UK voting referendum.

[Shiodome]

This is practicaly a [TMA] thread to be honest. The UK is having a referendum on it's voting system in a month, with a vote on whether to keep the current 'first past the post' system, or to adopt an 'alternative vote' system. As i understand it the two are as follows:


First past the post:
Everyone get's one vote, and that one vote is for a single candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins.


Alternative vote:
Everyone's vote consists of ranking 3 prefered candidates in order of preference. so you might vote for 'Mr A' as 1st preference [1], 'Mr B' as 2nd preference [2], 'Mr C' as 3rd preference[3].

If any candidate receives more than 50% or the first preference votes, he wins. If no single candidate receives more than 50% of first preference votes there is a '2nd round'.

The guy with the least first preference votes has all of his votes redistributed (let's say this was 'Mr C'). So anyone that had 'Mr C' as 1st preference, their vote now goes to whoever was their '2nd preference', after 'Mr C' has his votes redistibuted he is removed from the contest. Votes are recounted and if someone now has >50% the remaining votes they win, if not there's another round with the votes again redistributed from the candidate with fewest votes (who will now be someone else).

So, when i think of voting i instinctively think of 'first past the post', that's what a vote is right? you make you choice, the guy who the most people have chosen wins. So what are the advantages of the alternate vote method, it's obviously more complicated and i'm generally not a fan of complicating things unless neccissary. So what makes this neccissary, and which method are you in favour of. Also, i don't get what the point is in ranking a guy as your 3rd preference, how does that ever come into play? Or am i doingitwrong...

I'm hoping to basically sit back and form an opinion based on some discussion here so i can give an informed vote.

[Laundry]

Ive been out campaigning heavily for the tories for a no vote.

One person = one vote. Under AV someone who votes for fringe parties (BNP/Independants) they could have their votes counted twice or three times whilst someone voting for one of the mains only gets it counted once.

Also Australia introduced it and they had to make voting compulsory because voting numbers dropped. They are now looking to replace it.

[spasm]

Alternative vote sounds retarded.

[Laundry]

Remove dongues and Apathy. Lets have a real poll!

[Shiodome]

honestly 'apathy' is a real element in any political discussion (especially with regards to voting practices) and i put it there as a serious option, dongues is a tradition and can be taken as 'apathy' tbh.

[Dartzap]

Poll ironically only allows one vote option.

[Laundry]

honestly 'apathy' is a real element in any political discussion (especially with regards to voting practices) and i put it there as a serious option, dongues is a tradition and can be taken as 'apathy' tbh.

Good point! Disregard my op

[Belid Hagen]

its the whole single MP voting district, thats shit.

we have it setup in blocks of 10-20 MP's per voting district (depending on district) with built in equalizing seats - so if a party gets 17.5% of the vote they WILL get 17.5% of the seats. just because your vote is for the guy that only gets 49.9% of the vote, that doesn't mean those 49.9% of people should't be heard, it's a retarded voting system that removes choice and accountability.

[Lorkin Desal]

Alternative vote IS retarded.

Fixed that for you.

AV will only help retards like the BNP gain more power. Labour (who support AV) are shooting themselves in the foot. I've always voted Conservative, (well not that many times as I'm only 23) and will absolutley vote no for AV.

[Dartzap]

One of my real concerns is that AV means the likes of the BNP (assuming they don't DIAF financially) and UKIP getting more of a presence. Bloody Conservatives, allowing a democratic decision to be the final word.

[Asestorian]

There are some advantages to the AV system, particularly in fairness. However, it is more complicated and we have a hard enough time getting people to vote as it is. I will be voting to stick with FPTP.

[James Snowscoran]

its the whole single MP voting district, thats shit.

we have it setup in blocks of 10-20 MP's per voting district (depending on district) with built in equalizing seats - so if a party gets 17.5% of the vote they WILL get 17.5% of the seats. just because your vote is for the guy that only gets 49.9% of the vote, that doesn't mean those 49.9% of people should't be heard, it's a retarded voting system that removes choice and accountability.
You can say a lot of things about single-MP FPP voting, but it usually provides more direct accountability for voters to their district's MP than proportional representation systems. In the end it's all a question of how much diversity you want in your parliament. FPP yields few parties, preferential voting gives more diversity, proportional representation gives a broad selection of parties represented.

If I was a British citizen I'd vote for the LibDem proposal btw.

e: And having complicated voting systems is a very good thing. Anyone confused by a preferential voting system should stay at home on election day.

[Shiodome]

Could someone here in favour of the 'alternative vote' post why, cos currently it's all preaching to the choir and i already understand FPP and want to know more about AV tbh. Or someone that knows their shit could go devil's advocate?

[Lorkin Desal]

I dont disagree that FPP is retarded, only that AV is more retarded. Much more retarded.

Its thought that AV would encourage more people to vote from areas that swing strongly one way, so that they didnt feel left out of the process. Make no mistake, AV is not the same thing as PR.

[Laundry]

Could someone here in favour of the 'alternative vote' post why, cos currently it's all preaching to the choir and i already understand FPP and want to know more about AV tbh. Or someone that knows their shit could go devil's advocate?


The voter puts a '1' by their first-preference candidate, and can continue, if they wish, to put a '2' by their second-preference, and so on, until they don't care anymore or they run out of names. In some AV elections, such as most Australian elections, electors are required to rank all candidates.
If a candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes (more people put them as number one than all the rest combined), then they are elected.
If no candidate gains a majority on first preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until someone gets over 50 per cent.

So the people who put an Independant/BNP/UKIP/GREENS as their first choice its highly likely they will have their second and third votes taken into account. Someone voting for the tories/labour/libdems will have their vote counted once.

Also a party that gets 49.9% could lose and come second place under AV. Out of the three main parties: Lib Dems will gain seats, Labour will lose seats and the tories are likely to have to same under an AV voting system

[tasmanian]

Could someone here in favour of the 'alternative vote' post why, cos currently it's all preaching to the choir and i already understand FPP and want to know more about AV tbh. Or someone that knows their shit could go devil's advocate?

The alternate voting system gives the small parties some chance of gaining power. Instead of people just ending up wasting their only vote and not being heard, they can waste their first vote on a small party, and use the other 2 for the real parties and still have some voice.

[Leviathan]

They're just changing the boundaries to suit their own needs.

[Laundry]

Instead of AV they should change the boundaries. So one MP represent xxxxxx people all over the UK

[Jon.J]

My biggest gripe with FPTP is that it creates events like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past ... ng#Effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Effects)

For more information on AV:
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/learn-more/

To see how AV would affect where you live:
http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

[Laundry]

My biggest gripe with FPTP is that it creates events like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past ... ng#Effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Effects)

For more information on AV:
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/learn-more/

To see how AV would affect where you live:
http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

I completely agree, 800K difference in voters between the tories and labour, yet labour get 158 more seats is wrong. BUT AV wont help that problem, it would make swings like you listed bigger.

[James Snowscoran]

Also a party that gets 49.9% could lose and come second place under AV.
I don't understand how this is a problem? If party X gains 49,9% of the votes in AV but still loses that just means 50,1% of the voters would rather elect the winning party than party X.

[Ash2k7]

AV entrenches party hacks and increases the party of party officials thanks to the official lists. If you're near the top of the list, you're in, with "near" depending on how popular your party is. If you're not, you're fucked. So there's no incentive for serving constituents, especially since they expand voting areas massively to create multi-member constituencies (like the MEP regions...) and so "your" MP represents a retardedly large number of people and can't be fucked to listen to you. Hilariously corrupt party members can remain MPs forever, provide they suck up to central leadership or have incriminating photos of central leadership.

While giving every vote more power has intellectual attractions, it creates massive power for small parties that can be the last votes necessary for a coalition. Israeli politics demonstrates this wonderfully, with crazy religious parties like Shas controlling the interior ministry (making civil marriages illegal, supporting Orthodox "Committees for the Propagation of Virtue" to mirror those of Saudi and the Taliban...) and Avigdor Lieberman's Israel Is Our Home party (hard right, made up of Russian immigrants) getting the foreign ministry and saying rather crazy shit about Arabs. Each party gained roughly 10% of the vote in the last election and both support continued discrimination against non-Orthodox Jews, especially converts.

AV provides encourages breakaway parties by increasing the chance of blocks of voters getting their way on a certain issue if they are NOT part of a large brokerage party. FPTP encourages larger parties and gets blocks of voters to focus on areas of 80-90% agreement and to compromise on their major issues. Thought experiment - a militant Anglican (lol, like I said, thought experiment) group that wanted to institute Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" manifesto would have to vote Conservative in FPTP and try to nudge the party closer to its ends. In AV, they could form the "Cake or Death" party, get the final vote share for a coalition, and trade their support for a ministerial role to institute Cake or Death.

TL:DR AV is horrible in many, many ways and will make politics worse across every metric that it is supposed to improve.

[Jon.J]

My biggest gripe with FPTP is that it creates events like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past ... ng#Effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Effects)

For more information on AV:
http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/learn-more/

To see how AV would affect where you live:
http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

I completely agree, 800K difference in voters between the tories and labour, yet labour get 158 more seats is wrong. BUT AV wont help that problem, it would make swings like you listed bigger.

I don't think it would, to get a seat under AV you need to have 50.1% of the vote in that seat, wouldn't that translate to a fairer distribution of seats than FPTP?

My fear is that if people vote no to AV politicians will use it as a mandate [a word I'd never heard before the last general election...] that the public think the voting system in the UK is fine.

[TimMc]

Could someone here in favour of the 'alternative vote' post why, cos currently it's all preaching to the choir and i already understand FPP and want to know more about AV tbh. Or someone that knows their shit could go devil's advocate?

I don't like AV, but I like FPTP less and at least AV will hopefully lead to STV.

AV you can vote the party you want to get in (UKIP for example) and the party, that if they should fail, you want instead (Tories). It gives people a reason to vote for the smaller parties that meet their personal demands, rather than feel that any votes for anyone besides the major 3 is a waste. In most cases voting anything besides the major 2 is a waste.


I hope that, if this referendum fails, we will at least get elected proportional representation in the house of lords. To be honest this is a higher priority to me than fixing commons.

(voted Lib Dem last election, but my vote was wasted in this constituency)


Edit:


AV entrenches party hacks and increases the party of party officials thanks to the official lists. If you're near the top of the list, you're in, with "near" depending on how popular your party is. If you're not, you're fucked. So there's no incentive for serving constituents, especially since they expand voting areas massively to create multi-member constituencies (like the MEP regions...) and so "your" MP represents a retardedly large number of people and can't be fucked to listen to you. Hilariously corrupt party members can remain MPs forever, provide they suck up to central leadership or have incriminating photos of central leadership.

Its called "safe seats" in FPTP.

[Laundry]

Also a party that gets 49.9% could lose and come second place under AV.
I don't understand how this is a problem? If party X gains 49,9% of the votes in AV but still loses that just means 50,1% of the voters would rather elect the winning party than party X.

You are correct but 49.9% of people put party X as their first choice and wanted them to win, but party Y could win because of people who have put them as their second or third vote. Its not fair that someone voting for one particular party will get their second or third votes counted and someone else wont. Similarly in my area the people i would only vote for are the tories or ukip, the only other option is Labour or Plaid. If i only put 2 options down and it comes to my third vote being counted i wont have a say when other people might. Yes you could argue its my fault for not putting a third choice down but if im against what Labour and Plaid want then i dont want to give them a vote

[Shiodome]

'STV'?

[Mythago]

Personally my main issue with the FPP system is that a party can have a majority with around 37/38% of the national vote. In the last general election the Tories had 36% of the national vote, Labour and the Lib Dems had 52% of the national vote between them, and still couldn't form a majority ahead of the Tories. So 6 and a half million more people voted for Labour/Lib Dem group, and yet we ended up with a Tory led coalition. I can also imagine that a fair amount of Lib Dem voters (including myself) would much rather have seen the Lib Dems in a coalition with Labour than the Tories.

One thing I do like about the FPP system is that you have a local MP who you can talk to, who can bring up issues in Parliament for constituents. However I would happily give this up for a fairer voting system, there can be other methods for local accountability.

[Jon.J]

STV = Single Transferable Vote

[Laundry]

Also people should remember AV isnt proportional, neither is FPTP, so it isnt fairer. A real fairer proportional system is the STV (Single transferable vote) but just like AV when compared with FPTP its confusing.

[Jon.J]

AV isn't confusing. We used it at uni, if students [who are drunk most of the time] can understand it, anyone can.

[Shaikar]

One thing I do like about the FPP system is that you have a local MP who you can talk to, who can bring up issues in Parliament for constituents.

That is not something exclusive to FPP, we'd still have that under AV.

[Mangala Solaris]

Are the nasty provinces getting a chance to vote on this or has Westminster grown a pair and looking to cut them out since they have their own lolgovernments (assemblies) already and are anyway too drunk/busy topping themselves (hello Newport)/terrorists to deserve a say in how the good ship Britannia is run?

Despite being someone who either doesnt vote in elections* or forgets there will be an election due to being out of the UK and therefore cannot not vote anyway, I am in the no camp for this and will be voting as such come May.

Also - apart from fliers and stuff locally, any big campaigning going for either campaign yet? As I cannot say i have seen anything on a large scale.


*No politician or party has the leadership I want them too, all too wavy and likely to just do populist crap to play to the red tops or whichever group they need this week/month whatever, resulting in half baked policies, ridiculous cost overruns, and obviously miles of red tape.

Where are our strong leaders with a focus on getting shit done and not caring if some eggs get broken along the way?

[Cemendur]

AV entrenches party hacks and increases the party of party officials thanks to the official lists. If you're near the top of the list, you're in, with "near" depending on how popular your party is. If you're not, you're fucked. So there's no incentive for serving constituents, especially since they expand voting areas massively to create multi-member constituencies (like the MEP regions...) and so "your" MP represents a retardedly large number of people and can't be fucked to listen to you. Hilariously corrupt party members can remain MPs forever, provide they suck up to central leadership or have incriminating photos of central leadership.

While giving every vote more power has intellectual attractions, it creates massive power for small parties that can be the last votes necessary for a coalition. Israeli politics demonstrates this wonderfully, with crazy religious parties like Shas controlling the interior ministry (making civil marriages illegal, supporting Orthodox "Committees for the Propagation of Virtue" to mirror those of Saudi and the Taliban...) and Avigdor Lieberman's Israel Is Our Home party (hard right, made up of Russian immigrants) getting the foreign ministry and saying rather crazy shit about Arabs. Each party gained roughly 10% of the vote in the last election and both support continued discrimination against non-Orthodox Jews, especially converts.

AV provides encourages breakaway parties by increasing the chance of blocks of voters getting their way on a certain issue if they are NOT part of a large brokerage party. FPTP encourages larger parties and gets blocks of voters to focus on areas of 80-90% agreement and to compromise on their major issues. Thought experiment - a militant Anglican (lol, like I said, thought experiment) group that wanted to institute Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" manifesto would have to vote Conservative in FPTP and try to nudge the party closer to its ends. In AV, they could form the "Cake or Death" party, get the final vote share for a coalition, and trade their support for a ministerial role to institute Cake or Death.

TL:DR AV is horrible in many, many ways and will make politics worse across every metric that it is supposed to improve.

I don't even know where to begin with this post.

Firstly what you're describing is the Multi-Member System, a form of PR. AV it is not. MMS is a horrible form of PR because as you say MPs are chosen by party not by votes. AV is pretty much exactly like FPTP, except votes order candidates 1-2-3 etc.


Also people should remember AV isnt proportional, neither is FPTP, so it isnt fairer. A real fairer proportional system is the STV (Single transferable vote) but just like AV when compared with FPTP its confusing.

How the fuck is number canddiates 1-2-3 confusing?


One thing I do like about the FPP system is that you have a local MP who you can talk to, who can bring up issues in Parliament for constituents. However I would happily give this up for a fairer voting system, there can be other methods for local accountability.

Would still be true under AV.

Now personally my prefered voting system would be STV. Larger constituencies yes, but more MPs per constituency and votes would be able to decide who represents them not the parties as they would be voting for candidates. It would also ensure the most votes count. More complicated that FPTP most definitely, but frankly I think we'd be able to cope with it.

[Shiodome]

yeah, scottish parlimentary election and referendum are being held together, so the outcasts are all involved too.

edit: also Cemendur, it's not the voting process that's confusing, it can just get confusing when working out the rammifications of your vote in the context of your local electoral environment. if you vote in a vacuum based purely on what you think and are not interested in the relative 'weight' of your vote (which is fair enough) then, sure it's very simple.

[TimMc]

edit: also Cemendur, it's not the voting process that's confusing, it can just get confusing when working out the rammifications of your vote in the context of your local electoral environment. if you vote in a vacuum based purely on what you think and are not interested in the relative 'weight' of your vote (which is fair enough) then, sure it's very simple.

