alternative vote

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Those who say that the 1st past the post system will avoid confusion and watered down government, seem to have forgot we have a coalition now because the 1st past the post system hasn't worked at the 2010 election - thus we have this coalition.

With AV; MP's will have to work harder to keep their seat - I am personally sick of MP's who have seats for life off less than 50% of the consituency vote.

What is AV? | Yes to fairer votes - Yes to AV - Alternative Vote

If they spent the same amount of time on TV, explaining how the AV works rather than promoting that Royal Wedding - this would be a far better country!

AV will mean that politicians and politics is fairer.

I'm afraid I must disagree there.

The more candidates there are in an election the more diverse the vote is going to be. There were 9 candidates last year and the public are expected to rate them in order? I didn't hear from half of them myself so essentially 4 or 5 of the points from my ballot sheet would have been falsely awarded from the start because I knew nothing about them. The losers' points would then have been arbitrarily awarded to people who I wouldn't have voted for simply in order for someone to break through the 50% mark.

Nothing about that system speaks of democracy to me, it is just a way of bumping up the votes for lesser parties and actually making the system less fair by forcing people to allocate points to people they wouldn't want in power in the first place.

It's a definite 'no' from me.

[garinda]

I know how it works.

It's like an election procedure designed by some crackpot committee.

A charter for losers.

Thankfully it hasn't a cat in Hell's chance of being implemented.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Well, that is unless the Scots and the Welsh vote for it.
It seems that this might just happen....the turnout at the Scottish elections is predicted to be high and they are also more in favour of AV....or so it was reported.

[claytonender]

It is quite possible that the AV referendum will be won on a very small turnout of voters possibly on 25% of voters will vote. If 51% of those voted in favour of AV it would mean that the Yes to AV would win with only 13% of the total electorate of the UK. As Margaret said in post 78 there are all out elections for the Scottish Parliament and also the Welsh Assembly so there are likely to be more people voting in those 2 countries and they already have a system of alternative voting.

I am not in favour of AV however voters would not necessarily rank the candidates in order of preference and I suspect that many people would still only vote for one candidate. Personally I would only ever vote for a Labour candidate and nothing would persuade me to rank a candidate from any other party.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Clatonender, if everyone else did that too, then although we would, in theory have Av...it would still be a first past the post system....or have I got it completely wrong(remember I am a bear of very little brain)?

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Clatonender, if everyone else did that too, then although we would, in theory have Av...it would still be a first past the post system....or have I got it completely wrong(remember I am a bear of very little brain)?

No, in theory you're quite correct. The spanner in the works comes from everyone not playing by the rules so the whole system of AV then becomes a mockery.

You're only really interested in one candidate anyway, why should you have to bother with the others?

[Margaret Pilkington]

And thinking about, and denoting the 'also rans' would be quite time consuming.....well that is, if you did it properly.
I think many people give very little thought to where they put their cross.......they(in the main) just look at the colour of the political banner and that's it.

The fact that the Labour party has changed beyond all recognition since the days of true Socialist policy escapes many people.
The other political parties have also changed,but I would think, to a much lesser degree.
When I vote(and I don't always vote in National elections....if I don't find a party that has my core values at its heart then I cannot, in conscience, vote for any of them) I do consider seriously what my vote means.
My daughter tells me off,(isn't that a scary concept) and says that someone has to govern the country and, that by wasting my vote I am allowing others to dictate the way governing should go.
In local elections I operate in a different way......my vote goes to the person who can do the best job for the area. Party politics has no place in local government.

In local elections voting against the party that is governing nationally seems to me to be a stupid idea......OK it might send a message to the MP's in Westminster, but do they really listen, or for that matter care? Their tenure is secure until the next General election,they think we are all dummies anyway and will have forgotten it all by then.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

No, in theory you're quite correct. The spanner in the works comes from everyone not playing by the rules so the whole system of AV then becomes a mockery.

You're only really interested in one candidate anyway, why should you have to bother with the others?

