AV or not ?

[theoldbrigade]

Thoughts please.

Extreme parties are not pandered to in Australia. OTOT, in Northern Ireland, there has been room for smaller parties like Alliance and even the Women's Party some years ago. Both systems are different forms of AV from what is being proposed here but neither has been over run by fascists. Obviously I hate the BNP, but being democratic means if we want to make room for the Greens, Socialist Labour and other smaller parties, we have be prepared to accept some of the nasty stuff that comes along.

Under AV, extreme parties CANNOT get in. The elected party has to get 50% support and there is no way an extreme party would get that.

BUT under FPTP extreme parties CAN get in. In an election with 10 candidates it would be possible for the BNP to get in with 15% as the mainstream vote gets split 10 ways.

When you say "get another chance," you make it sound as if they get two chances. But that's not true, as this article explains:

this article explains.

"It is a mistake to regard this as voting a second time, and a mistake to say that this preference is worth more than anyone else's preference. At this stage no votes can been deemed to have been cast, except in the sense that voters have completed their ballot papers. Examining the preferences is a preliminary process to the final casting of the votes. The first preferences of voters for the bottom candidate are disregarded, not cast. They play no part in the final decision."

I understand that you're saying that the very fact they're an extremist voter makes their opinions dodgy, even if they vote for a mainstream party. However, if a BNP voter votes in effect for a mainstream party (as they are doing in having their second or third preference counted and their first, for the BNP, dismissed) then what is bad about that? They've voted for a mainstream party, good! Or are we supposed to screen all mainstream party voters to see whether they're not really covert BNP supporters who just decided to vote mainstream?

The argument that mainstream parties will court small extremist parties' votes only holds water, I think, in a system like that used for the Australian general elections where you have to list preferences - and even there, not that much water.

Why, in the UK, would parties risk putting off their mainstream voters by coming out with things designed to appeal to the BNP? Let's face it, even the Tories' current level of anti-immigration rhetoric hardly manages to charm the BNP voters, and if the Tories were to go significantly further right on this issue they would lose the more centrist swing voters - indeed, the sort of people who ARE likely to use preferences. So why spend that political capital courting the BNP voters - who AREN'T likely to use preferences? It would be not just a wasted effort, but counterproductive.

But the BNP rarely has enough votes to be 'valuable' to anyone. In our system, it is much more likely that either the Tories or Labour will be cultivating Lib Dem or Green votes; UKIK and then BNP would be some way behind in pretty much all seats.

Their vote can't be counted more than once, because their only actual vote is their second preference (or their third, or whichever one gets the winning candidate elected). What you refer to as their "first vote", isn't a vote but a preference. The vote is actually cast when the winning candidate makes the grade. That's not dressing it up, it's what happens.

The campaign literature won't be more full of tough immigration policies, because that would put off the centrist swing voters/anger the membership without gaining BNP voters, who are much more likely to say "BNP and sod the rest of them" i.e. not put down any other preferences. It would be a stupid strategy.

With UKIP - yes, I think there would be pandering to UKIP by the Tories, but it's likely that there would be less of it than at the moment, not more, since all they'll want to do is ensure that UKIP voters put the Tories second - not too difficult - whereas now they're trying to ensure that UKIP voters put the Tories first.

No, gosh no.

The most active smaller parties in the UK are the BNP, UKIP and the Greens. The most likely to be eliminated in earlier rounds.

Greens fair enough, but AV means the second and third choices of BNP and UKIP voters, whose candidates will be eliminated, will have greater weight. Their views will count again, and maybe again.

I accept they'll probably go to the Tories, and I'd want the Tories to win. But I don't want extreme right-wingers to have any more influence than they do at the moment.

Oh gosh this thread is way ahead of me.

Glad others feel the same way though.

Yes, though I would prefer PR.

Am I right in thinking that whilst the Tories emphatically deny the benefits of AV, it is the very same system by which they elect their leader?
Apologies if this has already been addressed, not read the whole thread.

Yes the tory system is AV, just a more expensive and long winded way of doing it.

The labour party also use AV, but then they use a system so that different peoples votes are worth a different amount - ie an MPs vote counts more than an ordinary members.

You are explaining why AV is better - people can vote honestly what their preference are rather than adjusting them throughout to try as the game shifts. AV is also called 'instant runoff' because it is an instant way to follow the x-factor-type elimination. As for 'they use first past the post in the last round' so, effectively, does AV - first past the post is a great system for an either/or choice, as it was designed for, but terrible when views lie in more than two areas - see

Allow me to reiterate that extreme right wingers have not over-run the countries where AV or a version of it has been introduced. The scenarios under discussion here are unlikely and the status quo will more likley be replicated under AV. Much as I don't think AV is a particulalry democratic system, we do have to be careful of viewing the least likely scenarios as the norm under AV. I am also at the notion of retaining a voting system because of its effectiveness in keeping some people out. Why not be just work out who BNP voters are likely to be and simply disenfranchise them?

AV is fairer because politicians need the support of most voters.
AV is fairer because you dont have to vote tactically - you can vote for who you really want, in order of preference.

So AV is a system that makes most people happier.

Giddy - everyone votes for who they really want with their 1st choice like the tory and labour leadership system
if no-one has the majority (over 50%), the candidate with least votes is eliminated like the tory and labour leadership system
Their votes then count for their 2nd choice. The other voters still count for their 1st choice. like the tory and labour leadership system
The candidate with least votes continues to be eliminated and votes reassigned until one has over 50%. like the tory and labour leadership system

Your example of the way David Cam was selected is a good example. On 1st choices, David Davis would have won (like FPTP). But most people actually didnt want him. After further rounds (like AV) they found most people prefered Dave Cam. This is exactly what AV does.

Hiya

Just wanted to let you know that we've got Prezza (No campaign) and Katie Ghose (Yes campaign) coming on tomorrow to talk all things AV if you want to pop along to this thread

Hiya

Just wanted to let you know that we've got Prezza (No campaign) and Katie Ghose (Yes campaign) coming on tomorrow to talk all things AV if you want to pop along to this thread and ask a questions

Giddy, Sometimes I think you are being deliberately uninformed sounding - I was referring to the last round of the tory leadership being first past the post, because there are only two options - you said it yourself. IN your example, 50% of people have Libdem 1st r 2nd, 45% Labour 1st and 2nd, Tory 50% 1st and 2nd, UKIP 50% first and second If you treat the right as tory, UKIP and the left as Libdem/Labour This constuency leans more right than left with first and second prev count indicating a very close seat opinion-wise. Sounds like your are illustrating how effective AV is at returning an appropriate result :)