Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Alternative Vote - am I bothered? You should be.

41 replies

jollydiane · 16/02/2011 22:02

Do you actually understand what the alternative vote could mean or does it just make you sleepy?

It could have long lasting changes to how government works. The seems to be very little coverage on how it works and what the consequences could be.

OP posts:
Niceguy2 · 16/02/2011 22:19

I have a good idea and I suspect readers of this forum are pretty well read so will also have a clue.

But as for your average person in the street, nope. Most of them would probably be unable to spell the word "alternative", let alone know what it means.

Prolesworth · 16/02/2011 22:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

jollydiane · 16/02/2011 22:30

If I have understood it correctly (which I doubt) it seems that hung parliaments could be much more common place. Whilst I think Lib Dems have done a reasonable job I am not keen on them calling all the shots. On the other hand it seems very unfair that Green Party only have 1 MP.

OP posts:
jollydiane · 16/02/2011 22:41

The fact that a cat poo thread has had 204 posts and this has had 4 comments shows that we are just day dreaming into a vote that very few people seem to care about or understand the consequences.

OP posts:
huddspur · 16/02/2011 22:49

Its because all the work to ensure the referendum happens in May isn't finished yet but once the date is set, I think you'll see more coverage/debate.

Prolesworth · 16/02/2011 23:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

EightiesChick · 16/02/2011 23:20

I am usually interested in this stuff but genuinely have not heard much about it. Are we definitely having a referendum in May on it now? Or when will that decision be made?

LadyGlencoraPalliser · 16/02/2011 23:22

I have an excellent idea, as I am Irish. I think it is a jolly good idea, although single transferable vote would be even better.

Prolesworth · 17/02/2011 00:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mpsw · 17/02/2011 07:05

I've seen something about this on Breakfast, and I suppose between now and May there will be a lot of coverage.

It's interesting to see that those in favour are the smaller parties. (Pro-AV was a Green whose manner was so irritating it would have put me off on the spot on a less important issue).

But this system would probably have not returned the current Green MP, and would hearten the far right (the elephant in the room of this debate) and we will see both BNP and UKIP MPs under AV.

nulgirl · 17/02/2011 07:16

Well I am not a fan of the BNP or UKIP but I definitely support having a more representative parliament. The first past the post system where the Tories and Labour end up with most of the seats and little parties get nothing is not fair or sustainable.

JollySergeantJackrum · 17/02/2011 07:29

Some info (IRV is another name for AV): The intention of IRV is to find one candidate acceptable to a majority of voters. It is intended as an improvement on the 'First-past-the-post' (plurality) voting system. Under 'First-past-the-post' the candidate with the most votes wins, even if that candidate has less than a majority of votes and even if considered the worst candidate by a majority of voters (the "Condorcet loser." IRV will always result in the defeat of the Condorcet loser. When used to elect legislative bodies, however, IRV can produce results that can be unrepresentative of voter preferences across the entire jurisdiction. Like all winner-take-all voting systems, IRV tends to exaggerate the number of seats won by the larger parties. For that reason some backers of proportional representation oppose IRV for legislative elections.

From: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting?wasRedirected=true

Katz · 17/02/2011 07:50

I understand it and support the idea. If you live somewhere with a single party stronghold that doesn't represent your views then what's the point in voting. This system will give more people a voice.

yellowvan · 17/02/2011 08:15

Shouldn't we all just vote no to show up what an impotent waste of space Nick Clegg is? Surely if he can't even get the yse vote through, just about the only concession cameron made to the LDs, Clegg is finished and so is ther coalition. yay!

Prolesworth · 17/02/2011 11:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

silverfrog · 17/02/2011 11:28

shouldn't the first step be compulsory voting, though?

I'm not sure any voting system is going to be representative when you have 40% of the electorate not bothering to vote...

LadyBlaBlah · 17/02/2011 11:41

I have no interest in AV at all

It is nowhere near an improvement to the current system

Total waste of time, effort and money for very little, if any, gain

CarolinaRua · 17/02/2011 11:51

I understand it again as I am Irish although we have full proportional representation, however we also have multiple seat constituencies (dreadful and would run a mile from that)
Am not sure its any better than what the UK has really

meditrina · 17/02/2011 11:59

It wouldn't give seats directly to the smaller parties in the same way that other PR models do. But it will alter the role of smaller parties in a way that benefits their agendas. If you support a small party that you think hasn't a hope of getting in, under FFTP you may well not vote at all. But with AV, and multiple votes which count, you may instead choose to go, and place a cascade of preference votes. This would give succour to the smaller party, as it would have a more first votes (and thus greater claim to be representative), and actual help to other parties of the same general persuasion (who would gain second and third place votes). Smaller parties would also need to be courted by larger ones to secure their second and subsequent votes. (More back-room deals?)

And all that is in addition to the possibility (though not inevitability) of more hung Parliaments, where small party king-makers have disproportionate influence.

Boundaries reform and standardisation of constituency size (where geographically possible - ie nearly everywhere except the Isle of Wight) seem far more important and achievable.

