Opinion Poll On Alternative Vote

[N1AK]

The frothing 'Yes' supporters cannot conceive that someone who does not support the larger parties can be against AV without being some sort of vested business interest. Get a grip.

You nearly blew my hypocrisy meter there. Your first comment on this thread was to claim the AV camp were funded by a vested business interest. Should be plenty of 'grip' going around cause you clearly haven't seen yours for a while.

[Dorkins]

Personally I would like to see something really radical like a list of candidates which anybody is free to join and which covers the whole country. There could be tens of thousands of people on the list, or even more. Once every five years you have an election, and every voter has 10 votes which they can give to whomever they want.

If you want to give more than one vote to the same person, you can. If you want to vote for a candidate who claims to represent the area you live in, that's up to you. If you want to vote for somebody who represents young people, or old people, or the middle-aged, or gays, or whatever, that's up to you too. If you want to vote for one of a political party's 500 official candidates that's up to you, and for example Labour voters could apply to their party for help with spreading their votes around so that all Labour voters don't end up voting for the same few candidates. All candidates would be subject to spending limits, advertising rules etc. At the end of the election all candidates are ranked according to numbers of votes, and the top 500 candidates win.

In the age of the internet it is crazy that you have a choice of red/blue/yellow when you go to vote, and you very likely know almost nothing about the individual candidate's views or background even if you make a real effort to find them out. I don't feel like I have made an informed vote in my life.

[ralphmalph]

Yes, I suspect you are right. Additionally, as many UKIP supporters would support the Tories as a second choice, it means they can vote by order of preference, rather than risking getting Labour instead of UKIP or Tories.

Why are you so bothered then? If a UKIP vote is lodged and published, but it turns into a Tory vote as there weren't enough UKIP fans to give them a seat, what is your problem with AV?

As I said it is a con by the political parties to fob us off with "electoral reform". All they are proposing is changing from a FPTP system to a First past a different post system with a different way of counting.

The BBC ran a AV v FPTP test on R5 the other morning. Below is the result

They obviously stuffed the audience with Greens, but UK got no more votes, BNP got no more Votes, Libs, got no more votes. End result Labour elected via FPTP and then elected under AV with less than 50% of the vote. Massive fail, no change no more choice, just the old system with different counting.

We are being conned.

[We’re all in this together]

While we're about it, how about abolishing General Elections?

Every general election results in chaos, misery and inconsistency, every new government thinks five years is long term thinking.

My alternative suggestion is simply give each MP a guaranteed five years in the job, before they have to stand for re-election in their own constituency. Eventually, with natural wastage, byelections and the like, you'd end up with a parliament more like any other organisation, with a steady but not dramatic turnover of members, a couple a week, no sudden changes of direction, less short termism, more attention to what works in the long term. This would not even prevent members banding together in political parties. All of parliament could vote annually to choose the leader, the leader would choose their executive.

Seems obvious way to run a business, so why not a country?

[Milton]

Just got a flyer through my door, from the Conservatives.

I pledge to:

'To oppose unreasonable planning applications and protect our green belt. We do not need 50,000 new homes'

Vote NO to AV on May 5th.

AV will Benefit Labour.

[i dont think the majority of voters in this opinion poll realise that.]

Sick of the two party system. Look where it has got us. The UK will remain a Corporateocracy with majority Con or Lab.

I would like to see it shaken up. And hope we get real PR in the future.

But It seems to me that under AV the Labour Party and Lib Dems would benefit, and have the advantage over the Conservatives.

Whereas PR would destroy the Labour Party. And destroy the Unions/Labour collaboration.

But I do not believe that I should vote for AV, just because it may result in PR. I am highly dubious about that link.

I would like to see PR. But I feel if I vote for AV, It would benefit the Scumbag Labour Party.

Very basic example of how AV benefits Labour

Right of centre Party 1 - 40%

Left of Centre Party 2 - 30%

Left of Centre Party 3 - 26%

In this example, no one is elected because no one achieved more than 50%, so party 3 is eliminated, and their second votes are redistributed.

Lets imagine that 21% of the second preference goes to Party 2, and 5% goes to Party 1

Party 1 - 45%

Party 2 - 51%

Party 2 is elected, even though more people voted for party 1 as their first preference. Of course in reality, there would be more candidates and more rounds.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dan1

[Injin]

If AV could make the slightest difference it wouldn't be on the ******ing table as a choice.

[plummet expert]

coalitions are the way forward. We need policies that are for the long term not for short termist political gain

I am a no to AV voter. Only two other countries in the world use it - Fidgi and Australia. In OZ things are different because there are only two major parties, Labour and Liberal (cons really) . As a result the system does not distort the voting intentions but merely tends to make the votes of those who vote for minorities first, have their vote moved to one of the TWO major candidates until their underlying opinion for Labour or Liberal is revealed. Here it could have a very different effect and some people who want to vote Labour or Cons then put Liberal as the second or third choice because they cannot bear the other major party. Then the Libs will be the winner but actually a majority of people did not want them. How is that democracy for the UK?