Ideally you should be voting for whoever suits your political desires for this nation, not tactically "oh I better vote labour to prevent tories getting in since this constituency is very tight".

[Bin Matar]

AV isn't confusing. We used it at uni, if students [who are drunk most of the time] can understand it, anyone can.

Im glad you have so much faith in pissed students. I unfortunately don't have similar faith in the sober people sat in my work canteen.

[Cemendur]

yeah, scottish parlimentary election and referendum are being held together, so the outcasts are all involved too.

edit: also Cemendur, it's not the voting process that's confusing, it can just get confusing when working out the rammifications of your vote in the context of your local electoral environment. if you vote in a vacuum based purely on what you think and are not interested in the relative 'weight' of your vote (which is fair enough) then, sure it's very simple.

As TimMc said, we should ideally be moving towards a process where people vote for who they want to, instead of the current bollocks of "oh I would vote Lib/Dem, but Tories are strong here so I'll vote Labour to keep them out" and vice-versa.

[Shiodome]

ideally yes, but people are going to vote to get what they want. if they're 90% sure that they're not going to get exactly what they want by voting for the guy that best represents them, they're going to think about how to do as well out of the situation as they can (be it voting to block a party, or to get the next best option in etc).

[Cassius Hawkeye]

Voting FPP for being less stupid than AV.

Proper proportional representation is something to aim for. AV takes a semi stupid step towards it before keeling over.

Also voting FPP for :lollibdems:

[Xennith]

Im pro AV:

AV eliminates tactical voting.
AV is fairer.
AV is more representative.

AV has nothing to do with party lists. Its not complex, the only argument against it is "I dont like the BNP and AV would mean my party wouldnt win so many seats".

[Laundry]

[quote=Ash2k7]AV entrenches party hacks and increases the party of party officials thanks to the official lists. If you're near the top of the list, you're in, with "near" depending on how popular your party is. If you're not, you're fucked. So there's no incentive for serving constituents, especially since they expand voting areas massively to create multi-member constituencies (like the MEP regions...) and so "your" MP represents a retardedly large number of people and can't be fucked to listen to you. Hilariously corrupt party members can remain MPs forever, provide they suck up to central leadership or have incriminating photos of central leadership.

While giving every vote more power has intellectual attractions, it creates massive power for small parties that can be the last votes necessary for a coalition. Israeli politics demonstrates this wonderfully, with crazy religious parties like Shas controlling the interior ministry (making civil marriages illegal, supporting Orthodox "Committees for the Propagation of Virtue" to mirror those of Saudi and the Taliban...) and Avigdor Lieberman's Israel Is Our Home party (hard right, made up of Russian immigrants) getting the foreign ministry and saying rather crazy shit about Arabs. Each party gained roughly 10% of the vote in the last election and both support continued discrimination against non-Orthodox Jews, especially converts.

AV provides encourages breakaway parties by increasing the chance of blocks of voters getting their way on a certain issue if they are NOT part of a large brokerage party. FPTP encourages larger parties and gets blocks of voters to focus on areas of 80-90% agreement and to compromise on their major issues. Thought experiment - a militant Anglican (lol, like I said, thought experiment) group that wanted to institute Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" manifesto would have to vote Conservative in FPTP and try to nudge the party closer to its ends. In AV, they could form the "Cake or Death" party, get the final vote share for a coalition, and trade their support for a ministerial role to institute Cake or Death.

TL:DR AV is horrible in many, many ways and will make politics worse across every metric that it is supposed to improve.

I don't even know where to begin with this post.

Firstly what you're describing is the Multi-Member System, a form of PR. AV it is not. MMS is a horrible form of PR because as you say MPs are chosen by party not by votes. AV is pretty much exactly like FPTP, except votes order candidates 1-2-3 etc.


Also people should remember AV isnt proportional, neither is FPTP, so it isnt fairer. A real fairer proportional system is the STV (Single transferable vote) but just like AV when compared with FPTP its confusing.

How the fuck is number canddiates 1-2-3 confusing?


One thing I do like about the FPP system is that you have a local MP who you can talk to, who can bring up issues in Parliament for constituents. However I would happily give this up for a fairer voting system, there can be other methods for local accountability.

Would still be true under AV.

Now personally my prefered voting system would be STV. Larger constituencies yes, but more MPs per constituency and votes would be able to decide who represents them not the parties as they would be voting for candidates. It would also ensure the most votes count. More complicated that FPTP most definitely, but frankly I think we'd be able to cope with it.[/quote:r5bdb1fg]


You try explaining how it works to someone with limited political knowledge and has never heared of AV before

[Boris Borison]

Poll ironically only allows one vote option.
As does the referendum :|

My choices for voting reform are:

1st: Some sort of proportional representation, STV? (might be horribly complicated)
2nd: First past the post
3rd: Alternative vote (I don't see it being any better (if not worse) than FPP, also if it is voted in I can't see us getting rid of it in our lifetime)

I guess I'll have to vote FPP, then hope the Lib Dems gain power (lol) and give us a chance at PR.


I hope that, if this referendum fails, we will at least get elected proportional representation in the house of lords. To be honest this is a higher priority to me than fixing commons.
I'm not sure if I like this idea. I can see a lot of sense in the idea of being made a Lord and having a job for life (just needs more common people). They are free to speak their minds and not worry about being booted out come the next election (Boo for short termism)

[Al Simmons]

I wonder why you guys are worrying about the BNP or Ukip theoretically getting more power, when we have the ConDems actually rampaging round the world and the country, breaking shit, right now.

I'm voting AV, and then i'm gonna vote fucking Green party or something. The 3 main parties have nothing to offer me at all any more.

[Saman Ayan]

You try explaining how it works to someone with limited political knowledge and has never heared of AV before
If he has limited political knowledge he's going to choose badly in any voting system including FPTP.

And anyway people will get used to a different voting system, it's far better having a good voting system like STV in the long term than staying with FPTP just because people might fuck up the first time.

[James Snowscoran]

Also a party that gets 49.9% could lose and come second place under AV.
I don't understand how this is a problem? If party X gains 49,9% of the votes in AV but still loses that just means 50,1% of the voters would rather elect the winning party than party X.

You are correct but 49.9% of people put party X as their first choice and wanted them to win, but party Y could win because of people who have put them as their second or third vote. Its not fair that someone voting for one particular party will get their second or third votes counted and someone else wont. Similarly in my area the people i would only vote for are the tories or ukip, the only other option is Labour or Plaid. If i only put 2 options down and it comes to my third vote being counted i wont have a say when other people might. Yes you could argue its my fault for not putting a third choice down but if im against what Labour and Plaid want then i dont want to give them a vote
I think I see what you're getting at: The problem that the voters for the biggest non-winner don't get to have their secondary votes matter. To illustrate with an example:

Let's say you're a group of 12 people out to grab dinner after work. There are three restaurants close by: Chinese, Thai and Indian. Now, for simplicity, the 12 people can be separated into three groups, with a list of preferences as follows:

Group 1 (5 people):

1. Thai
2. Chinese
3. Indian


Group 2 (4 people):

1. Indian
2. Chinese
3. Thai


Group 3 (3 people):

1. Chinese
2. Indian
3. Thai


Intuitively, the fair choice here is Chinese. Under FPTP (assuming no tactical voting) Thai would win. Under STV, again assuming no tactical voting, Indian would win. Neither result is really optimal, but at least STV ensures that whatever party is elected is considered by the majority of voters to be preferable to the closest competitor.

[Xennith]

3rd: Alternative vote (I don't see it being any better (if not worse) than FPP

With FPTP I am forced to vote for someone I dont agree with to prevent the guy I violently disagree with getting in. With AV I can at least vote for the guy I actually WANT to win and then carry on to vote for the guy I wouldnt mind winning.

If the reforendum comes back and AV doesnt win, it will bury the discussion of voting reform for a decade at least. There will be no "oh some people voted against AV because they want STV", it will be "the people rejected electoral reform".

[KaiDoh]

I wonder why you guys are worrying about the BNP or Ukip theoretically getting more power, when we have the ConDems actually rampaging round the world and the country, breaking shit, right now.

I'm voting AV, and then i'm gonna vote fucking Green party or something. The 3 main parties have nothing to offer me at all any more.

I feel exactly the same but will be voting against the AV - surely with an AV system in place we will get more of the same shitty coalition governments in the future? Also, the benefits of my voting Green as my 2nd choice will most probably be outweighed by the number of people voting for far right groups (BNP, UKip etc).

[minas]

Ive been out campaigning heavily for the tories for a no vote.

One person = one vote. Under AV someone who votes for fringe parties (BNP/Independants) they could have their votes counted twice or three times whilst someone voting for one of the mains only gets it counted once.

Also Australia introduced it and they had to make voting compulsory because voting numbers dropped. They are now looking to replace it.
Votes aren't counted multiple times because THE FIRST VOTES ARE DISCOUNTED. It's like you ran the vote again with the shitty small parties entirely excluded. That's all it does.

The whole point is it's an instant runoff, where the first round is (hopefully) representative of people's opinions, then the candidates that few people like are removed and you have another round of voting that is more tactical (i.e. what we have now). The fact that someone would vote different ways in each round where you would vote the same way each time is irrelevant, you both only got one vote that counted.


Fake edit: also what Xennith said. This is Britain. If you don't vote change for change's sake (i.e. you want something better than fptp), then change will never happen. v0v

[Al Simmons]

I wonder why you guys are worrying about the BNP or Ukip theoretically getting more power, when we have the ConDems actually rampaging round the world and the country, breaking shit, right now.

I'm voting AV, and then i'm gonna vote fucking Green party or something. The 3 main parties have nothing to offer me at all any more.

I feel exactly the same but will be voting against the AV - surely with an AV system in place we will get more of the same shitty coalition governments in the future? Also, the benefits of my voting Green as my 2nd choice will most probably be outweighed by the number of people voting for far right groups (BNP, UKip etc).

It's not shitty because it's a coalition, it's shitty because it's the fucking tories. Lib Dems are like one of those male fish that stick on the the side of the female fish that is like 20 times larger than it. They're about as useful/influential.

Edit: oh wordfilter how I love thee

[Jon.J]

In support of AV [although potentially a reason to say it's bad...] it is the method of choice used by Labour and Conservative to pick their party leader.

If it's good enough for them, why is it not good enough for us?

Edit: If party leader elections used first-past-the-post, David Davis would now be PM and David Miliband leader of the opposition

[Trip!]

I WAS going to vote dongues, but then I read the 'I prefer...' and realized that would have certain connotations.

As for on-topic things...Which one will piss Clegg off most? Bastarding teaboy that he is...

[Hast]

this thread reminds me of the rotten borough blackadder episode

[CrzyLgs]

I'm going to be going AV - in the vain hope that it can't be any worse than what we have right now... it can't... right???

Also it may actually increase the worth of some votes, while atm they feel and are effectively worthelss. Politics in the UK does seem pretty shitty right now, 'the people' have so little power, such a quiet voice and say in things its quite a joke.

Although perhaps PR would be better? It feels weird for em to say that, because in the past i've been a proponent of FPTP as it makes 'strong governments that can make shit happen' however, now i'm coming around to the idea of holy fuck politicians having to co-operate, form coalitions and listen to the majority of the ppl and make them happy!!!

[Laundry]

I'm going to be going AV - in the vain hope that it can't be any worse than what we have right now... it can't... right???

Also it may actually increase the worth of some votes, while atm they feel and are effectively worthelss. Politics in the UK does seem pretty shitty right now, 'the people' have so little power, such a quiet voice and say in things its quite a joke.

Although perhaps PR would be better? It feels weird for em to say that, because in the past i've been a proponent of FPTP as it makes 'strong governments that can make shit happen' however, now i'm coming around to the idea of holy fuck politicians having to co-operate, form coalitions and listen to the majority of the ppl and make them happy!!!

With or without AV/FPTP wont change the bolded bit.

PR would be much much better. FPTP does ussualy make strong government that can do what it put in its manifesto. This coalition we are in now is the first in 65 years, coalitions are bullshit and probably wont happen again for another xx+ years. But who knows!?!? :monocledowns:

[Mr Rivers]

change for changes sake is retarded. And while i think first past the post is stupid, i wouldnt change it for this

[marcouk2]

In support of AV [although potentially a reason to say it's bad...] it is the method of choice used by Labour and Conservative to pick their party leader.

If it's good enough for them, why is it not good enough for us?

Edit: If party leader elections used first-past-the-post, David Davis would now be PM and David Miliband leader of the opposition

AV pushes elections towards centralised, compromise candidates which is great when you want to choose a leader to unite the factions of a party, less so when electing MPs for an adversarial chamber.

[TimMc]

AV pushes elections towards centralised, compromise candidates which is great when you want to choose a leader to unite the factions of a party, less so when electing MPs for an adversarial chamber.

I support AV, but you cannot use that argument.

FPTP also pushes us towards centralism, because the major parties want to attract as many voters to their party as possible, so they make broad manifestos to appeal to as many voters as possible, and try to offend as few as possible. Labour and Tories aren't that dissimilar anymore since they both are chasing after the majority.

Saying that, Milliband might be taking labour back to its roots. Thank god tbh I hated new labour. Time will tell though.


Edit:



I hope that, if this referendum fails, we will at least get elected proportional representation in the house of lords. To be honest this is a higher priority to me than fixing commons.
I'm not sure if I like this idea. I can see a lot of sense in the idea of being made a Lord and having a job for life (just needs more common people). They are free to speak their minds and not worry about being booted out come the next election (Boo for short termism)

I agree its a good system to avoid short termism, but preventing short termism should be something handled through a strong constitution rather than a mix of good people, idiots and failed politicians that compose our lords. National debt is something that needs to have safeguards in a constitution, so that politicians don't answer their campaign promises by making debt for the next party.

[Aurora148]

tribal voting is a bigger problem than the voting system itself, but we can't legislate against it.

Our Labour MP could go about killing babies and dropkicking cute animals into the river and would still get elected by a huge margin.

[Ash2k7]

Re leaders are more acceptable thanks to AV/STV/ whatever weird system.

Canada has recently had a run of parties accidentally ending up with a leader no one really liked thanks to the various runoff systems.

2 close candidates who were competent and broadly acceptable get supplanted by the incompetent third since they voted for incompetent as their second choice instead of voting for the real opposition.

Stephane Dion beat Ignatieff and Rae to lead the Liberal Party of Canada (don't even try to figure out their ideology, they don't have one), then proceeded to get mauled because he was an incompetent academic who couldn't be understood in either English or French.

Ed Stelmach beat Jim Dinning and Ted Morton to lead Conservative Party of Alberta (in government for 30 + years with Mid East dictator levels of support) then proceeded to fuck everything up, attack the oil companies that form the foundation of the province's economy, and alienate nearly every member of his party. He's since announced he's quitting, in like 8 months, and is attacking the oil companies again.

FPTP is more predictable and gets better results in an iterative game theory sense. Other methods give more "fair" votes when taken in isolation but produce less stable and fair systems when looked at in aggregate.

As to my herp derp fuckup of AV vs MMS, the party bargaining and splintering critiques apply in a modified form. The isolation of the representatives from their constituents don't. Unfortunately most everyone who supports AV, IRL and ITT, want to move to other systems that would create the party list and non representative issues.

FPTP does create safe seats, but with apolitically designed districts and local candidate battles this is mitigated. The threat to stay home, which has been pursued many times across anglo jurisdictions, tends to keep parties honest in ways that are not available in multi member systems. If you let districts be gerrymandered to all hell (hello scotland, much of the US) or create rotten boroughs (hello scotland again) then you're fucked, but you'd be fucked in any system because your politicians are horrible shit.

[El Capitano]

Woo, I get to use my first post for a political rant. Oh wait... :emo:

Anyway, FPTP sucks, and so does AV, but it sucks less. Our choice right now is FPTP or AV and there's very little by way of guarantee of any other reform. After all, who's going to give it to you? The Conservatives are at least honest and admit they like the current system, although they'll lie to you about why, whereas Labour will just outright lie about it like they did for the 13 years they were last in power.

FPTP has a number of series problems, the worst being that it "strongly encourages" a two party system through winner takes all. So many people I know have said they would vote for the party they want, except they won't win so they'd rather vote to get the tories, Labour and now the Lib Dems out. We're no longer voting for the party we like, we're voting against the party we don't like. This is a very poisonous effect on politics. AV doesn't eliminate tactical voting, but it reduces it and at least gives you the opportunity to vote for the party you actually prefer before resorting to tactical voting.

As for it allowing fringe parties (yes, extremist parties) to gain power, is that actually a bad thing? If a million people vote BNP, do they not deserve some representation? The proponents of PR who are against AV seem to miss that PR would actually lead to extremist parties gaining power far more than AV would. In any case, opponents of AV also make the argument that AV actually forces more centrist politics due to having to appeal to a greater number of voters. So apparently AV is so bad that it forces parties to be more centrist but it also allows extremist parties to gain power. That message is, well, rather contradictory.

