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

barbara22

irnbru wrote: »

Not really - how many FPTP countries have ever asked their electrotate if they want that system?

Too true cobber :beer:

J-V-A

I have just read Martin's blog, and the leaflets that have been posted through my door. I have not seen any TV publicity on AV voting. I would like to make the following observations:
1. As far as my understanding goes, the "vote no" material explained the proposed AV system quite clearly, contrary to some views that it's out to confuse.
2. Although I have sympathy with a system that is trying to promote greater fairness, I cannot see that AV achieves this. How can someone's second vote, which might be the equivalent of a 7 out of 10, compared with a 10 out of 10 for their first preference, carry the same weight as a first preference when applied in a later round. Perhaps it might be fairer to say you need 2 second choice votes to equal one first choice vote, when these votes are distributed in further rounds.
3. In my view it would be fairer to use a FPTP system in constituencies of roughly equal size.
4. If AV is a better system, how come most of the rest of the democratic world has not woken up to the fact?
Thanks for your comments everybody. It is a really interesting blog page.

irnbru_2

J-V-A wrote: »

3. In my view it would be fairer to use a FPTP system in constituencies of roughly equal size.

Agreed - lets put it to a referendum?

In fact, if we have one constituency - say the size of the UK - then added up all the votes in an FPTP system, we could assign seats to each party proportional to their vote.

J-V-A wrote: »

If AV is a better system, how come most of the rest of the democratic world has not woken up to the fact?

A lot of them use PR instead - do you think we're lagging behind?

lizsalisbury27

First past the post system gives you a vote each, no guarantee that you are in the majority, no system would give you that.

AV gives everyone the chance to vote for 'the winner' even in 7th place! The '50%' claim is a scam because it is only 50% of the last two candidates total not the entire vote!

We did a questionnaire at Uni asking students whether they would vote for AV or to retain FPTP, and lots said AV even though they had no idea about how it worked. They just believed the popularist nonsence that keeps being regurgitated.

AV will become an embarrasment, if we end up with it, and then there will be pressure to change the system to proportional representation, because we have 'tried the rest'.

Proportional representation, or coalition, you decide if it's been a success. Good Luck!

raddyantic

irnbru wrote: »

Not really - how many FPTP countries have ever asked their electrotate if they want that system?

Other deomcratic countries seem to be getting on without it. The issue wasn't even included in either of the Conservative or Lib Dem election manifestos. The Tories only conceded a vote on AV as part of their offer to the Lib Dems to form a government after the election.

lizsalisbury27

AV is used by lots of political parties and trade unions to elect, usually, several not one particular person into a role in a one stage process i.e. 6 candidates from 15 prospectative candidates.

Thus it allows for mass selection in one, quite costly, voting process.

When it is used for election of one candidate they are all members of the same organisation, no opposing views to the overarching political aims held, just differing ways of achieving the political aim.

Unlike during an election campaign when most, if not all, of the candidates have quite oppositional/ alternative political views, so additional selections [AV] are more likely to be based on negative/tactical voting.

This is why the 'if AV is good enough for politicians to use' senario is flawed as it is not comparing 'like with like'.

raddyantic

rhyspaulburton wrote: »

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.



This is not about the Nick CLegg, the Liberal Democrats or any other party, this is about choosing how we vote.



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.

‘Av is the fairer system’ for whom? The Liberal Democrats?

Apparently this is not about Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats or any other party? It is of course as you rightly assert about how we vote, however the only reason we are having this referendum in the first place is that it was the minimum that Nick Clegg could get away with asking for during the coalition negotiations and the maximum that David Cameron could offer. Therefore it forms no basis for reforming something as fundamental as our voting system.

'AV will not be using an electronic counting machines!!!!'

The official line from the Electoral Commission is that is that: “We haven’t considered whether it would be necessary or value for money.” So I guess no one can say for certain, though I do take on board ‘Pen and Paper’ are used in Australia. However it is also important to note that they have been used in the past for the GLA elections. Furthermore certain firms are likely to lobby for vote counting machines to be used. Such machines are likely to be supplied by firms such as Electoral Reform Services and DRS [Data Services Ltd]," such firms have power to influence the government, (DRS had Neil Kinnock as one of their non exec-directors). Thus it's hardly surprising to note the biggest donor to the Yes campaign, is shock horror… Election Reform Services, as it is they who are actually set to potentially make a lot of money out of this change in the system if AV goes through.

rhyski

raddyantic wrote: »

'AV will not be using an electronic counting machines!!!!'
The official line from the Electoral Commission is that is that: “We haven’t considered whether it would be necessary or value for money.”
So I guess no one can say for certain, though I do take on board ‘Pen and Paper’ are used in Australia. However it is also important to note that they have been used in the past for the GLA elections. Furthermore certain firms are likely to lobby for vote counting machines to be used. Such machines are likely to be supplied by firms such as Electoral Reform Services and DRS [Data Services Ltd]," such firms have power to influence the government, (DRS had Neil Kinnock as one of their non exec-directors). Thus it's hardly surprising to note the biggest donor to the Yes campaign, is shock horror… Election Reform Services, as it is they who are actually set to potentially make a lot of money out of this change in the system if AV goes through.

however the Electoral Commission haven't deemed counting machines necessary for the STV elections held in Scotland or Northern Ireland, when STV is essentially a slightly more complex version of AV...

Mrs_Arcanum

Please can we have an electoral system that reflects the political landscape in the 21st century. FPTP is so undemocratic and old fashioned and has no real connection with modern politics and should be consigned to history.

Whilst AV is a poor substitute to real voter choice it at least allows people to vote positively for whichever person they actually want in order of preference. Unlike FPTP where you can only vote for who you want, or whoever may stop the one you really don't want.

At least if AV is an electoral option it may soon be realised improvements can be made. If the antiquated and unfair FPTP is retained it could be another 100 years before we get any sort of genuine democracy in this country.

Our local town council is elected on a similar basis to AV already and vote counting works remarkably smoothly.

raddyantic

rhyspaulburton wrote: »

however the Electoral Commission haven't deemed counting machines necessary for the STV elections held in Scotland or Northern Ireland, when STV is essentially a slightly more complex version of AV...

Yes after the fiasco of the Scottish Elections - NI abandoned the idea strightaway. So whatever happens even if it is a yes I do hope these machines are not used as they are a big waste of money to us the taxpayer. Will be a bit hacked off if they are used as like I say some of these data capture firms gain to benefit and will try to lobby hard to get contracts to use their machines.