Latest No2Av Video

[ralphmalph]

The message the oldies (who will vote, unlike the yoof) is "you are sensible voters, why should the stupid yoof be allowed to vote for looney left parties and then be allowed to have another vote for another looney left party when the first party is kicked out, when your vote will only count once."

Very powerful message to the old even if it is a negative campaigning message. Also has the ring of truth. Vote for the communists, then vote for the socialsit workers party, then vote for respect, then vote for scargills real labour party, etc, etc.

Why should people who vote for minority parties get to vote time and time again? Edited April 28, 2011 by ralphmalph

[efdemin]

Or as Cameron would say: "Just vote no to AV, dear."

[Executive Sadman]

Reminds me of our primary school music teacher who used to smack our hands with a ruler if we played the wrong note.

[ralphmalph]

Reminds me of our primary school music teacher who used to smack our hands with a ruler if we played the wrong note.

That was Max Mosleys excuse.

[crashpope]

Why should people who vote for minority parties get to vote time and time again?

They don't, it's one of the Noes most insidious lies.

In every round, until someone reaches 50%, *everyone* has one vote, given to their highest remaining preference.

[Bruce Banner]

That was Max Mosleys excuse.

To be fair to Max, he had a lot of excuses. Adolph Hitler being a guest at his parents wedding held at Joseph Goebbles house being only one of them.

[Vested Disinterest]

As if the loony right don't have their own hierarchy (BNP->UKIP->Tories)

AV is a reasonable system under which to have a multi-party democracy. Although that might lead to coalitions some of the time (as does FPTP), it allows new ideas to emerge rather than the current rush for the centre which has done the UK no good at all.

What if there was a Land Value Tax party at the next general election? Wouldn't you want to put them rank 1, but have your subsequent preferences kick in if no one candidate had a majority? I know I would. It certainly beats negative tactical voting to keep out the worst (for you) candidate.

[hedgefunded]

For the life of me I cannot see what's wrong with the person who gets most votes being the winner.

The AV system could mean that a BNP voter's fifth choice swings an election. Utterly bonkers.

[ralphmalph]

They don't, it's one of the Noes most insidious lies.

In every round, until someone reaches 50%, *everyone* has one vote, given to their highest remaining preference.

Explain it to us then.

Person A votes first preference con second preference UKIP.

Person B votes respect then Arthur Scargill then communist.

First round respect last. Person A#s first vote still stands, person b first vote discarded so now they get a second go and have chosen Arthur Scargill so they have effectively voted twice. They have had a second go whilst person A has not.

Everyone has one vote in every round but only a limited people votes are changed in everyround, meaning they effectively vote multiple times for different parties even if it is only one vote in every round.

[noodle doodle]

Explain it to us then.

Person A votes first preference con second preference UKIP.

Person B votes respect then Arthur Scargill then communist.

First round respect last. Person A#s first vote still stands, person b first vote discarded so now they get a second go and have chosen Arthur Scargill so they have effectively voted twice. They have had a second go whilst person A has not.

Everyone has one vote in every round but only a limited people votes are changed in everyround, meaning they effectively vote multiple times for different parties even if it is only one vote in every round.

they only get their votes counted multiple times if

a) they put multiple choices - anyone can do that

all their previous choices are sh*t enough to get eliminated

At the moment anyone voting for a minority party in FPTP might as well wipe their **** on their vote

In fact anyone who didn't vote for their sitting mp might as well wipe their **** on their vote

Since most MPs dont have absolute majorities that's most of us rubbing loose faecal matter from our ******** sphincters onto our votes

some democracy

I'll take AV, a slight improvement is better than none

[rich010273]

For the life of me I cannot see what's wrong with the person who gets most votes being the winner.

The AV system could mean that a BNP voter's fifth choice swings an election. Utterly bonkers.

Not entirely sure what the issue is. Everyone has one bit of paper. The count is made on bits of paper. No-one gets two votes.

Are you saying the BNP voter is not entitled to say who else he might prefer over someone else?

[LJAR]

there could quite concievably be only two parties that I want to vote for.

If neither of those wins then my vote still doesn't count, just as much as in FPTP.

I dont HAVE to rank everyone since there will be some people I don't want to vote for even as 10th choice.

There are problems with FPTP, but AV does not address any of them.

[Dorkins]

For the life of me I cannot see what's wrong with the person who gets most votes being the winner.

The AV system could mean that a BNP voter's fifth choice swings an election. Utterly bonkers.

Under FPTP somebody could become MP with 11% of the vote so long as everybody else got 10% or less. That strikes me as pretty bonkers too. I don't see how you can claim to represent an area when a minority of voters said they want you.

[ken_ichikawa]

Suckers....

You've all fallen for the ultimate activism sponge....i.e. voting makes a difference, what difference does it make painting the government a different colour every few years?

Until you grab your AK47s, pitchforks and torches and soak the streets in blood, nothing will change.

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

Suckers....

You've all fallen for the ultimate activism sponge....i.e. voting makes a difference, what difference does it make painting the government a different colour every few years?

Until you grab your AK47s, pitchforks and torches and soak the streets in blood, nothing will change.

Agreed, so annoyingly very true :angry:.

[rich010273]

there could quite concievably be only two parties that I want to vote for.

If neither of those wins then my vote still doesn't count, just as much as in FPTP.

I dont HAVE to rank everyone since there will be some people I don't want to vote for even as 10th choice.

There are problems with FPTP, but AV does not address any of them.

Depends whether you think AV would change peoples voting habits or if you think people would still vote for the same. Why not take the chance than stick with a system that is undemocratic?

[Tiger Woods?]

Explain it to us then.

Person A votes first preference con second preference UKIP.

Person B votes respect then Arthur Scargill then communist.

First round respect last. Person A#s first vote still stands, person b first vote discarded so now they get a second go and have chosen Arthur Scargill so they have effectively voted twice. They have had a second go whilst person A has not.

Everyone has one vote in every round but only a limited people votes are changed in everyround, meaning they effectively vote multiple times for different parties even if it is only one vote in every round.

View it as trying to reach a consensus, where everyone has a say in the choice between the final 2 options.

What you are missing is that A also has a vote in every round - it just happens to be for the same candidate.

The UK has a great opportunity to make their political system fairer and more representative, but it seems very much like the proletariat is going to fluff it. So, not only will you get the government you deserve, but also the voting system.

The question you have to ask, is why do so many small institutions use AV or similar (e.g. rounds of elimination voting) for electing officers? Why do the political parties use it internally?

Edited April 28, 2011 by Tiger Woods?