There's also the argument that AV would lead to more coalitions. Ignoring that this has not been the case in Australia, why is that a bad thing? Winner takes all politics is bullshit, it screws the majority for the benefit of the minority. Labour never got the majority of the vote, but in 1997 they had an absolutely massive number of seats.

Finally, AV has its anomalies, but FPTP also has some pretty hideous anomalies too. Labour got less votes in 2010 than the Conservatives got in 1997, yet Labour managed to retain 258 seats compared with 165 for the Conservatives in 1997. The Lib Dems got more votes in 2010, but lost 8% of their seats. Additionally, voting for your party can actually have the effect of strengthening the party you hate most rather than the party you're voting for due to splitting the vote.

Our main problem lies with the insistence that we need a constituency system for our national government, and AV doesn't fix that, but it at least is an improvement, if only a small one and it at least allows some room for alternative parties (not just extremist ones) to grow and help weaken the stranglehold the big two (Labour and the Conservatives) have over our government.

[Helen]

I like how everyone still thinks a change to the voting system will stop it being a waste of time.
Vote anarchy and never go back!

[Rodj Blake]

I've been doing some work for the Yes campaign.

For me there are two important advantages that AV has over FPTP.

Firstly, at the moment general elections are typically decided in a small number of constituencies - the so called key marginals. Because there are so many safe seats, parties can basically ignore people in those parts of the country that will deliver a certain result no matter what happens. AV will won't completely eliminate safe seats, but it will turn more constituencies into marginals.

Secondly, with FPTP there is the idea of a wasted vote. You may be a passionate supporter of the Greens or UKIP, but there's probably not much point in voting for them because the odds of them winning in you constituency are minimal. Or similarly, you may be a Labour supporter in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal. So you end up voting for the candidate you consider to be the lesser of two evils. Surely it's better to have a system where you're voting positively for someone you want to represent you then negatively voting to keep out someone you hate? AV allows you to do just that.

Now, on a slight tangent, I'm slightly confused by David Cameron's opposition to AV. He said the other day that AV was like the horse that finished second in the Grand National being declared the winner. No David. It's more like David Davies winning the first round of the Tory leadership election only for a certain David Cameron to end up as the winner.

[Rodj Blake]

AV will only help retards like the BNP gain more power.

No it won't.

The BNP are one of only three parties supporting the No campaign (the other two being the Communists and the Conservatives).

Think about it for a second.

Let's say that there's a low turnout and the BNP manage to get about 30% support in a consituency. Under FPTP that may well be enough to get their candidate elected.

But the BNP are a bit of a Marmite party. You either love them or you hate them. So under AV, they will still get their 30% first choice votes, but the chance of them picking up enough second and third choice votes to get over 50% is almost non-existant.

[Rodj Blake]

AV entrenches party hacks and increases the party of party officials thanks to the official lists. If you're near the top of the list, you're in, with "near" depending on how popular your party is. If you're not, you're fucked. So there's no incentive for serving constituents, especially since they expand voting areas massively to create multi-member constituencies (like the MEP regions...) and so "your" MP represents a retardedly large number of people and can't be fucked to listen to you. Hilariously corrupt party members can remain MPs forever, provide they suck up to central leadership or have incriminating photos of central leadership.

While giving every vote more power has intellectual attractions, it creates massive power for small parties that can be the last votes necessary for a coalition. Israeli politics demonstrates this wonderfully, with crazy religious parties like Shas controlling the interior ministry (making civil marriages illegal, supporting Orthodox "Committees for the Propagation of Virtue" to mirror those of Saudi and the Taliban...) and Avigdor Lieberman's Israel Is Our Home party (hard right, made up of Russian immigrants) getting the foreign ministry and saying rather crazy shit about Arabs. Each party gained roughly 10% of the vote in the last election and both support continued discrimination against non-Orthodox Jews, especially converts.

AV provides encourages breakaway parties by increasing the chance of blocks of voters getting their way on a certain issue if they are NOT part of a large brokerage party. FPTP encourages larger parties and gets blocks of voters to focus on areas of 80-90% agreement and to compromise on their major issues. Thought experiment - a militant Anglican (lol, like I said, thought experiment) group that wanted to institute Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" manifesto would have to vote Conservative in FPTP and try to nudge the party closer to its ends. In AV, they could form the "Cake or Death" party, get the final vote share for a coalition, and trade their support for a ministerial role to institute Cake or Death.

TL:DR AV is horrible in many, many ways and will make politics worse across every metric that it is supposed to improve.

You seem to be confusing AV with PR (Proportional Representation)

AV is not a list-based system.

You still have one candidate from each party per constituency.

Also, FWIW Eddie Izzard is firmly in the "Yes" camp.

[Dregek]

1 voice 1 vote

sorry but you make a decision and you stick to it. Fuck AV & Fuck the lib dems poor fuckers are dodo's anyway thanks to clegg

[Xennith]

1 voice 1 vote

sorry but you make a decision and you stick to it. Fuck AV & Fuck the lib dems poor fuckers are dodo's anyway thanks to clegg

"You want to support the green party therefore you dont get to decide if labour or the tories win this seat".

[Laundry]

1 voice 1 vote

sorry but you make a decision and you stick to it. Fuck AV & Fuck the lib dems poor fuckers are dodo's anyway thanks to clegg

"You want to support the green party therefore you dont get to decide if labour or the tories win this seat".

Thing is, if people wanted the Greens to win a seat and be in power then people would vote for them.

Just as labour went from having 1% of the vote to 30%+ in a few years.

[El Capitano]

Thing is, if people wanted the Greens to win a seat and be in power then people would vote for them.

Just as labour went from having 1% of the vote to 30%+ in a few years.
Care to tell me the last time that happened?

[Rodj Blake]

1 voice 1 vote

sorry but you make a decision and you stick to it. Fuck AV & Fuck the lib dems poor fuckers are dodo's anyway thanks to clegg

"You want to support the green party therefore you dont get to decide if labour or the tories win this seat".

Thing is, if people wanted the Greens to win a seat and be in power then people would vote for them.

Just as labour went from having 1% of the vote to 30%+ in a few years.

There was an opinion poll done a few years back.

They first of all did the usual "who would you vote for in a general election" question. The Lib Dems scored around 15%.

They then did a follow-up question - "who would you vote for in a general election if the Lib Dems had a chance of winning?" The Lib Dems scored around 40%.

On top of that, compare the difference between voting patterns between European elections (which use a form of PR) and general elections.

The only possible conclusion is the the voting system used has an effect on the way people vote.

[Rodj Blake]

Thing is, if people wanted the Greens to win a seat and be in power then people would vote for them.

Just as labour went from having 1% of the vote to 30%+ in a few years.
Care to tell me the last time that happened?

The big increase happened in the 1918 and 1922 elections.

The number of people eligible to vote trebled in 1918, when women got the vote and the property requirement was removed. Most of those extra voters were working-class.

Labour also received a boost to their vote in 1929 when the franchise was further extended to women aged 21-29.

So Labour's rise in popularity was mainly due to a massive increase in the size of the electorate rather than because of a flexibility in the system

[El Capitano]

Thanks Rodj, I suspected it would have been around then.

[Xennith]

Thing is, if people wanted the Greens to win a seat and be in power then people would vote for them.

With AV they would, because their vote would not be wasted if (when) the greens get 1% of the vote. With FPTP voting for a minority party is "throwing your vote away" because you dont get to have a say in which of the big parties wins.

FPTP forces people to vote against someone, by voting for someone they dont want to win. AV allows people to vote for the person they actually want to win.

Example:

The greens, lib dems, labour and tories are all standing. I hate the labour party, despise the tories, dislike the lib dems and love the greens.

FPTP: I have to vote labour to stop the tories winning. I am voting for a party I hate.
AV : I vote green, libdem, labour. I'm voting for the greens and stating my preferences of the other evils present - ie who I want to keep the tories out.

In the same example if you really love the Tories and dont care beyond that you want to vote for them you can chose to just put an X by the tories, FPTP or AV doesnt matter to you, just treat them as if they were the same system.

[Dregek]

I'm sorry but no

if you choose to vote for a minority party and that party fails to win the seat oh~well

AV allows you to "back up" your vote. That is totally stupid because you are ONE person and as such you should have ONE vote.

Libdems dont even want AV. They just want to change the system so they can try and win more seats & they are just not going to.

Cleggogeddon has ruined their party forever & come the local elections they are going to be fucking hammered into ground so hard.

[Ben Derindar]

Here in New Zealand, we switched from FPP to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) (http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/mmp/) in 1993. I was *just* old enough to vote for the change at the time, and while it caused a bit of upheaval at first, most people are pretty comfortable with it here now.

If a party wins no electorate seats (and few outside the big two parties here ever do), there is a minimum threshhold of 5% of the nationwide party vote that the party must achieve to make it into parliament. That eliminates many of the minorities, leaving only the odd one man band which can only ever make the difference in the tightest of election results, and in those situations the winning side often fails to go full term anyway.

In a sense it may not seem quite as strictly proportional as AV, but it certainly offers more proportionality than FPP does, without giving *too* much power to the little guys as long as you set an appropriate party threshhold.

Of the two options you guys are being presented with, I'd probably go AV.

[TimMc]

The big increase happened in the 1918 and 1922 elections.

The number of people eligible to vote trebled in 1918, when women got the vote and the property requirement was removed. Most of those extra voters were working-class.

Labour also received a boost to their vote in 1929 when the franchise was further extended to women aged 21-29.

So Labour's rise in popularity was mainly due to a massive increase in the size of the electorate rather than because of a flexibility in the system

Yeah I was sure it was more than 30 years ago lol. One of labours big bragging points is the NHS after the war, which was far more than 30 years ago.

If I recall, Liberals were a major party before WW1, who got replaced by Labour as number 2. Liberals now are known as Lib Dems after a few party mergers.

[Xennith]

I dont really give a fuck about the lib dems. Electoral reform is a completely seperate issue, if you are against AV because you want to punish the lib dems then I honestly see no argument that would convince you... except for one.

The tories stand to lose massively under AV and are dead set against it, almost all the No to AV funding comes from the tories.

In AV I still get one vote counted btw, as do you. Just I'm allowed to cast it for who I want to win instead of against the guy I dont want to win.

[Rodj Blake]

I'm sorry but no

if you choose to vote for a minority party and that party fails to win the seat oh~well

AV allows you to "back up" your vote. That is totally stupid because you are ONE person and as such you should have ONE vote.

Libdems dont even want AV. They just want to change the system so they can try and win more seats & they are just not going to.

Cleggogeddon has ruined their party forever & come the local elections they are going to be fucking hammered into ground so hard.

Allowing votes to be moved works well enough in unions up and down the country.

It works well enough in the London mayoral elections (where everyone gets a second preference).

It even works well in the Conservative party (where they have multi-round voting).

Yes, maybe the Lib Dems do want a change because it would benefit them. But who can blame them when they typically get around 20% of the vote and less than 10% of seats?

But if you think that the Tories are supporting FPTP purely because it's in the country's interests and not theirs then you're deluded.

[Dregek]

problems with the libdems when they cam into the coalition was they where totally unprepared for an sort of decision making, their all flash no substance & its been totally revealed to the public & regardless of a change in the system libdems will probably lose seats.

The broke a pretty major promise with the student fees fiasco & have pretty much alienated an entire generation because of it and so have the conservatives to a degree.

You may disagree with this but labour are going to rape at the locals in may & pretty much every by-election until the next general election and given the emo shit coming out of clegg atm i highly doubt the coalition will last that long.

edit: oh i know they dont want it for purely selfish reasons, but AV is terrible proportional voting is the only truly fair voting system but as already said its doesn't give accountability the same as local mp's

[Rodj Blake]

problems with the libdems when they cam into the coalition was they where totally unprepared for an sort of decision making, their all flash no substance & its been totally revealed to the public & regardless of a change in the system libdems will probably lose seats.

The broke a pretty major promise with the student fees fiasco & have pretty much alienated an entire generation because of it and so have the conservatives to a degree.

You may disagree with this but labour are going to rape at the locals in may & pretty much every by-election until the next general election and given the emo shit coming out of clegg atm i highly doubt the coalition will last that long.

And what does any of that have to do with whether FPTP or AV is the better system?

[Xennith]

So what? Labour will do well with or without AV. People like having money spent on them, but all that stuff is a different discussion, voting against electoral reform to hurt the lib dems serves only to hurt yourself in the long run. Unless of course you like having a choice between red or blue.

[El Capitano]

The broke a pretty major promise with the student fees fiasco & have pretty much alienated an entire generation because of it and so have the conservatives to a degree.

You may disagree with this but labour are going to rape at the locals in may & pretty much every by-election until the next general election and given the emo shit coming out of clegg atm i highly doubt the coalition will last that long.
So you're going to vote for a party who broke their tuition fees promise twice to stick it to a party that broke their tuition fees promise once? Interesting.

[Dregek]

regardless of any changes in the voting system lib dems are the closest they will probably ever be to gaining any power and it was more because the voting population began turning against tories.

AV is so terrible, im not saying FPTP is any better but it still both a simpler system & its also a fairer system because if a person decides to vote for the monster raving loony party then they have consciously wasted that vote and they shouldn't be allowed to have a second/third choice

edit: didnt say anywhere who i was voting for, tbh all the parties are faggots and always have been

[El Capitano]

regardless of any changes in the voting system lib dems are the closest they will probably ever be to gaining any power and it was more because the voting population began turning against tories.
What are you talking about? The Lib Dems *lost* power in the last election despite *gaining* votes. Nobody turned away from the Tories towards the Lib Dems, the voting population was turning away from Labour, towards either the Lib Dems or the Tories, largely depending on what the 2005 result was in your constituency.

AV is so terrible, im not saying FPTP is any better but it still both a simpler system & its also a fairer system because if a person decides to vote for the monster raving loony party then they have consciously wasted that vote and they shouldn't be allowed to have a second/third choice
It's not just about minority parties, it's about being able to rank in order of preference. FPTP is not fairer, it's pretty fucking wildly accepted that FPTP is about the most unfair system you can get. If you vote no, you consign us to another century of Labour/Tory swings.

[Xennith]

AV is terrible because it allows people to vote for minority parties and back that up with a preference for a major party?

FPTP is good because people voting for small parties are wasting their votes, effectively locking everyone out of the political process unless they are one of the two major parties?

:psyduck:

[Dregek]

What are you talking about? The Lib Dems *lost* power in the last election despite *gaining* votes. Nobody turned away from the Tories towards the Lib Dems, the voting population was turning away from Labour, towards either the Lib Dems or the Tories, largely depending on what the 2005 result was in your constituency.

The Tories has a massive points lead on labour before the election come the election that had closed significantly and that's how we ended up with a coalition



It's not just about minority parties, it's about being able to rank in order of preference. FPTP is not fairer, it's pretty fucking wildly accepted that FPTP is about the most unfair system you can get. If you vote no, you consign us to another century of Labour/Tory swings.

i intend to vote no, i dont want AV. I want proportional voting but never going to happen probably

[Kam SingDu'k]

I myself would prefer a system of Proportional Representation, where the % of total votes out of the whole population of England = the % of seats in Parliament. The only major problem with this way of voting, is when it comes down to assigning MP's to constituencies and at local level. I haven't done any research on this, but if any country has found a way to assign MP's fairly then I'd be totally up for it.

AV is Alternative vote, and has already been detailed in the above posts so I wont go to it. Whilst campaigning during the elections, Nick Clegg actually stated that AV was a 'miserable little compromise'. And it really is. However, it is a step in what I believe to be the right direction. No longer will MP's be voted in with 35% of votes out of the 35% who turn up to actually vote. People who may feel strongly about, say voting from green party, can now make second and 3rd choices to other parties, with the intention being that these will be aimed towards the big 3. Therefore,non-mainstream voters can now make more realistic voting decisions. By putting parties in order of preference, you can also exclude the parties that you definately do not want in power eg conservatives or BNP, by specifically not voting for them. This is why BNP and Conservatives are campaigning against such change.

As for FPTP, although it looks fair, the fact that voters are separated by constituencies makes it more of a local vote, than for a 'general election'. Think about it, the last labour government got in with something like 30-40% of votes? So 60-70% of people did not vote for them in. However, they managed to hold a majority of seats (over 50%), because of the way constituencies were divided out. As an example, say if the constituency of Manchester required 500k votes to establish 1 labour MP, and the smaller constituency of blackpool only required 50k votes for 1 conservative MP, from Parliament, you would call it a 50/50 split. However, from a general population level, the labour MP actually has 10x more support. This is the main problem with FPTP.