The other striking thing about the Coalition is the grumbling (particularly from Libs who are meant to want PR and permanent coalitions) over having to agree a mixture of policies with another party. That is what coalition is!! I think we more often have strong govt without coalition and I would not like to see a permanent stae of this. Yes, Germany likes it, but it's not AV there. Lots of problems in other countries with PR and colaitions, like Italy who have often had govts falling - the 40 govts in 40 years country.

[Traktion]

As I said it is a con by the political parties to fob us off with "electoral reform". All they are proposing is changing from a FPTP system to a First past a different post system with a different way of counting.

The BBC ran a AV v FPTP test on R5 the other morning. Below is the result

They obviously stuffed the audience with Greens, but UK got no more votes, BNP got no more Votes, Libs, got no more votes. End result Labour elected via FPTP and then elected under AV with less than 50% of the vote. Massive fail, no change no more choice, just the old system with different counting.

We are being conned.

TBH, I'm surprised that so many of those people want Labour back, but that's beside the point!

In that chart, with AV, the results are substantially different:

- Labour lost 10% of their vote.

- Greens gained 30% more votes.

- The multiple of Labour to Green votes shrank from 2.3 times to 1.6 times, pushing the Green Party into joint 2nd.

- Most of the other parties were unchanged.

How can you say that this offers nothing? Not only would it have given the Greens a substantial platform to build on, but it also cut Labour's majority right back. I expect that many of those who didn't vote Labour as a first preference in AV, felt compelled to by FPTP to keep the Tories out.

In this case, the Greens have not only shown that they have substantial support, but it also shows that fewer people like the incumbents than FPTP depicts... which is precisely why I prefer AV to FPTP.

[ralphmalph]

TBH, I'm surprised that so many of those people want Labour back, but that's beside the point!

In that chart, with AV, the results are substantially different:

- Labour lost 10% of their vote.

- Greens gained 30% more votes.

- The multiple of Labour to Green votes shrank from 2.3 times to 1.6 times, pushing the Green Party into joint 2nd.

- Most of the other parties were unchanged.

How can you say that this offers nothing? Not only would it have given the Greens a substantial platform to build on, but it also cut Labour's majority right back. I expect that many of those who didn't vote Labour as a first preference in AV, felt compelled to by FPTP to keep the Tories out.

In this case, the Greens have not only shown that they have substantial support, but it also shows that fewer people like the incumbents than FPTP depicts... which is precisely why I prefer AV to FPTP.

The BBC obviously tried to rig this vote. In the last general election and the two before under FPTP the Greens Polled 1.5% to 1.65%. The table by the way under FPTP is where people voted with only one choice under FPTP rules, a separate ballot was held for AV. So why has the Green support under FPTP gone from 1.65% to 16.9% when we are being told that under FPTP rules people do vote for minority parties. Only explanation is that by chance a disproportionate number of greens turned up or were bussed in by the BBC which had decided that they wanted a Green win under AV for their little test.

I used it as an example of the result does not change, the minority parties UKIP, BNP all poll exactly the same and AV is a FPADP with the same result.

[pilchardthecat]

Why are you so bothered then? If a UKIP vote is lodged and published, but it turns into a Tory vote as there weren't enough UKIP fans to give them a seat, what is your problem with AV?

Plus, next time the elections come round, more people will be inclined to vote for a more representative party as choice 1, rather than the one most likely to stop the party they hate.

All the simulations of what might happen under AV make the (flawed) assumption that the voting habits of the electorate don't change at all.

[Bruce Banner]

I've not looked into it yet, but rest assured, I'll be voting for whatever keeps Labour out.

[Traktion]

The BBC obviously tried to rig this vote. In the last general election and the two before under FPTP the Greens Polled 1.5% to 1.65%. The table by the way under FPTP is where people voted with only one choice under FPTP rules, a separate ballot was held for AV. So why has the Green support under FPTP gone from 1.65% to 16.9% when we are being told that under FPTP rules people do vote for minority parties. Only explanation is that by chance a disproportionate number of greens turned up or were bussed in by the BBC which had decided that they wanted a Green win under AV for their little test.

I used it as an example of the result does not change, the minority parties UKIP, BNP all poll exactly the same and AV is a FPADP with the same result.

It doesn't really matter whether they found an odd selection of voters or not. It is the difference between the FPTP and AV that is interesting. Here, the main party lost 10% and the 3rd party gained 30% and hopped into joint 2nd. The main party is then under more pressure to deliver.

[Milton]

I've not looked into it yet, but rest assured, I'll be voting for whatever keeps Labour out.

AV will Benefit Labour.

[i dont think the majority of voters in this opinion poll realise that.]

The UK will remain a Corporateocracy with majority Con or Lab.

I would hope we get real PR in the future.

But It seems to me that under AV the Labour Party and Lib Dems would benefit, and have the advantage over the Conservatives.

