AV of First Past the Post?

[Mr1Croft]

Well, with less than a week to the referendum, the question has to be asked? What (if any) will you be voting for? Should we continue with the 'First Past the Post' voting system and the simplicity it brings, (although too simple and by all means not democratic in terms of the 'popular vote' and majority voting) or do we make the switch and become the 4th country in the world to use the AV system.

I swing towards AV, although it does jepordise Milibands chances of winning his own seat in the next general election, although im sure his share of the votes would shoot up now he is leader of the opposition.

[CusworthRovers]

Unless some poll is saying otherwise, I would be shocked if Edward lost his seat round here in any form of voting system. Like the ex Tory MP Alan B'Stard, the size of his majority is massive.

[The Red Baron]

A definite NO from me.

Nick Clegg was right when he called AV a \"miserable compromise.\" It isn't true proportional representation. All it means is that supporters of small fringe parties effectively get two or more votes while the rest get one. So if you vote BNP first, your vote could get counted three times. If you vote Labour, chances are your vote will be counted once. Hardly fair, or proportional, is it?

The principal beneficiaries will be the Lib Dems and the result will be more coalitions, with Cleggy's mob acting as kingmakers, more broken promises and more back-room stitch-ups. And if we should be daft enough to vote for it, we'll be stuck with AV for decades. That's why many who favour genuine PR are voting NO next week.

I'd be happy to debate the merits of FPTP versus genuine PR- Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies is, I believe, the most genuine form- but on Thursday I'll be saying a resounding NO.

[The Red Baron]

Unless some poll is saying otherwise, I would be shocked if Edward lost his seat round here in any form of voting system. Like the ex Tory MP Alan B'Stard, the size of his majority is massive.

Miliband won Doncaster North with 47.3% of the vote last May, so under AV the votes of the bottom placed candidate would be redistributed, and so on until he reached 50%. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have won, although those who voted for the socialist candidate, the English Democrats, UKIP and the BNP would have probably ended up having their votes counted twice, at least.

Incidentally, as our \"local\" MP, does he ever show his face at a Rovers game?

[RTID75]

I think it's a 'no' from me. My vote is and always has been for one party and I have no other preference. I don't see that I should be forced to choose a second, third or whatever else favourite as I simply do not have other preferences.

If Ed has ever been to a Rovers game in the past (very doubtful I'd imagine!) then the chances of it happening now are probably much slimmer now he's so much more higher profile.

[Filo]

It`s a no from me, why would I want an alternative person to represent me?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Red Ed is a Leeds fan.....

It's a no from me, one vote is simply that, one vote, that's my belief.  There isn't a single best way to do it really.  Some say it's not fair with more of the population against their MP as is pretty much always the case, but I don't whinge about that, I never have and probably never will be a labour voter, my MP is labour (and she was useless when we needed her) but she was fairly voted in.

[RedJ]

Unless some poll is saying otherwise, I would be shocked if Edward lost his seat round here in any form of voting system. Like the ex Tory MP Alan B'Stard, the size of his majority is massive.

Miliband won Doncaster North with 47.3% of the vote last May, so under AV the votes of the bottom placed candidate would be redistributed, and so on until he reached 50%. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have won, although those who voted for the socialist candidate, the English Democrats, UKIP and the BNP would have probably ended up having their votes counted twice, at least.

Incidentally, as our \"local\" MP, does he ever show his face at a Rovers game?

He's a L**ds fan typical, ain't it?

Ah, BFYP beat me to it by seconds

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's a no from me, one vote is simply that, one vote, that's my belief.

That's fine. No one would hold a gun to your head and insist on you choosing multiple candidates. The fact that you personally wouldn't wish to use an alternative vote can and should be separate from your opinion on the general principle.

Personally, I'm not massively in favour of AV as a system, but it is slightly fairer than what we currently have. Our current system is utterly indefensible. It gave pretty much unfettered power to both Thatcher and Blair when neither of them got remotely close to winning a majority of votes in the country. That is wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

Supporters say that at least it gives strong Government, but that is b*llocks too. Four times in my lifetime, the current system has lead to hung parliaments (Feb 74 and last year) or desperately slim majorities and weak governments (Oct 74 and 1992). The difference between the instability and weakness on one side and near-Monarchical, unopposed power on the other is frequently just a few hundred thousand votes going one way or another in key marginals. Meanwhile, voters in seats with large majorities are effectively disenfranchised because their votes will not change the outcome.   By no argument can that be described as fair or democratic.

AV is far, far from ideal, but it's a step. I'll be voting for it.

[Hounslowrover]

It's a yes from me too.  Not perfect, but a small step to a fairer system.  Look at political reform,there have been years of talk of reform of the House of Lords, nothing happens, Cameron has flooded the Lords with peers.  As long as vested interests reamin powerful and we have a voting system delivery minority governments (popular vote), nothing will change.  Think beyond Clegg to years of a Tory government when boundaries change, voting yes is a better way of finishing this coalition, a no to AV will result only in the Libs in the wilderness for years.