[Rodj Blake]

regardless of any changes in the voting system lib dems are the closest they will probably ever be to gaining any power and it was more because the voting population began turning against tories.

AV is so terrible, im not saying FPTP is any better but it still both a simpler system & its also a fairer system because if a person decides to vote for the monster raving loony party then they have consciously wasted that vote and they shouldn't be allowed to have a second/third choice

edit: didnt say anywhere who i was voting for, tbh all the parties are faggots and always have been

FPTP works fine in a two-party system

Back in the 1950s over 90% of people voted for the big-two parties.

But in 2005 this figure had fallen to 68%, and last year the figure dropped again to 65%.

So we no longer have two-party politics.

What this means is that millions of people are effectively disenfranchised by the system. If you want to vote UKIP, your vote is wasted. If you want to vote Respect, your vote is wasted. If you want to vote Green and you don't live in Brighton, your vote is wasted.

More than that, if you're a Lib-Dem voter and you live in a Labour/Tory marginal, your vote is wasted. If you're a Labour voter and you live in Lib Dem/Tory marginal, your vote is wasted. And if you're a Conservative voter and you live in a Lib Dem/Labour marginal guess what? Your vote is wasted.

AV gives a voice to all of these people.

And what if you don't live in a marginal? Well, it pretty much doesn't matter who you vote for, because no matter how rubbish your MP or his party is, he'll still get re-elected.

AV won't solve this problem in all constituencies, but it will mean that there are far fewer safe seats where it happens. It will bring more consituencies into play at general elections, and it will mean that more MPs have to listen to the wishes of their constituents - all of their constituents.

[Dregek]

that's a problem with boundaries and that needs to be addressed with a redrawing of the lines by a completely independent commission. all the MP boundaries should have roughly equal numbers of people in them.

Also compulsory voting should be highly considered.

edit



What this means is that millions of people are effectively disenfranchised by the system. If you want to vote UKIP, your vote is wasted. If you want to vote Respect, your vote is wasted. If you want to vote Green and you don't live in Brighton, your vote is wasted.

More than that, if you're a Lib-Dem voter and you live in a Labour/Tory marginal, your vote is wasted. If you're a Labour voter and you live in Lib Dem/Tory marginal, your vote is wasted. And if you're a Conservative voter and you live in a Lib Dem/Labour marginal guess what? Your vote is wasted.

AV gives a voice to all of these people.



no it doesn't, because most will vote their main support, which will be tory/labour and then it will lib dems then who ever so at the end of the day the system is going to change shit

AV is just going to give us more hung parliments

[Rodj Blake]

that's a problem with boundaries and that needs to be addressed with a redrawing of the lines by a completely independent commission. all the MP boundaries should have roughly equal numbers of people in them.

Also compulsory voting should be highly considered.

They do already all have broadly the same number of voters in them, subject to geographical limits.

But this referendum isn't about compulsion, nor boundary changes (which the Conservatives will mess with no matter how the vote goes on the 5th).

[Rodj Blake]

no it doesn't, because most will vote their main support, which will be tory/labour and then it will lib dems then who ever so at the end of the day the system is going to change shit

AV is just going to give us more hung parliments

So it will both change nothing and also lead to more hung parliaments? Make your mind up!

A recent Newsnight study concluded that every election since 1979 would have had the same result under AV.

Sometimes the majorities would have been lower, sometimes they would have been higher.

[Dregek]

http://www.onebit.us/images/avvotes460x287.jpg

regardless of our jousting good sir :monocledowns: the polls are showing that AV is losing

[El Capitano]

The Tories has a massive points lead on labour before the election come the election that had closed significantly and that's how we ended up with a coalition
In the polls, the Conservatives went from a roughly 10 point lead to a 7 point lead, so I'll give you that, but Labour's numbers also went down. However, the Conservatives got more votes in 2010 than Labour got in 2005. How is that fair?

i intend to vote no, i dont want AV. I want proportional voting but never going to happen probably
Exactly, you need to open up the field to have a chance to shift to PR. AV gives you that opening, you're not going to get it with the current setup. Stop screwing yourself over.

[El Capitano]

Also compulsory voting should be highly considered.
No it shouldn't.

[Rodj Blake]

regardless of our jousting good sir :monocledowns: the polls are showing that AV is losing

The opinion poll data depends upon what question is asked:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/av-referendum

[Xennith]

Anyone who wants electoral reform and votes against AV because its not PR is an idiot.

If AV loses in the reforendum then the tories will say that it is a clear indication that people are happy with FPTP and the issue of electoral reform will vanish completely.

[Dregek]

I'm sorry but I simply wont vote for a sytem that I'm totally against, I hate FPTP but I hate AV more. I do not & will never support a system that allows a person to dick around with their votes and still have a voice because of a system that allows them to have a safety net

[Rodj Blake]

i intend to vote no, i dont want AV. I want proportional voting but never going to happen probably
Exactly, you need to open up the field to have a chance to shift to PR. AV gives you that opening, you're not going to get it with the current setup. Stop screwing yourself over.

Yep, a "No" vote will be spun by the opponents of change as meaning that there's no appetite for any sort of reform.

[Laundry]

Polls are retarded. A guardian poll will show support for AV when the same on the times will show the opposite.

Consituency boundaries try to be the same but they can vary by tens of thousands.

[Xennith]

I'm sorry but I simply wont vote for a sytem that I'm totally against, I hate FPTP but I hate AV more. I do not & will never support a system that allows a person to be honest with their votes and still have a voice because of a system that allows them to have a safety net

FTFY.

[El Capitano]

I'm sorry but I simply wont vote for a sytem that I'm totally against, I hate FPTP but I hate AV more. I do not & will never support a system that allows a person to dick around with their votes and still have a voice because of a system that allows them to have a safety net
Then why do you support any of the major parties, as they make pretty heavy use of it internally?

[Dregek]

anyway I've a job interview at 4 so time to shower and iron the clothes and be ready to gogogo.

And even if AV loses there is still a lot of desire for change. Tories may not do it but then again i dont see them getting as second term

[Shaikar]

Anyone who wants electoral reform and votes against AV because its not PR is an idiot.

If AV loses in the reforendum then the tories will say that it is a clear indication that people are happy with FPTP and the issue of electoral reform will vanish completely.
I was just about to post this, good show. A "no" win will bury the question for at least a generation, it doesn't matter who gets in next because it's highl unlikely anyone who gets in with FPTP will have the political will to care. We've only got this one because of a coalition which doesn't exactly happen very often.

[El Capitano]

And even if AV loses there is still a lot of desire for change. Tories may not do it but then again i dont see them getting as second term
And just who will deliver it? Labour promised reform for 13 years, but were quietly suppressing it behind the scenes.

[Laundry]

I'm sorry but I simply wont vote for a sytem that I'm totally against, I hate FPTP but I hate AV more. I do not & will never support a system that allows a person to dick around with their votes and still have a voice because of a system that allows them to have a safety net
Then why do you support any of the major parties, as they make pretty heavy use of it internally?

Internally, for issues like whos party leader where its a lot more personal and isnt the be-all and end all if someone you dont like gets in its fine.

You wouldnt have noticed much a difference whether Ed or David Miliband won, they would still be supporting the ussual same policies. But when it comes down to which party you want to govern the entire country its different

[Dregek]

just before i get in the shower, i dont support anyone tbh, regardless of the the party name they are all herp derp faggots who crave power

[Rodj Blake]

just before i get in the shower, i dont support anyone tbh, regardless of the the party name they are all herp derp faggots who crave power

Which implies that you think that FPTP has failed massively and that pretty much any change would be an improvement.

[Nicholai Pestot]

And even if AV loses there is still a lot of desire for change. Tories may not do it but then again i dont see them getting as second term
And just who will deliver it? Labour promised reform for 13 years, but were quietly suppressing it behind the scenes.

Which is hardly surprising? They benefit the most from the peculiarities of FPTP that make so many votes irrelevant.

In fact, the correlation between Labour supporters and those who wish to keep FPTP is so strong, that I internally replace anything said by Labour/Labour supporters on the subject with "herpyderp". The bias there is just too strong to accept anything said by them without significant amounts of independent verification.

I don't like AV myself, but I see it as the first step towards a better system and clearly superior to FPTP.

[Rodj Blake]

I'm sorry but I simply wont vote for a sytem that I'm totally against, I hate FPTP but I hate AV more. I do not & will never support a system that allows a person to dick around with their votes and still have a voice because of a system that allows them to have a safety net
Then why do you support any of the major parties, as they make pretty heavy use of it internally?

Internally, for issues like whos party leader where its a lot more personal and isnt the be-all and end all if someone you dont like gets in its fine.

You wouldnt have noticed much a difference whether Ed or David Miliband won, they would still be supporting the ussual same policies. But when it comes down to which party you want to govern the entire country its different

Why? Because you think that the man in the street can't be trusted with being able to express his opinion?

[Rodj Blake]

A preview of tonight's broadcast by the Yes campaign:

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/referendum-broadcast?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Yes&utm_campaign=20110412referendumvideo&utm_content=video&source=20110412referendumvideo

[Aurora148]

the No campaign broadcast was a load of manipulative shit, it was also fairly insulting to the intelligence of anyone capable of concious thought.

the underlying message of it was if we pick AV then the Lib Dems could win the election, playing on the manufactured rage that has been set upon them post may '10.

[El Capitano]

the No campaign broadcast was a load of manipulative shit, it was also fairly insulting to the intelligence of anyone capable of concious thought.
The No advertising campaign has been built on fabrications and outright lies from the start, what made you think the political broadcast would be different?

[Laundry]

Both campaigns are retarded and full of lies and bullshit

[Rodj Blake]

Both campaigns are retarded and full of lies and bullshit

Care to expand on that?

[Laundry]

Both campaigns are retarded and full of lies and bullshit

Care to expand on that?

Just watched the Yes to AV campaign:

1) At the sta rt she acts like her MP isnt in touch with the area and she "hasnt seem him since". Yes which is true in some cases but how is having AV going to make MPs more involved with the communitythey represent when they are elected? Even with AV, if they get elected they are just going to go to London the same just as what happens now.

2) Having AV to elect leaders is in a different league than electing a governement to run the entire country

3) In the ad they talk about expenses. They label "No to AV" politicians as the people who claim expenses on stupid things, when it was all sides who did. Changing our voting system isnt going to effect expenses

4) They make out everyone who votes no is a posh upper class twat, which isnt the case.

Seems like they just put a few things that most people can relate to and made it seem like AV will solve all those problems

Ill check out the No campaign now

[Dregek]

heh im voting no & most people i know are and im far far far from being posh, i mean fuck im from the wirral and according to anyone i talk to on ts calls me a fucking scouser :cut:

[Rodj Blake]

Both campaigns are retarded and full of lies and bullshit

Care to expand on that?

Just watched the Yes to AV campaign:

1) At the sta rt she acts like her MP isnt in touch with the area and she "hasnt seem him since". Yes which is true in some cases but how is having AV going to make MPs more involved with the communitythey represent when they are elected? Even with AV, if they get elected they are just going to go to London the same just as what happens now.

AV makes it easier to kick out a bad MP because they need 50% of their constituents to be satisfied with their performance.





2) Having AV to elect leaders is in a different league than electing a governement to run the entire country

In what way?


3) In the ad they talk about expenses. They label "No to AV" politicians as the people who claim expenses on stupid things, when it was all sides who did. Changing our voting system isnt going to effect expenses

See my answer to 1)


4) They make out everyone who votes no is a posh upper class twat, which isnt the case.



The No campaign has received heavy backing from what one might call The Establishment, whereas the Yes campaign has the larger grass-roots organisation.

Feel free to say that at least some of it is bullshit, but I don't see any actual lies there.


Ill check out the No campaign now

Please do ;)

[Smuggo]

Both campaigns are full of awful bullshit designed to confuse people as much as possible (when most people are already too fucking stupid to understand how FPTP works anyway). Both voting systems are pretty terrible.

However, I'll vote for AV as a sign that I would quite like for the voting system to be talked about a bit more openly with some proper consideration of ALL the options available out there.

[Dregek]

given modern technology, we should totally give everyone in the country, 'who wants to be a millionaire' ask the audience remote's with 3 options. Yay, Nay & abstain

lets fuck the country up together...... errr even more.

AV just isnt radical enough for me. We need massive changes.

> proportional voting
> a seperate leadership voting away from the leader of the majority party I.e removal of the queen as head of state & move to a presidential system
> Removal of hereditary peers & make the house of lords fully voted for
> Fixed terms number I.e no more than 2 terms as president

[Feyd Mantis]

Read through the thread and don't think I have seen these links posted yet.

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

The Alternative Vote Explained :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&feature=relmfu

Happen to stumble on them yesterday seemed like pretty good explanations.

[Laundry]

Feel free to say that at least some of it is bullshit, but I don't see any actual lies there.


Ill check out the No campaign now

Please do ;)


Under AV we are still going to have an MP for 4 years. So if people dont like him/her they are stuck with them for 4 years. You can kick someone out under FPTP now! AV isnt going to massivly change people ability of getting rid of someone.

The entire ad has highlighted 2/3 points which AV will not effect at all but they make it out as they would.

What you’re missing is that different electoral systems have different strengths and weaknesses, and in different contexts, different strengths and weaknesses matter more than others. For instance, for electing a party leader, the Condorcet voting system is likely to give a compromise candidate who can keep all wings of the party reasonably happy.

[El Capitano]

Under AV we are still going to have an MP for 4 years. So if people dont like him/her they are stuck with them for 4 years. You can kick someone out under FPTP now! AV isnt going to massivly change people ability of getting rid of someone.
5 years.

What you’re missing is that different electoral systems have different strengths and weaknesses, and in different contexts, different strengths and weaknesses matter more than others. For instance, for electing a party leader, the Condorcet voting system is likely to give a compromise candidate who can keep all wings of the party reasonably happy.
That argument makes AV an even better fit for a constituency based system than it is for a party leadership. If you don't like your party leadership, you can leave and join another, or form one of your own. If you don't like your MP, you can, well...err...move out?! A constituent is far more encumbered to his constituency than a minister is to his party. If it's important to have a compromise to keep a party mostly happy, then it's even more important to have a compromise to keep a constituency mostly happy.

[Xennith]

Just seen advert for Yes campaign. Son, am disappoint.

There are some great arguments for AV and they used none of them.

[El Capitano]

Both adverts sucked ass, definitely a wasted opportunity for the Yes campaign.

[TimMc]

Polls are retarded. A guardian poll will show support for AV when the same on the times will show the opposite.

Consituency boundaries try to be the same but they can vary by tens of thousands.

Non-shocker. People drinking the tory coolaid are more inclined to vote no, while people reading the liberal papers are more likely to vote yes.

Will be interesting to see how parties divide if AV is implemented. Tories and labour are coalitions, lib dems are straining and may become two parties if it becomes easier for smaller parties to get elected.

[Fallout]

I think that was the worst advert Ive ever seen for the yes campaign. Will probably vote no anyway because i dont see AV being useful for much other than helping shit parties like UKIP since the Lib Dems turned out to be tories in disguise.

[Xennith]

I think that was the worst advert Ive ever seen for the yes campaign. Will probably vote no anyway because i dont like democracy.

[Katamarino]

Proportional Representation is a fucking disaster. Just look at Holland and Belgium. When they actually manage to form a government, which is an achievement in itself, it is made up of so many bitching and infighting tiny groups that fuck all can ever be done and they waste their time squabbling like school children. PR should never, ever be used IMO.

A major portion of the public are too self centered and short sighted to be allowed a vote. They'll just follow whichever moron is promising the biggest handouts; "here, we'll give you all something for nothing!" ... a benevolent dictatorship, or some sort of meritocracy, would be nice...and maybe a voter exam to be passed, and no vote for the long term unemployed...

Rant rant rant... :nostradamus:

[El Capitano]

Personally, I prefer Germany's system, which is half PR, half constituency. Good luck explaining that system to your typical British idiot though.

[Caldari Cylon]

Will be voting No just because old fuckwit ed is behind the Yes vote.

[ElweSingollo]

First Past the Post is a retarded system and is completely non representative of what the actual voting is.

to give a good example in Scotland in the last election if you compare share of the vote to actual seats gained it sows you how unfair and unrepresentative the FPTP sytem is.

Share of Vote

LAB 42.0%
SNP 19.9%
LD 18.9%
CON 16.7%

Seats Gained

Labour
41
Liberal Democrat
11
Scottish National Party
6
Conservative
1

As you can see from that conservatives got screwed over royally as did the SNP and to a lesser extent the Lib Dem's through simple expidient of the fact that labour polls strongest in population rich and thus seat rich areas but grossly overstrip there actual support in terms of the number of seats gained.

