to ask for your opinion on the AV referendum?

[redexpat]

I've read all the arguments for and against AV and first past the post, and listened specially to Radio 4, but I simply can't decide which way to vote! They all seem equally valid. Thoughts?

hardhat no this is not about PR.

Lots of people would like to see a system of PR - proportional representation - which means the same proportion of MPs in the commons as the proportion of votes cast. But this referendum is not about PR. The downside of PR is that you can't have PR and small constituencies with a single MP in - so it breaks the link between MPs and their constituents.

PR would pretty much guarantee coalition governments. AV only makes them a little more likely.

Given that this is NOT about PR - what is the fairest way to elect a single winner from multiple parties? If there are only two parties it is easy - it is always going to be clear which wins. With three or more there are two options. The current system is inaccurately called first past the post. More accurately called plurality voting. The one with the most votes wins. If you have five candidates with nearly equal support, you can win with 21% of the vote.

The AV system is rather like the X Factor. You express a preference, numbering candidates 1 - 5. If you want you can stop at 4, or just vote for a single candidate. The votes are counted and the candidate with the lowest number is eliminated - just like the X Factor. Rather than having another expensive election with the remaining candidates, the votes from the loser are spread around the other four according to their next preference. And so on until someone has 50% of the vote.

This prevents tactical voting (although Giddypickle will deny this but just google it if you want to know who to believe).

It means you can vote for your favourite party even if you think they won't win. This actually may give that party a chance that it never had before.

In every case AV will give either the same result as FPTP or a fairer one.

• if more than 50% vote 1 for party A, party A gets in with both systems.

• if less than 50% vote 1 for party A, but when the smallest parties are redistributed party A gets over the 50%, party A gets in with both systems.

• if party A get say 40%, party B 35% and party C 25%, party A would win under FPTP. But if the party C second preferences go 20/25 to B and 5/25 to A then B overtakes A in the second round and wins under AV. This is fairer - in this case clearly B and C are similar parties and are splitting the vote (whether this is a leftish vote or a rightish one). Note that in a head to head election, B would beat A, B would beat C, so it is clear that B winning is the fairest result.

A1980 there is no difference between AV and FPTP when there are only two options

petitepeach see above - FPTP allows a party to get in without a majority - it is only under AV that a majority of voters is needed.

balia if we say no to this there will be no electoral reform for decades - the interpretation will be that the people want the status quo. AV can be modified to AV+ which is a proportional system - so if you want PR vote YES and then press for more change.

Glad to see so much support for AV here. Lets hope the polls are wrong and we get some political change in this country.

By the way - no other country in Europe has FPTP...

Well after reading this thread and viewing the videos I will be voting YES!

Oh God, now I have to google gerrymandering

I'm probably going to vote 'no' because AV is no better than FPTP. They both have equally serious flaws - there's no overall benefit in changing. AV just boosts the Lib Dems. No fairer to the smaller parties at all.

If we had a chance of PR, I'd be more inclined to at least consider voting 'yes', as that would be fairer. But AV is no fairer than FPTP and a 'yes' vote this time won't be a first step on a road to PR - we'll just be stuck with AV, like Australia.

I blame Clegg - why the hell didn't he insist on a referendum on PR, not what he admitted was the 'miserable compromise' of FPTP?

AV is flawed but it's a step in the right direction. A no vote will be seen to be supporting FPTP. I believe that's why we're having this referendum now - at the same time as local elections when there's usually a poor turnout.

Because a candidate that no-one picked as their first choice could win, I'm voting a very resounding NO to AV because we've already got more than enough second and third-rate politicians cocking up this country.

Definately voting no here. If it was PR I would go for it but this proposed system is really no fairer. The small parties will still have no chance whatsoever and so it will ultimately end up as a choice between 2 anyway. Well I suppose you could say three but libdems have 'form' now and are not really credible anymore. I see flaws.eg. Does anyone really think they could rate parties they WANT using ALL parties available? Or would they vote for the party they want and then rate the others as 'more accepatable than' which is not the same as getting what you want. Its more a case of 'it will do' and I personally don't think that 'it will do' is a good way to run the country.

Both systems are flawed but AV allows for a persrns vote to be counted again and again should their 1st choice not achieve a result. That's what makes AV the worse of two evils. Any system is open to tacticle voting too. Another good reason for voting No is that the Lib Dems want it.

