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.

So Giddy you would vote YES to PR but NO to AV? I know there is a campaign saying just this but personally I think a NO to AV would rule out any future change to the voting system for a decade or two: it would clearly be interpreted by most as "keep the status quo".

I think anybody who really wants PR should vote yes to AV and then keep the pressure up for a system such as AV+.

AV clearly gives a much stronger voice to small parties and allows them to grow. FPTP is archaic and only valid for a choice between two parties.

Here is a discussion of the issues around FPTP and a list of the countries that use it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

In particular you can see how FPTP becomes more and more unfair as more people want something other than one of the two biggest parties - and the share of the vote in this country going elsewhere has steadily increased this century, making FPTP less and less fit for purpose.

India, Canada, Malaysia and a few others stand out as modern successful democracies but there aren't that many countries on the list that I feel we should be aiming to emulate.

GiddyPickle, why are the Tories fighting so hard against AV, then? Why do the 'No' campaigners seem so desperate, if the results wouldn't have any effect either way?

(Genuine Q)

1 and 2 Giddy stop being so blind, please, the voters you talk about were asked what their first and second preferences would be IN FIRST PAST THE POST and they, unsurprisingly gave an answer in favour of the two main parties. A guy called David Hugh-Jones at the University of Warwick has done a slightly better analysis, but this suffers from the bias that most people in the UK understand politics through the prism of needing to vote for the opposite party to the party you most dislike - ie how you have to vote in first past the post.

3 - you say AV is bad because it produces a winner, but first past the post produces an even more unfair (in terms of minority rule) winner - why is a 'winner' system bad under AV but not bad under FPTP?

1. The reason why half of labour are voting no is because crush the tory now or not, the only opposition to tory is labour and the only opposition to labour is tory under first past the post. Half of labour want a predictible two party system in which labour will always get the chance after conservative no matter what the country wants. The reason? Its much easier to run one of two giant companies who dominate the market than deal with lots of annoying unpredictible innovative companies who are leaner, more exciting and more cutting edge. No market leaders like new entrants.

Yes to AV, although a poor relation of PR!! It will end up a no vote I'm sure but who knows what will happen to the coalition..lots of bad feelings all round! Oh dear..do you think they will split??? Here's hoping!!

And its important to note that under first past the post governments do not change when the opposition is best placed to form a government,governments only change when the core voters of the party in power are so sick of their party that they are prepared to allow the opposite party in by voting for a third party that splits or 'spoils' (see ) the vote for the party in opposition - in essence we get a change of government when enough supporters for the party in government are annoyed enough to vote in a way that absolutely ensures their current party will lose.

That is why first past the post is unfair.

sorry that their current party will lose , but the party they vote for will also lose

I really don''t understand the av stuff,i thought it was fairer than the fptp was discussing it with df the other day and he said it was fundamentally unfair because it gave people numerous votes.am thick and pretty clueless,can somebody explain it to me in idiot terms? many thanks

The 'unfairness' he's probably referring to MavisEnderby is that, whilst everyone gets to choose 1, 2, 3 from the list of candidates, the only people who get their #2 or #3 vote counted are the ones who vote for the low-polling parties that get eliminated. If you vote for a high-polling candidate as #1 you only get one bite at the cherry.

An example. Reds get 40%, Blues get 40% and Greens get 20%. There is no clear winner so the Green candidate get eliminated and the ballot papers are re-examined. Green voters get their #2 choices counted and reallocated to the Red and Blue candidates. Green voters have had two votes taken into account. Those who voted Red or Blue have to stick with their original choice. They have had just one vote taken into account.

'Fairer' is a subjective quality.

I should expand on 'fairer' so that I'm not one-sided :)

If, in my above example, the Reds got 41%, the Blues 39% and the Greens 20% the Reds would win under FPTP. So the 59% of voters that didn't vote Red but end up with a Red MP can say this is 'unfair'.

It depends therefore on what you think is the most unfair... i.e. winning candidates that don't get the support of the majority of the voters OR candidates winning because of the 2nd and 3rd votes of a minority of voters.

In Chil's example, if a bit more than half of the green voters put blue second, blue would overtake red in the second round of AV and win.

Which is fairer? Well if you had three separate head to head votes, Red vs Blue; Red vs Green; Blue vs Green what would happen? Blue would beat both red and green. So the result given by AV is very definitely fairer.

Mavis I wrote quite a long explanation in AIBU yesterday, and there are some useful other comments there. Take a look:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1206359-to-ask-for-your-opinion-on-the-AV-referendum?pg=3

Why would blue beat red? You are making assumptions about second preferences that aren't in the data.

I did say "if a bit more than half of the green voters put blue second"

Of course if most of the greens put red second, red would win under both systems - in this case both systems give a fair result; red would win a head to head against either blue or green.

The point is that AV gives the right result in both scenarios, FPTP does not.

just heard Peter Stringfellow on radio 2. If ever there was a reason to vote YES then he was it. We need something more democratic and AV is the best option at the moment. My vote hasn't counted for the last 20 years. Perhaps if AV is brought nothing will change in my constituency but there is a better chance, at the moment there is absolutely no chance.

Johann Hari is a class A berk. If he's coming out in support of AV that makes me automatically want to vote No.

Given that we have managed to get one Green MP even under the ridiculously unfair FPTP system I think there is a good chance of getting more, with time, under AV.

For votes to count in safe seats you need PR: if we say NO to change now we will not get an opportunity to ask for change again for many many years.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk

I'm voting AV after seeing this!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk

Someone voting for a party that is not eliminated is effectively saying:
Here's how Av works...
Person whose preferred winner is never eliminated:
My first preference is that my vote goes to Funny Juggler
at Round 2. Funny Juggler hasn't lost the first round, the election has not produced a winner, so I would still like my vote to go to Funny Juggler
at Round 3. Funny Juggler is still in! go juggler! I would still like my vote to go to Funny Juggler
at Last round: The election has not produced a winner, Funny Juggler
is one of the two stongest candidates and I would still like my vote to go to Funny Juggler.

Someone voting for a party that is eliminated in the second round, who had expressed a second preference is saying:

My first preference is that my vote goes to Surprisingly Good Singer. when votes are counted:
at Round 2: Surprisingly Good Singer hasn't lost but the election has not produced a winner, so I would still like my vote to go to Surprisingly Good Singer
at Round 3: Surprisingly Good Singer has lost! she has been eliminated, but there is still no winner, because its not the final, so I can't vote for her in this round or later rounds. Because I can't vote for Surprisingly Good Singer, so I would like my vote to go to Dance Toupe from South London.
at last round - Dance Toupe from South London is in the final! One of the strongest candidates!!! I would still like my vote to be with Dance Toupe from South London!

That is a much fairer system than first past the post because it means that someone can say 'I would really like Dance Toupe from South London' until that troupe are eliminated, then their vote is switched when the 'final' is announced.

This happens in so many sports, talent shows, etc (especially ones where simon cowell is involved) because elimination voting gets the biggest crowd behind each candidate which is what politics should be about.