Alternative Vote

[curtis290]

But if the seat is already set to be taken by Lib Dem/BNP than your 1st preference is irrelevant anyway if you're sure they won't win. You may as well not vote for them and keep the BNP out, which you'd do in FPTP anyway. Also, Lib Dems have been calling for an alliance with Labour under AV. That's still calling for a tactical choice, no?

Edited my post while you wrote this one and that's sort of the answer to what you said here. You say that the 1st preference is irrelevant since they won't win anyway. This is the main false assumption. It may be irrelevant in the first or second AV cycles, since they are the weaker party. However, usually the reason they 'wouldn't win' is not that they are unpopular per se, it is that people never voted for them under FPTP because they strategically voted. Put in the AV system and parties like the Greens Party or Liberal Democrats, which aren't necessarily ideologically unpopular but haven't gotten votes because of FPTP, will start to win elections because people will actually be able to vote for who they want as opposed to strategically voting. You're saying you may as well vote for the Liberal Democrat to keep out the BNP guy, but surely it is better to vote for your actual preference while still being able to express your opinion that the BNP guy would be a piece of **** and that you'd way rather have the Liberal Democrat instead of him if it came down to that.

I'm not saying it eliminates tactics or politics or anything like that, those are inherent to the political system, but I would much prefer a voting system where I could express my political preferences without having to tactically vote (as in not voting for your first choice for strategic reasons) while still being able to say that I don't want a certain candidate to win. But again, AV certainly isn't perfect, it's just that anything else is better than FPTP.

 

[Jack]

I meant 'you can't complain if you vote' in the sense that if you vote for who you want to win then you''ve done your bit and hopefully your vote will count if your favoured party wins. I'd say thats fair enough.

In other words - it is tactical voting in my book. Why am I going to vote for anybody else when I want Labour to win? I'm certainly not going to vote for the Lib Dems, nor do I want to. I don't want to have to pick alternatives because I simply don't have an alternative. It should be one vote as it has always been, not trying to encourage people to vote for others when they probably dont want to.

The Tories are probably the least popular party in the country - but at the same time they are obviously the most popular. Explain to me why someone voting Labour would want to put the Tories down as an alternative vote, same goes for a Torie supporter.. They won't vote for the Lib Dems because they believe in completely different things. Massive attempt at tactical voting if you ask me, its just petty.

 

[curtis290]

I meant 'you can't complain if you vote' in the sense that if you vote for who you want to win then you''ve done your bit and hopefully your vote will count if your favoured party wins. I'd say thats fair enough.

In other words - it is tactical voting in my book. Why am I going to vote for anybody else when I want Labour to win? I'm certainly not going to vote for the Lib Dems, nor do I want to. I don't want to have to pick alternatives because I simply don't have an alternative. It should be one vote as it has always been, not trying to encourage people to vote for others when they probably dont want to.

The Tories are probably the least popular party in the country - but at the same time they are obviously the most popular. Explain to me why someone voting Labour would want to put the Tories down as an alternative vote, same goes for a Torie supporter.. They won't vote for the Lib Dems because they believe in completely different things. Massive attempt at tactical voting if you ask me, its just petty.

You would vote for someone else because you have a preference if labor doesn't win. You're telling me you have no preference between the Liberal Democrats and the BNP? What if those were the two most popular candidates in your district? Under FPTP you would either vote Labor and waste your vote or you would tactically vote and vote Liberal Democrat, a candidate you don't want, so that you don't get the BNP guy elected. Under AV you can still vote for your first choice while expressing your preferences for who you'd like to see win the election. Tactical voting is the norm under FPTP, but under AV you can vote for who you want to win.

 

[King Sid]

You would vote for someone else because you have a preference if labor doesn't win. You're telling me you have no preference between the Liberal Democrats and the BNP? What if those were the two most popular candidates in your district? Under FPTP you would either vote Labor and waste your vote or you would tactically vote and vote Liberal Democrat, a candidate you don't want, so that you don't get the BNP guy elected. Under AV you can still vote for your first choice while expressing your preferences for who you'd like to see win the election. Tactical voting is the norm under FPTP, but under AV you can vote for who you want to win.

I have never, ever voted tactically and nor has anyone I know. It's just ridiculous to state that that's what everyone does under FPTP. And as for what Joel and Jack have said I agree. AV would be tactical voting for those who vote tactically just under a new name. I don't want a preference system because I don't have preferences. I support my party and will always vote for them, no matter what. I don't want to put down 2nd and 3rd choices because I don't support them and therefore I don't want to give a vote to any of them. I want my one vote to count and be as equal as everybody elses. That is fair.