Whereas PR would destroy the Labour Party. And destroy the Unions/Labour collaboration.

But I do not believe that I should vote for AV, just because it may result in PR. I am highly dubious about that link.

I would like to see PR. But I feel if I vote for AV, It would benefit the Scumbag Labour Party.

Very basic example of how AV benefits Labour

Right of centre Party 1 - 40% [Tories]

Left of Centre Party 2 - 30% [Labour]

Left of Centre Party 3 - 26% [Lib Dems]

In this example, no one is elected because no one achieved more than 50%, so party 3 is eliminated, and their second votes are redistributed.

Lets imagine that 21% of the second preference goes to Party 2, and 5% goes to Party 1

Party 1 - 45%

Party 2 - 51%

Party 2 is elected, even though more people voted for party 1 as their first preference. Of course in reality, there would be more candidates and more rounds.

Ive Chosen to Abstain.

Tories aint gonna help people priced out of housing, neither are Lib Dems.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dan1

[daddybear]

Yes but surely if 1 candidate does not get 50% then it gets rerun, also you omit the smaller parties and with the benefit of a greater say the general public might throw a curveball

[Traktion]

Ive Chosen to Abstain.

Tories aint gonna help people priced out of housing, neither are Lib Dems.

So, because you don't get what you want, you want to stop others from having their say. Thanks!

(I'm not a Labour fan either, but this shouldn't be about that)

[Milton]

So, because you don't get what you want, you want to stop others from having their say. Thanks!

(I'm not a Labour fan either, but this shouldn't be about that)

You've completely lost me. Elucidate please.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dan1

[Traktion]

You've completely lost me. Elucidate please.

If the majority want Labour, Labour we should have, whether you or I like it or not.

What we need is a more accurate representation of people's political orientation, not ways to suppress them.

[Milton]

What we need is a more accurate representation of people's political orientation, not ways to suppress them.

You, sir, are an idealist. Good luck with that.

[Traktion]

You, sir, are an idealist. Good luck with that.

I'd prefer to say I have good moral fibre, but I concede that swimming against the tide isn't for everyone.

[Milton]

but I concede that swimming against the tide isn't for everyone.

Everyone has their limits.

[Injin]

If the majority want Labour, Labour we should have, whether you or I like it or not.

What we need is a more accurate representation of people's political orientation, not ways to suppress them.

Nope.

There is no magic whereby a majority gets to gain moral ascendancy over a minority on pure weight of numbers.

[Milton]

There is no magic whereby a majority gets to gain moral ascendancy over a minority on pure weight of numbers.

+1

I will vote yes just to get some change underway. When the voting systems change people are more likely to re-think the way they vote.

However, let's establish 2 very important points

1. AV is a First-Past-The-Post system. One post, one winner.

2. AV is NOT a proportional system. Where it is used in the Aussie Lower House it actually results in a more polarised result, not a more plural one. Labor and Lib/Nats win virtually all the seats. The result of AV could be that minority parties are completely squeezed out. IT DOES NOT MAKE COALITION MORE LIKELY.

We are being asked to choose between a terrible system and an awful system.

My only hope is that any change will spark more intelligent change further down the road.

+1

No, but they still won't be happy with the outcome.

My vote would only be yes to full PR, if we have to have reform. At least with PR the parties have seats in numbers close to their % of the vote. AV is nonsense and once we have it we will be stuck with it for the rest of my life.

+1

I may move from Abstain to Undecided.....

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dan1

[CrashConnoisseur]

I may move from Abstain to Undecided.....

You could give your first preference to Abstain and your second preference to Undecided,

[Nickolarge]

The frothing 'Yes' supporters cannot conceive that someone who does not support the larger parties can be against AV without being some sort of vested business interest. Get a grip.

The fact is, the problems we face in Parliament with politicians/Government are exacerbated by AV, not solved. The reasons are plainly spelled out by ralphmalph.

I have posted comments on this thread on both sides of the argument because I can see the plus and minus side of all the available systems. I am leaning towards a no vote and no is what I clicked in the poll.

Another problem with a full PR system is that two smaller but similar parties can form an almost permanent pact and keep the largest party out indefinitely.

[dissident junk]

I am a bit confused about AV.

Surely all it will do is funnel all minority votes to either Labour or the Conservatives, and the interesting issue is then, well, the Conservatives will surely have a greater weight of those minority party votes because of sheer number of votes that go to UKIP, and will go to UKIP as first preference under AV.

But what do Labour have? The Green vote? Bits of the Lib Dem vote?

And people will change how they vote under this system. There's a lot of Tories that would vote UKIP if they knew they had a backstop of second preference Conservative, but don't vote UKIP under FPTP because they are terrified of Labour getting in.

All I can see that is good about AV is that it changes the system from being a vote cast in order to prevent a party from power to a vote cast on who you would actually like to vote for, but that you won't get anyway.

But maybe I have missed something.