Alternative Vote

[grumpyhack]

Over the years I've lived in constituences that have been rock solid Tory and rock solid Labour. In all those locations my vote probably made little difference though I still voted.

I would love to think that my vote could actually make a difference. But short of moving to a marginal the only way things will change will be with PR.

AV is far from ideal but I see it as at least a step down that road. As Neil says, if it's rejected that will probably kick the possibility of full PR into touch for years.

[eFestivals]

just like to add how cute it is that Neil laughs at his own jokes,

repeatedly...

I'm not laughing at my "own joke", I'm laughing at the irony of voting for something which isn't my first choice for a voting system, where that voting system gives some weight to votes that aren't people's first choice.

Do keep up.

[diddly-dee]

Over the years I've lived in constituences that have been rock solid Tory and rock solid Labour. In all those locations my vote probably made little difference though I still voted.

I would love to think that my vote could actually make a difference. But short of moving to a marginal the only way things will change will be with PR.

AV is far from ideal but I see it as at least a step down that road. As Neil says, if it's rejected that will probably kick the possibility of full PR into touch for years.

[eFestivals]

I don't need the clarity... I understand and recognise it for the shite system it is...

AV is a shite system.

But FPTP is more of a shite system. After all, we have a system of representative govt where the elected representative often doesn't represent the majority of views in the area that's voted for them.

AV is a shite system, but it shades it by being more representative of the people's views, so that the overall result in parliament will also be more representative of the people's views.

[worm]

I'm not laughing at my "own joke", I'm laughing at the irony of voting for something which isn't my first choice for a voting system, where that voting system gives some weight to votes that aren't people's first choice.

Edited April 18, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I'm voting for AV because it's ostensibly the same principle as the current framework, but without the chance of a dead heat or tie. It's like a cup match as opposed to a league match, in that it has a penalty shoot out.

[eFestivals]

You kept repeating the joke though, while laughing at it. He has a point.

You mean that I keep pointing out the irony of the fact that we're being asked to vote on a system that few people really want while being denied a vote on the system that people do want.

He has a point and you have a point only if you're both very simple minded.

[eFestivals]

like your Chris Rea and Dire Straits 'joke'

ahhh, that's a joke so good it needs to be told at least daily.

I didn't mean to offend

You didn't, you made me laugh. Lots.

[Kowalski]

Better than the current system so I'll be voting for AV, but I'd rather it was PR.

Might be the only chance we'll get to change the electoral system in my lifetime.

[worm]

You mean that I keep pointing out the irony of the fact that we're being asked to vote on a system that few people really want while being denied a vote on the system that people do want.

[rexclark]

Better than the current system so I'll be voting for AV, but I'd rather it was PR.

Might be the only chance we'll get to change the electoral system in my lifetime.

[grumpyhack]

If Dave Moron and John Reid are in favour of keeping the present system that's got to be a reason for voting for AV. I'm in Eddie Izzard's camp - though that may be the wrong phrase.

[doogie]

here's a thing about AV...

if no-one has enough votes (over 50%), why should it be the preferences of the votes for the least popular party (the one who came last) that comes into play..

surely it should be everyone's preferences, not just the 'losers'... it doesn't make sense to me

[rabid]

Better than the current system so I'll be voting for AV, but I'd rather it was PR.

Might be the only chance we'll get to change the electoral system in my lifetime.

[Kowalski]

This is a concern of mine. If we say yes to AV could we then be stuck with that and have no chance of going for PR?

[eFestivals]

I was looking at this, which seems to be saying that when a party is eliminated (it could be the BNP, or the Greens... or whoever), it's the second choice of whoever voted for that party that comes into play.

which doesn't seem right to me.. it's like a reward for voting for the losers....

There's LOADS of elections all around the world where exactly this happens. The only difference with them is that each time someone is eliminated they all have to vote again. With AV, the process is done in one simple hit.

All AV really means is that there's a vote-off for the two most popular candidates, where everyone votes for those candidates and no one's vote is ignored for those two candidates.

The way it's presented as "some people's votes are worth more than others" is just bollocks. If that's true of AV, then it's similarly true with FPTP that typically around 40% of people don't get a vote at all.

[rabid]

If we say no to AV then those in the Tory and Labour parties who want to stick with FPTP could use it to say that the public don't want a change in the voting system and we'll be stuck with FPTP for a very long time.

AV > FPTP. It's a no brainer for me.

[eFestivals]

No, I mean that you keep inanely pointing out the same irony, while laughing at it.

I keep pointing out the irony. You keep making inane comments about it. That's how it really is, wing-nut.

[eFestivals]

which avoids the anomally I'm pointing out

no it doesn't, it's no different at all in how the votes are counted. The only difference it doinmg it in one process and not multiple processes.

I think if everyone got the chance to vote again after some parties have been eliminated, it would make more sense

but that's EXACTLY what the proposed AV does, but just in one process. It makes no difference whatsoever if it's done in one process or multiple processes, exact it's far cheaper to do in one process.

seems to be the case to me

how exactly? Does anyone get more than one vote? No they don't.

oh good, it's as unfair as the system we already have then?

No, it's not. Everyone's vote is meaningful in AV, but it's not in FPTP.

[worm]

There's LOADS of elections all around the world where exactly this happens. The only difference with them is that each time someone is eliminated they all have to vote again. With AV, the process is done in one simple hit.

All AV really means is that there's a vote-off for the two most popular candidates, where everyone votes for those candidates and no one's vote is ignored for those two candidates.

The way it's presented as "some people's votes are worth more than others" is just bollocks. If that's true of AV, then it's similarly true with FPTP that typically around 40% of people don't get a vote at all.

[worm]

I keep pointing out the irony.

[diddly-dee]

I was looking at this, which seems to be saying that when a party is eliminated (it could be the BNP, or the Greens... or whoever), it's the second choice of whoever voted for that party that comes into play.

which doesn't seem right to me.. it's like a reward for voting for the losers....

[diddly-dee]

Aye, we've all got it now Oscar.

[TalkShow Bob]

I was looking at this, which seems to be saying that when a party is eliminated (it could be the BNP, or the Greens... or whoever), it's the second choice of whoever voted for that party that comes into play.

which doesn't seem right to me.. it's like a reward for voting for the losers....

[llcoolphil]

This is a concern of mine. If we say yes to AV could we then be stuck with that and have no chance of going for PR?