 

[curtis290]

I have never, ever voted tactically and nor has anyone I know. It's just ridiculous to state that that's what everyone does under FPTP. And as for what Joel and Jack have said I agree. AV would be tactical voting for those who vote tactically just under a new name. I don't want a preference system because I don't have preferences. I support my party and will always vote for them, no matter what. I don't want to put down 2nd and 3rd choices because I don't support them and therefore I don't want to give a vote to any of them. I want my one vote to count and be as equal as everybody elses. That is fair.

So if your party doesn't win, you don't care who wins. You have no preference between the Liberal Democrats and the BNP. Or the Liberal Democrats and Labor.

 

[King Sid]

So if your party doesn't win, you don't care who wins. You have no preference between the Liberal Democrats and the BNP. Or the Liberal Democrats and Labor.

If my party doesn't win then I'm unhappy. Saying I don't care is going a bit far but IMO Labour and the Lib Dems are just as bad as each other. One's ruined our country economically and the others are the worst back-trackers I've seen. I despise the BNP and everything they stand for and hope that they never get any kind of power and obviously prefer the other parties over them, that doesn't mean I want to rank them though. Because I'm not going to be happy because I preferenced someone else 2nd and they beat them. I'm still annoyed my party lost.

Just because the people I "preferenced" 2nd get in doesn't mean that I'll be happy about it. There are much better systems than AV that we could be changing to or voting for.

 

[Joel`]

So if your party doesn't win, you don't care who wins. You have no preference between the Liberal Democrats and the BNP. Or the Liberal Democrats and Labor.

Yes, but that's STILL tactical voting. In FPTP, you support one party, as you will in AV. In FPTP, if you know your party won't win and you have two others that are competing, you will vote to keep the party you dislike out. Tactical voting, I think we can agree. So, taking the same scenario under AV, you're STILL asking me to vote between two parties I dislike and asking me to choose which I dislike the most. This is exactly the same that I have done under FPTP, except there it's called tactical voting, and now it's called alternate voting.

The only difference is that I still get to show my support for my 1st party to the ballot office. Why should I changed for that? I don't care if I've voted for my 1st choice or not, if I tactically vote for others, I don't care that I haven't put my first preference down. You're basically saying, that we should switch system so we can still visibly show our support, even though the result is the same. If they finish last, it's still my other preferences being counted through. I don't want to have separate preferences, and I certainly don't want to pay for the "more democratic" system, which in reality is still just keeping tactical voting under a different name, except I get to pay for the privilege and help out a party I personally dislike. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[curtis290]

Yes, but that's STILL tactical voting. In FPTP, you support one party, as you will in AV. In FPTP, if you know your party won't win and you have two others that are competing, you will vote to keep the party you dislike out. Tactical voting, I think we can agree. So, taking the same scenario under AV, you're STILL asking me to vote between two parties I dislike and asking me to choose which I dislike the most. This is exactly the same that I have done under FPTP, except there it's called tactical voting, and now it's called alternate voting.

The only difference is that I still get to show my support for my 1st party to the ballot office. Why should I changed for that? I don't care if I've voted for my 1st choice or not, if I tactically vote for others, I don't care that I haven't put my first preference down. You're basically saying, that we should switch system so we can still visibly show our support, even though the result is the same. If they finish last, it's still my other preferences being counted through. I don't want to have separate preferences, and I certainly don't want to pay for the "more democratic" system, which in reality is still just keeping tactical voting under a different name, except I get to pay for the privilege and help out a party I personally dislike. Thanks, but no thanks.

Your claim is that under AV it's the same and that there's no difference between voting for the least evil of the popular parties under FPTP and having a second and third preference under AV. But it's not. Under AV you get to vote for your first choice. That's a huge difference. It might not make as big of a difference in the first election or two, but it allows parties that are popular but don't receive votes (because people usually vote Tory or Labor) to become viable. They will start winning many more elections because people can vote for them as opposed to tactically voting. One of the reasons the Lib Dems don't have nearly as much representation as their popularity should lead to is because people tactically vote Tory or Labor. But this allows people to show that their true first choice is to vote Liberal Democrat. It would change the results of the elections to more accurately reflect what the population believes in. The Lib Dems will win more elections, like they deserve, and the BNP will get less votes. The BNP is over-represented in Parliament because FPTP splits the reasonable vote among the 3 most popular parties, enabling an extremely unpopular candidate to win the plurality.

