Voting whether to change the vote... Can someone explain this to me please?!

[NervousNervous]

Can anyone please explain what this vote is and what it means?

I'm completely useless when it comes to politics!!

You mean 'AV'? There's a lot about it around on places like the BBC Politics website. In a nutshell, however, the current 'first past the post' system means we vote for candidates in a constituency and the one with the most votes becomes the MP. In the 'Alternative Vote' system, we can vote for 3 candidates in order of preference and, if one of them doesn't get 50% of the vote when they are all counted, the second and third choices are then used to determine the winner.

And if this helps, David 'Eton' Cameron doesn't like the idea of AV as it won't help the Tories.
So if you hate the Tories, vote YES to AV. If you hate Nick Clegg - well, the LibDems want people to vote for AV.
Personally I shall vote 'yes'. The LibDem party isn't Nick Clegg. Most of the party seems not to like the Toryboy measures he backs, and in any case AV will be a fairer system.

There are 2 major problems with the current system FPTP:

1. People can be elected with only a minority of the vote. Some people get elected with less than 30%. This is not democratic, because most people have actually voted against them.
2. It means that people have to vote tactically to ensure one party gets most votes, rather than voting for who they really want.

AV solves both problems, while everything else is the same. So:

1. Candidates have to get the majority of the votes to be elected. If neither has a majority (over 50%), then the party with least votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed, until one candidate does have a majority.
2. Everyone can vote for who they really want, without wasting their vote. You number the candidates 1, 2, etc in order of preference (for as many candidates as there are).

Hope that helps Nervous :)

People don't 'have to vote tactically'..... some choose to and AV doesnt automatically mean the end of tactical voting, of course. Some think the ranking system could make it more possible.

As for being elected with a minority of the vote it is not at all clear which is better. When AV rules have been applied to the results of the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections the outcome in MPs was less proportional than the one provided by FPTP - a theoretical exercise, of course. And as Chris Huhne (pro) himself said when taking part in this discussion last year... (2:49 into the clip) "If you have a big swing election such as 1979 or 1997 it is pretty clear that it would be less proportional". His main objection to AV was that it didn't abolish safe seats. The LibDems were fairly cool about AV just 12 months ago but supported it as a 'minimal step in the right direction'.

I think the truth is that both systems are flawed and both are extremely similar to each other in many ways. But to argue that either is more 'democratic' by citing 'proportionality' is problematic.... neither systems achieve proportionality

Here is by Dan Snow explaining the reason for AV.

Basically, using an AV system means more people are happier.

In a safe seat are people 'happier' just because they got to indicate 1, 2 and 3? If it never gets to round 2 of the counting, aren't the people that don't like the winner in exactly the same position as FPTP? I would have thought that the illusion of choice where, in reality there is no choice, would lead to unhappiness far more directly...

They are in the same position if there's no round 2, but that would only happen (I shall be corrected if I'm wrong) if one candidate got more than 50% of the votes cast. So less people would be unhappy, some of the time.

I'm voting no, because I don't give a crap about people being unhappy