Alternative Vote Referendum

They used to call it proportional representation in my day, that would be "PR" but giving it a jazzy new name doesn't cut the mustard with me.

Luckily I don't live in Bognor as I would hate not to vote for Dodgy but my vote could never go to a liberal, take a look at our last Liberal MP for Winchester, Mark Oaten, say no more!

I just have one vote for the party I support, one person, otherwise it just makes for a limp, diluted government that will always have someone like Cleggy biting at your ankles!

That doesn't make any sense!

If we stick with FPTP either the candidate you vote for gets in, or they don't. I find it hard to believe you don't have an alternative candidate you'd like to see get in if your first choice doesn't make it? I'd vote BNP before I voted Con, so where does that leave me when the Cons win?

Note that under AV you can put a '1' against your first choice and leave the rest blank, but you null your vote should your first choice not make it (no change there then compared with FPTP ).

The whole point about AV is to get away from who simply got more votes (e.g. Cons 50%, Lab 49% with Cons winning and the rest no say) to a system that has Cons 50%, Lab 49%, Lib Dem 20%, BNP 5%, Green 1%, and those who voted Lib Dem, BNP and Green a chance to say who they prefer next. If you voted Con, your voice was already heard (and congrats your first choice won), but if for example all of the Lib Dem, BNP and Green voters hate the Cons and would vote Lab if they had the chance, then in that case Labour would win the vote.

It would be better as at least more people supported Labour overall, than having the Cons in power simply because they got more votes as a result of being only able to vote for one candidate (I'm sick of all these morons who say they vote Con or Lab or whoever simply because they have done so all their lives). It may appear to be giving a second vote, but it isn;t - it is about ensuring the candidate with the greatest support gets in. If Con or whoever can't do that on their own, then they aren't suitable to be ruling in the first place!!!

As it is, the Cons couldn't do it even under FPTP so I think that argument sunk fairly substantially.

They used to call it proportional representation in my day, that would be "PR" but giving it a jazzy new name doesn't cut the mustard with me.

I think you need to read more - AV is NOT PR! We should change to PR regardless - this idiot Government (Cons mainly) talk about "fairness" - what is fairer than dividing Parliament up based on percentage votes?

e.g. 100% of the votes represent 650 seats in Government. If 49% vote Cons, 29% Lab, 10% Lib Dem, 7% BNP, 5% Greens, then we end up with:

319 Cons
189 Lab
65 Lib Dem
45 BNP
32 Greens

...and they can run like a coalition, but with ALL parties having a say. They also represent, proportionally, the number of people who voted for them. The reason the Cons never agreed to this in the coalition deal is because they are nothing short of greedy bar stewards who want all the power for themselves. PR, AV, etc... will prevent them ever ruling on their own again (and rightly so too!).

IMHO I think people are against this change because they don't understand it properly. It empowers us more than the current system, but it it is true when they say it falls short of proportional representation (THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THEY DON'T WANT THAT, OR ANYTHING THAT MAKES IT LESS LIKELY THAT THE CONS WILL WIN, WHICH IS WHY THE CONS ARE SO ANTI-AV, THE SECOND LEAST PROPORTIONATE SYSTEM OF ANY VOTING SYSTEM NEXT TO FPTP).

FPTP - most votes win. Period. Even if all the other votes (against) are 71% of electorate!

AV - Breaks the problem of simply most votes winning. More likely more people support the overall winner.

PR - the best system (not on offer). Real representation of EVERYONE'S position. Permanent coalition government that most broadly represents the people (and the reason we have a Government in the first place - TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE).

Something else I just considered - we should scrap the party affiliation of councils. They work for us, regardless of the ruling party of the day. None of this rubbish about how this council has more bin collections than another council, simply because one is Con and one is Lab. I'm fairly sure all this stupid bureaucracy can be cut down if we treated England as one huge council area. Everyone gets the same bin collection as everyone else. Extend this to everything else the council does. The system we have now is bloated beyond insanity. We are paying crazy sums for suits who do nothing useful.

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the Alternative Vote referendum is being conducted under First Past The Post?

You missed...

"Pie!"

All votes need a pie option, imho!

