Alternative Vote

[spoodie]

I'd assumed this was a riff on the Dan Snow video, which explains things a little better but is a bit flawed. I think it's only supposed to be a joke. I'm not sure what that other image is supposed to be, it certainly doesn't make any real sense to me and doesn't match my understanding of how AV would work. Another joke?

[shot2bits]

i realised that the yes arguements saying that AV illiminates the need to vote tactically is a lie, it just gives you more choices within your tactical voting.

oh and my voters apathy is simply that apart from the bnp and that other one i cant remember the acronym for thats kinda like them who are scum, they are all as bad as eachother, i understand people voting simply so nutjobs like the bnp dont get in power but really its terrible that you then have to make a choice between a bunch of people you dont want just so someone even worse doesnt get in. we should be voting for the best candidate, not the one we think is going to fuck up the least.

i do sometimes think what what happen hypotheticaly if no one in the country voted, is there a system in place for an event like that?

personally i still think AV seems better the FPTP, you arent forced to rank more than one party, you only have the choice to if theres multiple parties you wouldnt mind and leave everything else blank, hell if everyone still just votes for one party then nothing has changed but we atleast have the choice, we just have to hope the majority of people understand this and dont rank 3 people each because they think they have to.

i do see how it could help one of the nutjob parties into power but thats only if alot of people put them as one of the other choices. and i hope theres more people with common sense in the country than without.

it does make me wonder what it worse, people like myself who dont vote because we know theres gonna be a twat in power no matter what we do, or the people who vote just so someone slightly less twatish than the huge gaping twats. doesnt get in. I would think people like me but the parties that keep getting in are going to think theyre doing it right and people want them in power if things carry on as they are.

im going to find a cave and become a hermit untill this political malarky is over

[Dr. kitteny berk]

I've been thinking about this more than I should, so far I've come to the conclusion that AV probably gives the nutters more voting power (same for everyone though), but it probably won't change the balance of power significantly, even if there is more chance of a nutter getting some 3rd/4th choice votes.

[Roman Totale]

Something else I'm unsure of (which the Yes campaign are being slippery over), what if you don't have a 3rd choice? Say you tick Lib Dem 1st, Labour 2nd, but don't like the other parties enough to give them any sort of vote?

Australia operate the same system, and over there if you don't fill out the thing in full then your vote is voided. Vote for 3 people or don't vote at all. That is a bollocks system.

This is why those beer vs coffee and cats vs dogs examples just don't work, as they both assume that, fundamentally, there are only 2 real options.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

"Remember—use 1, 2, 3 etc at this election—this is an election using the alternative vote system. Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate). You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on. You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish. Do not use the same number more than once. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may not be counted."

[FatherJack]

Something else I'm unsure of (which the Yes campaign are being slippery over), what if you don't have a 3rd choice? Say you tick Lib Dem 1st, Labour 2nd, but don't like the other parties enough to give them any sort of vote?

I think your third choice is unlikely to ever come into effect, as I described above, but in the case you describe where you select two of the major three parties* as your first two choices, it's incredibly unlikely - as those three will usually be the last three still standing after the eliminations, so your vote will never go to worse than your second choice.

*by major parties, I mean whichever three typically come first in your constituency.


Safe seats aren't likely to change hands under this system, but the more marginal ones will probably have what on paper looks a more decisive result. I can see the Lib Dems gaining a lot of second votes as Dog Pants described, but those only translate to seats when they make it to the final round after eliminations. I don't support them, but dont think them getting more seats is necessarily a bad thing - they are laughably under-represented in the House at the moment given the percentage of the population that voted for them.

It is of course an oversimplification to say that Labour and Conservative are opposites, with the Lib Dems in the middle ground. Currently we see some seats swinging from Labour to Conservative and back without the Lib Dems getting a look in and this system wouldn't change that. Even if everyone on both sides put them as their second choice, it would still be the same pair still standing in the final round.

[Lateralus]

AV pretty much means that the most popular party is not going to win (unless they already have the majority). The other parties policies are lumped together when the votes are counted, and you end up with a mixture that nobody wants. Lib dems will be in with the rest, and dictate the policies coalitions which will inevitably come out of it. You end up with indecisive, unaccountable governments with no proper manifesto that anybody voted for at all.

It's not quite fair to say that, because that relies on the assumption that the most popular party in terms of first votes (in this example the coffee party) wouldn't also benefit from second or third-choice votes. If people want a Baileys but also wouldn't mind a coffee, then the coffee party would benefit from that too if the Baileys option is eliminated.

Also, I haven't got the time to research it to back this up now, but I am sure that I heard a news report a while back when the coalition came into power saying that Britain was one of only 3 countries in Europe to have a majority parliament, with the others all having some form of coalition, and Germany and some others having had nothing but coalitions for many years. I don't think that power-sharing Governments are an inherently bad thing (which is no comment one way or the other on our current one, simply a sweeping generalisation), and I get so sick of the mud-slinging that currently goes on, so something that horses parties to work together has to be a good thing in my book.

[Dog Pants]

It is of course an oversimplification to say that Labour and Conservative are opposites, with the Lib Dems in the middle ground.

In fact I'd say that Conservative and Lib Dem are opposite, with Labour drifting about between right and left. It's only because historically Labour and Tory have been rivals that they're seen as opposites I suspect. Certainly in weighing up my options before the general elections the two parties were pretty close, and I was surprised to see Lib Dem lagging behind so far in my reckonings.

[FatherJack]

In fact I'd say that Conservative and Lib Dem are opposite, with Labour drifting about between right and left.

Yes, I was referring to the old definitions of Labour being left-wing, Conservative right-wing and Lib Dems centrist, when most parties are probably a bit right-of-centre now with a few aberant throwback policies to appease the old guard, with some others sprinkled in going the other way to appear populist.

I made a tally during the party leader's debates which I'm sure I posted about - scoring them on how well-explained and sensible their answers were compared to my own views of each policy. I found it surprisingly close, with all sides coming out with stuff that really surprised me, the Lib Dems having the only ideas about immigration that didn't sound like Enoch Powell talking, but falling behind on almost everything else as they came across as well-meaning, but amateurish.

I've already voted today, at 7am - so I put 'FIRST!' one one ballot, and 'X times a million' on the other one to save you all the bother.

[Dog Pants]

I've already voted today, at 7am - so I put 'FIRST!' one one ballot, and 'X times a million' on the other one to save you all the bother.

Cheers! I couldn't be arsed anyway.

Actually, regarding the local elections, I'm very apathetic. I'm not from here, I've not lived here long, I don't plan on staying long, and none of the candidates have said anything that makes me want to vote for any of them.

[Grimmie]

I done gone voted.

DEMOCRACY.

[friznit]

I think we should go back to the original form of Athenian democracy, where each year you got to vote to exile one politician for ten years.

[Stoat]

We could use the ancient Greek method: everyone gets a little black or white ball. The candidates line up and watch as people vote. The one with the fewest bruises is declared the winner.

[kaetie]

I've tried to understand AV, I really have. I've watched the videos and been on both for and against websites. I honestly think that I like the current system we have now. However, if the voting system is changed I'll just have to deal with it..

[spoodie]

sad clegg is sad

[Stoat]

aww, poor Cleggosausrus.

[Vowles]

I don't know why the wasted the tax payers time, and money (could be out of habit) with a vote on AV? When what we really should have been debating was FPTP vs PR?!