In regards to the AV proposal it's a bit hard I will "probably" end up voting yes for it due to the simple fact that the election system we have in this country needs to change and while AV is far from the ideal solution (I would much prefer a similar situation to what we have for the Scottish Parliment) I fear that if we do not embrace that change we are doomed to decades more of a broken electoral system.

[ElweSingollo]

Personally, I prefer Germany's system, which is half PR, half constituency. Good luck explaining that system to your typical British idiot though.

Sounds basically the same as the Scottish Parliment system you get 2 votes one for you "constituency candidate" and a second vote which is for a list msp which you can put to whichever party you wish. List MSP's are asigned proportionately based on share of vote in the country for example Labour gets 50% of the Constituency seats but only 30% of the vote then they will get less "list seats" in order to ensure that the representation in parliment is equal to the share of the vote each party recieved.

[Rodj Blake]

Proportional Representation is a fucking disaster. Just look at Holland and Belgium. When they actually manage to form a government, which is an achievement in itself, it is made up of so many bitching and infighting tiny groups that fuck all can ever be done and they waste their time squabbling like school children. PR should never, ever be used IMO.

So it's just as well that PR isn't on the ballot paper then.

[James Snowscoran]

Proportional Representation is a fucking disaster.
Actually you just need to l2govern and stop being failures. Proportional representation isn't the problem here.

[Varicose Brains]

Wow, really surprised that AV seems to be winning on here despite all the legitimate arguments as to why it's a bad idea. I'll be voting no to AV, partly because I think it would be bad for the country and partly because Nick Clegg is a fucking bellend.

[Aurora148]

Wow, really surprised that AV seems to be winning on here despite all the legitimate arguments as to why it's a bad idea. I'll be voting no to AV, partly because I think it would be bad for the country and partly because Nick Clegg is a fucking bellend.

"First Past the Post is just Fine tyvm, no change ever required"

[TimMc]

On topic of No campaigners being idiots:


...it has resorted to cynical scaremongering, in order to frighten the public away from backing reform. The Conservative Party chair Sayeeda Warsi has argued that AV will be a great boost to the British National Party. Coming from a politician who claimed in 2007 that BNP voters have "some very legitimate views" on immigration, the hypocrisy is clear. But more importantly, there is no evidence to support the contention that racist parties such as the BNP would benefit from AV. Indeed, the BNP themselves are urging their supporters to vote No next month.

These claims about the BNP are merely one manifestation of the cynicism of the No campaign. They have produced posters claiming that the cost of moving to AV would be £250m and implying that this money would be better spent on maternity units and body armour for British troops. Again, the hypocrisy sticks in the throat. The biggest supporters of the No campaign are also those who have been most vocal in calling for cuts in public spending.

But this £250m figure is, in any case, spurious. Some £90m of this would be spent on the referendum in any case, and would not be saved in the event of a No vote. And around £130m of that figure is predicated on the assumption that expensive new electronic counting machines would be introduced. The flaw here is that those expensive machines are a figment of the No campaign's imagination: there are no plans to introduce any such technology.

The No campaign is built on fear and cynicism (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-no-campaign-is-built-on-fear-and-cynicism-2266747.html)

[Rodj Blake]

On the subject of the No campaign being less than truthful, I happened to peruse a Conservative party document document aimed at their people on the No campaign last night.

It suggested that FPTP had never resulted in an extremist being elected to the House of Commons.

I suppose that the Conservatives don't consider Sinn Fein to have been extremist in the 1980s then. Or Willie Gallacher (a 1930s Communist with a conviction for incitement to mutiny).

So FPTP doesn't prevent extremists being elected.

But is it true that AV helps extremists as the No camapign claims?

No it isn't - for the reasons I outlined earlier in this thread. Indeed, the BNP's policy is that they'd prefer to stick with the current system.

[Rodj Blake]

Wow, really surprised that AV seems to be winning on here despite all the legitimate arguments as to why it's a bad idea. I'll be voting no to AV, partly because I think it would be bad for the country and partly because Nick Clegg is a fucking bellend.

You and I must be reading different threads then, because I've yet to see a legitimate argument in favour of FPTP here.

Also, are you really saying the Nick Clegg is a bigger bellend than David Cameron (or indeed, Nick Griffin)?

[Xennith]

Wow, really surprised that AV seems to be winning on here despite all the legitimate arguments as to why it's a bad idea.

Such as....?

I'll be voting no to AV, partly because Nick Clegg is a fucking bellend.

And milliband, brown, blair, cameron, thatcher, major, etc were all great?

[spasm]

Alternative vote is the comedy option.

[Shiodome]

posting these because they made me laugh

http://rdouglasjohnson.com/misc/av-dogshit.gif

http://www.b3tards.com/u/c62383b2fb0dc7237700/voting.jpg

:monocledowns:

[elmicker]

Personally, I prefer Germany's system, which is half PR, half constituency. Good luck explaining that system to your typical British idiot though.

Labour concocted a version of this when they first investigated (and then abandoned) electoral reform. They labelled it AV+. Constituencies would remain, and their representatives would be elected under AV, but there would be a second class of MP elected proportionally from regional party lists. It works out to be far more proportional than AV alone, and typically delivers strong governments, but formalises and cements the concept of safe seats, and removes any vestige of those safe seats having any representational responsibilities.

[elmicker]

Wow, really surprised that AV seems to be winning on here despite all the legitimate arguments as to why it's a bad idea. I'll be voting no to AV, partly because I think it would be bad for the country and partly because Nick Clegg is a fucking bellend.

"First Past the Post is just Fine tyvm, no change ever required"

Most people would much rather have no change than bad change. Nobody wants AV, nobody has ever wanted AV and Clegg is only supporting it because he's unwilling to admit that the coalition agreement was the absolute political rape of the liberal democrats as a party. The AV referendum is one of the few things they wrangled, but they should be ashamed of doing so. It's not a reform they support and it's rife with issues and when the inevitable no vote is returned, it'll kill off whatever reform movement is left for the next decade. Most of the people voting yes for AV, certainly the ones I've encountered, are voting to keep a reform movement alive, they're not voting on the merits of the system. Tactical voting to end tactical voting. While the irony is delicious, it flies in the face of what the liberal democrats stood for.

[Laundry]

Is AV a step in the right direction for our democracy?
No - for the most part AV is no better than our current voting system. Its few advantages are outweighed by its disadvantages. And it's no more a step towards proportional representation than our current system.

Is AV fairer than our current system?
No - AV is not a proportional system and can lead to more disproportionate results than our current system. Research suggests that in 3 out of the last 4 UK elections AV would have produced more disproportionate results.

Will minority parties win more seats?
No - AV is not a proportional system and minority parties are unlikely to win even one more seat. However, AV will give more power to minority parties but without making them democratically accountable (like lobbyists).

Will landslide elections be a thing of the past?
No - and experiences from Australia and Canada show that when they occur we can expect landslide elections to be even worse than under our current system, providing a colossal majority for a party on a minority vote.

Will AV help clean up our politics?
No - issues like the MP Expenses Scandal are not a result of the electoral system. Contrary to some reports in the media, the latest research shows there is no link between safe seats and the MP Expenses Scandal.

Will AV abolish the safe seat?
No - although the number of single-party safe seats may reduce with AV, entrenched patterns of preference transfers and "plumping" will simply create new safe seats throughout the UK.

Will AV end tactical voting?
No - with AV the old game of tactical voting is not put away, it just has new rules. It allows the supporters of 1st parties to vote tactically when 2nd and 3rd parties are close.

Will AV make Parliament more legitimate?
No - governments will still get Parliamentary majorities with less than 50% of the vote, landslides will still occur, tactical voting and safe seats will still be with us. If Parliament lacks legitimacy now, it will with AV too.

Will AV end the calls for electoral reform?
No - reformers do not see AV as a settlement, merely a concession on the road to proportional representation. Experience from other countries suggests implementing AV now may end the reform process rather than start it.

[Aurora148]

FPTP is shit, but AV is slightly less shit.

BUT WE ARE ALL SCARED OF CHANGE

[Shaikar]

<stuff>
Some of those answers give me the impression you don't understand how either system works.

[Laundry]

<stuff>
Some of those answers give me the impression you don't understand how either system works.

Elaborate?

[Tsubutai]

Is AV a step in the right direction for our democracy?
No - for the most part AV is no better than our current voting system. Its few advantages are outweighed by its disadvantages. And it's no more a step towards proportional representation than our current system.

Is AV fairer than our current system?
No - AV is not a proportional system and can lead to more disproportionate results than our current system. Research suggests that in 3 out of the last 4 UK elections AV would have produced more disproportionate results.

Will minority parties win more seats?
No - AV is not a proportional system and minority parties are unlikely to win even one more seat. However, AV will give more power to minority parties but without making them democratically accountable (like lobbyists).

Will landslide elections be a thing of the past?
No - and experiences from Australia and Canada show that when they occur we can expect landslide elections to be even worse than under our current system, providing a colossal majority for a party on a minority vote.

Will AV help clean up our politics?
No - issues like the MP Expenses Scandal are not a result of the electoral system. Contrary to some reports in the media, the latest research shows there is no link between safe seats and the MP Expenses Scandal.

Will AV abolish the safe seat?
No - although the number of single-party safe seats may reduce with AV, entrenched patterns of preference transfers and "plumping" will simply create new safe seats throughout the UK.

Will AV end tactical voting?
No - with AV the old game of tactical voting is not put away, it just has new rules. It allows the supporters of 1st parties to vote tactically when 2nd and 3rd parties are close.

Will AV make Parliament more legitimate?
No - governments will still get Parliamentary majorities with less than 50% of the vote, landslides will still occur, tactical voting and safe seats will still be with us. If Parliament lacks legitimacy now, it will with AV too.

Will AV end the calls for electoral reform?
No - reformers do not see AV as a settlement, merely a concession on the road to proportional representation. Experience from other countries suggests implementing AV now may end the reform process rather than start it.
If you're going to keep appealing to "research," cite it or fuck off.

edit: this is possibly the most nauseating scaremongering bullshit I've seen in a long while, gj.

[Laundry]

If you're going to keep appealing to "research," cite it or fuck off.

edit: this is possibly the most nauseating scaremongering bullshit I've seen in a long while, gj.

Ill get sources now but whilst i do please tell me what i have posted is scaremongering and isnt true?

If you actualy read what i posted and had a pragmatic view over FPTP, AV and PR then you would see that what i posted isnt scaremongering its true. Please challenge me on anything you feel to be bullshit and false

[Krugerrand]

Doesn't really matter, referendum won't pass :p

[James Snowscoran]

Will AV end the calls for electoral reform?
No - reformers do not see AV as a settlement, merely a concession on the road to proportional representation. Experience from other countries suggests implementing AV now may end the reform process rather than start it.
wat.gif

[Sakura Nihil]

Been a strong proponent of the alternative voting system. Prevents parties from saying "hey, we suck, but this other party is even worse and if you don't vote for us, they'll win!" - I don't like having to vote strategically.

[Laundry]

Will AV end the calls for electoral reform?
No - reformers do not see AV as a settlement, merely a concession on the road to proportional representation. Experience from other countries suggests implementing AV now may end the reform process rather than start it.
wat.gif

For many reformers AV is a stepping stone in the long and winding road to electoral reform. There are two main arguments for viewing AV like this and both are mistaken. The first is: with the adoption of AV voters will like preferential voting and then want to move to the single transferable vote (STV).

The serious problem with this thinking is that, if AV is introduced for general elections, either:

* AV becomes popular and there will be little desire for change, except perhaps using AV in other elections or
* AV proves unpopular and, with preferential voting tainted, the impetus will be to return to our current system.

Where AV fits a political system, such as Australia, it remains in place: Australia has been using AV for 90 years. Where it has not, it has not been replaced by STV. After using AV for 30 years in regional elections, the Western provinces of Canada returned to our first-past-the-post system in the 1950s and has been using it ever since.

[Lancehot]

Will be voting yes even though I fully expect it not to pass. I rather like the idea of being able to rank the shits wanting to represent me by preference of odor.

Also, disappointed with the pre-referendum campaigning so far. May just be me, but apart from reading about how underhanded both sides have been accusing each other of being on the news, I've seen next to nothing in terms of propaganda/campaign literature etc. I got sent a pamphlet from the No2AV group, but it was just page after page of how AV would be a waste of tax money & some xenophobic stuff about how Australia using AV proves what crap it is.

[Kam SingDu'k]

Is AV a step in the right direction for our democracy?
No - for the most part AV is no better than our current voting system. Its few advantages are outweighed by its disadvantages. And it's no more a step towards proportional representation than our current system.

Is AV fairer than our current system?
No - AV is not a proportional system and can lead to more disproportionate results than our current system. Research suggests that in 3 out of the last 4 UK elections AV would have produced more disproportionate results.

Will minority parties win more seats?
No - AV is not a proportional system and minority parties are unlikely to win even one more seat. However, AV will give more power to minority parties but without making them democratically accountable (like lobbyists).

Will landslide elections be a thing of the past?
No - and experiences from Australia and Canada show that when they occur we can expect landslide elections to be even worse than under our current system, providing a colossal majority for a party on a minority vote.

Will AV help clean up our politics?
No - issues like the MP Expenses Scandal are not a result of the electoral system. Contrary to some reports in the media, the latest research shows there is no link between safe seats and the MP Expenses Scandal.

Will AV abolish the safe seat?
No - although the number of single-party safe seats may reduce with AV, entrenched patterns of preference transfers and "plumping" will simply create new safe seats throughout the UK.

Will AV end tactical voting?
No - with AV the old game of tactical voting is not put away, it just has new rules. It allows the supporters of 1st parties to vote tactically when 2nd and 3rd parties are close.

Will AV make Parliament more legitimate?
No - governments will still get Parliamentary majorities with less than 50% of the vote, landslides will still occur, tactical voting and safe seats will still be with us. If Parliament lacks legitimacy now, it will with AV too.

Will AV end the calls for electoral reform?
No - reformers do not see AV as a settlement, merely a concession on the road to proportional representation. Experience from other countries suggests implementing AV now may end the reform process rather than start it.


It's absolutely hilarious how you can pass off your answers as 'facts'. Balanced argument ftl in conservative thinking ;)

[kzig]

Alternative vote IS retarded.

Fixed that for you.

AV will only help retards like the BNP gain more power.

In case you haven't noticed, the BNP is campaigning for the No vote. Perhaps you should try to convince them otherwise?

[BadLamb]

It's absolutely hilarious how you can pass off your answers as 'facts'. Balanced argument ftl in conservative thinking ;)


I've currently got no real idea how I'm going to vote on this one so I'm interested in this. So far there have been three posts saying that Laundry's list of AV answers are made up/scaremongering/ill informed but no-one has pointed out which of them and why. Anyone willing to inform me?

[Xennith]

Will AV end tactical voting?
No

Tactical voting is defined as voting for someone who isnt your first choice to prevent someone else from winning.

At the moment in FPTP, this is rampant. In AV, you can always vote for your first choice without worrying about hitler winning. This is an intellecually dishonest answer at best, fearmongering lies at worst.

The rest of the list is very similar to this. Go read about AV and compare it to FPTP. What advantages does FPTP have? Every argument from the no campaign is about how AV will let the bnp win or how it costs a billion pounds. ie fearmongering bulshit. At no point do they sing the praises of FPTP... a system which favours the conservative and labour parties massively, go look at who is running the no campaign.

[Laundry]

Will AV end tactical voting?
No

Tactical voting is defined as voting for someone who isnt your first choice to prevent someone else from winning.

At the moment in FPTP, this is rampant. In AV, you can always vote for your first choice without worrying about hitler winning. This is an intellecually dishonest answer at best, fearmongering lies at worst.

The rest of the list is very similar to this. Go read about AV and compare it to FPTP. What advantages does FPTP have? Every argument from the no campaign is about how AV will let the bnp win or how it costs a billion pounds. ie fearmongering bulshit. At no point do they sing the praises of FPTP... a system which favours the conservative and labour parties massively, go look at who is running the no campaign.

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/6025/howtovote6.jpg
In Australia many voters faithfully follow the how-to-vote edicts issued by their party. Large-scale use of how-to-vote cards at the polling booth can only increase the power of political parties and introduce a practice of "drone voting" that diminishes individual responsibility and increases tactical voting.

Also the No campaign doesnt say the BNP will have power, they say that BNP voters will have the deciding votes of who has the majority. FPTP is a broken system but so is AV. If this was to change our voting system to STV or a form of PR then i would be 100% behind the referendum but AV is a "miserable compromise" - NC.

You say that FPTP favours large parties like the tories and labour? So does AV.... Under AV it would be very unlikely that any more smaller parties get power as we do today. The only major party that supports AV is the libdems because they have the most to gain.

[kzig]

Is AV a step in the right direction for our democracy?
No - for the most part AV is no better than our current voting system. Its few advantages are outweighed by its disadvantages. And it's no more a step towards proportional representation than our current system.


