Alternative Vote

[Dog Pants]

Seems to me that lots of politicians and celebrities have been rallying for or railing against AV, but none have really gone to great pains to explain it. makes me suspicious of their motives. I have an opinion on it, but before I vent it I'm curious about yours.

[Roman Totale]

Two different ways of electing a pack of greedy, untrustworthy cunts.

I wish I wasn't this cynical about politics, but I'm fed up with the lot of them. The 3 main parties are all fucking useless, and the rest are all lunatics.

AV has its good points, but then again I just see it as only giving more power to fringe mentalists like the BNP.

[Thompy]

There is an advert on at the moment which has the tag line "making things clear" or some such. Yet all it does is say that in the current system you chose one dude, and in AV you rank the dudes. It says nothing about how it actually works. Hard in a 30 sec ad I'm sure, but a lot of people will be voting without really knowing what AV means.

Anyway, my opinion: I don't care. An opinion that's probably derided by more than some, but I've never felt much than that for anything political. Either it's just me, or my generation.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

I watched this

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtW3QkX8Xa0[/media]

[spoodie]

That's a pretty good and simple explanation, not that I claim to be an expert. I thought I should learning something about it so I found this video:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FstA45lxgFs[/media]
It's a bit more detail and no analogy.

Then on the vote no to AV side you get this confusing nonsense:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aUxilWb2Og[/media]
It seems to blame AV for the previous election which resulted in the coalition. I don't believe the proposed alternative system is retroactive or has time traveling powers. So it's also criticizing the current voting system?

Anyway I'm in the Yes camp. It sounds workable, less complicated than suggested and worth a shot. Personally I feel disillusioned with the current system.

[shot2bits]

i watched this http://www.b3ta.com/links/Is_your_Cat_confused_about_AV

which put me in the yes party, although i dont vote anyway as i see no point in essentially trying to choose between a dick or an asshole

[The Shutting Downs]

My take on things is that the current system is the one that has been used since we had a 2 party system, and only landowners had a vote.

It does not stand up to a multi party system, with every random spod ho wants in able to stand, it'll get hader and harder to get a true Majority. AV does go a long way to sorting that problem.

Sir Stephen Fry, Eddie Izzard and others have all argued for AV very well, all I have had from the 'vote No' side was a very badly put together leaflet that was very inaccurate, and it's main argument was 'someone could get in from a BNP voters secondary choice!!! Oh Noes!'

However, I refuse to listen to the 'I didn't vote for this' crowd's rants about the current government, because it IS what we voted for under the 'first past' system, we were undecided, so the extra rules noone bothered to look at came into play.

So yeah, I'm voting 'Yes' to AV.

[Lateralus]

I'm voting yes to AV. This is partly because I agree with the principle that just because my first choice candidate might not get in, I still want to have my views taken into account somehow. However, as is often the case, my choice is also swayed by the people who line up to support each of the options, and when it's a choice between Peter Stringfellow and Stephen Fry giving me advice, it isn't really much of a contest.

[ProfHawking]

This AV mess makes me rather angry, as do most politicians in general. I agree that AV has been really badly explained, but videos like Dan snows above or the cats don't do the job properly or fairly. You cannot take what steven fry (or any other celebrity) says as gospel either, you must make your own decision based on fact and knowledge. You can probably guess at this point that I'm in the no to AV camp. I'm not saying first past the post is right either, but its better than a hodgepodge solution lumped on us by the lib dems. I'll go into more detail as to my thoughts, but not when I'm knackered and typing on my phone from my bed.

[Lee]

[FatherJack]

I'm thinking yes, I like the idea than I can rank politicians (from crap to useless) and also that I can say "anyone but them" but nowhere have I seen it explained fully.

When for example, are third-choice votes counted? I would assume it's when your second choice has already been eliminated, but it would be good to know for sure.

Say the following parties were up, and I voted as shown:

The Sims House Party - 1
Lemon Party - 2
Hitler Youth Party - 3
Mario Party - 4

In the first round it might look like this:

The Sims House Party - 25%
Lemon Party - 15%
Hitler Youth Party - 30%
Mario Party - 30%

Lemon Party would be eliminated, but my first-choice vote would still be in effect, it might now look like this:

The Sims House Party - 30%
Hitler Youth Party - 35%
Mario Party - 35%

Now, The Sims House Party is eliminated, and with my second-choice already gone, it seems I've inadvertently cast what might be the deciding vote for Hitler Youth Party - oh noes!


