'Is AV really so complex? Or is it just confusion marketing?' blog discussion

edited 19 April 2011 at 11:04AM in Martin's Blogs & Appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the News
436 replies 25K views
18911131444

Replies

  • kermitfrogkermitfrog Forumite
    1.1K Posts
    To misquote Churchill, AV gives the most worthless votes to the most worthless candidates.
  • Amba_GamblaAmba_Gambla Forumite
    12.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ScarletBea wrote: »
    Have you been on the moon?

    On May 5th you'll be voting on a referendum, to decide if we keep the current system or move to AV.

    By the way, my choice would be proportional representation. Why isn't that an option?

    Because the Lib Dems (who very few people voted to be in government) weren't popular enough to force all of their ideas on the population
  • cmh4135cmh4135 Forumite
    199 Posts
    If the choice were between FPTP and PR then I might consider a change but AV just doesn't make sense to me. How is it more democratic to give some voters multiple bites at the cherry yet others not. To end up with the least worst candidate seems grossly unfair on those whose later preferences are not taken into account. There is a power shift to the minority candidates which seems just as unfair on the electorate as a whole as the claims made about FPTP.

    As for making the elected answerable to the electorate it's just not going to happen. People vote, in the main, along party lines and the elected act according to the whip, again, in the main. That's not going to change. Most folk will know what flavour their MP is, many won't know his/her name.
  • cmh4135cmh4135 Forumite
    199 Posts
    I should add, whatever you think it IS important that you vote. Many don't have local elections to cajole them to the polling stations but this vote matters; possibly even more so that the locals.
  • The AV debate 'is old hat' The Jenkins Commission in 1998 rejected AV as it did little to relieve disproportionality - so voting either yes or no is hardly going to overhaul the system (Forgive me for being old fashioned but I tend to add more credence to actual research than the collective musings of Stephen Fry on Twitter on the matter!).

    Simply put the AV referendum has been instigated by and to suit one particular party - the Liberal Democrats. It was one of their key policies when forming the coalition - so much so Nick Clegg was quite willing to 'compromise' on his previous No Tuition fees 'promise'. So my view of it is this: Irrespective of what you think of AV surely we as the British public should not be giving that b***end Clegg what he wants!

    Only Australia, Fiji, and Papa New Guinea use AV in the whole world - so that probably tells you a lot in itself. Yes first past the post is not perfect but might be a case of sticking to the tried and tested method.

    Finally one important thing we have to look at is COST to the British Tax Payer at a time when cuts are being made. And Irrespective of if you've agreed or disagreed with me thus far, it is at this point I do genuinely have an INFORMED opinion here. Having worked a few years ago for a niche data capture firm that specialises in electronic vote counting projects around the world - it would cost millions to integrate and deliver this new system. Furthermore millions would have to be spent on advertising explaining the new system to voters! Something similar happened in the Scottish Elections in 07 and dear old ladies (think of your mother) hadn't a clue how to do complete the new vote which resulted in hundreds and thousands of 'spoiled votes' which could no longer be counted - thus making the results a farce.

    In sum...VOTE NO!
  • barbara22barbara22 Forumite
    117 Posts
    100 Posts
    Forumite
    For goodness sake! Die-hard reactionaries can still put just '1' next to their pet candidate and leave it at that, surely???

    And anyway, the important point isn't about the way we vote - it's whether we can generally be bothered to vote at all.

    Use your vote, every single one counts. :mad:
  • edited 20 April 2011 at 2:30PM
    rhyskirhyski Forumite
    54 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 20 April 2011 at 2:30PM
    raddyantic wrote: »
    The AV debate 'is old hat' The Jenkins Commission in 1998 rejected AV as it did little to relieve disproportionality - so voting either yes or no is hardly going to overhaul the system (Forgive me for being old fashioned but I tend to add more credence to actual research than the collective musings of Stephen Fry on Twitter on the matter!).

    Neither AV or FPTP are proportional systems (we are not being offered a proportional system) - however, out of the two AV is a fairer system for voting.

    The Institute for Public Policy Research AND the Political Studies Association have both released extremely in-depth research and analysis, and are both in favour of the change to AV.
    raddyantic wrote: »
    Simply put the AV referendum has been instigated by and to suit one particular party - the Liberal Democrats. It was one of their key policies when forming the coalition - so much so Nick Clegg was quite willing to 'compromise' on his previous No Tuition fees 'promise'. So my view of it is this: Irrespective of what you think of AV surely we as the British public should not be giving that b***end Clegg what he wants!

    This is not about the Nick CLegg, the Liberal Democrats or any other party, this is about choosing how we vote.
    raddyantic wrote: »
    Having worked a few years ago for a niche data capture firm that specialises in electronic vote counting projects around the world - it would cost millions to integrate and deliver this new system.

    AV will not be using an electronic counting machines!!!! The cost of voting with AV will be the same as with FPTP... the cost of pen & paper. (The referendum itself is costing, but this is going ahead whether we want it or not)

    I say we should not miss out on this chance to change to a fairer system for voting.
  • irnbru_2irnbru_2 Forumite
    1.6K Posts
    raddyantic wrote: »
    Furthermore millions would have to be spent on advertising explaining the new system to voters! Something similar happened in the Scottish Elections in 07 and dear old ladies (think of your mother) hadn't a clue how to do complete the new vote which resulted in hundreds and thousands of 'spoiled votes' which could no longer be counted - thus making the results a farce.

    For the avoidance of doubt - Scotland had two elections with two different voting systems in use.

    Additional Member System - a constituency and a list vote with one entry per ballot for the Holyrood parliament.

    Single Transferable Vote - A rank-based vote for the local government elections.

    The Gould report was commissioned to determine what went wrong and provide recommendations.

    Finally, Scotland has had a minority government for the last 4 years.
  • irnbru_2irnbru_2 Forumite
    1.6K Posts
    raddyantic wrote: »
    Only Australia, Fiji, and Papa New Guinea use AV in the whole world - so that probably tells you a lot in itself.

    Not really - how many FPTP countries have ever asked their electrotate if they want that system?
  • irnbru_2irnbru_2 Forumite
    1.6K Posts
    raddyantic wrote: »
    Irrespective of what you think of AV surely we as the British public should not be giving that b***end Clegg what he wants!

    Exactly, one can see why David Cameron is in favour of FPTP ...

    Conservative leadership election results :

    First ballot:

    David Davies 62 votes
    David Cameron 56 votes
    Liam Fox 42 votes
    Kenneth Clarke 38 votes

    Second ballot:

    David Cameron 90 votes
    David Davies 57 votes
    Liam Fox 51 votes
This discussion has been closed.
Latest News and Guides