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

Gareth_Lazelle

angry wrote: »

One strand of objection seems to be "we shouldn't change to AV, because it will mean a higher percentage of Lib Dems, and more 'minor' parties".

It makes me chuckle too when I see that,

Fundamentally even with AV, the LDs would only get more MPs if people vote for them.

And if people vote for them then don't they deserve MP's? That is after all how the system is supposed to work...

jonthedog

Well I for one think that AV is not just a compromise system, but the best one possible. I absolutlely hate thinking that by voting for a party other than the top two at the last election I have wasted my vote :mad:. No one should have this dilema and should be free to vote for the candidate they really want, but still have a steak in the overall outcome should that candidate not happen to be in the top two.

I also think it's important we know who our MP is and really want to keep the constituancy link, something PR destroys. This will help keep potiticians a bit more honest, as they will know that their electorate can much more easily kick them out. :beer:

It is absolutely false that AV would necessarily result in more hung parliaments/coalitions; anyone suggesting this needs to check their facts (and most have quite rightly been corrected on this board).
It is also absolutely false that more objectionable parties are likely to get in; who's 2nd choice is the BNP? They would be destroyed under such a system and they know it.
The worse that could be said about AV is that it leads to 'compromise' candidates (Ed Miliband, for example), that are the most inoffensive. Time will tell if this is that bad a thing.

It is fairly predictable that those who are strongly coming out in favour of FPTP in the papers, are those who have never been troubled by the idea of voting for a party outside the top two. They have no conception of the agony of those who have.

DJ_Mike

It's a 'no' from me. I strongly disagree that simply redistributing votes of the least-popular candidate is in any way a fairer system. Even more so once you get to 3rd, 4th, etc. You don't mark the weight of your 2nd choice compared to your 1st - i.e. I might favour my 1st choice wholeheartedly and my 2nd choice a very distantly. Somebody else may just be torn between two candidates with one having a slight edge. AV doesn't make the distinction.

Under FPTP you are saying "this is the candidate I'm going to stick with". Yes, it is unfair to people who 'can't decide between two or more' but frankly I would rather have people vote by executive choice than obfuscating everyone's preferences.

jonthedog

DJ_Mike wrote: »

Under FPTP you are saying "this is the candidate I'm going to stick with". Yes, it is unfair to people who 'can't decide between two or more' but frankly I would rather have people vote by executive choice than obfuscating everyone's preferences.

You have to admit the reality of FPTP is that people vote tactically; we do not live in an ideal world where people vote for the candidate they necessarily want more, but the candidate they think has a chance. This in itself 'obfuscates everyone's preferences'; it sounds like you are denying this happens under FPTP?

I agree that there is an arguement that people's lower preferences should be weighted, however.

Gareth_Lazelle

DJ_Mike wrote: »

You don't mark the weight of your 2nd choice compared to your 1st - i.e. I might favour my 1st choice wholeheartedly and my 2nd choice a very distantly. Somebody else may just be torn between two candidates with one having a slight edge. AV doesn't make the distinction.

So how does FPTP make that distinction? And to some extent why does that distinction matter?

If your first choice is rejected how does it matter that your second choice was a close call, or a party you only support distantly - it is still your second choice.

DJ_Mike wrote: »

Under FPTP you are saying "this is the candidate I'm going to stick with". Yes, it is unfair to people who 'can't decide between two or more' but frankly I would rather have people vote by executive choice than obfuscating everyone's preferences.

It's not the "can't decide" crowd that lose out - it's those that feel that they have to have to bite the bullet and vote for a candidate other than their first choice because there is a candidate that they don't want to see in power,

And that does obfuscate the results, because the way people vote doesn't accurately reflect what they want to see out of the election.

While AV may not represent the difference you highlight in your first comment, it does at least allow for some indication of what the majority want, rather than just the largest minority,

grahamm

DJ_Mike wrote: »

Under FPTP you are saying "this is the candidate I'm going to stick with". Yes, it is unfair to people who 'can't decide between two or more' but frankly I would rather have people vote by executive choice than obfuscating everyone's preferences.

It is not a matter of "people who 'can't decide between two or more'" it is a matter of representing what people *want*.

Again I remind you that in 2005 *sixty five percent* of the people voted *against* Labour, yet, due to the perversity of FPTP Tony Blair got in with a majority of 56% of the seats.

Can you honestly say that you consider that to have been a good result?

Rafter

First past the post is just plain wrong.

MPs should represent the majority of their constituents views and the AV system not only ensures that is the case, but also gives the incoming MP a clearer idea about how to represent the views of the majority of his or her constituents.

Lets say you have 3 parties. Party (A) is very socialist, believes in high taxes, full unionisation and nationalisation of industry. Party (B) is very free market (a bit like the tea party movement) and believes in low tax, very low welfare and no universal healthcare or education for the poor. Parties (C), (D) & (E) are more moderate prefering a balance between taxation, social welfare.

Under FPTP a two party system is supported with government yo yoing between left and right wing and (as is the case in the US) becoming quite polarised.

Under AV, this doesn't happen. The parties have to try and appeal to the majority and cannot be elected unless they have the support of at least 50%

A party that is very pro business or very pro unions or even extremist, could never be elected, unless more that 50% of the constituents shared their views. And as we live in a democracy that seems absolutely right to me.

I really hope people don't vote for the status quo because they are afraid of change.

R.

Bobl

So will all the votes from the least choice on this poll be transferred to the one with the most making it a winner with 100%

Gareth_Lazelle

Bobl wrote: »

So will all the votes from the least choice on this poll be transferred to the one with the most making it a winner with 100%

Heh - it's 50/50 at the moment...

Pretty scary since I seem to recall last time this was discussed here around 66% of folks where in favour...

freddy27

I think it is totally out of order thay we are being given the choice of yes or no to AV. Surely we should have all the other options on the table. Then IF I repeat IF we can have explained to us exactly how any other system would work. D Cameron does not want AV, but fails to say IF he would go elsewhere in the PR court. We should be given the facts in an HONEST format, not from Politicians, who are not necessarily the best ones to offer straight forward and honest opinions.