YES YES YES to AV

[ItsGrimUpNorth]

Very interesting article on how uncomplicated it actually is and the bull spewed forth by the No to AV campaign.

Anything that has Cameron and Osbourne worried makes me want to vote for AV even more.

Just marking my place to read later on. It would be interesting if you posted your actual reason for being against it - just because C&O are worried about it isn't really a good basis for a decision :)

What you'll find is that the 'bull' is exactly the same on both sides..... even the reasons are the same on both sides. Both are claiming that their system is simpler, cheaper, more democratic, holds MPs more responsible etc. etc. You can't blame those wanting to persuade us either way that their case is the best. They wouldn't get very far if they didn't. As ever, listen to all the arguments, don't let your feelings about individual personalities cloud your judgement, and make up your own mind.

Unfortunately for you OP the result will be no to AV.

Time will tell. AV is the better system in a political arena with more than two candidates. No contest.

I bloody hope it is yes to AV - the stuff I read about how first past the (no) post FPTP makes my blood boil you can have a candidate win on a tiny amount of votes compared to the number of people voting, and a candidate can repeatedy win on core vote only UNLESS everyone votes for only one opposition party - which means that the only outcome of first past the post is two party politics - we have had labour/conservative switching for far too long and though many people like libdems, they can't get any where because anyone who votes for them is aware that because this splits their party's vote it is a votfor their main opposition - its crazy to have a system like that.

It's not perfect Missing, but the candidate who wins is the one with the most votes - if any of the others were totally amazing, surely they'd get the votes to win.

You can't force people to vote for just one other person - everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

No that's not how first past the post works - in order to win you have to have more than the next candidate so elections are more fought on beating the opposition to your preferred big party than on garnering supportacross the board. if a small party gains some power, then its votes are taken out of the fight between the two main rivals. Because the third party will draw support largely from one rather than the other, each vote for the new party ensures that BOTH your old party and your new party will lose the election. The first time this happens people think 'oh, the one I least wanted won because I switched my vote' the next time they think 'if I support the third party, it never wins because it has votes largely from my old party and again my least favourite party has got in I don't want them to get in again, and my old party is the biggest round here, I had better vote for them in order to help them win'

Sometimes the third party will withdraw from an area in order to not split an anti-vote eg UKIP stepping down from close labour -conservative constituencies to not split the tory vote, and libdem stepping down from wards to help labour beat a tory in what would otherwise be a close fought three way marginal.

One technique in FPTP is to encourage a split candidate eg encourage an independent conservative or UKIP candidate to draw a few percent away from conservatives to effect a labour or libdem win. Under AV all these tactics become redundant.

Not immediately Giddy, but over time smaller parties can gain strength if the electorate wants them to under FPTP there is no choice once the main two parties become fixed, those two will be the main parties for ever its predictible and shown to be the case in practice - when FPTP was introduced as a temporary measure when 97% of the country were labour or tory 100 years later (bit less) we still have the same two main parties. IN the US where lots of regional elections have AV, but the overwhelming system is first past the post (though with some primaries etc), the presidential election still only ever returns a democrat or a republican. George Bush won because the opposition was split by a late entrant but would have lost had this not happened and under AV. I'm not sure, but I don't think Bush was a really effective president. Obama would have won in either case, but in fact george bush was so bloody awful it was already enough of a shift in the country to go democrat whatever system.

Missing - as far as I know, the UK has always used first past the post. Can you reference something about this change? I can't find anything. Up to the 1920s the two main parties were Tories and liberals, so it certainly is possible for a third party to break through. Labour did.

It is very sad that the YES campaign has been run so badly, focusing on negative things and arguing about who will win or gain instead of simply giving examples to show that AV is the fairest way of electing a constituency MP.

The constituency MP vs PR debate is a separate one and it is silly to stick with a bad way of electing constituency MPs because you want a proportional house of commons. You can't have PR and single constituency MPs.

Of course with two parties, FPTP and AV are identical. It is only as more parties gain support that AV makes a difference. With five parties with nearly equal support, an MP could get a seat with the votes of just over 20% of the electorate.

When you have multiple candidates for a job, AV is what works. It is what all trades and student unions use; most political parties; etc etc. Show me a new legislature over the last 20 years that has chosen FPTP as its electoral system.

Lets get past the party politics and vote for an improvement in the political system.

But isn't it the reason that organisations end up with one of their 'not so strong' choices, as a compromise. ie. Labour with Ed Milliband??

What other countries use AV - can we see where it works???

Ed Miliband won fair and square. The people with the votes preferred him. It was a close call but that is life. Nobody has claimed that a different voting system would have been better.