Please elaborate on which you think are the the main ones (both advantages and disadvantages).



Is AV fairer than our current system?
No - AV is not a proportional system and can lead to more disproportionate results than our current system. Research suggests that in 3 out of the last 4 UK elections AV would have produced more disproportionate results.


'Can' does not imply 'will', and still less 'will always'. I'm curious - how well does the share of the vote reflect the share of each party's seats, on average, across all the countries that use AV, over the period during which they've used it? Is this significantly better or worse than the performance of FPTP?

As with many others, I'd like to know what research forms the basis of this claim.


Will minority parties win more seats?
No - AV is not a proportional system and minority parties are unlikely to win even one more seat. However, AV will give more power to minority parties but without making them democratically accountable (like lobbyists).


On the other hand, it gives them a much better chance of victory in a marginal seat, and therefore increases the range of constituencies where it's worth their while campaigning.



Will landslide elections be a thing of the past?
No - and experiences from Australia and Canada show that when they occur we can expect landslide elections to be even worse than under our current system, providing a colossal majority for a party on a minority vote.


This seems implausible, unless a large part of the country is composed of very marginal seats. Again, looking forward to hearing more about the source.



Will AV make Parliament more legitimate?
No - governments will still get Parliamentary majorities with less than 50% of the vote, landslides will still occur, tactical voting and safe seats will still be with us. If Parliament lacks legitimacy now, it will with AV too.


On average, is the share of the vote of the ruling party higher with AV or with FPTP? I'll take 45% over 36% any day, thank you, even if it isn't a majority of the vote.

[Aurora148]

It's absolutely hilarious how you can pass off your answers as 'facts'. Balanced argument ftl in conservative thinking ;)


I've currently got no real idea how I'm going to vote on this one so I'm interested in this. So far there have been three posts saying that Laundry's list of AV answers are made up/scaremongering/ill informed but no-one has pointed out which of them and why. Anyone willing to inform me?

watch these:

[youtubehd:zdo5evzo]s7tWHJfhiyo[/youtubehd:zdo5evzo]

[youtubehd:zdo5evzo]3Y3jE3B8HsE[/youtubehd:zdo5evzo]

[elmicker]

Is it possible, under AV, for someone to receive a staggeringly high percentage of second or lower preference votes and never be elected simply because of the order in which candidates are eliminated?

Say, for example

40% vote Tory 1, Lib dem 2, Labour 3
40% vote Labour 1, Lib dem 2, Tory 3
and the Remaining 20% Lib dem 1 then whatever

The lib dem votes would be immediately discounted, would they not?

[Laundry]

Please elaborate on which you think are the the main ones (both advantages and disadvantages).


The greatest problem with AV is that it fails to cure virtually every symptom of our current electoral malaise while producing unpleasant side-effects that make the medicine worse than the illness. AV will:

* Not achieve proportional or even fairer representation
* Not ensure a minority party gets even one seat in Parliament
* Not end majority governments elected on a minority of votes
* Not stop "landslide" elections (when a party gets a huge majority based on a minority of votes)
* Still be sensitive to boundary changes and constituency sizes (gerrymandering)

So we'll still be stuck with major problems. But there's more to come. Compared to our current system, AV will:

* Allow minority parties to exert potentially significant electoral power with no accountability (like lobbyists)
* Lead to "drone voters" copying party-authorized preference lists in the polling booths
* Most likely result in more pronounced landslide elections when they occur
* Introduce a new type of safe seat and possibly affect the status of marginal seats
* See a new kind of more complex tactical voting driven by political parties and their activists





'Can' does not imply 'will', and still less 'will always'. I'm curious - how well does the share of the vote reflect the share of each party's seats, on average, across all the countries that use AV, over the period during which they've used it? Is this significantly better or worse than the performance of FPTP?

As with many others, I'd like to know what research forms the basis of this claim.


There is no evidence that AV is more proportional. In fact, the evidence suggests that the two systems are similarly disproportional.

By forecasting how recent elections may have turned out under AV (by use of voter surveys at each election), we can compare the disproportionality of our current system with the projected AV results.Using an index. If the index is zero we have perfect alignment of seats to votes; the higher the index the more disproportional the election. PR systems tend to have a value of 4.0 or less. The table below shows the index for the past four UK elections:
Election- Current System - Projected AV- AV Better?
2010- 14.6- 11.9- Yes
2005- 13.1 - 15.1- No
2001 - 17.8 - 19.0- No
1997 - 16.5 - 22.3- No
Average 15.5- 17.1 - No

The indices are calculated using the Gallagher Least Squares method for the three main parties only.

If we go even further back, to 1983, the average indices are virtually identical: 16.27 and 16.34. The only major democracy to use AV for its national elections is Australia, which has strong two-party politics. In the UK, since the mid-1970s, we have had a three party system. If we take account of this and then compare Australia and the UK what do we find? Statistically, Australian elections under AV are no more proportional than the UK.

In addition, if we look at regional elections in Western Canada and Queensland we find extraordinary disproportionality with AV. Two examples: in 1948 the Social Credit party in Alberta hit the jackpot when it scooped 97% of the seats by winning 53% of first preference votes (in the 47 constituencies that used AV); and in 2004 the ALP in Queensland grabbed 71% of the seats on 47% of first preferences.


On the other hand, it gives them a much better chance of victory in a marginal seat, and therefore increases the range of constituencies where it's worth their while campaigning.

It is unlikely that any minority party will win more seats under AV than under our current system. A minority party must collect enough first preferences to be placed second or at least third after the first count.




[b]
This seems implausible, unless a large part of the country is composed of very marginal seats. Again, looking forward to hearing more about the source.


AV will not prevent landslide elections - it is not a proportional system. Worse, it has the potential to turn landslide elections into "AV earthquakes", in which one of the major parties receives a colossal majority while the other faces electoral meltdown. If the UK had introduced AV then we would have seen at least one electoral earthquake in the past 30 years, according to forecasts done by the Centre For Research Into Elections. Its prediction below is how an actual UK general election may have turned out using AV. We have disguised the parties identities, the "veil of ignorance" used by philosophers, so you cannot be swayed by your own party allegiance.
Party- 1st Prefs (approx)- Seats
A 42% 445
B 30% 70
C 18% 115

[Laundry]

Is it possible, under AV, for someone to receive a staggeringly high percentage of second or lower preference votes and never be elected simply because of the order in which candidates are eliminated?

Say, for example

40% vote Tory 1, Lib dem 2, Labour 3
40% vote Labour 1, Lib dem 2, Tory 3
and the Remaining 20% Lib dem 1 then whatever

The lib dem votes would be immediately discounted, would they not?

You are correct. Everyone who voted libdem as their first choice will have it cast aside and their second will become the main preference in the second count.

[TimMc]

Is it possible, under AV, for someone to receive a staggeringly high percentage of second or lower preference votes and never be elected simply because of the order in which candidates are eliminated?

Say, for example

40% vote Tory 1, Lib dem 2, Labour 3
40% vote Labour 1, Lib dem 2, Tory 3
and the Remaining 20% Lib dem 1 then whatever

The lib dem votes would be immediately discounted, would they not?

True, lib dems would lose but assuming lib dem voters put labour as second choice, labour would win.


However, lets consider if there are more than 3 parties.

30% vote Tory 1, UKIP 2, Lib Dem 3
30% vote Labour 1, Lib Dem 2, Tory 3
25% vote Lib Dem 1, Greens 2, Labour 3
10% vote Greens 1, Lib Dem 2, Labour 3
5% vote UKIP 1, Tory 2, Lib Dems 3

So UKIPs votes are merged into Tories, Tories now have 35%.

Then Greens votes are merged into Lib Dems, Lib Dems now have 35%.

Since Lib Dems now have more than labour, lib dems get their votes, giving them 65% and taking that seat.


AV system allows for smaller parties to gain seats by being many peoples second choice. People can vote for what they want rather than just voting labour to keep tories out, or other way around.

[Lancehot]

If anyone's interested, btw, Laundry has C&P'd from here (http://www.av2011.co.uk/MenuSpeedRead.html)


Is AV a step in the right direction for our democracy?
No - for the most part AV is no better than our current voting system. Its few advantages are outweighed by its disadvantages. And it's no more a step towards proportional representation than our current system.

One step at a time. It's the British way. That is assuming that you want PR in the first place, as opposed to simply a different plurality system (please don't respond to that idea with what's the point? )


Is AV fairer than our current system?
No - AV is not a proportional system and can lead to more disproportionate results than our current system. Research suggests that in 3 out of the last 4 UK elections AV would have produced more disproportionate results.

& in others it would have produced more "proportionate" ones [actual] (http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/parlij/gsq042.pdf) [citations] (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/gefinal2005.pdf)! Proportionality is a coincidental byproduct of a plurality system. However, given the requirement for 50.01%+ of the vote on paper to win the seat, AV is at least more "proportional" within each single member constituency. This being a key point, as a move to a more PR based electoral system would also require constituency & other reforms beyond the realm of a change in the voting system. It too often seems to be forgotten that the General election is not one national election, but 650 constituency ones.


Will minority parties win more seats?
No - AV is not a proportional system and minority parties are unlikely to win even one more seat. However, AV will give more power to minority parties but without making them democratically accountable (like lobbyists).

Are you saying that minority parties would be able to "bribe" the larger parties by promising their members second preference in return for policy commitments? [just checked the website this is from & that is their argument] Again, even if this was potentially the case, it would only apply in those constituencies where minority parties enjoy a significant voting share. Currently, this really only applies in Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland, & in all three these political alliances between the main Westminster parties & regional ones already exist.


Will landslide elections be a thing of the past?
No - and experiences from Australia and Canada show that when they occur we can expect landslide elections to be even worse than under our current system, providing a colossal majority for a party on a minority vote.

It's only a minority vote if you consider only the first preference to count. That's how FPTP works, not AV. Think of it as a series of runoff elections until someone wins 50.01%+ of the vote, only without the constant need to return to the polls.


Will AV help clean up our politics?
No - issues like the MP Expenses Scandal are not a result of the electoral system. Contrary to some reports in the media, the latest research shows there is no link between safe seats and the MP Expenses Scandal.

No harm no foul


Will AV abolish the safe seat?
No - although the number of single-party safe seats may reduce with AV, entrenched patterns of preference transfers and "plumping" will simply create new safe seats throughout the UK.

True. But if you don't want safe seats then you should be calling for the abolition of single member constituencies, which is not even being humored as an idea by the Westminster parties atm.


Will AV end tactical voting?
No - with AV the old game of tactical voting is not put away, it just has new rules. It allows the supporters of 1st parties to vote tactically when 2nd and 3rd parties are close.

AV codifies & gives a framework for a voting practice that already occurs in FPTP. That is no bad thing (unless you don't like tactical voting, but again then you shouldn't support any type of plurality system with single member constituencies).


Will AV make Parliament more legitimate?
No - governments will still get Parliamentary majorities with less than 50% of the vote, landslides will still occur, tactical voting and safe seats will still be with us. If Parliament lacks legitimacy now, it will with AV too.

But at least with AV saying you have the majority doesn't ring totally hollow (unless you only count 1st preferences votes, missing the point entirely)


Will AV end the calls for electoral reform?
No - reformers do not see AV as a settlement, merely a concession on the road to proportional representation. Experience from other countries suggests implementing AV now may end the reform process rather than start it.

& I suppose a strong no vote for AV will do wonders for the reform process. If the referendum gets a no vote that isn't very close to 50:50, it will be portrayed as a resounding yes for FPTP, doing just as much, if not more damage to the cause of PR electoral reform as voting for AV will. Again, though, this assumes an interest in moving to a PR based system being the main/only reason to vote yes.

[Xennith]

In Australia many voters faithfully follow the how-to-vote edicts issued by their party.

And this is the fault of AV? Talk about grasping at straws with bullshit fearmongering.

Its quite simple. I support the lib dems but often have to vote labour to keep the tories out. With AV I CAN VOTE FOR WHO I WANT TO WIN.

That makes it a better system than FPTP.

[Rodj Blake]

In Australia many voters faithfully follow the how-to-vote edicts issued by their party.

And this is the fault of AV? Talk about grasping at straws with bullshit fearmongering.

Its quite simple. I support the lib dems but often have to vote labour to keep the tories out. With AV I CAN VOTE FOR WHO I WANT TO WIN.

That makes it a better system than FPTP.

And it's not just good for Lib Dem Supporters.

In the South-West, Labour supporters are faced with a choice between Lib Dem and Tory. In other parts of the country Conservative voters have to choose between Lab Dem and Labour. All over the country, eurosceptics may well want to vote for UKIP, but they end up voting for what they see as a pro-European candidate because of the way the system works.

In short, FPTP just isn't up to the job when you have more than two parties.

[Laundry]

In Australia many voters faithfully follow the how-to-vote edicts issued by their party.

And this is the fault of AV? Talk about grasping at straws with bullshit fearmongering.

Its quite simple. I support the lib dems but often have to vote labour to keep the tories out. With AV I CAN VOTE FOR WHO I WANT TO WIN.

That makes it a better system than FPTP.

Well yes it is AVs fault. AV doesnt get rid of tactical voting its just going to be in another form than what it currently is. Just look at Australia if you think im fearmongering because its actually happening, parties release a list of other parites to vote for and in which order...

Im all for voting reform but AV isnt it.

[Xennith]

So you'll vote no because AV isnt perfect. Cameron will stand up and point to this vote as showing that people are satisfied with FPTP, you will never see electoral reform.

AV is better, its not perfect but its a definate step forward.

[El Capitano]

So Laundry is going to resort to uncited copy and pasting. Well, in that case, research suggests Laundry spouts idiotic bullshit approximately 99% of the time.

[Laundry]

So you'll vote no because AV isnt perfect. Cameron will stand up and point to this vote as showing that people are satisfied with FPTP, you will never see electoral reform.

AV is better, its not perfect but its a definate step forward.

How can anyone know whats going to happen in the future with a yes vote? This referendum has already cost millions, there could be a yes vote and the whole debate about electoral reform dusted under the carpet and well be stuck with AV. But i agree, similarly with a no vote it could also be seen as people are happy with FPTP and its never spoken again for years

Of all the countries that have moved to AV have either moved back to FPTP or still have it.

[Laundry]

So Laundry is going to resort to uncited copy and pasting. Well, in that case, research suggests Laundry spouts idiotic bullshit approximately 99% of the time.


I contributed to that site. So i guess its not just random c/p.

All ive seem from the majority of members here is bullshit name calling posts. Noone has actually posted anything of worth supporting AV at all. "stop scaremongering" "posting bullshit" seems to the post of the day, im more than happy to debate the referendum but just getting these kind of posts is getting boring

[Kytus]

In First Past the Post, the majority of voters voted against the government and are ignored. End of.

[Laundry]

In First Past the Post, the majority of voters voted against the government and are ignored. End of.

This is the major flaw in FPTP. Looking at elections in Queensland and Western Canada AV wont solve this.

[Xennith]

Noone has actually posted anything of worth supporting AV at all

WITH AV I CAN VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE I WANT TO WIN WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT THROWING MY VOTE AWAY.

Now stop bullshiting.

[Laundry]

Noone has actually posted anything of worth supporting AV at all

WITH AV I CAN VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE I WANT TO WIN WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT THROWING MY VOTE AWAY.

Now stop bullshiting.

Yes you can do that but it doesnt get rid of the underlying problems that FPTP has.

AV will:

* Not achieve proportional or fairer representation
* Not ensure a minority party gets even one seat in Parliament
* Not end majority governments elected on a minority of votes
* Not stop "landslide" elections
* Still be sensitive to boundary changes and constituency sizes

So we'll still be stuck with the major problems. But there's more compared to our current system, AV will:

* Allow minority parties to exert potentially significant electoral power with no accountability
* Lead to "drone voters" copying party-authorized preference lists in the polling booths
* Most likely result in more pronounced landslide elections when they occur
* Introduce a new type of safe seat and possibly affect the status of marginal seats
* See a new kind of more complex tactical voting driven by political parties and their activists


Sure you can vote for Greens or UKIP first, but if they dont get enough first votes compared to other parties (Lib,Tories,labour) then they are going to be cast aside anyway.

Im all for change, but im not for changing one broken system for another.

[El Capitano]

I contributed to that site. So i guess its not just random c/p.
we had no way of knowing you contributed to that site or where the text you spouted came from. If you don't like being accused of incited c/p, cite your sources and disclose your involvement. It's not hard.

All ive seem from the majority of members here is bullshit name calling posts. Noone has actually posted anything of worth supporting AV at all. "stop scaremongering" "posting bullshit" seems to the post of the day, im more than happy to debate the referendum but just getting these kind of posts is getting boring
AV reduces tactical voting. (http://insidethem60.journallocal.co.uk/2011/04/18/av-better-suited-to-increasingly-promiscuous-british-voters-says-ippr/) I have now supplied infinitely more supporting evidence than you.