The only party that are advocating AV are the Lib/dems because it would suit their purpose of trying to get more elected members, but as yourself and claytonender have said why would you want to rate the also rans on your ballot paper, when it could actually mean your helping a candidate get elected that under any circumstances would you ever support, its just like you or me helping to elect a member of the Tory Party in your case and Labour in minor, no way Jose'

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

And thinking about, and denoting the 'also rans' would be quite time consuming.....well that is, if you did it properly.
I think many people give very little thought to where they put their cross.......they(in the main) just look at the colour of the political banner and that's it.

The fact that the Labour party has changed beyond all recognition since the days of true Socialist policy escapes many people.
The other political parties have also changed,but I would think, to a much lesser degree.
When I vote(and I don't always vote in National elections....if I don't find a party that has my core values at its heart then I cannot, in conscience, vote for any of them) I do consider seriously what my vote means.
My daughter tells me off,(isn't that a scary concept) and says that someone has to govern the country and, that by wasting my vote I am allowing others to dictate the way governing should go.
In local elections I operate in a different way......my vote goes to the person who can do the best job for the area. Party politics has no place in local government.

In local elections voting against the party that is governing nationally seems to me to be a stupid idea......OK it might send a message to the MP's in Westminster, but do they really listen, or for that matter care? Their tenure is secure until the next General election,they think we are all dummies anyway and will have forgotten it all by then.

I certainly think your spot on about lots of people voting for national issues (as a protest) at local elections, that's why I am quite sure Labour will gain Hyndburn in May, it was the same in 1997 when Labour won power HBC was in labour hands with a 44 seat majority in a 47 seat council, two years later they lost control, that's one hell of a turn round in anybodies book

[cmonstanley]

im voting in favour. anything that makes voting more interesting im off theres a more important thing happening in a couple of hours.. cmon the rangers

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by cmonstanley

im voting in favour. anything that makes voting more interesting im off theres a more important thing happening in a couple of hours.. cmon the rangers

Oh the final of the micky mouse league

[Margaret Pilkington]

Voting for AV won't make voting more interesting, it may have a catastrophic effect on who actually gets into power....you may get the very last person you would want to be governing you.
You have so much LESS power in deciding who actually governs you.....but then it will give you something else to whinge and moan about...if that makes life more interesting for you, then I don't envy your life.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by kestrelx

Those who say that the 1st past the post system will avoid confusion and watered down government, seem to have forgot we have a coalition now because the 1st past the post system hasn't worked at the 2010 election - thus we have this coalition.

With AV; MP's will have to work harder to keep their seat - I am personally sick of MP's who have seats for life off less than 50% of the consituency vote.

What is AV? | Yes to fairer votes - Yes to AV - Alternative Vote

If they spent the same amount of time on TV, explaining how the AV works rather than promoting that Royal Wedding - this would be a far better country!

AV will mean that politicians and politics is fairer.

It is hardly a strong argument to argue against first past the post on the basis that it didn't deliver a one party majority in 2010 given the current Government is the only coalition since the war.

AV won't fix 'MPs not working hard'. It just means they'll be more vague, stand for less and break more promises as they try and pander to second, third and forth preferences. People can still win without 50% of the vote under AV.

It would not make politics fairer. More coalitions - more deal making in smoke filled rooms by politicians not voters.

Under first past the post you can register your view on who should Govern and everyone gets one chance to do so. Under AV some people get more than one voice, they get more chances to vote than others if they support minority parties first. That is unfair.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

In local elections voting against the party that is governing nationally seems to me to be a stupid idea......OK it might send a message to the MP's in Westminster, but do they really listen, or for that matter care? Their tenure is secure until the next General election,they think we are all dummies anyway and will have forgotten it all by then.

I get what you're driving at Marg but I must strongly disagree. There is much more to local politics than that and 'sending the message to MPs in Westminster' is probably the last thing that should be on your mind when you cross your ballot sheet.

I would always, always advocate voting for the candidate who will do the most for your town or village in any local election. It is very little use to anyone voting for a Tory candidate simply because we have a Tory government if that candidate is useless, the same being equally true with a government of any colour.

I would urge all of you to vote for the person who will do the best job in your area, not the one who happens to be wearing the 'correct' badge.

[garinda]

Apparently, in the early twentieth century the House of Commons voted in favour of this method of voting.

Five times it was rejected in the House of Lords.

History and use of instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia