AV or not ?

[theoldbrigade]

Thoughts please.

Here is a by Dan Snow explaining AV

No Maybe Yes

There that's my 3 votes. So if No comes last then I'll have a second vote for Maybe please. If they then fall by the wayside then count my vote for Yes please.

It's not complicated it's just a cr*p idea.

hahaha

The idea that past elections would be the same was based on the incorrect assumption (see the work of many political scientists on this issue eg davidhughjones.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html or the work he improves on by Sanders et al) that first preferences would be the same - they won't.

In making these calculations people were only asked 'who would have been your second preference at the time' It is incorrect to assume this - I certainly won't be voting the same first preference if AV comes in and neither will most of my friends.

So you only want a democratically fair system that does what you want?!?

i'll be voting yes, and i can't be bothered arguing on MN so here are some links why...

johannhari.com/2011/04/22/if-you-get-the-x-factor-you-can-get-av

www.facebook.com/#!/notes/peter-bensley/why-im-voting-yes-in-the-av-referendum/10150171924528129

rdouglasjohnson.com/misc/av-dogshit.gif

This Guardian article outlines research by the IPPR showing that a move to AV won't mean the BNP gets to choose the winner.

"They [the IPPR] show there to be 56 seats where the share of the BNP vote exceeds the gap between the first-placed candidate and the 50% threshold they need to cross and where, if all BNP supporters transferred their second preferences as a bloc, could help the lead candidate win.

They then show that the 2010 British election survey ? which asked 13,356 people to take part in a mock election run under their AV system ? found the number of seats where the second preference of those voting BNP push a winning candidate over the 50% threshold fell to 25.

However, the IPPR researchers show that in all 25 seats the second preferences of the BNP are not "decisive" and the second preferences of others just as critical. They show that in the 25, the first-placed candidate is within "spitting distance" of the finishing line and the average gap between the first and second placed candidate is 24.52%, which they say is "larger than the share of the vote of any third-placed candidate whose votes would be needed to change the result".

"In other words there is no chance that BNP second preference votes could alter the outcome in any of these seats. In all of them the winner on first preferences will be the winner once votes have been reallocated in subsequent rounds irrespective of the role played by BNP votes."

The IPPR researchers also dissect the idea that BNP voters could change the balance of power in constituencies by pushing a second or third place candidate into first place and over the 50% threshold on the back of its transferred votes.

Results from the 2010 election show that there is not one constituency where the BNP vote share is larger than the margin between 50% and that received by the runner-up. Their researchers say: "Given the marginality and distance from 50% for both the first and second placed candidates it is true that BNP supporters' second or third preferences will be counted in the 35 seats listed by the 'No to AV' campaign.

"However, the BNP vote is still very small in each of these seats, averaging a vote share of just 4.5% ? yet the average distance from 50% for the winning candidate is 11.3% and 14.2% for the runner-up. Even if we assume all BNP preferences go to a single candidate (which they wouldn't) they would still require more than twice the number of BNP supporters to win under AV. BNP voters cannot therefore single-handedly change a result."

OK, so the Independent puts it a little more succinctly:

"A study of voting patterns for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think-tank contradicts claims by opponents of electoral reform that AV would mean BNP supporters having an extra bearing on election results.

The IPPR report, to be published next week, concludes that BNP voters could not have changed the outcome in any Westminster seat if last year's general election had been held under AV. It considered whether a mass transfer of BNP supporters' votes alone could have pushed a candidate over the 50 per cent threshold required under AV and examined whether their second preferences could have produced different winners from the actual victors in May 2010. It concluded: "Those that claim the BNP could exert influence in elections under AV seriously overestimate their chances of doing so."

The IPPR examined dozens of marginal seats where the BNP performed relatively strongly last year, but could not identify anywhere its supporters could have made a difference."

No2AV's arguments re. the BNP hold about as much water as their pick-a-number estimates of what AV would cost...

...in the immortal words..

they would say that wouldn't they

anyway don't forget that's the last election -- big jump in support since then?

