AV or not ?

[theoldbrigade]

Thoughts please.

haha bmb, direct extrapolation to hitler? You are a one-woman godwins law.

But yes, AV is a system where more than 50% of people get to elect the winning candidate (rather than 30% now). Therefore, more happiness :)

MPs will represent more of their constituents, so we could also reasonably expect better policies that suit more people. Really AV is essential if we are to continue calling ourselves a democracy.

Oh dear - no giddy the small parties don't have the power to be king makers, but people who vote for all parties can be kingmakers in the final round, that's all - a bit like being able to watch the FA cup final even though your team isn't in it, and support one of the teams. Under first past the post, you aren't allowed to watch any further matches.

Politicians say anything to get votes now. But if a candidate went hard line right or left to win over the BNP or British Communist Party, they'd loose my vote, so it may not be a helpful tactic for them.

I'm cheating, I posted this on another AV thread:

The Yes campaign is not as rich as the NO campaign. The Yes campaign has published it's funding sources, the NO campaign refuses to follow suit.

AV is not that complicated. The Electoral Commission explain it in a video at the bottom of this page

First past the post was fine while we just had the Whigs or the Tories to vote for. Nowadays there may be as many as ten candidates on a ballot paper. We need AV so that parliament better reflects the will of the people. At the moment MP's can be elected with 30% of the vote, leaving 60% of the vote unrepresented in the constituency.

Australia, with AV, has had less hung parliaments than we have here with first past the post.

If AV is good enough for party leadership elections, it's good enough for us plebs.

You don't have to give a second, third or fourth choice, if you don't want to. You can just vote for one candidate, if there's only one candidate you like.

Sorry, missed off the Electoral Commission link

Proles: would you vote yes for PR?

BTW, AV will not cost £130 million, as the No campaign states. £90 million has already been spent. Yet another example of politicians spinning.

Some of the votes for the winning candidate will indeed be second, or even third choices. I know that every election I have liked one candidate best, and there would be another one or two that were not bad, IMHO, but there's always some that in my opinion are dangerous. So if my not so bad candidate got elected with the help of my second or third choice, that would be entirely fine with me, so long as the one that was dangerous couldn't get my support, which they can't, of course.

An absolute no from me. I know what it means and what the consequences will be and I don't personally want it. It won't make a difference where I live anyway, but I don't feel it's the right system by any stretch of the imagination.

I feel exactly as GiddyPickle - yet again !

This is all such a nonsense - AV is akin to " bullshit baffles brains " in my opinion. If I believed PR would become an option should we vote "Yes" then I would vote for it but that is not going to happen. It will muddy the waters a little and that is about it.

Proles I asked because I do think PR is a more democratic system than FPTP and AV. I will vote yes, not because I think it will somehow lead automatically or even quickly to PR, but because I think if it's a no vote PR will be dead in the water, probably for decades at least.

Giddy: Australia has a three party system but the National Party is in more or less permanent coaltion with the Liberal Party. Any Liberal government is in fact a coalition government.

I don't think so either Proles and I don't think it would necessarily 'send a message' , but at least it won't put back the PR case altogther as a no would.

Can I say again that because I have decided to vote yes doesn't mean that I think PR will follow automatically. But I do think that PR is democratic and I am voting yes so that the argument that people couldn't even agree on AV so why bother talking about PR can't be raised. Yes, I know it's a stupid argument, but I don't want it to be available. That's all.

has no-one noticed that under first past the post, tories often make dog whistle appeals to the parties to the right of them - BNP and UKIP are already more targetted than othr non-conservative voters. Ref cameron's recent 'immigration is too much and we need to sort it out' speech - a definite BNP appeal

I love Dan Snow's explanation of AV - neat...

First past the post, might as well give up the ghost
First past the post, the people's votes are toast
First past the post, pack everything up and head for the coast

Alternative vote, no more moats
Alternative vote, that'll get their goat
Alternative vote, they won't get their oats
Alternative vote, they'll have to get their coat,
Alternative vote, don't vote by rote
Alternative vote, don't miss the boat
Alternative vote, make them take note

AV, vote free, yippee

That is not a stupid argument at all, considering the the time we have taken to get a referendum at all on the change in the voting system.FPTP suits
the main parties fine and if the NO campaign wins,PR(never the sexiest issue around) will be off the agenda for the forseeable future.

FPTP can be seen as an extension of the feudal system when the barons sent men and money to support the king.The 1832 electoral reform act
just enshrined the idea that local constituences sent representatives to govenment.In the first general election after the 1832 act the whigs and tories gained 95% of the vote between them, so FPTP worked fine in a two party system in the 19th century but not in a multiparty fully enfranchised system in the 21st century.

jennie60 is right, I think.

We don't know that the introduction of AV will definitely lead to STV at some point. Nor do we know that a rejection of AV will definitely close the door on STV.

But it is arguably more likely that a vote for AV will lead to STV at some point than a vote against AV will.

Giddy - I'm not sure why you're focusing so much on people's third choices and how much they like them, rather than their second choices. In general, I think you're coming at this from the point of view of someone who only has one clear favourite - which I can understand - but many people don't have such a clear-cut favourite, and spend time deciding how to vote. The good thing about AV is that it caters for both types of person - those who want to vote for one clear favourite and those who want to list in order of preference.

Why would they have to be equally happy with all of them? Does it matter if they like their second choice a bit less - somewhat less - than their first?