The Alternative vote

[Vista]

Where do you stand?

 

Having had lots of glossy (and probably expensive) literature pushed through my doorstep in the last week or two, I can see the attraction of the successful candidate having the support of the majority of the population at some level, but can't see that the Alternative vote will produce a stronger political system for us on the world stage.

 

Sticking with what we have may produce more governments formed from political parties that I don't support, but I'm happy to live with that if it provides strong united government that will unite to fight for British interests globally. It seems to me that the AV vote carries a risk of regularly giving us hung parties and coalition governments that constantly infight to push their own political agenda through rather than doing what they believe (as one) is in the best interests of the nation.

 

Interested to hear other peoples thoughts before I vote on May 5th

 

Voting in this poll is set so people can change their vote as they read any arguments for and against the proposed system.

[emu]

At least you have had glossy brochures through your door. We haven't had bugger all. In fact, I haven't put any effort into avoiding the subject, and yet still don't really seem to have heard much about it. Mind you, to be honest, I don't really watch the news much so maybe I've missed loads

 

From what I have managed to find out for myself, basically voters rank the candidates in order of preference and the least popular get eliminated round-by-round until there is only one left?? A bit like X-Factor.

 

So your X is replaced with a 1, no real change there? In addition though, by ranking the rest in order of preference I guess it means that if your first choice gets the boot then you still get a say on who you think is 'second best'.

 

In pub terms...

'If I can't have Stella, I'll have Carling instead'

rather than 'If I can't have Stella, then I'll have what I'm given'

 

Don't know what the pro's and con's are though. Australia use AV and they have a hung parliament at the moment so it obviously doesn't put a stop to that situation.

[Vista]

From what I have managed to find out for myself, basically voters rank the candidates in order of preference and the least popular get eliminated round-by-round until there is only one left?? A bit like X-Factor

 

If only it were that simple. When the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. All of his votes are re-examined and added to the piles of people that are left..............

 

Easier if I scan the leaflet I received. To summarise though, it's theoretically possible for the eventual winner to have less people vote for him as their preferred candidate than someone he has beaten

 

 

[emu]

It kind of makes sense .

 

40% of people might want Party A, 31% B and 29% C. So C gets eliminated. All the original supporters of C prefer B to A so the next round they vote for B, who now has 60% of the vote and therefore wins.

 

So, despite not being the majorities first choice B is more popular overall. Although he had less votes in the first round, by being most peoples second choice he comes out on top.

 

Realistically, Is it likely to have that much of an impact that any party other than the main three would be able to get into power?

[emu]

Ive just re-read both my replies and it seems that despite writing a bit, I haven't actually said anything Perhaps I should be a politician

[Vista]

Ive just re-read both my replies and it seems that despite writing a bit, I haven't actually said anything Perhaps I should be a politician

 

Say plenty that promises nothing and is understood by few, a politicians mandate indeed!

 

I'm surprised how few people are interested in this given that it could affect the way we elect our government and the strength they have to enforce policy once they're elected.

[Mk2Jo]

I have only just noticed this post, sorry Scott

 

Right then, just to clarify:

 

Current voting system (local and national polling days) you put an X next to the candidate you like. The winner is the one with the most votes regardless of the number of votes? So, if the top candidate gets 40% of the votes they currently win.

 

AV system (local and national days) - you put a number 1 against your preferred candidate with a number 2 against your second preferred candidate and a 3 against your third preferred candidate. To win, a candidate MUST get OVER 50% of the vote? If they don't then the candidate with the least votes has their votes go to the second preferred candidate on the ballot paper (if there is no second choice on a paper then it is excluded?). And it goes on like this (knocking out the least popular candidate each time) until ONE candidate ends up with more than 50% of the vote.

 

So ... if I have understood it correctly as above ... what are the pro's and con's then for each system?

 

I have to say that in most other things, first past the post wins and so I am swaying towards that I think

[Vista]

Good summing up Jo

 

As I see it, the AV vote system is flawed as it's possible for a guy with 45% of the voters putting him as their first choice to be beaten by another candidate who has only 35% of voters choosing him as their preferred candidate but has more second choice votes than the first guy once the first round of voting eliminates the least popular candidate. Total up the votes again and despite candidate A having 45% of the 1st choice votes and candidate B only 35%. Candidate B wins because his aggregate pile of votes is taller.