"Because a candidate that no-one picked as their first choice could win"

That's pretty bloody unlikely though. It's only the party with the fewest votes that then have their second votes counted, then the party with the next fewest. That their second votes are all for a party no one picked as their first choice seems incredible, especially as more people might be inclined to put minority parties as their first choice under AV.

That's a stupid reason to vote no.

Yes yes yes. And if you believe any of the bollocks that the no campaign are saying then... A little more research is needed!

edam AV is certainly fairer than FPTP as a way of electing one representative from a selection of more than two.

izzy as I'm sure you know if a candidate got no first preferences they would immediately be eliminated and could never win. I suppose the NO campaigners - largely tories scared that this will stop them winning in the future although there is very little evidence of that - are resorting to this sort of statement as there is not really any rational reason to keep FPTP.

stuff no reason to vote for every party. But expressing your second and third preferences gives you a voice should your first choice be eliminated. If your first choice loses, you are not going to get what you want but you might get something less bad than if you effectively abstain in the second round by not expressing more preferences. But you know that.

thomas tactical voting in the sense of putting a party you dislike ahead of one you like will never improve the chances of the party you like in AV. Many many people have to vote tactically in FPTP, when they know their preferred party has no chance. Basically they put their second or third choice first. Why not let them be honest without wasting their votes?

I do agree that the LDs don't deserve to get AV - but the rest of us don't deserve to be stuck with such an antiquated and unfair system.

Edam: if av boosts the lib dems then HOW exactly does it not benefit any other smaller parties?!?!?

It benefits the lib dems BECAUSE it benefits smaller parties! A) because they get a fairer number of seats according to their proportion of the vote and b) because it stops people going "oh I won't vote for x because they'll never get in".

The lies of the NO campaign are quite incredible.

I am not surprised Chris Huhne nearly hit Cameron after he refused to condemn some of the leaflets that have gone out.

The problem is that the electoral commission is saying it can't deal with complaints about the leaflets as it is not an election; the advertising standards authority can't as they aren't adverts; the libel laws are no use - so basically they can say anything without any comeback.

After 11 months without a government here in Belgium, I'm beginning to wish we had FPTP instead of PR .

I'm voting yes.

If you wanted a pint of Stella in the pub and the barman said no we haven't got any Stella so you now can't have any drink you'b be pretty pissed off. You'd like to be able to say, "OK, I'll have a Becks instead" You'd not be happy having to go and sit down with no drink all night while watchong other people drink.

I'm voting yes, because I feel it is a step in the right direction. It allows more voters to have a say in who represents them. And I also think that if there is a no vote tomorrow there's no chance of getting PR eventually.

I'm confused too. Why is this new system so unpopular world wide if it is better and fairer?

Ninky - most countries have either PR or a runoff type system - a runoff system is like AV but has two rounds; all but two candidates are eliminated in the first round and the second is a head to head.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_nation

FPTP is pretty unpopular in the developed world...

Will it help Lib-Dem?

I want to vote labour. They have no chance where I live so I vote Lib-Dem instead. If AV comes in I'll never vote Lib-Dem again.

Cool, thanks!

petitepeach "I am voting NO as I think it makes sense for the party the majority voted for the get in"

Under that argument, you should be voting yes. At the moment a government can be voted in with less than a third of the vote.

I am voting Yes, because a No vote effectively closes the door on any chance of getting PR in the future.

NinyNonker I think the AV system is unpopular worldwide because there are better schemes around (like full PR). But our government isn't letting us vote for any of those, just FPTP or AV!

Actually, thinking about it, a party with no first votes would be eliminated after the first round as they have the least number of votes.

So a party with no one's first votes can't win. The party with fewest first votes can't win.

Definitely not a reason to vote no!

I'm voting NO. Partly because the leaflet I got through the door the other day which basically said "All politicians are currenly evil and crap. Through AV only shiny happy politicians will be elected" was s stupid it put me off the whole thing.

It really isn't that complicated...

If there were only two parties to choose from, FPTP would be fine.

But there are more than two parties, so if you have one right wing choice and three leftish/centre choices, the leftish/centre vote gets split between three options. With FPTP that means the likelihood that the right wing choice would win, even if the total votes cast for the three leftish/centre choices adds up to more than the right wing choice.

In other words, the majority of people voted for someone other than the one that won. This isn't fair.

Watch the cat video if you really don't get it. It makes it utterly clear and impossible to misunderstand.

If you still don't get it...

Vote 'no' if you're a tory.
Vote 'yes' if you're anything else.