Chil1234 · 17/02/2011 12:54

I understand AV but can't get all that excited about it, to be honest. Now that politics is getting nicely polarised again, I don't think we need PR to make people feel their vote counts. The advantages of FPTP is that when one party wins outright you can hold them to their pledges and they can make things happen, or else. As we've found with a coalition arrangement (which would be the norm if this went through), there's a lot of behind the scenes bargaining required to set it up in the first place, we end up with a pick and mix of various people's pre-election manifestos and the rest is a mixture of compromise and dissent.... pleases no-one, in other words.

Prolesworth · 17/02/2011 13:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Chil1234 · 17/02/2011 14:03

I'm not sure AV would make coalitions more likely because it's rather 'first past the post lite' but PR certainly would, which AV is a stepping stone towards. The 1997 results... Blair 43.2%, Major 30.7%, Ashdown 16.8%... no overall majority. In 2005 it was ... Blair 35.2%, Howard 32.4%, Kennedy 22%...same again.

Jux · 17/02/2011 15:06

I'm in favour of PR. I don't have a problem with coalitions. It's not necessarily the case that we'll have more of them, but I have no evidence/specialist knowledge.

Prolesworth · 17/02/2011 15:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Whitershadeofpale · 17/02/2011 15:17

Some info from www.yestofairervotes.org

Myth 1) AV is too confusing
Few people would be confused by this. Voters put a ?1? by their first choice, a ?2? by their second choice, a ?3? by their third choice and so on. The logic?s familiar enough to anyone who?s ever asked a friend to pop down to the shops for a coke and said, ?If they?re out of that I?ll have a lemonade.?

Some people have a very low estimation of the British public.

Myth 2) AV helps the BNP
The BNP have already called on their supporters to back a ?No? vote. Currently because MPs can get elected with support from less than 1 in 3 voters, there is always a risk that extremist parties can get in.

The BNP have learnt this lesson, and have used it to scrape wins in town halls across Britain. With AV, no-one can get elected unless most people back them. Therefore the risk of extremist parties getting in by the back door is eliminated.

Myth 3) No one uses AV
AV is a tried and tested system. In Britain millions of people in businesses, charities, and trade unions already use it. Political parties use it to elect their leaders. MPs themselves use it to elect their Speaker and their officials.

When politicians are the voters ? when they are electing their own leaders ? AV is the system they choose. When you need a real winner who needs to speak for the majority AV is the go-to system.

Myth 4) AV means some people get two votes

No. With AV everyone gets one vote. The difference is that AV gives you a vote that really counts and more of a say on who your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out your vote is transferred to your second preference. Whether you just vote 1 for your favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the ballot only one vote will be counted.

If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out of cod, and you choose pie and chips instead, you have still only had one meal.

Myth 5) AV means more hung parliaments
No. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as you might have noticed First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung parliaments.

Britain has experienced hung parliaments in the 1920s, 1970s and in 2010, and had periods in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s where a single party was unable to effectively govern alone. Canada, which uses First Past the Post, has permanent hung parliaments. Australia uses AV, and has returned its first hung parliament in 38 elections.

Hung parliaments occur if enough voters support a third party. AV gives voters a greater say over candidates in their constituency. How they vote is up to them.

Myth 6) AV means more tactical voting
No. AV simply eliminates the need for it. Why should we have to abandon the party we actually support, to prevent the party we least support getting in? The dilemma facing millions of voters is often characterised as the choice between ?voting with your head or your heart?. AV allows people to do both.

AV offers an honest vote. It gives everyone a chance to vote sincerely for the candidates they really want knowing their vote can go further.

Myth 7) AV weakens the constituency link
No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger. Politicians like to talk about their constituency link. And a lot of them seem to enjoy it a lot more than the voters.

Many of our MPs currently have a pretty dodgy link to their constituents. Barely a third of MPs can speak for the majority of their voters. AV strengthens the link by giving people the MPs they actually voted for. AV forces complacent MPs to take heed of the interests of their constituents because their jobs depend on it.

Myth 8) AV forces you to give a second preference
No. You can vote for as few or as many candidates as you like. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.

You aren?t forced to vote for any candidate you don?t want. If you only want to support one candidate you can. Just mark an ?X? as you did before.

Myth 9) AV means you end up with the least worst candidate
No. First Past the Post just lets in winners that most of voters didn?t want. AV ensures a winning candidate has to work harder and go further to secure support from a majority. That?s what?s needed to be ?best?, and may explain why politicians are so keen on AV when electing their own?

When Hollywood recently dumped First Past the Post for AV, they didn?t change the wording on the statuette to Academy Award for Least Worst Picture. They wanted a ?Best Picture? winner that could deliver on that promise.

Myth 10) But First Past the Post is a British tradition?
Our parliament is not a museum. There has always been evolution in our politics, and today AV is the logical next step - an ?upgrade? to First Past the Post.

The secret ballot, votes for women, and votes for working people were all innovations once, and met with opposition. These changes didn?t rip up the rule book, but they were necessary to improve the way we do politics.

Voters aren?t looking for a revolution. They?re looking for a simple change that preserves and improves on what?s come before.

I hope this helps answer some questions.