could someone please explain AV to me?

[ilovemydogandMrObama]

Aside from the, 'babies will die' argument if it does go through, I don't understand how the votes would be transferred? Is it below a certain percentage that the votes would go to the next candidate?

I think -
You mark the candidates you prefer in order, ie. 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc.
The candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and the people who had voted him/her have their second choice vote counted.
Then the candidate who has the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the people who had voted for him have their second choice counted - unless you have voted for the 1st and 2nd to be thrown out, in which case your 3rd vote is counted.
Etc. etc. until one candidate secures over 50% of the vote.
Am very happy to be corrected!

I am concerned at the number of people who really don't understand how it works - and haven't seen much effort in trying to help them understand by anyone - at least, in a non-hysterical way.

Absolutely agree that a lot of people don't understand the system! Myself included!

Was listening to The Today Program and it seems that even John Humphrey doesn't understand....

So, it's to make up the difference to 50%?

Yep - someone has to get over 50% of the votes to win. 'Votes' in this case includes 2nd, 3rd etc. preferences.

I think of it as a way of choosing the 'least hated' candidate and am therefore in favour!

[[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1202666-to-ask-what-exactly-AV-is/AllOnOnePage#25082302 this thread] discussed it - and links to a video that explains it.

It really isn't that difficult.

thread

Everyone votes for candidates in order of preference and the votes are counted. If one candidate has received 50% or more of the votes then the contest is over and they are declared the winner.

If no candidate has 50% of the votes then the candidate scoring the least votes is eliminated. The pople that voted the eliminated candidate 1st place then get theiir second choice taken into account. These votes are added to the original votes. If the new count means someone has 50% of the vote, they win. If not, the process is repeated.

In short, in a 'safe' seat where one candidate is likely to get more than 50% of the votes, AV will make no difference. In a marginal seat where clear winners are less likely, 2nd and 3rd choices of those who like unpopular parties could influence the outcome. Neither AV nor FPTP result in a 'proportional' outcome.

Thanks for explaining this chil and for pointing out that AV is not proportional representation which I thought was the Lib Dem policy on changing the voting system, but guess with a coalition, there had to be a compromise...

It's an interesting fact that, in certain situations, AV may even be less proportional than FPTP. I understand that in a 'landslide' General Election situation such as 1979 or 1997 the number of MPs in Parliament would have been slightly less proportional if AV had been in place. But that in closer elections, like the one last year, an AV result would have been slightly more proportional

But no... neither is proportional in the sense of X% vote for a party and that party gets X% of the MPS. For that you need PR and, if Clegg had had any sense at all, that's what he would have held out for rather than being rushed by the media into forming a coalition. But he didn't and we're left choosing from two systems which have far more similarities than they have differences. That's why it's such a boring contest and why people on both sides have taken to 'playing the man and not the ball'. :)

BTW... Humphrys' was stopped by the PM this morning because he said that everyone's 2nd vote gets taken into account. In reality, under AV, only the people that vote for the low-polling candidates get their 2nd or 3rd vote counted in the next round. Those who vote for a high-polling candidate are likely to only get their 1st choice counted. In something like the Labour leadership contest (which AV sometimes gets compared with), after each round of voting the low-polling candidates are eliminated and then everyone gets to vote again. So you can change your mind for the 2nd or 3rd rounds when you see the results. With AV that doesn't happen.

Humphrys was appalling this morning but then he often is - fancies himself too much.

There is nothing hard to understand. In fact a good analogy is with the X Factor which I think most people get. The least popular candidate gets voted off. The people who voted for that candidate get their votes transferred to their next preference. The least popular of those left gets voted off. Keep going until one candidate had 50% - which may happen before you get to the last two.

Instead of having multiple elections with one fewer candidate each time, get people to express their preferences in one go.

It will take slightly longer to count than an ordinary election but no need for machines or extra expense.

No AV is nothing to do with PR - but it is a better way to elect a constituency MP

I'm guessing that in the last election, Labour would have won if we'd had AV then. My reasoning being that LibDems would probably for the most part have made Labour their second preference.

John Humphrys' interview about AV on yesterday's 'Today' programme was really good, I thought. It spoke volumes that his interviewee, Prime Minister, David Cameron, would not condemn the disreputable 'dead babies' lies being spread by the 'No to AV' campaign.

I'm voting YES. But I'm sorry to say I don't think the YES TO AV campaign will win.

Still, you never know. Fingers crossed.

Labour would still not have had a majority and would still have had fewer seats than the tories. So although the LDs would have had more seats, and potentially more power, it would still have been hard for them to choose to work with Labour: they had been very clear that they would go with who the public voted for.