[Rodj Blake]

So Laundry is going to resort to uncited copy and pasting. Well, in that case, research suggests Laundry spouts idiotic bullshit approximately 99% of the time.


I contributed to that site. So i guess its not just random c/p.

All ive seem from the majority of members here is bullshit name calling posts. Noone has actually posted anything of worth supporting AV at all. "stop scaremongering" "posting bullshit" seems to the post of the day, im more than happy to debate the referendum but just getting these kind of posts is getting boring

You should probably re-read the thread then - there are quite a few posts saying why AV is a better system than FPTP in the UK.

[Xennith]

Yes you can do that but it doesnt get rid of the underlying problems that FPTP has.

Not a perfect solution, but is still better. I have now provided a good argument in favour of AV that you agree with.

Excellent, I guess we can all go home for tea and cake now, or are you still going to vote no because it doesnt feed and clothe the homeless as well?

[Laundry]

I contributed to that site. So i guess its not just random c/p.
we had no way of knowing you contributed to that site or where the text you spouted came from. If you don't like being accused of incited c/p, cite your sources and disclose your involvement. It's not hard.

All ive seem from the majority of members here is bullshit name calling posts. Noone has actually posted anything of worth supporting AV at all. "stop scaremongering" "posting bullshit" seems to the post of the day, im more than happy to debate the referendum but just getting these kind of posts is getting boring
AV reduces tactical voting. (http://insidethem60.journallocal.co.uk/2011/04/18/av-better-suited-to-increasingly-promiscuous-british-voters-says-ippr/) I have now supplied infinitely more supporting evidence than you.



Under AV there would be no technical reason for voting tactically for your most preferred candidate. However, when it comes to ranking your next preference candidates, in Australia, which uses AV, tactical voting has become very important.

http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/ent/d ... t_2010.pdf (http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/ent/documents/2010/12/09/18/file/Briefing_Paper_-_AV_-_August_2010.pdf)
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic ... -outcomes/ (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/08/26/tactical-voting-can-still-occur-under-the-alternative-vote-and-it-may-lead-to-unexpected-outcomes/)

[El Capitano]

This is your problem, you think in absolutes. AV is not a panacea, and I actually agree that it's a miserable compromise, but at the very least it reduces (not eliminates) tactical voting. That's actually a huge improvement as it gives an opening to smaller parties to chip away at the established hegemony that you admitted has stood for over 100 years.

[Xennith]

Seeing as your arguments seem to circle around the problems with AV rather than why FPTP is better, I'd like to present you with some examples of FPTP voting:

Kim Jong Ill,
Hugo Chavez,
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

[Laundry]

Seeing as your arguments seem to circle around the problems with AV rather than why FPTP is better, I'd like to present you with some examples of FPTP voting:

Kim Jong Ill,
Hugo Chavez,
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.


Whats your point other than just making FPTP look bad because half of the world uses FPTP which includes a very small amount of dictators :monocledowns:

[Xennith]

The same point you were making about voting lists.

Also, FPTP elects dictators. If this kind of argument is good enough for barones warsi, its good enough for me. I see your BNP and raise you one hitler.

[Lallante]

"Guys don't vote for AV because it will result in more representative government, and look at you for fuck's sake - surely you dont want to elect that"

[Laundry]

The same point you were making about voting lists.

Also, FPTP elects dictators. If this kind of argument is good enough for barones warsi, its good enough for me. I see your BNP and raise you one hitler.

Now entering in this type of debate will only lead to scaremongering and more bullshitting. I ofcourse want to keep my fans here happy but sorry bros. Any arguement made by NotoAV or YestoAV campaigns about dicators, bnp, hitler, and whatever is pure scaremongering. Ill be having none of it! :monocledowns:

[TimMc]

"Guys don't vote for AV because it will result in more representative government, and look at you for fuck's sake - surely you dont want to elect that"

Pretty much. Laundry is so tory it hurts. :psyduck:

[Rodj Blake]

Now entering in this type of debate will only lead to scaremongering and more bullshitting. I ofcourse want to keep my fans here happy but sorry bros. Any arguement made by NotoAV or YestoAV campaigns about dicators, bnp, hitler, and whatever is pure scaremongering. Ill be having none of it! :monocledowns:

So you disapprove of Conservative politicans banging on (falsely) about AV helping the BNP?

[Laundry]

Now entering in this type of debate will only lead to scaremongering and more bullshitting. I ofcourse want to keep my fans here happy but sorry bros. Any arguement made by NotoAV or YestoAV campaigns about dicators, bnp, hitler, and whatever is pure scaremongering. Ill be having none of it! :monocledowns:

So you disapprove of Conservative politicans banging on (falsely) about AV helping the BNP?

Is isnt helping the BNP? If any tory politicans say AV will help BNP gain seats or power is retarded

[Laundry]

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/en ... n-5th-may/ (http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/say-no-to-the-bnp.-say-yes-on-5th-may/)

Prime example of scaremongering

[Lorkin Desal]

Got my postal vote this morning.

[Xennith]

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/say-no-to-the-bnp.-say-yes-on-5th-may/

Prime example of scaremongering

He needs a better example, not an alternative voting system.

[Rodj Blake]

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/say-no-to-the-bnp.-say-yes-on-5th-may/

Prime example of scaremongering

You know why the Yes campaign has done that?

Because the No camp has been going on for months about how the BNP would benefit from a switch to AV, even though they wouldn't.

[Rodj Blake]

Now entering in this type of debate will only lead to scaremongering and more bullshitting. I ofcourse want to keep my fans here happy but sorry bros. Any arguement made by NotoAV or YestoAV campaigns about dicators, bnp, hitler, and whatever is pure scaremongering. Ill be having none of it! :monocledowns:

So you disapprove of Conservative politicans banging on (falsely) about AV helping the BNP?

Is isnt helping the BNP? If any tory politicans say AV will help BNP gain seats or power is retarded

I guess you must think that Baroness Warsi is retarded then.

And William Hague.

And David Cameron.

Because they've all used the BNP when arguing for the status quo.

[Laundry]

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/say-no-to-the-bnp.-say-yes-on-5th-may/

Prime example of scaremongering

You know why the Yes campaign has done that?

Because the No camp has been going on for months about how the BNP would benefit from a switch to AV, even though they wouldn't.

Source? I havent read anything coming from the NO campaign stating that BNP with benefit from AV

[Laundry]

[quote=Laundry]

Now entering in this type of debate will only lead to scaremongering and more bullshitting. I ofcourse want to keep my fans here happy but sorry bros. Any arguement made by NotoAV or YestoAV campaigns about dicators, bnp, hitler, and whatever is pure scaremongering. Ill be having none of it! :monocledowns:

So you disapprove of Conservative politicans banging on (falsely) about AV helping the BNP?

Is isnt helpitng the BNP? If any tory politicans say AV will help BNP gain seats or power is retarded

I guess you must think that Baroness Warsi is retarded then.

And William Hague.

And David Cameron.

Because they've all used the BNP when arguing for the satus quo.[/quote:12ku5kxy]

I think its useless trying to scaremongering people who have no idea about the changes. BNP will lose out with AV, if any of the above say otherwise then they are wrong with their facts. I cant recall them saying any of the sort but a quick google has shown they have said things about AV that isnt true in regard to BNP. Politicians will say anything

[Rodj Blake]

http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/say-no-to-the-bnp.-say-yes-on-5th-may/

Prime example of scaremongering

You know why the Yes campaign has done that?

Because the No camp has been going on for months about how the BNP would benefit from a switch to AV, even though they wouldn't.

Source? I havent read anything coming from the NO campaign stating that BNP with benefit from AV

It's a bit rich of you to ask for sources, since you've failed to provide any sources to back up your own arguments.

But in case you've not bothered keeping abreast of the debate, here's a couple of comments from senior Tories:


Why a vote for AV is a vote for BNP


But under AV, supporters of extreme parties like the BNP would get their vote counted many times

If that's not scaremongering, I don't know what is.

[Laundry]

[quote=Laundry]http://www.yestofairervotes.org/blog/entry/say-no-to-the-bnp.-say-yes-on-5th-may/

Prime example of scaremongering

You know why the Yes campaign has done that?

Because the No camp has been going on for months about how the BNP would benefit from a switch to AV, even though they wouldn't.

Source? I havent read anything coming from the NO campaign stating that BNP with benefit from AV

It's a bit rich of you to ask for sources, since you've failed to provide any sources to back up your own arguments.

But in case you've not bothered keeping abreast of the debate, here's a couple of comments from senior Tories:


Why a vote for AV is a vote for BNP


But under AV, supporters of extreme parties like the BNP would get their vote counted many times

If that's not scaremongering, I don't know what is.[/quote:32l0e3fp]

The link to where i got the info from was posted a few pages back with all the details.

If Warsi said that then yes i agree its pure scaremongering. With hague what he said is true, he probably used the BNP as an example of a smaller party whos first preference voters will have their second/third vote counted

[Rodj Blake]

[quote=Laundry]

Now entering in this type of debate will only lead to scaremongering and more bullshitting. I ofcourse want to keep my fans here happy but sorry bros. Any arguement made by NotoAV or YestoAV campaigns about dicators, bnp, hitler, and whatever is pure scaremongering. Ill be having none of it! :monocledowns:

So you disapprove of Conservative politicans banging on (falsely) about AV helping the BNP?

Is isnt helpitng the BNP? If any tory politicans say AV will help BNP gain seats or power is retarded

I guess you must think that Baroness Warsi is retarded then.

And William Hague.

And David Cameron.

Because they've all used the BNP when arguing for the satus quo.

I think its useless trying to scaremongering people who have no idea about the changes. BNP will lose out with AV, if any of the above say otherwise then they are wrong with their facts. I cant recall them saying any of the sort but a quick google has shown they have said things about AV that isnt true in regard to BNP. Politicians will say anything[/quote:ninc7gyf]

It's not just a case of them "being wrong with their facts."

They're actively scaremongering when they are fully aware that the BNP wouldn't be helped by AV.

Where I come from, that's called a lie.

It's a bit like when David Cameron (who studied politics at Oxford, and who was elected as leader by a system related to AV) said that he didn't understand how AV works.

[Laundry]

x

Thats politicians for you!

[Rodj Blake]

If Warsi said that then yes i agree its pure scaremongering. With hague what he said is true, he probably used the BNP as an example of a smaller party whos first preference voters will have their second/third vote counted

If that was his intention, he could have mentioned UKIP. He could have mentioned the Greens. He could have mentioned Respect. But he mentioned the BNP.

Why? Because the merest mention of BNP evokes a response that those other parties don't.

In other words, he was pandering to people's fear and disgust of extremism.

There's a word for that - scaremongering.

[Rodj Blake]

x

Thats politicians for you!


And that's precisely why we need a system where politicians are more accountable. 8-)

[Rodj Blake]

And here's another one...


Mr Cameron said one of his biggest objections to the alternative vote (AV) system was that it would result in more coalition governments, and despite the current one being necessary "at a time of national need", that would tend to reduce political accountability.

I simply don't believe that David Cameron hasn't seen the research that says that every general election since 1979 would have had the result if it had been run onder AV.

[Lancehot]

I feel sorry for Nick Clegg. The No camp, including the Conservative leadership, are doing their best to turn the debate into "vote no if you hate Nick Clegg" & the Yes camp seem to be treating him like the proverbeal Elephant in the room, even though it totally isn't a referendum on Nick Clegg.

Think it's safe to expect a No vote on May 5th, & for the result to have almost nothing to do with the question people are being asked to vote on.

[Lallante]

If you vote no, you are endorsing the broken current system.

Regardless of the shitness of AV, that much is enough to vote yes

[Rodj Blake]

If you vote no, you are endorsing the broken current system.

Regardless of the shitness of AV, that much is enough to vote yes

I'd go further than that.

If you stay at home and don't vote, you will also be endorsing the current system.

[ElweSingollo]

got a no campaign flyer through my door today which is so full of crap it's barely feasable unfortunately people are idiots and will probably buy into what it's saying.

http://www.electionleaflets.org/media/uploads/large/3a30f89b-c401-43ad-b368-fa400cc60e13.jpg
http://www.electionleaflets.org/media/uploads/large/5b082bcb-0d7c-4571-a356-cc63aef7ffa0.jpg
http://www.electionleaflets.org/media/uploads/large/52013109-9d01-4985-b554-3c300cd7580f.jpg
http://www.electionleaflets.org/media/uploads/large/4487b34e-c10a-4068-b343-3925fe9c6eb4.jpg

Honest to god the whole leaflet is a pile of unmitigated shite...

[Shaikar]

Baroness Warsi: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fe ... e-BNP.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3498971/Baroness-Warsi-Why-a-vote-for-AV-is-a-vote-for-the-BNP.html)

Meanwhile, back in reality, AV is acually much worse for the BNP than FPTP is as with everyone able to rank parties by preference the chances of them securing 50% of the vote - assuming they aren't just eliminated first - is far smaller than it is them getting enough protest votes through FPTP to win a seat. The same goes for any other tiny party.

The BNP is rabidly anti-AV for a reason, there is in fact far more grounding to say a vote for FPTP is a vote for the BNP than the reverse. (Although that would still be bollocks.)

[Rodj Blake]

Honest to god the whole leaflet is a pile of unmitigated shite...

About the only truthful thing on that is the date of the referendum.

[Aurora148]

BNP and UKIP votes would probably get added to the Tory's final count

if anything Cameron should actually want AV

[Laundry]

If you vote no, you are endorsing the broken current system.

Regardless of the shitness of AV, that much is enough to vote yes

Voting no you are not endorsing AV

[Laundry]

[quote="Rodj Blake":2j82h051]x

Thats politicians for you!


And that's precisely why we need a system where politicians are more accountable. 8-)[/quote:2j82h051]


How will it make politicians more accountable? Theyll get your vote and then fuck off to the house of commons and youll never see them again, changing the voting system wont change that. Also AV is unlikely to change anything.

[Laundry]

And here's another one...

[quote="The BBC":2rdmneyy]Mr Cameron said one of his biggest objections to the alternative vote (AV) system was that it would result in more coalition governments, and despite the current one being necessary "at a time of national need", that would tend to reduce political accountability.

I simply don't believe that David Cameron hasn't seen the research that says that every general election since 1979 would have had the result if it had been run onder AV.[/quote:2rdmneyy]

I dont understand what your are saying. FPTP has given us strong winners since 1974 (the last hung parliament)

[Aurora148]

[quote="Rodj Blake":33j10n4m]x

Thats politicians for you!


And that's precisely why we need a system where politicians are more accountable. 8-)


How will it make politicians more accountable? Theyll get your vote and then fuck off to the house of commons and youll never see them again, changing the voting system wont change that. Also AV is unlikely to change anything.[/quote:33j10n4m]

With AV candidates will have to put a lot more effort into making sure people vote for them and not the fringe parties that could be added onto their opponent's final count.

[Laundry]

[quote="Rodj Blake":18jf7hn1]x

Thats politicians for you!


And that's precisely why we need a system where politicians are more accountable. 8-)


How will it make politicians more accountable? Theyll get your vote and then fuck off to the house of commons and youll never see them again, changing the voting system wont change that. Also AV is unlikely to change anything.

With AV candidates will have to put a lot more effort into making sure people vote for them and not the fringe parties that could be added onto their opponent's final count.[/quote:18jf7hn1]

Yea then when they have their votes theyll be gone. Just like the current system.

[Tools]

Holy fuck that pamphlet is a piece of shit. What the crap is that second last page?

I haven't been reading this thread but I feel I should point you all to ABC election analyst and all round reasonable person Antony Green's election blog (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/) which talks a lot about alternative and preferential voting from a background of practical and real experience in Australian elections.

In my personal experience, Australians who pay attention like their voting system because it is fair and allows them to both vote for who they actually want and also be realistic in who they vote for. Australians who don't pay attention just use the how to vote cards of the party that their family has always supported and don't mind the compulsory vote because you get to go down to the polling place and talk shit with your neighbours and have a sausage sizzle and it's just a pretty nice day. What Australians don't like is when the senate paper is a meter and a half long, but that doesn't really matter to most people because they just put a 1 in a box and be on their way.

[Tools]

With AV candidates will have to put a lot more effort into making sure people vote for them and not the fringe parties that could be added onto their opponent's final count.

The 'fringe parties' that you vote who get their votes redistributed don't have any say in the redistribution. The only thing that changes where your vote goes to should your primary preference be disqualified is your secondary preference. It's still your vote.

[Aurora148]

Yea then when they have their votes theyll be gone. Just like the current system.

that isn't surprising considering 99% of the UK isn't London, where they work.

[Aurora148]

With AV candidates will have to put a lot more effort into making sure people vote for them and not the fringe parties that could be added onto their opponent's final count.

