AV or not ?

Thanks for the links - didn't realise the NO campaign was lying about that too but I suppose I should have guessed. Have they said anything at all that is actually true?

Worth also mentioning something which I raised on one of these threads (re the Olympics reference in drosophilia's link) - FPTP is a real misnomer. There is no fixed post you have to get past. Where the post is depends how many parties there are, and even how many votes they get. It is AV that has a clear winning post that you must reach to win.

The 2010 Australian election conducted under full preferential voting produced a parliament with no overall control. The Labor Party government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard returned to office after obtaining the general support of cross-bench independents and minor parties.

Had the election been conducted under first past the post voting rules, it would have been highly likely that the Opposition Liberal-National Party Coalition would have won a narrow majority of seats.

Not surprisingly, the governing Labor Party's policy supports the continued use of full preferential voting. Support for full preferential voting remains the policy of both the Liberal Party and the National Party, despite the system having been responsible for their 2010 defeat.

The only party that does not support full preferential voting is the Australian Greens, whose policy is STV, and if single member electorates are used, optional rather than full preferential voting, AV as it is known in the United Kingdom.

So none of Australia's political parties support first past the post voting. So where exactly is this move back to first past the post voting coming from?

blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/uk-alternative-vote-referendum/

There is an interesting article in the Economist (I received it only tonight)... They argue that AV is a messy version of FPTP and "not an improvement". They suggest voting "NO".

AV is actually likely to deliver more majority government with slightly larger swings. We're more likely to have coalition governments under FPTP if the Lib Dems continued to be as popular as they were at the last election (ha!).

"It's a NO from me. I'd rather we have a government with a majority, whether that be my party or not"

Eh? But you would have a government with a majority. Why do you say that AV wouldn't deliver a government without a majority, DrNortherner? AV will allow many people to have their vote counted even though they don't vote for the two major parties.

ARe you saying that unless we vote either Labour or Tory, then we don't have the right to have our voices heard?

It is the current system that fails to deliver a true representation of the will of the British people.

YES

I wish the referendum was on PR - but it isn't.

So considering the choice, I think that AV is better than the existing system.
And as for David Cameron saying that it was too complicated to explain, my 8 year old DS can rank things in order of preference.....

It's a no from me!! (Only thing that pains me is I am ging against beautiful Ezzie Izzard - he would get my second vote though!!) Oooooohhhh can I vote No first and then Yes second?????

It's a really interesting debate - and one which i'm thoroughly enjoying!!!

One thing i'm pretty sure of though, is that AV will encourage people to vote for 'WHO THEY WANT', as opposed to 'WHO THEY THINK THEIR VOTE WILL COUNT FOR'.
What I mean is, if I want the Green Party, but no they have 'no chance', I can put them as my first choice, andd then my second choice would be who i would've voted for with the FPTP system.

So probably the same outcome, but at least the figures would be truer, and the smaller parties would see that too.

the cat video - why does it make all the parties look like they are just different versions of the same thing?

It's a NO from me. I'd rather we have a government with a majority, whether that be my party or not.

I'm voting 'yes'.

Misinformation is always huge when the argument is weak. It's such a simple system. If you only like one candidate then only vote for one person. If you have a preference- which a lot of people do then put them in order, it happens all the time in life and conservative leadership elections. I am fed up of governments with minority share of the vote - is that really democracy? YES YES YES ( in no particular order).

"so even though people voted actively for F those votes would be split up and given to all the other candidates? How is that fair?"

Because those who voted for F would have their votes shared out amongst the candidates they had chosen as their second, third etc choices.

I would actually rather my second or third choices get in than someone I really really didn't want to get in.

Oh and this video is a bit silly but it illustrates the system pretty clearly...

You don't HAVE to put a second preference if you don't want to, under AV you should only number candidates who you would find acceptable as your MP.

F is a clear loser - with fewer votes than anyone else.

By sharing out F's votes based on second preference you get the same result as if F had never stood. Seems fair to me.

or am I failing to understand? blimey it really is confusing isn't it.

surely the second vote is a 'well, if I have to vote for someone else I guess I'd pick this person if only to keep out someone I dislike' kind of vote?

"F gets eliminated and the votes shared out"

so even though people voted actively for F those votes would be split up and given to all the other candidates? How is that fair?

That was for fanjo

• and no, not a stupid question, the amount of misinformation going around is enormous...

Dueling

Candidate A - 40%
B - 10%
C - 10%
D- 10%
E - 10%
F - 10%
G - 10%

(changed it to 10% for ease)

Candidate A would win as there would be unable to be any elimination as no least popular party as I understand it. However, chance of six candidates getting exactly the same number of votes happening is absolutely minimal.

However, if you changed all of the above figures by 1% to give us candidates to eliminate any of candidates B-G could win. B could win if it had second preferences from all voters C-G for example as B would be the most broadly acceptable candidate.

In your example, under FPTP A gets in.

Under AV it would be decided on second/third/... preferences. Lets assume they don't get exactly the same number of votes - say B does better than C, etc, down to F.

F gets eliminated and the votes shared out. The end result now will be exactly as if F had never stood. Or if you ran another election immediately without F.

Unless A gets over the 50% in the first round, the same thing happens to E, etc, etc.

In answer to your question, YES: it is possible that B will end up winning. B can overtake A if enough of C,D,E,F's supporters put B above A.

Is this fair? I think so. In this situation if A and B went head to head, B would win. So why should A get elected just because a bunch of small parties also stood?

Not sure if it has been posted but this YouTube video explains pretty well why I'm .

It's pretty clear by now that the country isn't voting/going to vote yes unless extraordinary turnout in young/London voters. For me it is less about the specifics of the electoral system, neither AV or FPTP are perfect, but about expressing an appetite for a more representative democracy. Saying no to AV and yes to FPTP are essentially giving politicians a licence to put electoral reform back in the cupboard and not get it out again for generations.

And just on a more practical note, it is STUPID having a two party electoral system in a multi party political sphere. It just doesn't make sense to keep it.

"Its surprising that we still have FPTP - a system where someone can be elected with only 10% of the vote.

AV ensures that an MP has the support of at least 50% of voters - this is essential if we want to describe ourselves as a democracy"

This is what confuses me. Say if there were 6 candidates and one (A) got 40% and the others (B - F) all got 12%, under each system who would get in? wouldn't the result be the same ubder both systems or is it possible that candidate B might get 38 - 100% of the second vote and so would get in even though candidate A got more first votes than anyone else?

sorry if this is a stupid question.

I am not sure why anyone would vote for something they think is a miserable compromise. Most people I know seem toi be voting yes but they all say it's not what they wanted. Personally I think we're more likely to get proper PR in the future by voting no to this. Though deep down I ubderstand and prefer first past the post moch more than I do PR/AV.