Alternative Vote vs First Past the Post

Does anyone have any strong preference? I can't decide which is the lesser evil. At this rate I'll be tossing a coin on May 5th. It's such a ConDem fix.

A farcical aquatic ceremony?

One person, one vote.

I'll be voting 'yes'

It gives people the chance to vote 'for' a party, without worrying about wasting a vote 'against' one of the other candidates ( for instance, if I wanted to vote Lib Dem in an area and only Labour could beat the Tories then I'd have to vote Labour)

It means candidates get at least 50% support from the electorate

Hopefully it will start to break up the LabConLib domination of British politics.

Even though I won't be voting (too young) I am in favour of the old system.

I'll be voting 'yes'

It gives people the chance to vote 'for' a party, without worrying about wasting a vote 'against' one of the other candidates ( for instance, if I wanted to vote Lib Dem in an area and only Labour could beat the Tories then I'd have to vote Labour)

It means candidates get at least 50% support from the electorate

Hopefully it will start to break up the LabConLib domination of British politics.

This is true, but the only minor parties that most people are truly aware of (that affect England) are the Greens and the BNP.People will put, say, the BNP as their third/second preference simply because they don't know enough about the other minor parties. This one of my main concerns with AV.

Hopefully it will start to break up the LabConLib domination of British politics.

I'm not convinced it will, but I guess we won't know until we try it.

I'll probably vote yes, on the basis that the Tory scum would use a no vote as an excuse to shelve any future attempt at reform.

There really should be a 'neither' option.

Even though I won't be voting (too young) I am in favour of the old system.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on April 12, 2011, 05:07:19 AM

I'll be voting 'yes'

It gives people the chance to vote 'for' a party, without worrying about wasting a vote 'against' one of the other candidates ( for instance, if I wanted to vote Lib Dem in an area and only Labour could beat the Tories then I'd have to vote Labour)

It means candidates get at least 50% support from the electorate

Hopefully it will start to break up the LabConLib domination of British politics.

This is true, but the only minor parties that most people are truly aware of (that affect England) are the Greens and the BNP.People will put, say, the BNP as their third/second preference simply because they don't know enough about the other minor parties. This one of my main concerns with AV.

Actually if any minor party benefits, I'm convinced it'll be UKIP. The coalition with the LDs has really put off a lot of hard-core Tories who've gone purple in response.

The formation of minor parties is often seen as irrelevant and pointless at the moment, unless you're a nationalist or single-issue party. If the first AV vote manages to produce some more smaller-party candidates it could encourage some newer parties to really make a go of it.

If you put BNP as your third candidate then, frankly, they won't get your vote unless your first two preferences went on the Monster Raving Loonies and an independant.

Oh, and I would have preferred AV+

One person, one vote.

Every person does get one vote. You're just now voting on preference rather than just a single nominee.

A farcical aquatic ceremony?

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is a perfect basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives not from a mandate from the masses, but from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You should expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

FPP is absurd in today's political environment. MMP is the way forward.

FPP is absurd in today's political environment. MMP is the way forward.

How is having the candidate with the most votes winning an absurd electoral system?

It encourages a two-party system and minimizes the influence of local issues in national/parliamentary legislatures.

Quote from: Benocrates on April 18, 2011, 06:51:52 AM

FPP is absurd in today's political environment. MMP is the way forward.

How is having the candidate with the most votes winning an absurd electoral system?

Because the majority of votes cast under FPTP are utterly worthless, and the party with the most votes doesn't necessarily get into government. FPTP is a relic of a bygone age.

Quote from: Benocrates on April 18, 2011, 06:51:52 AM

FPP is absurd in today's political environment. MMP is the way forward.

How is having the candidate with the most votes winning an absurd electoral system?

You're often left with a system whereby a candidate is elected with well under 50% of the vote (itself representing a minority of the people in some cases).

Quote from: Hazbollah on April 18, 2011, 07:08:04 AM

Quote from: Benocrates on April 18, 2011, 06:51:52 AM

FPP is absurd in today's political environment. MMP is the way forward.

How is having the candidate with the most votes winning an absurd electoral system?

Because the majority of votes cast under FPTP are utterly worthless, and the party with the most votes doesn't necessarily get into government. FPTP is a relic of a bygone age.