AV certainly isn't perfect but anything is better than FPTP. The data is obvious that FPTP doesn't accurately represent the public's opinion, which is what elections are supposed to do. Surely that's enough to suggest a switch from it to a different electoral system. You personally may not like voting for a second choice, but no one is forcing you to. You can only vote for one candidate if you want. Other people probably like the idea of being able to express their second and third preferences, and if it makes the composition of Parliament more in line with what parties the populace actually supports, than that should be reason enough. A democracy should seek to use an electoral system that best reflects the public opinion.

 

[Joel`]

AV certainly isn't perfect but anything is better than FPTP. The data is obvious that FPTP doesn't accurately represent the public's opinion, which is what elections are supposed to do. Surely that's enough to suggest a switch from it to a different electoral system. You personally may not like voting for a second choice, but no one is forcing you to. You can only vote for one candidate if you want. Other people probably like the idea of being able to express their second and third preferences, and if it makes the composition of Parliament more in line with what parties the populace actually supports, than that should be reason enough. A democracy should seek to use an electoral system that best reflects the public opinion.

So, the problem with FPTP is that people who vote for minority parties (Who, oddly enough, are the minority of people) are disadvantaged through the current system. Then how can you say I can just vote once, which then disadvantages me against other voters. You're expecting me to vote for a system that I don't believe in anyway and I find to be a stupid concept, that benefits parties that I'm against, and finally is still flawed like the current system.

Give me a system that will actually work properly for all, and I'll happily vote for it. AV isn't that system, and I'm not willing to vote for it just because "anything's better than FPTP." If we vote this through then we won't get a different system for years. I dislike AV, so I'll be sticking with my no vote, thank you very much.

 

[curtis290]

So, the problem with FPTP is that people who vote for minority parties (Who, oddly enough, are the minority of people) are disadvantaged through the current system. Then how can you say I can just vote once, which then disadvantages me against other voters. You're expecting me to vote for a system that I don't believe in anyway and I find to be a stupid concept, that benefits parties that I'm against, and finally is still flawed like the current system.

Give me a system that will actually work properly for all, and I'll happily vote for it. AV isn't that system, and I'm not willing to vote for it just because "anything's better than FPTP." If we vote this through then we won't get a different system for years. I dislike AV, so I'll be sticking with my no vote, thank you very much.

Well that's only one of many problems with the FPTP, and some minority parties benefit from the FPTP, such as the BNP and the BCP. Neither of those parties should be so well-represented because very few want to see them win election. Thanks to FPTP, they do. And I wouldn't describe the Lib Dems really as a minority party. If you look at their support in the general population, they are almost as popular as Labor and the Tories, and certainly would become more so if the voting system was changed to AV.

You wouldn't be disadvantaged against other voters if you voted once. As you said before, you only support the Tories and wouldn't want to vote for any other party. Than only vote Tory and none of the other parties benefit from your votes. Your party will benefit since none of the other parties get your vote, and your party also benefits from the voters of other parties. Many people who vote Labor and Lib Dem would rather see a Tory than a BNP member, and this would happen in many districts where the BNP gets the plurality.

You said that *you* didn't like AV, but it's about more than just you. It's about Britain as a whole, and creating a democracy that accurately reflects the public's opinion in its elections. Since AV leads to a more accurate representation of public opinion in government (in real terms, at the moment this means more Lib Dems and less BNP and BCP members), shouldn't that be reason enough to vote for it instead of staying with the status quo?

 

[Joel`]

You said that *you* didn't like AV, but it's about more than just you. It's about Britain as a whole, and creating a democracy that accurately reflects the public's opinion in its elections. Since AV leads to a more accurate representation of public opinion in government (in real terms, at the moment this means more Lib Dems and less BNP and BCP members), shouldn't that be reason enough to vote for it instead of staying with the status quo?

It is about me, since it's me that's voting. I'm being asked to vote on what I think is best. And, according to every recent opinion poll, the majority of Britain is with me. I've already outlined numerous times why I don't think it would represent public opinion truly, and you yourself admitted it's still flawed. For me, those flaws aren't lessened enough to make me vote and go through the cost of implementing it. As I said, I'm not against a more democratic Britain, but AV isn't offering that to me in my opinion, so my vote is no.

I disagree with the general idea of offering multiple choices. If I don't agree with the main principle, why should I vote for it?

