Essentially, that's AV.
Alternative Vote
- Thread starter Joel`
- Start date
- Replies 157
- Views 9K
Essentially, that's AV.
Oh. My Mum explained it differently to me... She said the party with the lowest votes could "give" their votes to another party in order to enable them to win?
Oh Calum, use your ****** head. Was it by any chance a "No to AV" poster? Because of course they're going to basically lie in order to get you to support them. Australians think their system is great, from what I hear anecdotally.[/QUOTE]
No it's not.
I don't see why I should be punished for having one voting preference. You say it's tough luck if you don't choose to vote for more, I can easily say it's tough luck that your vote wasn't represented as much, no? Both systems are flawed.
I won't lie, my main objective is the fact that AV will benefit Clegg the most, and I'd like to see as much lasting damage to his party as possible for being a first class ****.
Also, FPTP has managed to represent views on government for years, government have frequently changed due to people's current political persuasion. Due to this fact, I don't see the point in spending money changing to another system. Just because FPTP has its flaws, doesn't mean we should hurry and switch to another system that's equally flawed.
No no. Once a party with the lowest votes in that round is eliminated, their votes are distributed equally amongst the other parties.
That's irrelevant. Mathematically the proportion of votes for each remaining party is constant. What is relevant is that 2nd and 3rd choice candidates can suddenly become winners. If the 2nd choice receives a majority, then I still consider that as a party where the majority of people didn't support their MP. Unless I've transcended into some strange universe where 2nd is considered favourable.
Yes, it is. The party with the most votes overall wins.
Didn't say it was tough luck, I just said you had your chance to vote and you didn't. It's your choice. If you choose not to vote then you have only yourself to blame. And I never said the system wasn't flawed, it's just a **** of a lot LESS flawed than our current system.
I see. Quite apart from your frankly dubious views for voting No to AV, you'd much rather bolster David Cameron? Are you nuts?
It's not equally flawed, it is far less flawed. Just because we've used FPTP for years doesn't mean we should keep it - even if it does cost some money, which may I remind you is a one-off cost - and if we used that kind of logic we'd still be using bows and arrows because a tank costs more.
AV is intrinsically better. Even the parties that argue against it like the Tories know it's better, since they use it in their party elections.
Are you serious?
There are no words...
count again my son. How many beers are there and how many coffee's are there.
AV is fairer as a voting system but can lead to alot of coalitions which can be better and worse in each respect
It can't be irrelevant if I'm directly answering his question.
They can't "suddenly" become winners. All it means is a greater proportion of the population would rather see the second or third choice candidate running it, rather than the first choice. All it is is a way of choosing the least bad candidate, which I applaud wholeheartedly.
Sid said:
I was too young, but if I did I would have voted Green.
no the coffee has the most votes it has 3 the beers have less than 3 in every option so the coffee wins fair and square
The ones with the most primary, secondary and tertiary votes.
I thought the issue was that not everyone was represented. Why should I be discriminated against for only choosing one party?
No. I'd rather not have Labour try to ruin our economy, again, thanks. They even appointed a chancellor who has absolutely no economics background. As for Lib Dems, we saw what happens in the past year when the promises they make that they know they can't live up to become reality. So you'd rather bolster of those incompetent parties? Are you nuts?
Cost-benefit analysis. The benefits from tank far outweigh the bow.
I don't see enough benefit from AV.
AV is intrinsically better. Even the parties that argue against it like the Tories know it's better, since they use it in their party elections.
Calum is win. <3
Oh my god...
Fairy nuff.
So we'd STILL be in a position where the MP doesn't have majority support. Since, as I said before. I don't count 2nd and 3rd choice candidates as having the support of the voter. If I voted for a 2nd choice so I'm more "represented" by the system, and my 2nd choice wins, then I'm still mad that my first choice didn't win. But then if you say I don't have to vote for a 2nd choice, then I'm still unhappy that other voters have been counted more than I have. So, either way I'm an unhappy voter. I thought the idea with a new system was to remove unhappiness with the voting process?
So yeah, the most votes.
Because you had the chance and didn't take it. It is a fair point you bring to the table, but nowhere near enough to sway me.
Who, Labour? The Tories appointed George ****** Osborne, the least competent Chancellor there's been in years. Labour gave us boom years, something the Tories have yet to produce. I'd rather bolster the Lib Dems rather than the Tories, thanks, because their core values are close to my heart.
Such as a much fairer voting system?
Calum both cannot count and is agreeing with you. Maybe you should take a step back and think about that, eh?
The Coffee shop has the highest amount of individual votes
However on the wider scale a beer has more votes than a coffee. Therefore more people voted for a beer than a coffee!
We have a winner... coffee !
I place less importance on 2nd and 3rd votes, since people don't necessarily want them.
Labour gave us boom years? Umm, winter of discontent was a direct result of Labour's inability to man up against the unions. If you actually examine what each party has done, the Tories have been far, far more important economically. If Thatcher's policies were so bad, then why did Labour copy rather than abolish them in their 12 years of power? And lets look at WHY Labour have given us boom years. They've always come in on the back of the Tories fixing our economy. Labour broke THEIR OWN economic rules in order to gain political favour. Gordon Brown himself said we should tax more and spend less during boom, so we have money when we enter a bust. He then claimed he had ended boom-bust. So, we were in a huge boom, he then spent more and more, and taxed less. While this made him incredibly popular, it has royally ****** our finances. Now THAT is economic incompetence at its peak. And now, the Tories get elected after they've ****** it up. This forces them to make unpopular decisions, but in the grand scheme - correct decisions to fix our economy. This in turn makes them unpopular, they get voted out and Labour return so they can screw us all over again so they can brag about their growth figures.
How is Osborne the most incompetent in years? Because the country is haemorrhaging £120bn a year, and oddly sitting back and believing it'll all be okay won't work. So he did something. Labour are the ones who loaned money to finance spending we simply did not need, and have now left the huge financial hole in our balance sheet to be patched by someone else.
It's genius political tactics by Labour.
Calum both cannot count and is agreeing with you. Maybe you should take a step back and think about that, eh?
Indeed, I'll rally all week now in favour of AV!