Alternative Vote

[eFestivals]

I've come to hate the phrase "first past the post" - it's an incorrect definition, as there is no post that anyone has to get past.

AV is actually a better fit for that phrase.

[Kowalski]

you can see the tory anti-PR propaganda now though...

"you don't like AV, you won't like PR!"

[Ed209]

I just voted. Put a 1 next to "yes" and a 2 next to "no"

[The_Spoon]

Explains it rather well

[rexclark]

Well I've just been out to vote, yes incase you're bothered.

[5co77ie]

I have too

[rabid]

We'll be heading out shortly. It's just a short walk up the road but of course it's just started raining for the first time in weeks.

[rexclark]

We'll be heading out shortly. It's just a short walk up the road but of course it's just started raining for the first time in weeks.

[nightcrawler13]

in the I newspaper today they had a selection of famous people giving their reasons for voting yes or no...

"Yes" had Stephen Fry and Eddie Izzard

"No" had Nick Griffin, "The AV system will keep BNP out of government"

well, that swung me over to the "No" side then

[feral chile]

in the I newspaper today they had a selection of famous people giving their reasons for voting yes or no...

"Yes" had Stephen Fry and Eddie Izzard

"No" had Nick Griffin, "The AV system will keep BNP out of government"

well, that swung me over to the "No" side then

Edited May 5, 2011 by feral chile

[llcoolphil]

I was trying to work out the impact that the use of the eliminated candidate's supporters' second choice would make, thinking of BNP as the example of the eliminated candidate.

If the least popular candidate is eliminated, won't those supporters have voted for a similar candidate as their second choice? Wouldn't BNP supporters be likely to choose a right wing party?

[lharris92]

'twas a nay from me... sadly it isn't the best system to use (i did politics a level) but sadly i can't remember enough about the others to give another alternative at the moment but there are ones that are better.

anyway a slight bit off topic but i smell the lib dems anger from miles off and can see that this is the beginning of the end for Clegg, then the coalition, then the lib dems at the next general election. you heard it here first if it happens

[strummer77]

'twas a nay from me... sadly it isn't the best system to use (i did politics a level) but sadly i can't remember enough about the others to give another alternative at the moment but there are ones that are better.

anyway a slight bit off topic but i smell the lib dems anger from miles off and can see that this is the beginning of the end for Clegg, then the coalition, then the lib dems at the next general election. you heard it here first if it happens

Edited May 6, 2011 by strummer77

[lharris92]

Here first? You mst be kidding

Been obvious from the start, the Libs are going to be eaten alive by the coalition.

[bunique]

Interestingly (?) on the list of candidates published outside the polling station for our local elections, the Lib Dem candidates were the only ones without their party logo next to their name. There was also absolutely no mention of the party on the candidates' campaign literature with the only clue being the fact it was printed on light yellow paper.

[Kowalski]

Under AV, they would be reliant on a massive number of second choice votes and I suspect that if the BNP isn't your first choice, there is a very limited number of scenarios where they would be your second.

[feral chile]

The whole BNP thing is a bit of a red herring. Under the current system they would never get enough votes to return an MP. Under AV, they would be reliant on a massive number of second choice votes and I suspect that if the BNP isn't your first choice, there is a very limited number of scenarios where they would be your second.

If the person you put down as a first choice hasn't been eliminated, would you rather they counted your vote for that candidate or that they counted your vote for your second choice candidate?

[feral chile]

The whole BNP thing is a bit of a red herring. Under the current system they would never get enough votes to return an MP. Under AV, they would be reliant on a massive number of second choice votes and I suspect that if the BNP isn't your first choice, there is a very limited number of scenarios where they would be your second.

Edited May 6, 2011 by feral chile

[Kyelo]

Well given that choice, obviously the former. But why is it set up in this way? I don't understand the logic of it. There must be a better way of getting a candidate to 50% of the vote. Like having a points system so that all second votes are taken into acount.

It feels like it's giving the supporters of the least popular candidate a disproportionate amount of influence over who wins.

Maybe they should ask us who we don't want in government, and elect the least reviled candidate.

[eFestivals]

Maybe they should ask us who we don't want in government, and elect the least reviled candidate.

That's *EXACTLY* what AV achieves.

It ensures that the winning candidate is one who can muster more support - and over 50% support - of the electorate. For some people that candidate isn't their first choice of winner, but is preferred as the winner compared to the other guy.

When it comes to politics, there's just about no one who is able to support every detail of every policy of any party, and so what really happens is that people are voting not for what they agree with, but for the candidate who they find the least objectionable.

AV expands that idea, so that the winner is the guy who 50%+ of the electorate can accept as that winner. He is the least reviled.

[lost]

Yes, but if BNP was eliminated, who would BNP supporters list as their second choice? That's my concern.

Edited May 6, 2011 by lost

[eFestivals]

Yes, but if BNP was eliminated, who would BNP supporters list as their second choice? That's my concern.

If we're eliminating the unpopular vote, why are we then using the second choice votes to bump up the tally for what might well be another unpopular candidate?

The point is that what you think about any candidate and who might vote for them is not for your consideration. It is only your own vote (or multiple votes if with AV) that is for your consideration.

In a democracy, if people want to vote for a candidate who you dislike, that is their right just as much as it's your right to vote for who you like.

It's a mistake to consider issues like this on such an insular and self-serving basis. When it comes to voting, we each have equal rights to vote for who whoever we choose.

[worm]

The point is that what you think about any candidate and who might vote for them is not for your consideration. It is only your own vote (or multiple votes if with AV) that is for your consideration.

[eFestivals]

We do agree here in full. It is your right to express your preference according to your own consideration.

But this is a vote about voting, so the reason for their vote is equally entirely up to their own consideration. If Feral's concern is that other parties may get in, then that is her own consideration. Just as it is when she chooses to vote for a candidate.

Fair enough, but that's very easily addressed too.

Is there any place in the UK were the BNP or any other party which is similarly hugely objectionable to many have even the remotest chance of getting 50% of the vote when up against just one of any of the other mainstream parties?

Not a chance in hell, I'd say. Any tory-hater such as myself would far sooner put the tories as a preference before the BNP, and (despite the inherent racism of many tories, as often gets exposed) more than enough tories are right-minded enough to do similar and make Labour a preference before the BNP.

The very fact that the BNP are so strongly against AV gets to show that even they don't think what feral fears would ever happen.

[eFestivals]

this is the bit that I've struggled with

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it.

What AV does is give everyone the chance to vote for who they would *really* like to win. With FPTP, it makes more sense to vote tactically to keep out a potential winner that you don't want to win, and that comes at the expense of politics as a whole, by making any vote for any candidate outside of the potential winners a completely wasted vote.

And so with AV, you get the chance to vote for who you'd really like to win (which is defo good for politics by opening up opportunities for any ideas outside of the mainstream), while also not wasting that vote completely.

No vote gets counted any more than any other vote - in any 'round', all votes within that round are counted equally.

None of the same idea of "I don't understand how it's fair, if only the loser's supporters get their second choice taken into account" gets applied to the exact same process but done in multiple voting sessions (such as the manner in which Dave Moron became tory leader), and really this is just an idea thrown out there with great effect by the 'no' campaign for their own election advantage, while not being all that is suggested.

At the end of the day it's surely better that the winner is someone that more than 50% of people can support than it being someone who less than half of the electorate can support.