Take that as an example - ignoring the different colleges (MPs / party members / union members). You have five candidates standing. So called first past the post would mean that someone could win with the support of 21% of the voters. Nobody would call that fair.

In fact I realise that first past the post is a complete misnomer: there is no fixed post to get past, you just have to get more votes than anyone else - in the case above maybe as few as 21%. AV actually DOES have a winning post - 50%.

Most states that have moved on from old style simplistic voting (sometimes called FPTP) have moved to some sort of PR which is why the list of countries with AV is so short. If you want to "maintain the constituency link" the fairest way is AV.

Many countries have a runoff system which is like AV but costs twice as much: you have two rounds, and all but the top two candidates are eliminated in the first round so you get a head to head in the second round.

No other country in europe uses FPTP

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_nation

I'm of mixed minds on AV still have not decided

Actually I prefer the one where the top two candidates get through, so you then have a straighforward choice. It's everyone sulking that their chosen one didn't get voted in, so voting for the Monster Raving Looney Party as their second choice that worries me.

Voting looney second won't have much effect. Assuming their first choice party is bigger than the looneys, the looneys will get redistributed before their first choice, so when their vote gets redistributed it will go straight to their third choice, if they have made one.

I have yet to see an example where AV doesn't give either the same result as FPTP or a fairer one.

I'm thinking of voting yes for four main reasons:

1 We've tried FPTP for years and it's clearly unfair - it leaves thousands of voters in safe seats totally without representation.

2 I think AV would have the effect of diluting the power of the two major parties. I imagine the reason the Tories and many Labour politicians want it is because as well as being slightly more likely to perpetuate a two-party system, it is also much more likely to concentrate power in a very few hands once the elections are over.

3 I think it's time for the smaller parties to be given a voice - as they also represent a lot of people's views. Even if AV doesn't change the actual results of the election, under AV the smaller parties will have far more power to influence the policies of the government once it has been elected, than under FPTP. This would benefit the Greens for example, but not the BNP because no party could possibly allow itself to be seen to be influenced by racist views. On the other hand, all the parties want to be seen to have greener policies.

4 Finally, I have completely lost trust in election promises. I think the parties just say what they think will get them elected and then bring in policies for which they have no mandate. Under AV, they will be held to account more, and will have to honour their promises.

I suppose all my points add up to the same thing. I'm not saying the outcome of the election will be different, just that the amount of influence of the smaller parties after the election will be higher and will dilute the power of whichever party wins. That's a good thing, imo.

Plus I think the system as it stands is unfair, and I'd like a change.

An example of what I mean about honouring promises is that imo one of the reasons the present government broke its promises is because it was persuaded to do so by powerful pressure groups, which usually represent big business. Under AV these pressure groups will have to bribe woo all the parties, not just the two big ones, and that might (I hope) dilute their power, or at least make them modify their demands.

dilute the power of the pressure groups

Giddy you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of AV and its impact.
1 and 2. People vote differently under AV than they do under FPTP - because under fist past the post you can't take the risk to move away from a big party in case that lets a party you don't want to win. Many people who vote for Labour and conservative are doing so not because that is their first choice but because Labour is the only party that can keep the conservatives out, and Conservatives are the only party that can keep Labour out. Under AV people can vote for who they want without that risk - if a smaller party is growing in support significantly people can vote for it, and it will eventually become eliminated later in the count, and then be in at the end. Under first past the post, people bounce back to the two main parties regardless of what they really want. History of voting and presence of smaller parties would be different over that 100 year period if it had all been AV.

1. Small parties will show support closer to their real support under AV, not only the ones who are too angry with the other parties, or who don't understand the spoiler effect (splitting the vote) that doing so has. We will know more about small party support, and that confidence will allow some smaller parties to get proper recognition and either a boost or not depending on real support. I know many in my constiuency who have been itching for years to vote green but don't because they don't want the conservatives back in, and so vote labour.... that could tip a green win or a sudden realisation that the greens are a real force in the area.

1. The honouring promises probably comes from the increased vulnerability most MPs especially conservative MPs will feel under AV - most labour MPs have good tacit support from many parties on the left. Typically conservatives do not (ie the conservative vote is far less split). Conservatives are worried that a combined left vote would overturn the frankly very small amount of suppport the conservatives have in this country at the moment - and they are worried that this could oust them from politics in their current form when their older party membership dies away (literally). (average age of conservative party members is 68). The anger against thatcher and now the conservative led cuts means that this isn't altogether unrealistic.

I do think its surprising how much in a flap No supporters are and how people hang on to a preferred misunderstanding of AV.

The fact is that we are the last country in europe to use FPTP and 50% of people are hoping to get rid of it. Australians are reading the fear and panic from the no campaign with high amusement.