So, it seems it's important to only rank candidates that you are actually comfortable voting for, even though it's only on very rare occasions your third choice would actually be used, it still would count as a full vote in those situations.

Even though in the example above it seems I'm saying extremist parties can get in, I don't think this is the case at all. Most people will say "anyone but the extremists" and if they don't then I suppose it's only fair that people's choices are reflected, however abhorrent I might find it.

The alternative is we all have to drink coffee instead of beer just because that stupid woman says so and we don't want that.

[Joose]

i dont vote anyway as i see no point in essentially trying to choose between a dick or an asshole

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, for gods sake don't do this. Even if you think all the major parties are a collection of private parts, they are still a better choice than some fucking nutter. The problem is that people who agree with the mutters tend to be more likely to vote for thief nutter of choice, so by not voting you are essentially making thier "nutter please" vote count for more. If nothing else, go and put a random tick in one of the major parties, just as a "no mutters please" vote.

Someone who understands AV better than me can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell normal people not voting is a verry bad thing regardless of whether AV is being used or not.

Tl;dr: voter apathy puts nutters in power. I would rather be ruled by an idiot than a psychopath.

As far as AV is concerned, the only no argument that has even made sense to me is that it gives more power to the fringe votes. But unless I'm understanding it wrong, surely 99% of people are either going to put things like the BNP at either the top or the bottom of thier list, thus, in practice, totally negating that argument?

It seems like AV is an imperfect but much improved system. Hell, democracy *in general* is a flawed system. It's just less shit than all the other systems.

[Roman Totale]

Tl;dr: voter apathy puts nutters in power. I would rather be ruled by an idiot than a psychopath.

I hate them all, but I still vote so the mentalists don't get a foothold.

[mrbobbins]

99% of people are either going to put things like the BNP at either the top or the bottom of thier list

With AV you don't have to rank all the candidates, you could just mark 1 box, or rank all of them if you wish, but if there's a BNP candidate in your area just ignore the box altogether (Unless you are a nutter)

One of the reasons I'm voting yes is because it's 100% tory and I'm 100% NOT tory.

[Dog Pants]

See, that's bollocks. No offence meant to you Lee. That insinuates that all other parties than the Coffee Party want the same thing, which is nothing like the case. It's crap like this that makes me want to vote No, not because of how it will work but because of the smug and misleading publicity campaign from the Yes party. I have to say I've seen very little about the No side of things.

This is how it appears to me though:

People who want the Conservatives in power will vote Tory, then maybe Lib Dems so Labour don't get in.
People who want to see Labour in power will vote Labour, then maybe Lib Dem to the Tories don't get in.
People who want Lib Dem in will vote Lib Dem, then maybe Green or possibly Labour.
People who want anyone else in will vote for their fringe party then probably whichever of the main three who fit their lefty or righty opinions the best.

The outcome seems to me that it's a great way for the Lib Dems to increase their vote. Now whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your political leanings, but to me it seems that it will choose a winner by default rather than popularity. I might have this completely wrong, but if I do it's because none of the campaigners on either side seem to be showing any inclination towards honesty. Not surprising I suppose when it comes to politics.

[ProfHawking]

Yes Dog pants - you got it. YOU CANT GROUP ALL THE 4 PUB PARTIES TOGETHER! Just because they all have less votes than coffee doesn't mean they share the same policies.
If we are using inane and inaccurate but catchy images, then what about this:
<img src="http://clintweb.co.uk/random/dirtypint.jpg">

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.

[friznit]

The outcome seems to me that it's a great way for the Lib Dems to increase their vote....it will choose a winner by default rather than popularity.

Is the right answer. This is why Lib Dems are massively for it, Cons are against (cos it'll be them that lose seats to Lib Dems) and Labour are split down the middle depending whether it's a Lib Dem or Cons at #2 in their safe seat.

There are only two killer arguments in all the crap that's being thrown around:

FPTP: It's simple, decisive and everyone understands it.

AV: It gives minority parties a greater chance of getting a seat in parliament*

*important caveat: parliament is not the same as government. The 3 main parties will remain the 3 main parties regardless.

although i dont vote anyway as i see no point in essentially trying to choose between a dick or an asshole

The reality is that voter apathy is by far the bigger problem we have in this country

[Shada]

I'm voting yes because I like ranking. I'm a complete ranker.

[Dog Pants]

I'm voting yes because I like ranking. I'm a complete ranker.

Best argument I've heard for either vote so far.

[friznit]

Can I rank my AV vote in order of preference?