were high to start off with.
 
In that case then it must be compulsory to pick a 2nd preference etc or else your vote becomes null and void. The system needs consistency.

I really don't get it. Why?

If people are impressed enough to rank, they can. If they're not, they won't. Candidate's fault, candidate suffers (potentially).
 
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?

Unless I'm missing something...I know you'll correct me if I am...

But you're assuming that everybody will make both first and second preferences. In your example everybody has - which makes it fair.

However in your previous posts you've suggested that it's not compulsory - which means you could end up with some people casting one vote and others casting 2 or 3...
 
It needs mandatory voting and that everyone has to pick 2nd & 3rd preferences then.

No, it doesn't. All you're doing by not picking a second choice is abstaining, should your preferred candidate not be chosen, like the millions who can't be arsed to get off their fat arses and exercise their democratic right.
 
I want to vote for one candidate and thats it. I don't want people to have the option to vote for more than one. It would be unfair.
 
He actually presented a few coherent arguments this morning in a well-mannered debate, widely praised by commentators.

The shite doesn't come from the lead poltical figures but from the campaigners and campaigns.

He's still right that turnout dropped significantly after AV was introduced in Australia. Even if their turnout figures were high to start off with.

About 6% between 1917 and 1919. The difference between turnout in 1992 and 2001 elections here was triple that.

Turnout fluctuates, and the fact that thing A comes after thing B isn't evidence that A caused B. I imagine Reid chose his words very carefully, in lieu of any actual evidence that AV is disastrous for turnout.

But why would I want to elect somebody who I deemed to be inferior to my preferred candidate?

Because you recognise that choice often isn't binary?

And, Jesus wept, for the last time, you don't have to make a second preference.
 
Last edited:
I want to vote for one candidate and thats it. I don't want people to have the option to vote for more than one. It would be unfair.

So it wouldn't upset you if you lived in a constituency where the winning candidate got less than 30% of votes cast? How is that a fairer system than one where more people are more content with the winner under AV?
 
Unless I'm missing something...I know you'll correct me if I am...

But you're assuming that everybody will make both first and second preferences. In your example everybody has - which makes it fair.

However in your previous posts you've suggested that it's not compulsory - which means you could end up with some people casting one vote and others casting 2 or 3...

Change the second preference for candidate B to 4 then. They still win. And tell me why it's suddenly unfair.
 
But by not using up all your preferences you are handing away the level playing field. Sod that.

I've no interest in voting for random candidates.
 
Richard Lionheart said:
But by not using up all your preferences you are handing away the level playing field. Sod that.

I've no interest in voting for random candidates.

No your not.
 
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.




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

The problem is they won't be presented with the facts only. There will always be people trying to muddy the waters. It's been explained plenty of times on this thread but there are still people who don't understand. For the record, I'm not saying people should vote against it because it is complicated but it is a valid concern.
Despite a lot of the people supporting AV being people I would normally listen to and most people campaigning against it seem to be idiots, I'm still not 100% convinced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top