The 'fringe parties' that you vote who get their votes redistributed don't have any say in the redistribution. The only thing that changes where your vote goes to should your primary preference be disqualified is your secondary preference. It's still your vote.

if more than 50% vote for a single primary candidate then there is no need for redistribution, it should be their aim to get that.

[illectro]

No longer in the UK but I'd vote for a Ranked Choice system over first past the post. Fundamentally voting science shows that First Past The Post is a ridiculously flawed system that encourages strategic voting and voting for the lesser of two evils rather than who you want. FPP systems trend towards maintaining the existence of 2 very strong parties and make it almost impossible for a 3rd party to compete at the same level. Of course the Tories are against it.

If the US had used RCV during the 2000 election then George Bush would not have been president.

Oh and as for he arguments on voter complexity and turnout, our local cities started using RCV last year and turnout was higher than previous election cycles. 90% of the Ballots correctly chose 3 distinct candidates, so, 90% of the people were smart enough to figure it out and care enough to pick 3 people. In the US the Democrats & Republicans hate RCV because the current system guarantees them almost complete control without any ability for a 3rd party like the greens or libertarians to have any effect.

[Tools]

if more than 50% vote for a single primary candidate then there is no need for redistribution, it should be their aim to get that.

If more than 50% of the primary vote goes to the one candidate then they'll win nearly every time anyway. What preferential or alternative voting allows is competition within a political position. You don't end up with the vote split between two similar candidates scuttling both of them. That's the real benefit here, and it's worth very occasionally ending up with a candidate that the majority don't mind instead of the one that is a shade over 50% of the primary vote.

With compulsory preferential voting (ie. ranking all of the candidates exhaustively), out of the last two candidates, the one who ends up with more votes is the one who is ranked higher than the other candidate in the majority of the voter's ballots.

I will concede that with the rank-three-of-the-following system there can be weird effects, but it's still more fair than fptp.

[Mr Rivers]

Why would you change a system thats broken to a system thats slightly less broken, and waste a whole shitheap of money to do it?

I will be voting no

[Tools]

Because you're making it less broken?

[Aurora148]

Why would you change a system thats broken to a system thats slightly less broken, and waste a whole shitheap of money to do it?

I will be voting no

we gave Pakistan £600m on a whim a few weeks ago and are required to give something like £4b to bail out Portugal, £80m to have some lasting political change is fucking nothing in comparison.

[Laundry]

Why would you change a system thats broken to a system thats slightly less broken, and waste a whole shitheap of money to do it?

I will be voting no

we gave Pakistan £600m on a whim a few weeks ago and are required to give something like £4b to bail out Portugal, £80m to have some lasting political change is fucking nothing in comparison.

Its exactly this type of thinking that causes us to have a deficit! Under labour we were sending aid to countries like China and Russia.

[El Capitano]

Its exactly this type of thinking that causes us to have a deficit! Under labour we were sending aid to countries like China and Russia.
Out deficit is around £150 billion/year. £80 million is roughly 0.05%, it's insignificant.

[Lallante]

The only reason to vote No is if you want the Tories to win a majority and dont care if the majority of people vote against them as long as they get it.

[El Capitano]

A no vote is also a vote in support of dirty and misleading campaigning.

[Mr Rivers]

Why would you change a system thats broken to a system thats slightly less broken, and waste a whole shitheap of money to do it?

I will be voting no

we gave Pakistan £600m on a whim a few weeks ago and are required to give something like £4b to bail out Portugal, £80m to have some lasting political change is fucking nothing in comparison.

yeah im sure 80m is nothing thats why the gov is squeezing every penny out of councils.

I wont countenance stupid spending regardless of how much it is

[Lallante]

A no vote is also a vote in support of dirty and misleading campaigning.
While I am genuinely in favour of such :Shenanigans:, I must vote Yes because I do actually love truth, freedom and the American British Way.

[Lallante]

[quote="Mr Rivers":j9x2doe3]Why would you change a system thats broken to a system thats slightly less broken, and waste a whole shitheap of money to do it?

I will be voting no

we gave Pakistan £600m on a whim a few weeks ago and are required to give something like £4b to bail out Portugal, £80m to have some lasting political change is fucking nothing in comparison.

yeah im sure 80m is nothing thats why the gov is squeezing every penny out of councils.

I wont countenance stupid spending regardless of how much it is[/quote:j9x2doe3]


Yeah enfranchising people in a democracy is p. stupid.... :psyduck:

[Aurora148]

[quote="Mr Rivers":1uhor21p]Why would you change a system thats broken to a system thats slightly less broken, and waste a whole shitheap of money to do it?

I will be voting no

we gave Pakistan £600m on a whim a few weeks ago and are required to give something like £4b to bail out Portugal, £80m to have some lasting political change is fucking nothing in comparison.

yeah im sure 80m is nothing thats why the gov is squeezing every penny out of councils.

I wont countenance stupid spending regardless of how much it is[/quote:1uhor21p]

government gives councils a budget and then the councils individually have to decide what to cut and keep.

its not the government's fault that they chose to keep large salaries and generally useless things while cutting public services.

[Mr Rivers]

Your argument is irrelevant. In a time when the gov is squeezing as much money out of everything as it can, installing a system like AV which is marginally better at best, is pure madness.

[Aurora148]

Your argument is irrelevant. In a time when the gov is squeezing as much money out of everything as it can, installing a system like AV which is marginally better at best, is pure madness.

they are hardly squeezing money out of every crevice:


we gave Pakistan £600m on a whim a few weeks ago and are required to give something like £4b to bail out Portugal

Also: lowering corporation tax, cutting back on the HMRC when we are missing £80b, the list goes on and on.

[Laundry]

The only reason to vote No is if you want the Tories to win a majority and dont care if the majority of people vote against them as long as they get it.

actually... av wont gain or reduce tory power. Its been said to reduce labour power to the libdems

[Laundry]

Your argument is irrelevant. In a time when the gov is squeezing as much money out of everything as it can, installing a system like AV which is marginally better at best, is pure madness.

they are hardly squeezing money out of every crevice:


we gave Pakistan £600m on a whim a few weeks ago and are required to give something like £4b to bail out Portugal

Also: lowering corporation tax, cutting back on the HMRC when we are missing £80b, the list goes on and on.


Lower corp tax stimulates business which in return will create wealth, jobs and growth. HMRC has always missed billions of money, if there was an easy fix to catch all of those who dodge tax then every party would do it

[Aurora148]

Your argument is irrelevant. In a time when the gov is squeezing as much money out of everything as it can, installing a system like AV which is marginally better at best, is pure madness.

they are hardly squeezing money out of every crevice:


we gave Pakistan £600m on a whim a few weeks ago and are required to give something like £4b to bail out Portugal

Also: lowering corporation tax, cutting back on the HMRC when we are missing £80b, the list goes on and on.


Lower corp tax stimulates business which in return will create wealth, jobs and growth. HMRC has always missed billions of money, if there was an easy fix to catch all of those who dodge tax then every party would do it

lowering Corporation Tax does basically nothing to assist the small and medium sized businesses which fuel an economy, it only helps the big companies who set up shop as long as it is low and then ship their HQ off somewhere else when it is inevitably raised again. Net gain = little.

[TimMc]

lowering Corporation Tax does basically nothing to assist the small and medium sized businesses which fuel an economy, it only helps the big companies who set up shop as long as it is low and then ship their HQ off somewhere else when it is inevitably raised again. Net gain = little.

Indeed. My father runs a small business and corporation tax isn't a huge deal for him. Sales are what's important, which comes from customers having more money (so lower income taxes or higher employment) and confidence that the economy is improving. Currently he is in a boom compared to last year, apparently 50% more sales than last year (then again last year was pathetic).

On topic of our governments obsession with wasting our money, it is a bit disgusting how much we waste on improving foreign relations though giving them money by the bucketload. £80mil is nothing in the grand scheme of things, and definitely worth improving democracy. If you think thats a waste, why not just stop having elections altogether?

Edit: National Insurance is a large expenditure for small businesses. At one point I thought they should remove NI contributions for businesses since its such a penalty to businesses who use people over machines, but looking at the numbers you can see there just isn't the finances anywhere to pick up the slack.

[Lancehot]

Big corporations pay the most corporation tax [citation] (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_1.pdf). So in theory reducing corporation tax is a good incentive to encouraging more big company HQs to the UK (making up the shortfall from reduced tax rates). It may not be helping the small guy, but it's a lot simpler to do.

[Aurora148]

Big corporations pay the most corporation tax [citation] (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_1.pdf). So in theory reducing corporation tax is a good incentive to encouraging more big company HQs to the UK (making up the shortfall from reduced tax rates). It may not be helping the small guy, but it's a lot simpler to do.

the problem is that once the Tax is raised again a lot of these companies will relocate again to somewhere with a permanent low tax rate, cutting the jobs they have created here.

Its a temporary measure for a government to say: "hey look at how many jobs we created in the private sector", but really it only works because between elections everyone forgets what the government has done.

[Lallante]

Big corporations pay the most corporation tax [citation] (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_1.pdf). So in theory reducing corporation tax is a good incentive to encouraging more big company HQs to the UK (making up the shortfall from reduced tax rates). It may not be helping the small guy, but it's a lot simpler to do.

the problem is that once the Tax is raised again a lot of these companies will relocate again to somewhere with a permanent low tax rate, cutting the jobs they have created here.

Its a temporary measure for a government to say: "hey look at how many jobs we created in the private sector", but really it only works because between elections everyone forgets what the government has done.

Why is it only temporary? Its not temporary if you keep the corporation tax rate low.

There is a very good argument to be made for v. low corporation tax and making up the difference on income etc taxes

[El Capitano]

Indeed. My father runs a small business and corporation tax isn't a huge deal for him. Sales are what's important, which comes from customers having more money (so lower income taxes or higher employment) and confidence that the economy is improving. Currently he is in a boom compared to last year, apparently 50% more sales than last year (then again last year was pathetic).
At the risk of going off on a tangent, I'm seeing some anecdotes to suggest that things are starting to pick up. I'm getting a lot of job vacancy e-mails (even though I told those agencies I've got a job now kthxbai 5 years ago) and my employer is managing to drum up new contracts after a dry spell over most of last year.

[Lallante]

Indeed. My father runs a small business and corporation tax isn't a huge deal for him. Sales are what's important, which comes from customers having more money (so lower income taxes or higher employment) and confidence that the economy is improving. Currently he is in a boom compared to last year, apparently 50% more sales than last year (then again last year was pathetic).
At the risk of going off on a tangent, I'm seeing some anecdotes to suggest that things are starting to pick up. I'm getting a lot of job vacancy e-mails (even though I told those agencies I've got a job now kthxbai 5 years ago) and my employer is managing to drum up new contracts after a dry spell over most of last year.


The legal industry, which is usually 6 - 12 months ahead of the rest of the economy because deals take 6 - 12 months to put together, is massively picking up in the last few months.

[El Capitano]

Why is it only temporary? Its not temporary if you keep the corporation tax rate low.

There is a very good argument to be made for v. low corporation tax and making up the difference on income etc taxes
Well, there's the race to the bottom argument, but there's also the issue of the disparity between capital gains and income tax.

[TimMc]

The legal industry, which is usually 6 - 12 months ahead of the rest of the economy because deals take 6 - 12 months to put together, is massively picking up in the last few months.

My dads business is planting trees in peoples gardens, usually rich folk in london. Since he tailors the business to upper-middle class it explains why he is getting improved business early.

[Lusulpher]

Could someone here in favour of the 'alternative vote' post why, cos currently it's all preaching to the choir and i already understand FPP and want to know more about AV tbh. Or someone that knows their shit could go devil's advocate?

I wast summoned!!
Hissssssssssssssssss!

Unfortunately I am unfamiliar with mainland UK political parties.[Caribbean has a different voting system called bribing and fraud]

All I have heard was the UK Conservative is American Liberal on the agenda scale. :psyduck: [and congratulations on not being paranoid status quoatians, even though some of you have yet to feel the full wrath of privatized Health Care and want to remove Social security nets. :psyduck: :psyduck: ]

opinion: AV sounds fair as shit though. FPP, is simply for speed.[as modern societies refuse to make enough time available for the masses to vote remotely and paperless, WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!] :psyduck: :psyduck: :psyduck:



Why is it only temporary? Its not temporary if you keep the corporation tax rate low.

There is a very good argument to be made for v. low corporation tax and making up the difference on income etc taxes

I took a double-take on this one. And then I read who posted it.
It's fine everyone, we are being trolled.

Cannot wait for the days of Primae Noctis to return. So many wenches to buy, so little time to rape them all...

[Lancehot]

Why is it only temporary? Its not temporary if you keep the corporation tax rate low.

There is a very good argument to be made for v. low corporation tax and making up the difference on income etc taxes

I took a double-take on this one. And then I read who posted it.
It's fine everyone, we are being trolled.

While "very good argument" is debatable, some economists* have argued that, in a world where corporations are pretty much free to move their headquaters wherever they want (not true in practice but the point stands), governments will want/need to move increasingly from taxing the cash earnings/assets of businesses to taxing their products.

*tried linking to Financial Times article but their website doesn't allow hotlinking. Typing Replace corporation tax with extra VAT, says think-tank into their search bar will bring it up. Also found this Institute for Fiscal Studies (http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/design/ch17.pdf) .pdf, but it is a long read that, from what I skimmed, is highlighting the flaws & inefficiencies of the current corporate tax system & proposing alternate revenue streams to get taxes out of businesses that can up & leave if/when they want to. Only really linking it so I can come back & read it fully in the future.

[Lusulpher]

Why is it only temporary? Its not temporary if you keep the corporation tax rate low.

There is a very good argument to be made for v. low corporation tax and making up the difference on income etc taxes

I took a double-take on this one. And then I read who posted it.
It's fine everyone, we are being trolled.

While "very good argument" is debatable, some economists* have argued that, in a world where corporations are pretty much free to move their headquaters wherever they want (not true in practice but the point stands), governments will want/need to move increasingly from taxing the cash earnings/assets of businesses to taxing their products.

*tried linking to Financial Times article but their website doesn't allow hotlinking. Typing Replace corporation tax with extra VAT, says think-tank into their search bar will bring it up. Also found this Institute for Fiscal Studies (http://www.ifs.org.uk/mirrleesreview/design/ch17.pdf) .pdf, but it is a long read that, from what I skimmed, is highlighting the flaws & inefficiencies of the current corporate tax system & proposing alternate revenue streams to get taxes out of businesses that can up & leave if/when they want to. Only really linking it so I can come back & read it fully in the future.

MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE TO ECONOMICS THREAD

"PAGE UNAVAILABLE
The page you have requested is unfortunately not available."
It is dated June 5th, 2008...


Also merits and possible loopholes in this VAT have been discovered by now right?

I don't understand how adding artificial values to EVERYTHING that needs to be itemized, versus summing company Profit and taking a progressive cut of that is easier, and less observation of fluctuating prices.

I don't understand how Corporations can organize production and then take a far larger share than all of the components that do the actual work! If a workers work 20% faster, and profit goes up 15%, WHY in the fuck is each part of the company below Executive fighting for 1-5% pay adjustment?

It's sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. Bankers > Execs > supply managers > distribution managers > CHUMPS.
And taxing Corporations less is still part of the failed Reagonomic model, trickle down has absolutely widened the gap between classes. Money is literally just sitting unused, no plan to rebuild a disaster zone or anything, just their to inflate on the shell games they call the Stock markets.

Also, why is gambling illegal? These people other people's money for a non-daily job. Shouldn't prostitution be legal?

[Rodj Blake]

[quote="Rodj Blake":3s1odulb]x

Thats politicians for you!


And that's precisely why we need a system where politicians are more accountable. 8-)


How will it make politicians more accountable? Theyll get your vote and then fuck off to the house of commons and youll never see them again, changing the voting system wont change that. Also AV is unlikely to change anything.[/quote:3s1odulb]

Under FPTP a lot of MPs only need to keep 30-40% of their constituents on-side. No matter how much the rest hate them, they'll still get in when they stand for re-election.

Remember Tatton in 1997? The Tory MP Neil Hamilton was mired in sleaze and was despised by the majority of his constituents (although I suspect that you'd just consider bribery to be another case of "that's politicians for you"). But he knew that the anti-Hamilton vote was split between Labour and the Lib Dems, and that as long as both entered candidates he'd get back in. Of course, what happened was that Labour and the Lib Dems both withdrew from the contest, allowing an independent candidate (Martin Bell) to enter the race and beat Hamilton.

But why should it have been neccessary to do that to get rid of a hated MP?

Under AV, it wouldn't be. The anti-Hamilton vote would have automatically coalesced around a single candidate.

So yes, in many cases AV does make it easier to get rid of a crap MP.