'No they don't use AV - they use an Exhaustive Ballot system where you vote for one person (using an X in the box) and after each round you KNOW who has been knocked out and can then have a good think about which of the remaining candidates to vote for. '

Aside from the relatively insignificant difference of knowing which candidate has been eliminated, the systems are basically the same, though. The voter's order of preference would not be altered by this knowledge, would it? After all, when you vote in an AV ballot you imagine who your 2nd preference candidate would be should your 1st choice be eliminated, no?

Ok - so the IPPR concludes that the BNP couldnt have influenced any result, but that, for me, isn't really the problem. The problem is that its unfair in principle - voters of 4th or 5th placed parties are going to be more likely to get a say, than the second or third placed parties, their 2nd preference is counted first. So if you're voting for the party that comes second, you lose, your opinion is not equally represented.

This idea that AV means you get more than one vote / supporters of the smallest parties have more influence is a very twisted way of looking at it.

Try to put the ridiculous claims of the NO campaign aside and think about what it really means.

The smallest party gets eliminated. Effectively the election is re-run without them in it. Exhaustive Ballot without the expense of multiple elections.

If you vote for the party that comes second, yes you lose, but your opinion is very clearly represented.

AV allows people to put the party they like best first, even if they know it is unlikely to win. It gives small parties a chance of growing in support. It prevents a party with a minority of support winning due to vote splitting between other parties.

It is clearly a fairer way of electing a constituency MP and the only reason to vote against it is because you are afraid that your preferred party will do less well. Unfortunately it is unclear (between labour and tories) who will do better...

Haha fluffles "they had no parma violets, only smarties and dogshit. As I had no information on your second preference, I got you a bag of dogshit

good post paul88

Absolutely yes

No from me, and the lib dems behaviour is pathetic at present.

GiddyPickle - we all know that AV is not PR.

The point about putting Green then Labour (or BNP then tory, or whatever), is not that you feel happier. It is that you can put a small party first without wasting your vote. All of a sudden supporters of small parties can vote honestly and you never know they just might end up winning some seats.

chipstick - I completely agree about the lib dems but maybe if they were better represented they wouldn't have to behave this way...

It seems to me this is a bigger issue than today's politics / parties.

I will be voting YES...

No to AV.

The parties supporting NotoAV, as stated on their facebook page are...... drumroll....

• Conservative Party
• British National Party
• Respect Party
• Communist Party

FYI.

The system used by the Conservatives to elect their leadership is a form of AV. It would be really expensive to use for General Elections.

If we get AV this time, then I have no doubt that the system, if found wanting in practice, will be tweaked and may morph into AV+ or a form of PR. If the NO campaign wins out (and the fat lady has yet to sing) then that's your lot, folks, it's going to be FPTP for a generation more.

Ghana and North Korea use FPTP, along with 58 other countries, out of 242 in all. Note. That is 25% that use FPTP as we do at present. Hardly a majority. Reference: Nationmaster.com... she loves to count ... The others use a modified version, with a run off after the first ballot, or one of the forms of PR/AV.

FPTP only works in a two party state, which we ceased to be when the Labour Party was formed at the end of the Victorian era. The situation became critical with the resurgence of the Liberals post war, and now the rise of the Greens. Do you really want a large portion of the electorate to be disillusioned with politics? Because keeping the present system means exactly that. That is why many young people are behind the Yes campaign.

Our electoral system has been broken for years, for the reasons outlined in my last paragraph. The turnout has been shrinking. Why exactly do you think that is? Could it be that up to 70% of the electorate are not represented by the government of the day? Could it be that if your preferred candidate is not one of the two front runners, then it feels like a waste to vote for the candidate that you actually prefer, forcing a decision on tactical voting?

I believe we in are fighting for a system that engages more of the population in democracy. I believe if we keep FPTP the turn out will continue to fall and the alienation from politics will continue to grow. That can never be a good thing, surely?

Hi Giddypickle,

What's not true? If you look at this facebook page www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/NOtoAV/209554229062422 you will see the party names I copied and pasted above. It is true. Check it out.

You say AV still means Tory or Labour will always win
You can see the future? What's the winning numbers for Saturday's lottery? PM me please (don't want to split the prize too many ways, do we?)