AV referendum

Blacklight

It's an election.

If you win, you win. Fairly.

You shouldn't have to go pinching votes from other people.

Mallotum_X

Blacklight wrote: »

It's an election.

If you win, you win. Fairly.

You shouldn't have to go pinching votes from other people.

I guess the point is how do you decide who has won.

If a candidate gets the most votes at say 30% of the vote then some would say that isnt the same as winning as 70% did not support them.

This way some would argue is fairer as at least 50% of the voters must in some way support the winning candidate.

All depends on your view of fair...

Plenty of decisions are made by people elimiating the losing item, whether thats a candidate or issue, then re-voting. This attempts to do the same thing, trying to find a consensus.

chewmylegoff

Mallotum_X wrote: »

This way some would argue is fairer as at least 50% of the voters must in some way support the winning candidate.

except that indicating what your preference on an AV voting form doesn't amount to actually supporting that party in any way.

Mallotum_X

chewmylegoff wrote: »

except that indicating what your preference on an AV voting form doesn't amount to actually supporting that party in any way.

huh?, not really sure what your point is here.

Surely by chosing who you wish to vote for you are supporting the party you would want to win. In the event that no one wins (i.e. no one can acheive a majority verdict) you get the opportunity to reselect from whats left. There is no compulsion to select a second choice if you so wish.

N1AK

movilogo wrote: »

Can someone please explain on exactly what it asks referendum for?

Current system: You tick a box saying who you are voting for. The winner is person with most votes.

Alternative vote: You rank candidates in order of preference (the person you want most, 2nd most and so on). This bits simple. Where AV gets more complex is vote 'counting':

First they total up votes for favourite candidates. If someone has more than 50% of all votes they win. If they don't, the least popular candidate is removed, and all his votes are allocated to the voters 2nd choices, if someone now has 50% they win, and this repeats.

Both systems are democratic, both systems have benefits and flaws. Personally I prefer AV marginally, as it makes voting in seats with strong majorities less futile, that said it is more complex and can benefit distateful fringe parties.

N1AK

Blacklight wrote: »

It's an election.

If you win, you win. Fairly.

You shouldn't have to go pinching votes from other people.

It's a joke to call either system fair or unfair comparitively.

If 60% of people voted for two parties with very similar agendas it is hardly 'fair' that they represented by a party with a completely different agenda. In the same way that it isn't fair for someone with 20k votes to lose to someone who only got 10k people to select him as first choice.

The question is ultimately do we want a representative who got the most votes (First past the post) or do we want the representative that the majority of voters would prefer, even though they may not be their first choice.

nearlynew

AV just means you get to rank the liars and thieves in reverse order of how much you think they lie and steal.

chewmylegoff

Mallotum_X wrote: »

huh?, not really sure what your point is here.

Surely by chosing who you wish to vote for you are supporting the party you would want to win. In the event that no one wins (i.e. no one can acheive a majority verdict) you get the opportunity to reselect from whats left. There is no compulsion to select a second choice if you so wish.[b/]

take this massive simplification: parties A, B, C, D. two people in the electorate.

person 1: supports A and hates B, C, D. puts a 1 next to A. all others blank

person 2: supports B, hates A, doesn't mind C, D. ranks them B=1, C=2, D=3, A=4. this seems a logical way to fill in the form - he thinks he is saying that he doesn't want A at all.

A will now win despite 50% of the votes being "anyone but A".

i know it's taking things a bit far down the simple road, but the point is that people will not fill in the forms consistently, and you can bet your life it won't be properly explained so that people understand that even their lowest ranking vote may actually count positively. the effect of this would be most apparent in a very close election.

Mallotum_X

Person B has said that A is their 4th choice, so when it gets down to that point their vote will count. I'm sure if it comes in the various parties will all be keen to explain how to vote to help them win, no doubt our letter boxes will be full of crap for weeks before an election.

Dont forget there are places in the UK that do use AV for elections, some Mayoral elections are done this way and the electorate seems more than capable of working out what to do.

To be honest Im not convinced its a great system but to me it does seem "fairer". Might even make things a bit more interesting in places that are usually regarded as safe seats.

chewmylegoff

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Person B has said that A is their 4th choice, so when it gets down to that point their vote will count.

well as B and C are knocked out A effectively becomes their 2nd preference, not their last.

I'm sure if it comes in the various parties will all be keen to explain how to vote to help them win, no doubt our letter boxes will be full of crap for weeks before an election.

Dont forget there are places in the UK that do use AV for elections, some Mayoral elections are done this way and the electorate seems more than capable of working out what to do.

To be honest Im not convinced its a great system but to me it does seem "fairer". Might even make things a bit more interesting in places that are usually regarded as safe seats.

it's not a great system if it requires the parties to motivate their own support to use the voting system using propoganda. ideally any system should be easily understood by the electorate without the use of aggressive leafleting. say what you like about FPTP but at least it cannot be said to be confusing.

first time i voted in the london mayoral elections i thought i had to rank all the candidates, so i did (i can't recall now if AV was used for the mayor, or just for the assembly members). there was no explanation that you could indicate only one candidate if you wanted to, at least not as far as i recall. i haven't voted in the london assembly elections since for various reasons so cannot recall what happens now.

i don't think it will be any "fairer" than FPTP to be honest. i don't think it will eliminate the "safe seats" at all. sure, some safe seats might become not safe, but some current marginals might become safe as a result of the changed system.

for me it should either be FPTP or PR, AV such seems like a change for the sake of it which contains different but just as significant flaws to the FPTP system. i would vote for PR in a referendum, but not for AV.