'Should we change the general election voting system?' poll discussion

grahamm

For those who object to AV, consider that in many constituencies you can put a red/ blue ribbon on a donkey and get it elected.

This happens because even though that donkey only gets eg 40% of the votes, that's more than any other donkey meaning that anyone who doesn't vote for that particular donkey may as well stay home because their votes will have *no* effect on the result.

With AV, if enough people put a different donkey down as their second choice there's a possible 60% of the votes available to get that one elected instead.

The claim that AV means we'll get "everyone's second choice" is also nonsense, if that donkey that got 40% of the votes picks up enough "second choice" votes from the other 60% of the voters to push it over the 50% of the total votes then it *will* get elected meaning that all the 40% who voted for it got their first choice and an additional 11% got their second choice.

Sure, 49% didn't get their choice, but at least their votes were relevant to the result instead of being completely wasted.

More importantly, however, it would mean that we have less likelihood of a "strong" government a term which Cameron et al like to use because it *sounds good* (strong is better than weak, isn't it?) but which actually means that the party who has a majority (even if elected by a *minority* of the votes!) can push through any policy they wish no matter how many opposition votes there are and that is *not* representative of the people's wishes.

AV isn't perfect by any means, but FPTP is broken, discredited and replacing it with AV is a step in the right direction.

omnipotentstudenttype

Saucepot wrote: »

For all of you voting "yes" despite accepting that AV is "absurd" but thinking this is your only chance to make a change, ask yourself why you are not being given the choice of PR. Is it because of a half @rsed comprise of coalition politics, the type of half @rsed comprise we are about to get more of and represents no one, because no one actually voted for the manifesto of a coalition government?

That's rather a moot point. The options are on the table now, and the choice is between keeping a rubbish system or moving to a less rubbish system.

If AV wins then if the public chooses the debate can move from AV to AV+ or PR or whatever. If AV looses then we're stuck with a bad system.

dggar

Of the 2 choices (AV or FPTP) which is more likely to lead to an eventual outcome of Proportional Representaion?

ErictheHalfaBee

Saucepot wrote: »

For all of you voting "yes" despite accepting that AV is "absurd" but thinking this is your only chance to make a change, ask yourself why you are not being given the choice of PR. Is it because of a half @rsed comprise of coalition politics, the type of half @rsed comprise we are about to get more of and represents no one, because no one actually voted for the manifesto of a coalition government?

First of all, I don't think there are many people who accept that it is absurd. Secondly, half the stuff that people are really upset about at the moment is stuff that the Conservatives are pushing through that wasn't even in THEIR manifesto, let alone the coalition agreement, so it's not really anything to do with it being a coalition.

But in answer to your question:

Why? Because the Conservatives wouldn't give us a referendum on a better voting system, because they hope that people who want PR or other systems will vote against AV. And why don't they want any change? Because at the moment the left-leaning vote gets split between greens, lib-dems and labour, and lets them sneak into government even though in a significant number of seats if you asked everybody "who would you LEAST like to win?" the answer could easily be the candidate that won.

AV allows you to state your preferences entirely honestly, without thinking you might be wasting your vote or letting an undesirable candidate win because you didn't vote for the opposition with the (perceived) best chance. It will therefore give a far clearer picture of the electorate's real opinions and match them more closely with seats.

There is no real evidence to suggest it would lead to more coalitions, but even if it did I suggest we deal with it like grown-ups. Nowhere where they have AV already is anybody campaigning for a return to FPTP. Maybe you should ask yourself why that is, Saucepot.

retired2

It seems nonsense to me that the current system puts people into post although they only receive the votes of a small percentage of the voters. This alternative system seems to acknowledge and address the problems with this.
There will inevitably be the Luddites who don't want change but they exist in all changes that are introduced.
The other major change I would like to see is voting becoming compulsory with an abstain option on the voting paper. I think people who do not bother to vote do not have the right to comment on the laws or state of our country.

Bazny

omnipotentstudenttype wrote: »

It's not absurd at all. AV allows supporters of minority parties to express their ideal choice without worrying that they might be letting in an undesirable party as a consequence. You still only get one vote, it's simply applied to your favourite realistic choice.

Under FPTP you find some voters will vote for the least worst of the big two or three parties as they feel a vote for anything else is a wasted vote. That's not democracy.

You should always vote your conscience and vote for who you believe is the best candidate regardless of the consequences. You shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils as part of some strategy. This is why we're left with the choices we have.

If you truly believe a minor party or candidate is worth getting elected, then vote that way. If that party or candidate represents something appealing to the majority or plurality, they'd get in. The problem is the acceptance that our leaders have to be from a particular party. It doesn't have to be that way if there's an informed electorate. The people have to change, not the voting system.

Democracy is one of the most misused terms today. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is very dangerous and cannot survive. A REPUBLIC restrained by the rule of law is the most secure form of government.

Gareth_Lazelle

Bazny wrote: »

You should always vote your conscience and vote for who you believe is the best candidate regardless of the consequences. You shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils as part of some strategy. This is why we're left with the choices we have.

Doing that can easily let the worst possible candidate in...

You can talk and talk about "voting your conscience" if you want, but if it always results in you getting MPs you don't want then it is pretty easy to see why a lot of folks might decide to pick the "most realistic least-worst option", so that they at least stand some chance of getting someone palatable into office, even if it isn't who they would really have picked.

And there's a reason why a lot of us got "this constituency is a two-horse-race, don't waste your vote on [Party] when you could vote for us..." letters last election. And it's a symptom of an innate problem with FPTP.

FPTP basically works in a two-party system, but once you have three or more viable parties it completely breaks down.

If you truly believe a minor party or candidate is worth getting elected, then vote that way. If that party or candidate represents something appealing to the majority or plurality, they'd get in.

Unless the vote is split, or unless the populace fears that the vote will be split (even if the party is truly popular, unless it is seen to be popular it simply won't get the votes in because the populace will be terrified of letting one of the major parties in),

Left or right wing, you can easily see that having multiple parties at one end of the political spectrum causes problems for FPTP and results in an outcome based upon chance rather than choice (in effect the election is decided upon the balance of the split, rather than the winning parties 'majority'),

Bazny

I just don't accept that it's chance if everyone voted the way they truly wanted.

Gordon_the_Moron

First past the post is not perfect but I think it is better than the alternative on offer so I voted keep it as it is.

Gordon_the_Moron

On the other hand if you want to see UKIP and BNP MPs in parliament, voting for instant run off voting is a great way of doing so.