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

kermitfrog

clouty wrote: »

FPTP suits the elite very well. That's why the No campaign have more resources. But unlike the Yes campaign, they will not say where their money is coming from.

Has it crossed your mind that there may be people who are not part of the 'elite', who also favour FPTP in preference to AV? Can't you accept that there are valid arguments on both sides and that the 'Yes' side does not have the monopoly on righteousness?

Perhaps if you devoted your energies to arguing the issues, rather than the diversion of funding sources, you may reach a more balanced view.

.

MainlyBeer

A lot of posts seem to accept that AV provides a more representative result at the local level but argue against AV because it is likely to produce more coalitions in which it is more difficult to hold politicians to account against their manifestos/promises.
If this is really a problem then is it a problem with AV or is it a problem with representative democracy? If no party wins has than 50% of the MPs then you will have a coalition. If a party has more than 50% of the MPs but its popular support doesn't justify this then you don't have a very democratic system anyway.
Personally I don't see the problem with coalitions. If parties alienate their supporters they will be punished; they know this and would rather avoid it. If their supporters agree with the balance of compromises made with coalition partners then the support will be retained. It works like this within parties too except that the inter-factional compromises should be made before the election (though it doesn't always work like that - think of Iraq).

By the way I disown posting 260. I seem to have posted it by accident a bit too late at night. Sorry.

jamesd

clouty wrote: »

There have been less coalitions in Australia since AV than there have been in the same period in the UK.

Come off it. Have you even bothered to look at the Australian election results?

1990: one party
1993: one party
1996: coalition
1998: coalition
2001: coalition
2004: coalition
2007: one party
2010: coalition

So just what period are you claiming had less coalitions in Australia than in the UK? Last time it was "in recent times" which is blatantly wrong, as that list of their recent results shows.

clouty wrote: »

It is about putting more democratic power in the hands of the majority.

Then go for a system that doesn't magnify the power of the least popular parties, not one that does.

FPTP suits the elite very well.

You mean something like a baron grandparent, banker father, then public school and joining the Conservative Association at Cambridge sort of elite I suppose...?

I don't think that there's anything wrong with such people becoming politicians if they want to. Let them present their policies and get a majority of the electorate voting for them and there will be no doubt that the public wanted them. Backroom deals to get into power? A different thing.

clouty wrote: »

The political elite will not allow this matter to be considered again for decades or ever, if there is a No vote on May 5th.

So when do you think there will be a chance to say no if the result this time is yes?

kermitfrog wrote: »

Has it crossed your mind that there may be people who are not part of the 'elite', who also favour FPTP in preference to AV?

Like me, perhaps, so far the only person in the known history of my family to go to university and get a degree. With a family history of typists, labourers and enlisted men, not barons and bankers. And looking at a current government that made it harder for the likes of me and my family to go to university.

Lotus-eater

Forgive me, I haven't read the whole thread. But isn't this AV like the Labour leadership elections.
They keep going and the ones with the lowest amount of votes, go out. Everyone gets to vote again for the remaining candidates. Seems very close to it to me.

JimmyTheWig

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Forgive me, I haven't read the whole thread. But isn't this AV like the Labour leadership elections.
They keep going and the ones with the lowest amount of votes, go out. Everyone gets to vote again for the remaining candidates. Seems very close to it to me.

Yes, very much like it.
And the Tory leadership elections.
And (to some extent) the London Mayor elections.
And the World Cup host voting procedure.

GooeyBlob

The latest polling evidence from Angus Reid shows the gap is widening as we get closer to the day of the vote:

Yes 42%
No 58%

It could all still depend on turnout.

irnbru_2

GooeyBlob wrote: »

The latest polling evidence from Angus Reid shows the gap is widening as we get closer to the day of the vote:

Yes 42%
No 58%

... amongst decided voters.

Here's the link, not sure why you didn't include it in the first place.

Lotus-eater

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Yes, very much like it.
And the Tory leadership elections.
And (to some extent) the London Mayor elections.
And the World Cup host voting procedure.

So it's OK for the leadership elections of both major parties, but not for the masses. Mmmm

jeanmd

jamesd wrote: »

Hopefully they won't be voting yes, given that objective. The AV system makes it more likely that there will be a coalition government.

I think that someone has been misleading you. And perhaps your daughter and her friends.

The AV voting only happens within the constituency. It does not continue on up to which parties and who gets to rule the country.

jeanmd's daugher here

Nobody has been misleading anybody. I am able to read, just like anybody else, and to research, just like anybody else. Nobody's told me what's good and bad. I've used my brain.

