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

Lizzie1912

I would have liked to have seen a Proportional Representation option in the poll - and why can't we say "non of the above"? :idea:

grahamm

To those arguing in favour of keeping FPTP, have a look the contemptible arguments which are being used by others who support it:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/steven-baxter/2011/02/voting-system-baby-gets

Is *THIS* the sort of politics you want in this country? Vote to keep FPTP or the babies and soldiers will get it???

wildthing01

I don't like either of these two, I'd rather have PR. I realise it's not on the table currently, but if it were offered as an option in polls like this, it might help the powers that be to recognise that many people are in favour of it.

[Deleted User]

AV may not be PR but, at a constituency level, it has one massive advantage that FPTP lacks: the elimination of the "spoiler effect".

Under FPTP, if you stand as an Independent Conservative/Labour candidate, you stand little chance of winning, because people will stick with the 'devil you know' for fear of splitting the vote and letting the 'other guy' in with a minority of public support.

Under AV, there's no such risk: you've always the insurance policy of expressing another preference.

This makes political parties more accountable under AV: at present, they know full well that they can foist whatever odious candidates they wish onto their local parties and their electorates - and in most cases, there's not a damned thing those on the receiving end can do about it. Under AV, if they pull that kind of nonsense, there's a more serious danger that someone else will step in and take the seat from them.

That's why the 'dinosaurs' of Left and Right have formed an unholy alliance to defeat this proposal. They know the extra power it would give to voters. Okay, it may not be a system that transforms the Commons, as some might wish, but it's better than what we have.

Gareth_Lazelle

freddy27 wrote: »

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.

Of course then you'd split the AV/PR vote, and would end up needing some sort of AV referendum to adjudicate the results fairly...

freddy27 wrote: »

Then IF I repeat IF we can have explained to us exactly how any other system would work.

I think these things have been explained, I just get the impression that a lot of folks aren't listening, and the other sides campaigning seems focussed upon clouding the issue rather than looking at the facts,

freddy27 wrote: »

D Cameron does not want AV, but fails to say IF he would go elsewhere in the PR court.

Given he turned down the LDs request that the vote be on PR, I am guessing that either he is completely against PR - all of this despite the fact that he was elected leader of his party under an AV vote (and would have lost had it been FPTP),

freddy27 wrote: »

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.

There are places where you can get just the facts about different voting systems (without the spin) - even Wikipedia is a good starting point,

Gareth_Lazelle

freddy27 wrote: »

Then IF I repeat IF we can have explained to us exactly how any other system would work..

Okay, here goes:

1. AV voting is held in several sequential rounds.
2. In each round EVERY voter gets ONE vote.
3. The candidate with the fewest votes in a round is eliminated and a new round begins.

(It actually works very like some reality TV shows).

There is a minor wrinkle:

Holding several elections in succession like that is clearly time-consuming and expensive (although I think that the French Presidential Elections are done like that - remember the fuss last election when the far-right candidate got through the first couple of rounds in place of the centre-right candidate?).

As a consequence there is a minor tweak:

Instead of going into an election booth each round, you are instead asked to rank the candidates in order of preference on the first round. And then in each round your vote goes to your highest available choice.

If you run out of choices (you can vote for as many or as few candidates as you want) then your vote is discarded, so you never have to support a party that you strongly oppose.

In theory rounds can continue until only one candidate remains, however in practice once any candidate has >50% of the vote their victory is inevitable (you can only lose votes in AV by being eliminated, and if you have >50% of the votes you can never be eliminated). So rounds are ended when any candidate has >50% of the votes.

-

The pros and cons? I'll leave that to other posts,

[Deleted User]

^^^ Or to summarise, AV simulates an exhaustive ballot.

Re the French Presidential election - they use a two-round system. Jean-Marie le Pen came second in the first round in the 2002 Presidential election. In the second round, the supporters of other parties all lined up to vote for Chirac, giving him more than 80% of the vote.

DJ_Mike

grahamm wrote: »

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?

I hasten to remind you that you don't vote for the proportion of MPs in parliament, you vote for a single MP in your consituency. I love it when I hear all this !!!!!!!! in the media about parties who get in when only 35% of the country voted for them. Oddly enough, the reason the Labour party had 56% of MPs in parliament is because 56% of the constiencies around the country returned Labour MPs!

My vote for no is not because I am pushing FPTP as a better system than AV - it isn't. I am voting no because AV isn't any better either. If you vote yes you risk stagnating electoral reform because the way proponents are positing this system is that it is the cure-all for our political system. Trust me, you will complain equally bitterly if AV becomes our national system. MPs will still be returned to parliament in massive disproportion to the way the people of the country voted at large.

I suggest you read this site which sets out some excellent technical examples about the flaws in AV. And no, it doesn't advocate FPTP - but it does set out a plan for true political reform through actual Proportional Representation.

Don't be fooled into the reform the parties are trying to have you believe this is. Even Nick Clegg dismissed AV as pathetic.

Gareth_Lazelle

DJ_Mike wrote: »

Don't be fooled into the reform the parties are trying to have you believe this is. Even Nick Clegg dismissed AV as pathetic.

No, he didn't - read the quote again...

DJ_Mike wrote: »

My vote for no is not because I am pushing FPTP as a better system than AV - it isn't.

AV is certainly better than FPTP, it just isn't much better,

PR would be lovely thank you very much, but in the absence of that I'll still take a small improvement if I can get it,

xiiipaul

Im an average bloke, not really sure if any political party has ever served me well in my 40 plus years.

To change the voting system only seems to be paper over the deep hole of untruth dealt out to us.

We pay to clear up government and banking mess but in government itself millions are wasted on 'political' decisions that are at best a compromise and a compromise does not satisfy anybody.

This new voting proposal system is a compromise. Is it any better than the old one? no. Is it any worse? no.

Voting reform is right.....this one is soooooo wrong.