so are you going to bother to vote on the electoral reform referendum?

[easternstar]

Or not?

To be honest I don't think either AV or first past the post is the best method.

When I did my government and politics A-level donkey's years ago I always thought that the fairest method was to have larger constituencies and make up the difference with a party list system based on percentages.

Giddy "MP can be elected despite the fact that most voters wouldn't choose him at all."

Please correct me but isn't AV ensures that in the end the successful candidate must amass 50% of votes (no necesserrly "first" choice).

I am still undecided between AV and FPTP.

I am actually against PR because (as I understand it, please correct), the link that I personally find absolutely vital and precious, between the constituency and their MP will be broken. I do not want that.

I am for RSVP....ASAP......BOLTOP....SWALK....and KORWIGH

That logic is crazy. You say the winner needs to have a lot of second choice votes (as well as first choice otherwise they would have been eliminated) then say that the one with the most third choices would win - you aren't making your conclusion on logic, you are trying to make the facts sound like they point to the conclusion when they don't - a bit like saying Man has never been to the mood because tin-tin was a cartoon. Its just idiotic

If you use the school analogy better to say 'where will the funds go to' (as in the school analogy all can't go to the preferred school).

First past the post works like this -

46% of people vote for the money to go to school one - the school their kids are at.

School 2 has 30% of the kids in the area in attendance, but a third argue that the money should go to the school with most need and put this as second preference.

School 3 has 24% of the pupils and think the money should go to them - the most disadvantaged school but if they don't get it, school 2 should get it because the best school is already the best school and they feel one of the weaker schools should get the money. They also know that a third of the people in that school support their development. They all put 2 as second preference.

First past the post - the money repeatedly goes to school one, who remains the best school because of that, even thought this double- disadvantages 54% of the population -kids in the best school think this is fair because 'everyone voted for it'.

AV - 46% of people think the money should go to school one in round 1. They lose round 1 because there are more opinions in opposition to that. Round 2 kicks out school 3. all school 3's second preferences go to school 2 and 2 wins.

School 1 kids are unhappy - they always win so they hate the new system. School 2 kids are happy - they get the money, - a third of them still support developing school 3 and elect to share some of their facilities because they know that school 3 is happy to support their aims if they can't benefit directly themselves.

School 3 kids are less happy than getting the money, but more happy than all the money going repeatedly to the same school. 54% of the constituency are more happy with the new arrangement than with the old biased in favour of the largest interest group, even if they don't get their absolute preferred outcome.

AV! Yes - its a better system.

Missingfriendsandsad I do not like your school example because Raving Loony party or BNP (or Nazis or Communists) are not school No3. Elections and policy making is not where everybody should have their say. It is an entirely different debate of course, but some voices do not deserve to be heard (yes, I realize I sound anti-democratic, tough).

Giddypickle - your analogy doesnt make any sense, they cant all go to the same school.

But we could all vote for the same person, and if most people prefer them under AV they will win.

In this BBC experiment the winner didn't even get 50%, because there is no compulsion to vote anything more than a 1st preference.

The programme has fallen off the I player now, so I've x ref'd to a differnt site

ok lets say there is a racist boot camp with a raving loony section that is effectively school 4 (made up of defectors from school 3).

They all put party 3 as second choice then 1 as third. (to max out the illustration). no-one puts them as second or third preference.

Round 1 eliminates school 4: party three gains 1 vote (back to where we were before), round 2, school 3 is eliminated and votes go as before, but the 1% raving loony/racists votes third choices now go to school 1 giving it 47% of the vote.

BNP might sway a tory seat with their second vote (i.e if no BNP they view tories as most right wing), but unlikely to swing a left vote - in either case their vote is only added once in the count. Anyone voting large party first then BNP second (highly unlikely but possible) will be unlikely to give a vote to the BNP.

However if the BNP get 50% of the votes in an area, then that would be democracy - aybe at its most distateful - but democracy nonetheless - 50% support for the BNP has never been achieved in any election.

AV works like an elimination vote i guess - so in that example the election is re-run without the weakest candidates (ie rerun without the BNP and loonies) - the main difference might be that if that happened in practice, some people might not vote again, where they might put a second preference in AV. Its true that having small parties keeps their vote out of the main count in FPTP and lets in in to the election in AV, but these parties are not always proposing viiew that a lot of people don't agree with - in my area greens get a lot of anecdotal support (I'd like to vote green, but will have to vote x to have any chance of keeping Y out) - AV just allows the same thing to happen, but officially registering the real scale of support for green party policies - if that is a lot (say 30% first preferences) it will move green issues higher up the political agenda for that consituency - (in the same way that David Cameron tried this to secure green voters in desparation knowing that he had lost labour and libdem voters).

That radio 5 example is a cool one - it shows that within one count the 'traditional' result (labour 1, conservative 2) is an unrealistic picture for that consituency -most people would prefer a green candidate than a conservative, which shows how unrepresentative first past the post is - now both large parties will realise that there is someting in the green offer tha a lot of people like in that consituency.

how often do you think third preferences will be used and what proportion?

Voting yes because it is a much fairer system.

Kinnane....I hope you've read the thread? you might find you are in a minority of one if you really think it is !!fairer!!

but we should accept her lies to new posters? The majority here are for AV - its quite clear - and kinnane has added her comment here in good faith only to get a lie and complete dismissal back - that is not acceptable. Cat can do a count and withdraw her statement - and then my comment will be less valid. Sorry don't like my anger at liars. That's the way I'm built

OK I've reported that post which I think is an offensive & unnecessary personal attack .

Whether or not it gets deleted I imagine a few posters mayremember you and give you a very wide berth.

I think I'll just leave you to it now "Missingfriendsandsad"

Remember the name everyone.

Oh thanks cat - try to get everyone in to poke the person who insulted ultra sensitive you? stop lying, stop getting insulted simple - under your control honey. (ps I don't need a rumour of a gang behind me to give me strength - shame you do (do check though won't you? they might not actually be there ... )

Have you counted yet Cat? Is there really only one person in support of AV here? Is there?

I agree with Missingf and Kinnane :)

Missing that wasn't what cat said at all. You should apologise, totally uncalled for.

I don't think your style of posting is doing the 'yes' campaign many favours tbh. A decent debate is one thing, this is quite something else.

Okay, Missingfriends was clearly out of order - which we all agree on.

But I don't think catinthehat2 should be allowed to hijack a sensible debate by:

a) saying something stupid and plainly untrue, and then
b) getting huffy when called on it.