[Mk2Jo]

In that case, it's first past the post and non AV for my vote this week

[EscortHeadCase]

Ive been yo-yoing between which i am going to vote for. Overall i think for a general election the setup of constituencies that we have at the moment is archaic and doesnt really represent what we as voters want. With constituencies containing anywhere between 65-90,000 voters I think it is unfair that because of which constituency you live in it could effect whether your chosen party gets into power. In effect the less people in a constituency the more power those voters have over the outcome of the election. Which is unfair. I have always thought that for general elections at least we should be using proportional representation as a voting system as this would mean that it doesnt matter where you live your vote will make the same amount of difference. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation).

 

And to my actual point (sorry). I decided that as we live in a democracy we should be using the most democratic voting system available. The first past the post system is all well and good if voters actually vote for the party they agree with the most policy s of. But we don't. We all know that if you vote for *unheard of party X* that they aren't going to get in because it has always been down to the Big 3 and that we will have to pick one of them instead. Whereas with AV it means that voters have an opportunity to feel that they can vote for who they truly agree with and not be wasting your vote. Because at the end of the day, we aren't supposed to be trimming what we might want so that it can fit into one of 3 options. I'm going to vote for AV because it means that if people agree with a party's policy's then it means they can vote for them, and then they can put a more mainstream party as one of there latter preferences so that if there first choice doesn't get in they still get an opinion on who ends up with the power. And that is what matters. The voters need to get what they actually want.

 

(good video explaining AV

[garyv6100e]

If it was a vote on either first past the post or proportional representation i would vote for PR as your party vote really counts but AV is a waste of time so i will be voting to keep FPTP

[jimbo]

If it was a vote on either first past the post or proportional representation i would vote for PR as your party vote really counts but AV is a waste of time so i will be voting to keep FPTP

 

I agree with you in the sense that I would prefer PR, above all other options, but I'll be voting for AV, as I see it as a stepping stone to getting there.

 

The arguments that are made about an increased likelihood of hung parliaments are dispelled if you look at the study undertaken by the Political Studies Association

 

http://www.psa.ac.uk/PSAPubs/TheAlternativeVoteBriefingPaper.pdf

 

(Page 2 is the Exec summary

 

it makes the point that had AV been used in previous elections, the only result that would have possibly been different under AV would have been the 1992 vote.

 

For me what swung my vote was the that AV will give me a vote that is "worth" more.

 

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

[Pipster007]

I've tried looking for various bits of info and I'm wondering how does AV work in other countries?

 

1st, what other countries have it?

2nd, does it work for them or would they prefer to have FPTP?

 

One point with AV is, with my understanding, when it comes time to vote, you wouldn't have to actually vote for 2nd, 3rd,4th or 5th places if you don't want to. So in effect if you want e.g Liberal, you can just put your number 1 next to the liberal candidate and leave the others blank, in effect you'd be using AV as a FPTP. Does that sound right??????

[Vista]

I've tried looking for various bits of info and I'm wondering how does AV work in other countries?

 

1st, what other countries have it?

2nd, does it work for them or would they prefer to have FPTP?

 

One point with AV is, with my understanding, when it comes time to vote, you wouldn't have to actually vote for 2nd, 3rd,4th or 5th places if you don't want to. So in effect if you want e.g Liberal, you can just put your number 1 next to the liberal candidate and leave the others blank, in effect you'd be using AV as a FPTP. Does that sound right??????

 

Only Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea, Fiji is planning to ditch it and allegedly 60% of voters in Australia wish to revert to First Past the Post (If you believe the no campaign PR). I guess that answers both your questions 1 & 2.

 

You could just vote for one candidate in the AV voting system but if it comes in and you do take that approach, wouldn't you be selling yourself short? i.e. wasting an opportunity to have your opinion heard should your first choice not be succesful?

[banarama]

never voted in my life not going to either

[Vista]

never voted in my life not going to either

 

 

Voting is one of the most important things we "commoners" can do.

[ZetecVan 2.0]

I've voted No, with Yes as my second choice.

 

 

 

[AdeV]

IMHO - It seems to me that AV is simply a mechanism designed to ensure the Lib Dems are always in government, as part of a coalition.

 

AV essentially gives minority interests more importance than majority interests.

 

AV could work IF we ditch the constituency system, which massively unbalances the whole setup.

 

AV could also work if it were limited to just 1 transfer (the "single transferable vote"), although even that is far from perfect.

 

I'll be voting NO today, FPTP is not perfect, but it's not as bad as AV, in its proposed form.

[Mk2Jo]

I voted NO to AV

[Vista]

The No's have it

 

Though I'm not sure I agree with this as I reckon if a real proportional representation system had been on offer, the results might have been very different.

 

Senior political figures on the No campaign said the scale of the victory meant it was not simply a vote against AV but a firm endorsement by the public of the first-past-the-post system.