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

irnbru_2

Chris357 wrote: »

It is very unlikely that this proved system of voting will ever be adopted here because it does not gel with the political ambitions of the main political parties here in the UK.

Except in Wales and Scotland.

GooeyBlob

toasted-lion wrote: »

In the final round, everyone's vote has equal weight. Why shouldn't it? How are some people less worthy of voting between the two most popular candidates?

So somebody's 4th preference is equal to somebody else's first preference? Do me a favour...

You might not get the two most popular candidates in the final round of voting either. Mostly you'll end up with the most popular and the least-disliked-by-those-who-don't-like-the-most-popular.

GooeyBlob

irnbru wrote: »

What do most democracies use and did they have a referendum to choose it?

FPTP or PR, and very often not.

Virtually nobody uses AV, it's not a fair voting system. The system we already have is better, although neither system is perfect.

GooeyBlob

InMyDreams wrote: »

It has a few unfortunate consequences in *some* circumstances. It's not perfect. But it's a damn site fairer than FPTP for the purposes of electing an MP to represent everyone, including the people who didn't vote for them.

What we have now isn't perfect, but all votes are counted equally. Under AV some people get to vote for several candidates, others get to vote for only one. AV is LESS fair than FPTP, in that you often end up with a candidate that nobody really wants, but is disliked the least by those who don't like the most popular candidate. That's no way to elect an MP.

GooeyBlob

Onyourcase wrote: »

It's why I'm voting No. I like election night as is , stay up late with a few beers and see the old MPs getting the boot. Let's not loose that!!! AV would obviously take much longer to count and imagine the recounts. It'll take days of bargaining afterwards as well. I'm sorry that Ed's for it, but at least other Labour MPs are against. Yes to a fairer system, no to AV from me.

I'm not the only anorak who does that then! It's interesting watching the swings in different parts of the country, and seeing politicians explaining their party's poor performance in front of Paxman or Dimbleby.

AV will shift the goalposts, meaning that a different set of MPs will find themselves in safe seats. There would still be marginals, and some of those currently in marginals would find themselves in safe seats. We hear a lot of stuff about how one system or another will make MPs less secure and less likely to fiddle their expenses. Frankly, it's all rubbish. Both camps are making some ridiculous claims in their literature.

Bedal

This whole business of voting for this system or that system is another way of wasting or taxpaying money. FP or AV should not be the issue. What I do know is that the complete PARTY system should be scrapped. All candidates should be MADE to get out and publish a written commitment of what they will do for OUR COUNTRY. NOT CONS, LAB, LD, GREENS, etc.. These 'policies' published in each area will give us, the people, a chance to make an informed decision on who to vote for. The people who put themselves forward will have three months to sell themselves. We then vote within each bounday for a (one) candidate. Minimum term 5 years. Maximim terms based on performance. It is time these political fat cats earned their living. PS They also have to declare what we must pay them to do this job. NO PRIVILEGES

Amba_Gambla

clouty wrote: »

Some good stuff about AV I came across online today


Dan Snow's Alternative on YouTube.

That's a ridiculously skewed and biased explanation. What a choice, 6 pubs or one coffee shop?
If that was real life it would be like having 6 Labour Candidates, 1 Conservative and 1 Lib Dem.

I expected better from someone like Dan Snow

irnbru_2

GooeyBlob wrote: »

Under AV some people get to vote for several candidates, others get to vote for only one.

Under AV everyone has the opportunity to rank candidates in order of their preference.

GooeyBlob wrote: »

AV is LESS fair than FPTP, in that you often end up with a candidate that nobody really wants, but is disliked the least by those who don't like the most popular candidate.

FPTP is LESS fair than AV, in that you often end up with a candidate that the majority doesn't want.

irnbru_2

wozearly wrote: »

Each round in AV is, essentially, a separate election.

David Cameron knows this too.

NoSatisfaction

neilleeds wrote: »

There are further rounds of counting until there are two candidates (if nobody has yet got 50%) and at this point one would have more than 50%.

Not if there are five candidates and all get 20% of the vote and the electorate don't give any second or third choices! Unlikely I know, so I suppose the question is what are the contingencies?