That's to do with constituencies not being equal in poulation, not the way MPs are elected.

I don't think that argument is quite true. I would think far more important would be all of the demographics in the ridings, not solely the population.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on April 18, 2011, 08:32:34 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on April 18, 2011, 07:08:04 AM

Quote from: Benocrates on April 18, 2011, 06:51:52 AM

FPP is absurd in today's political environment. MMP is the way forward.

How is having the candidate with the most votes winning an absurd electoral system?

Because the majority of votes cast under FPTP are utterly worthless, and the party with the most votes doesn't necessarily get into government. FPTP is a relic of a bygone age.

That's to do with constituencies not being equal in poulation, not the way MPs are elected.

Not really, change the constituency boundaries any way you like and the party with the 4th most number of votes still won't have an equal stake in parliament.

EDIT: That is to say that if party X won 15% of the votes cast, they still won't get 15% of the parliamentry seats.

They wouldn't under AV either.

AV has been the norm here for nearly a century, and the main problem with it is simply that most people don't seem to understand it. In theory, it is a great system, but combined with the compulsory voting in Australia, it results in a lot of people who don't know what the hell they're doing voting using a system they don't comprehend.

That said, I still think it is favourable to FPtP.

the compulsory voting in Australia,

I didn't know this. Would you say Australians take a greater interest in politics because they have to vote?

They wouldn't under AV either.

No, but I'm not arguing in favour of a Proportionally representative government.

Quote from: Parsifal on April 19, 2011, 01:57:15 AM

the compulsory voting in Australia,

I didn't know this. Would you say Australians take a greater interest in politics because they have to vote?

I wouldn't say that in general. It probably does cause some people to take a greater interest in politics than they otherwise would, but it also encourages people who don't have much interest in politics to cast an uneducated vote just to avoid a fine.

Also, I should clarify that actually voting is not compulsory, but rather turning up at the polling booth is. Once you've had your name marked off on the roll and got your ballot paper, they don't care if what you write on it makes sense or even if you write anything at all on it.

Something just doesn't sit right with me about the origins of the referendum.

To begin with i'm not happy with the coalition agreement as it seems to be nothing more than a vehicle for the government to have carte blanche over any policy decision they wish rather than acting on a manifesto. When the coaliton came together Cameron told us that "this is what the British public had asked for..." It wasn't. The British public asked for the Conservative party to form a minority Government. This ,however, doesn't work so we had to have a coalition based on an agreement that we would have a referendum on the AV system. Had any party, other than LibDem, gained a workable majority we wouldn't be having this referendum. I therefore voting no to the AV system because it's nothing more than a pair of golden handcuffs for Clegg.

Also, if i wanted to vote for the other guy, i would.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but more people voted for the Liberal Democrats and Labour (who both support electoral reform of this kind) than voted for the Conservatives. I'd say that's a solid basis for saying the British people do want electoral reform of some kind.

Quote from: fluffycornsnake on April 18, 2011, 08:32:34 AM

Quote from: Hazbollah on April 18, 2011, 07:08:04 AM

Quote from: Benocrates on April 18, 2011, 06:51:52 AM

FPP is absurd in today's political environment. MMP is the way forward.

How is having the candidate with the most votes winning an absurd electoral system?

Because the majority of votes cast under FPTP are utterly worthless, and the party with the most votes doesn't necessarily get into government. FPTP is a relic of a bygone age.

That's to do with constituencies not being equal in poulation, not the way MPs are elected.

True in part, but nevertheless, FPtP manufactures skewed results thanks to tactical voting.

Relevant:

The alternate vote for those beer drinkers might be coffee, though, thus allowing coffee to still win under AV.

Fine, if you would rather go to the coffee house than your specific pub then there's no real problem there. Chances are good, however that if you vote for beer your second and maybe even third choices are going to be for beer in which case one of those pubs is likely to be the one selected so you'll have two very happy people, three to five satisfied people and three disgrunted people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but more people voted for the Liberal Democrats and Labour (who both support electoral reform of this kind) than voted for the Conservatives. I'd say that's a solid basis for saying the British people do want electoral reform of some kind.

Labour did not promise to and would not have had a referendum on the Westminster voting system if they had of won the election. What would have been the point? They had won, the system works just fine for them.