 

[curtis290]

It is about me, since it's me that's voting. I'm being asked to vote on what I think is best. And, according to every recent opinion poll, the majority of Britain is with me. I've already outlined numerous times why I don't think it would represent public opinion truly, and you yourself admitted it's still flawed. For me, those flaws aren't lessened enough to make me vote and go through the cost of implementing it. As I said, I'm not against a more democratic Britain, but AV isn't offering that to me in my opinion, so my vote is no.

I disagree with the general idea of offering multiple choices. If I don't agree with the main principle, why should I vote for it?

It's not about what you like the most, it's about what you think is best for the nation as a whole. Since AV would lead to a more accurate representation of the public's opinion in government, I think it's difficult to vote against it, whether or not you like the idea of multiple choices.

 

[Joel`]

It's not about what you like the most, it's about what you think is best for the nation as a whole. Since AV would lead to a more accurate representation of the public's opinion in government, I think it's difficult to vote against it, whether or not you like the idea of multiple choices.

I dislike the idea of multiple choices because I believe it's representing a false majority, which in turn doesn't lead to truly accurate representation, which in turn makes me not want to vote for it.

I'm fine with the current system. I don't see how you can practically tell me I can't vote for it. I believe I've laid out intelligent and logical arguments for why I don't believe I should vote for it. I understand and respect where you're coming from, although I personally disagree somewhat. And although you disagree with my view on it, I would expect you to understand and respect where I'm coming from consider I've spent the time to lay out my arguments in a logical way. I don't really see how my argument is so weak that you can basically just tell me it's irrelevant and I should be pro-AV either way.

 

[King Sid]

It's not about what you like the most, it's about what you think is best for the nation as a whole. Since AV would lead to a more accurate representation of the public's opinion in government, I think it's difficult to vote against it, whether or not you like the idea of multiple choices.

And I think that keeping FPTP is best for the nation as a whole at this current moment in time. The nation doesn't need money wasted on a voting system that is equally as flawed as FPTP but possibly a little bit better than it. The benefits aren't enough to warrant the cost therefore I will be voting NO so we can save that money and spend it on things that will actually improve our country.

Offer me a system that actually works and is worth changing to and I may just vote for it. AV is not the system to improve our country's politics fairly and therefore I will be voting against it.

 

[Jack]

Why will AV represent a countries fairer vote? Please explain to me why people will have alternatives.

If people have alternatives - what is the point in having unique political parties? The only benefit to AV that I can see is it will give smaller parties more seats (possibly) because for example a Torie supporter won't vote for a Labour supporter.

However - speaking to my dad about this - he thinks people will still vote in the way they are used to, FPTP, and people will still see it as a two party system regardless of what happens on the 5th - so for example a labour supporter will pick tories as their 2nd because they see no other way the country can be run.
I am fully against AV, I don't want labour to be for it because I think it'll just give votes to parties that don't represent what Labour do, purely because of people my age not wanting to choose either Labour or Tory like it has been for the last 50 years. I want to vote for the winner. Not who I think is 2nd or 3rd best. I dont want three votes. I want one. I want to vote for who I think is the winner, and if they dont win - Unlucky. I put up with it.

Curtis - in regards to the point about alternative choice. The fact of the matter is, I dont have an alternative choice, so I don't want to be faced with having to pick one for the sake of a voting system, which is where I think AV is flawed. Not everyone is going to have an alternative, and that simple fact is why I don't want AV.

 

[King Sid]

So I went and voted NO today, did anyone else go and vote?

 

[Joel`]

So I went and voted NO today, did anyone else go and vote?

Me.

According to the latest polls the No campaign has a massive lead. Will take a major upset at the polling stations for us to switch, I think.

 

[King Sid]

Me.

According to the latest polls the No campaign has a massive lead. Will take a major upset at the polling stations for us to switch, I think.

That's good to hear. I just read on the BBC that first results on the referendum are expected at 17:30 tomorrow. Do we really have to wait that long? Are they prioritising the local elections first?

 

[GodCubed]

That's good to hear. I just read on the BBC that first results on the referendum are expected at 17:30 tomorrow. Do we really have to wait that long? Are they prioritising the local elections first?

They're trying to come to terms with the fact that we're probably going to be retaining a hopelessly flawed system over a much better one.

 

[Mike.]

i was going to, then realised i couldnt be arsed, when all our politicians are lame ducks it doesnt really matter what voting system we have, still up **** creek