Even though i voted for the Conservatives i am more on side with the Lib Dems on this subject, i agree more with what they say about AV than the Conservatives, i'm kind of 90% in favour of AV so when i vote there will be a good chance it will be Yes 

I take it that with AV, your second choice cannot be the same as your first choice? Otherwise, what's the point?

Correct. Your first choice is your first choice, and the initial count is based on that only. If there is a win based on the first preferences alone, you basically have FPTP. Where AV differs is because you can opt to list your candidates in order of preference, your first choice can be who you truly want in, not some other choice just to stop another candidate (AKA tactical voting).

Where the AV counting system kicks in is if there isn't a candidate with more than 50% of the vote. If the first choice is not enough, then they will count second preferences and re-count the totals. This will continue (3rd pref, 4th pref) until a clear winner is found.

AV is better in that if your first choice doesn't win most of the vote (e.g. Lab) and say everyone put Lib Dem as their second prefs, then that could be enough to ensure Lib Dem win. This is good as whilst Lib Dem is not everyone's first choice (and hence the tie in the first place between the top two), most people favor Lib Dem as second pref, so most people get their choice. FPTP could have had Con win based purely because they got 2% more than Lab, but have the least support of the voters overall (so instead of Con winning in FPTP, Lib Dem win as they have more voters overall support ahead of Lab and Con).

Best regards,
Vulcan.

Nor me if Vulcan gets in. The planet will be screwed.

papeg wrote: Wow, so if I understand this correctly, if Martin gets 49% and Slopey get 40% and Vulcan gets 11% in the first choice, then the first choice gets cancelled and the voter's second choice is counted, this time Vulcan gets 51%, Slopey gets 30%, and Martin get 19% - and Vulcan wins.  So, most people didn't want Vulcan in the first choice but he win because Martin didn't get 50%.    I don't think I like it.     Greg

Which is exactly why I don't like it. IMHO, whoever gets the most votes on the day wins. If that's not a majority (regardless of the number of constituents etc), then hard luck, but it's the person with the most votes on the day - and that's what the measure is.

Under AV, there's every chance that the person who had the most votes on the day, but not enough to get over 50%, may not eventually win, and the winner is someone who the majority didn't vote for initially, but was a second choice.

So you can get the case where the majority don't get who they voted for (as they didn't accrue the magic 50%, but still held the majority - i.e. 49%, 20%, 20%), but get a different winner based on their preference.

Preferences in voting and politics seems odd to me. I prefer to pick my horse and back it rather than say - "that one", "but I wouldn't mind if it was this one, or this one". I stand by my convictions and back the single party I'd like to win, rather than trying to pick & mix.

But I can easily be accommodated with AV, by only picking a 1st choice.

VulcanB2 wrote: IMHO I think people are against this change because they don't understand it properly. It empowers us more than the current system, but it it is true when they say it falls short of proportional representation. FPTP - most votes win. Period. Even if all the other votes (against) are 71% of electorate! AV - Breaks the problem of simply most votes winning. More likely more people support the overall winner. PR - the best system (not on offer). Real representation of EVERYONE'S position. Permanent coalition government that most broadly represents the people (and the reason we have a Government in the first place - TO WORK FOR THE PEOPLE). Best regards, Vulcan.

I agree entirely that this nation hasn't a clue how to vote on May 5th, because The Sun readers haven't had it explained to them properly yet...

The reason that PR wasn't included in this ballot, is simply because the Conservatives don't want it, whomever organised this charade of a vote has won before the electorate has even put a cross on the paper, is there any wonder that probably only 30% of the voting public will physically actually go out and vote, which is the usual percentage these days.
And, even though the Australians who made it law for their citizens to vote, it would never happen in this country, because of the lethargy of voters and the encumbence of not having the correct number of choices on the ballot paper for everyone to begin with in the first place, which would surely be an incentive for folks to vote. Until the corrupt behaviour ends in Parliament, I doubt if I will ever vote again in my lifetime, and as that is hardly ever going to happen, because the Government don't want to pander to the whims of us peasants and will only look after themselves, and make decisions like this to suit their own policies and lifestyles. The number of pre-election promises that have since been renegaded by both Labour and the Conservatives over the last 30 years is quite staggering, yet, the populous can't do anything about it.

Now off to watch another episode of Yes, Prime Minister.....

Cheerz.  Transport Steve.