Alternative Vote

[rabid]

yup - that's the way it normally works with PR lists.

That part of things is the most unappealing part of PR, because each MP who gets his seat via a list* gets his powerbase from the party leadership and not the electorate. This means that they have less scope to assert their own ideas against the party's ideas.

(* depending which PR system is used, it's not necessarily the case that every MP gets his seat via a party list. The system used for the Scottish parliament [i forget which version of PR it is] has a mix of constituency MPs and list MPs).

Having said that, it's pretty much the case that they all follow the party line with the current FPTP anyway, so I'm not sure it's that big a deal. As far as I'm concerned, the downside of lists is more than compensated for by the more equal representation that's achieved via PR.

[worm]

tory scum.

[eFestivals]

Figured that was how it worked, just getting it straight in my head. As you say it's far from appealing as to me it does away with the individuality of the MPs, but I guess the party with the best members is going to be the one which wins the most votes anyway (in theory).

I'd say that it's the party with (in the eyes of the electorate) the best ideas rather than "best members" who gets the most votes.

While in theory people are voting for that individual with FPTP, I'd say that's almost always untrue and that it's the party that gets the vote and not the individual. About the only time the individual comes into play is if that individual is making a stand against party policy (which is VERY rare), or when the individual becomes disliked for some reason (such as happened with the expenses 'scandal').

After all, it's exceedingly rare for any party-member individual who is up for election as MP who is putting forwards an election manifesto that's different to their party's manifesto. About the furthest any go away from party policy is to say "I'll fight for this constituency", but ultimately every prospective MP says that; after all, one that says they won't fight for the people who elect them isn't going to get very far.

So while there's a nod towards the local representation idea - and it's conveniently played up by the parties that are against PR - the reality is hugely different, and first and foremost they're really all lapdogs to the party they represent. And so the list aspect of PR is a far smaller issue than the anti-PR people suggest it is - after all, all parties put favoured candidates up for election against the base wishes of locals.

Edited April 28, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You do. You gain self respect.

that's not of any interest to me, and so is no part of the self-interest you say I have but can't say where it is.

It's the interests of OTHERS and not myself that is at the heart of my political views.

As I say, it's an idea that is beyond those with right-wing thinking, and as you keep on proving. For those with right wing thinking, nothing can usurp the self - which is why you're only able to view it in that way. That is not true for everyone, no matter how many times you might state that it is.

If we go with your view, and if we work on the basis that the story of Jesus is true, then Jesus wasn't here to "save our souls", he was here on a recruitment campaign.

Edited April 28, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

that's not of any interest to me

Edited April 28, 2011 by worm

[beau1]

I'll be voting yes. I don't really see the point in voting no, honestly I'm more likely to spoil my paper than do that. It's not what I want (would rather PR) but it's a shit system being replaced with a slightly less shit system so I'm all for that.

[Purple Monkey]

To be honest I shouldn't be allowed to vote for exactly what I want. Given total freedom for a new political system I would propose all decisions are made based on a duel to the death. With dildos.

[llcoolphil]

Couldn't of explained AV better from 6:53

[llcoolphil]

You really are a sad bastard you know

It was a joke

[Kowalski]

Not looking good for Friday. Looks like we'll be stuck with FPTP for my lifetime

[brighteyes]

If I don't tend to vote in a normal vote, seems unlikely that I'd vote in a vote about a vote. So I don't think I'm going to partake in the AV vote (alternative vote vote).

However if I had to vote I would vote yes because it would make things (the vote and vote count) more complicated.

vote

[llcoolphil]

Not looking good for Friday. Looks like we'll be stuck with FPTP for my lifetime

[OneLittleFish]

Should have seen it coming the moment pogo declared an interest. The SNP must be confident for a result thursday too.

[TalkShow Bob]

The more this goes on the more I have realised how much I think there shouldnt be offical campaigns in referendums. The electoral commission should produce litratuer and if intrested parties think its biased or dosent explain fully what they want put across they should be able to challenge it with the electoral commission being the only people alowed to 'campaign' - that was we would actuly get honnist arguments and a fair vote on the question at hand.

[lost]

I'm getting a no to AV advert on this site

[5co77ie]

I'm getting a no to AV advert on this site

[Vacant0]

Remember to vote YES tomorrow! 'tis all.

[TalkShow Bob]

http://i.imgur.com/Zb9tJ.png

Everything can be explained by beer.

[llcoolphil]

Latest icm poll in the guardian says no by a landslide

[Ed209]

More reason to say yes - if it's good enough for the all the political parties to use to choose their leader it's good enough for us.

[harderfaster]

this alone has almost convinced me to vote yes.

[eFestivals]

I'm still confused by AV

I don't get what's so confusing.

Just consider any election for the tory leadership, which, ironically enough, uses a system that's exactly the same as AV - in effect, tho not within the exact same single process.

There's an election where the winner has to get 50% of the vote. After the first round of voting where none of the candidates has 50% of the vote, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and everyone votes again. If none of the candidates then has over 50% of the vote the same process happens - the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and everyone votes again. This carries on until one of the candidates does get over 50% of the vote.

What I've laid out there is the exact process that was used to elect Dave Moron - the man who says that such a system is unfair and undemocratic.

The only difference with AV is that, rather than have votes on a number of occasions (as laid out above) to complete the process of someone getting over 50%, people also make votes for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, preferences on the same occasion as they make their 1st preference vote.

In its effect, AV is absolutely no different to how Dave Moron was elected tory leader. If AV is undemocratic as he claims, then he cannot be the leader of a democratic party.

Edited May 5, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

well, I think I get it now (that's why I put the <eta> bit)

I thought I understood it before, then I heard Cameron yesterday, and saw anothe couple of explanations which seemed to confirm Cameron's 'infair' acusation, but they all failed to explain that when the 'losers' get their second choice counted, everyone else's first choice is also counted again

I know, it seems obvious, but the explanations are mis-leading, depending on who you listen to

Of course the likes of Dave Moron is trying to mislead you and everyone else - he only has bullshit to support his claims of AV being unfair and undemocratic. After all, if system that has the identical effect to how he was elected was "unfair and undemocratic" as he claims, then surely his first task as tory leader would have been to change it. The fact that he hasn't gets to show that his objection to AV is about the effect it would have on his party and nothing else. Yet if it's good enough it be used to elect him as leader, then it's certainly also good enough to put a party leader in the position of PM too.

The only objection he's raised with a little substance is one of cost. Yet the democratic ideal shouldn't be binned on grounds of cost, and if that idea is followed thru on then it also becomes sensible to end all elections because they cost money.

It's also the case that he's decided to waste millions on a referendum for AV, when that's not even the system of election that people who want change mostly want. If cost was a sound basis of objection but a vote on AV is acceptable, then it's also the case that a vote on PR within the same referendum would be a cost saving - after all, it's a vote we're going to have sooner or later.

[harderfaster]

you can see the tory anti-PR propaganda now though...

"you don't like AV, you won't like PR!"

[diddly-dee]

In its effect, AV is absolutely no different to how Dave Moron was elected tory leader. If AV is undemocratic as he claims, then he cannot be the leader of a democratic party.