First, I would like to point out that your first point that "The AV voting... does not continue on up to which parties and who gets to rule the country" is surely not a case against AV. Put it this way; if AV isn't what decides who is in power, how does it make a coalition government more or less likely? What I'm saying here is that you make no sense by saying that the AV voting systems doesn't affect it, and yet going on to say...

jamesd wrote: »

This has been seen at work repeatedly in Australia's AV system, where most of the governments since AV was introduced have been coalition governments.

If AV "does not continue on up to... who gets to rule the country", as you say, it cannot possibly have the direct affect you seem to be saying it will later in your post. No?

Now, to explain why I think AV is a good thing, since my mother didn't really explain it at all, which is probably why I think your remark that I am being mislead is quite... off, to say the least.

AV will NOT mean that the monster raving loony party, the BNP, or any other minority party, will get more seats than they do currently, because nobody in their right minds will go to the voting poll and say "Hmm... I can number these 1-5, if I want, but I can also just put "1" and leave it there. Let's see... I think I'll put the Lib Dems last because I don't want them, and I quite like Labour, so they'll go first, but... oh, look! There's BNP! Oh God. I best vote them 2nd then!"

It's just not going to happen.

If you don't want to vote BNP, you aren't going to be FORCED to put them as a choice. You can still leave it blank.

So all this tosh about them having more of a chance is complete horseradish. If anything, they have less of a chance, because people who are voting them in are voting in protest in order to block, for example, the Tories. With AV they are now able to vote more positively for other politicians without feeling that their vote is wasted. Instead of people deciding to vote BNP because they don't want David Cameron in charge, the only people who will vote BNP are the people who want the BNP in charge. And that's very few people, believe me.

To be perfectly honest, though, I think most people who have two brain cells to rub together should vote AV just to tell the "No" party to shove it with their "It's too confusing!" campaign. Is it chuff. If you can count from one to five, you can use the AV system. How condescending can they be?

As for the Australia rubbish....
Number 1) It's on Wikipedia, which immediately makes any person who knows how to use the internet and doesn't believe everything shovelled down their throat think "wait up a second, this might be completely biased and full of nonsense", so I'd suggest in future debates you offer a better source. Just a tip.
Number 2) I do not see your argument in these figures. First off, we have no real comparison to how the government was run pre-IRV, bar the 7 elections mentioned (IRV was introduced in 1918, of course). Secondly, in 1901 it seems there was a minority government, as in 1906. Though the data is slim, since you haven't provided much before this date, I would say I see no real change pre-IRV and post-IRV.
Number 3) Who says a coalition is bad? I, personally, believe Australia is a country which is run relatively well; it has less of the problems that England constantly whines about (legal immigrants, taxes...) So just saying "Look at the coalition governments!" isn't an argument against AV. The only problem with such governments is when they don't co-operate, as in our current ConDem ridiculousness. When a coalition government works, as it has in many countries around the world, it seems that it actually works well.

But, you know, the Tories will continue their scare-mongering tactics (which really just prove they have no REAL argument) and make reasonably intelligent people vote "no" because nobody wants to end up like Australia, do they?! I mean... golly... it isn't like thousands of us are trying to migrate there every year or anything. :rotfl:



Seeing as how AV is pretty much the voting system used by politicians in the house of commons, my question is this:

Why is this system absolutely acceptable for the politicians to use, and yet so hellishly bad for the general population?

(Lotus-eater totally got to this first, but it is a question which irritates the hell out of me because, as of yet, we haven't had an answer from any politician as to why this is the case)

hermante

jamesd wrote: »

Come off it. Have you even bothered to look at the Australian election results?

1990: one party
1993: one party
1996: coalition
1998: coalition
2001: coalition
2004: coalition
2007: one party
2010: coalition

So just what period are you claiming had less coalitions in Australia than in the UK? Last time it was "in recent times" which is blatantly wrong, as that list of their recent results shows.

That's rubbish, what you may not realise is that the "Coalition" in Australia is a formal agreement, and thus more like a single party. If you vote Liberal then you are basically voting for a Lib/Nat government and the same is true if you vote National. They don't contest each other usually and the so-called coalition is one that lasts even when they are in opposition, not one that is agreed after the results of an election.

In the most recent election in 2010, the Coalition won 72 seats and Labor won 72 seats. Out of the 6 remaining MPs 4 decided to support Labor. I wouldn't call that a coalition - it's more like there are 2 people who can upset decisions. An equivalent situation in the UK would be as follows: with 650 MPs, 322 are Tories and 322 are Labour or LibDem. Out of the remaining 6 MPs, 2 are LibDem in principle so would support the LibLab "coalition". 1 is UKIP and 1 is a conservative who fell out with the Tory party. The final 2 are former Liberals who couldn't support their party's merger with the SDP, so support the Tories but this could change at any point.