[RedJ]

Not saying this will be the case here, but none of the countries who've implemented AV have ever even looked at moving onto AV, so - in my opinion, I must stress - I doubt anything will be different here.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Agree with it being a small step forwards to enfranchising those in areas where there's big majorities, and maybe it will make the difference in the power of party's elected by less than 50% of the voters.

I'm not convinced its substantial enough. Will it be a step forwards towards something better and encourage people to feel safer about a further change, or a step to where people think thats concession enough for PR?

I'd vote yes but I booked a last minute holiday and left it too late to get my vote sorted

[Donnywolf]

I would have liked to have an alternative vote ON the alternative vote rather than first past the post

I HAVE voted AV .... as stated its a step in reet direction at least

[Donnywolf]

Sorry had to get my snap and did not want to get timed out !

Politics is a minefield but surely it cant be right that Major (Conservative) won the Election he looked sure to lose by 1100 or so votes. He got a majority of 21 so if he had lost 11 of those seats he would have lost the election

Some of those Seats were won by a TINY amount of votes and the 11 seats addded up to just 1100 and a bit

Meanwhile in somehere like Hemsworth or Goole and Thorne donkeys years ago the winnner (Labour) would have a majority of say 30000 and win just 1 (one) yes just one seat - is that fair.

Thatcher (Conservative) won at least one election with around 42 % of the vote by a f****ng LANDSLIDE and clobbered everyone but the elite

So 42 of every 100 people who voted wanted the Tories to govern but 58 of those who voted DID NOT want to have them in charge - is that fair ?


Oh god I am stopping NOW  !!!!

Vote AV you know (I know) it makes sense

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sorry had to get my snap and did not want to get timed out !

Politics is a minefield but surely it cant be right that Major (Conservative) won the Election he looked sure to lose by 1100 or so votes. He got a majority of 21 so if he had lost 11 of those seats he would have lost the election

Some of those Seats were won by a TINY amount of votes and the 11 seats addded up to just 1100 and a bit

Meanwhile in somehere like Hemsworth or Goole and Thorne donkeys years ago the winnner (Labour) would have a majority of say 30000 and win just 1 (one) yes just one seat - is that fair.

Thatcher (Conservative) won at least one election with around 42 % of the vote by a f****ng LANDSLIDE and clobbered everyone but the elite

So 42 of every 100 people who voted wanted the Tories to govern but 58 of those who voted DID NOT want to have them in charge - is that fair ?

Similar situation with Blair in 97. Labour won 43% of the votes but 65% of the seats. (Difference was of course that Blair was never going to use that to drive a left-wing revolution in the way that Thatcher had been utterly radical with the power that she had in the 80s.)

In fact, no party has won more than 50% of the vote since Stanley Baldwin's Tories in 1935. So in pretty much EVERY election since, a majority has voted AGAINST the party that ends up governing. Madness!

In fairness, at least the current Govt can argue that they have a combined 60% of the votes cast at the last Election. Although the sheer incompetence of the Lib Dems means that effectively we have a Govt shaped and driven by radical Tory policies despite the fact that only 36% of the Electirate voted for the Tories last year.

As I say, AV is not ideal by a long way, but it is much better than the ridiculous and iniquitous current system. It's all very well TRB saying vote against AV but then lobby for for STV. That's pie in the sky. AV is the best that anyone will get in our lifetimes. Vote against it now and the question will be put to bed.   You'll be stuck with the current system for another 2 generations.

[Boomstick]

Really dont know on this one, I'm inclined to say no to AV on the basis that if its not broke dont fix it, and AV would complicate matters. People are stupid unfortunately, they barely give any thought into who to vote for in 1st past the post, never mind having to vote for 2nd and 3rd choices. I think most would just have a fav party to vote for and then put any old numbers in the other boxes, so it just makes a farce of it.

Having said that Our English Democrat mayor (who I voted for and glad I did) wouldnt have won if it were not for AV.

Those are the two things that spring to my mind and having considered both, I will be Voting NO to AV.

[Viking Don]

It is broken though, how many people actually bother voting for anyone under the current system? It's not even 50% is it? So on that basis, yes try and fix it , even if it's only a small step.

YES from me.

I'm not bothered if it leads to more coalition governments - MP's are supposed to represent their constituencies and not just follow their party policy. I'm all for not having any party having it all their own way, whichever one it is.

A NO vote is a TORY vote. A YES vote will keep those f**kers out for ever.

[The Red Baron]

A NO vote is a TORY vote. A YES vote will keep those f**kers out for ever.

So why do around 130 Labour MPs- over half the parliamentary party- say they'll vote NO? Could it be because they realise that only one party will benefit from AV- the Lib Dems.

[The Red Baron]

As I say, AV is not ideal by a long way, but it is much better than the ridiculous and iniquitous current system. It's all very well TRB saying vote against AV but then lobby for for STV. That's pie in the sky. AV is the best that anyone will get in our lifetimes. Vote against it now and the question will be put to bed.   You'll be stuck with the current system for another 2 generations.

In fact, I think precisely the opposite- vote AV in and we'll be stuck with it for at least two Parliaments after this one. Keep the status quo, and the possibility of real change remains open.

[BillyStubbsTears]

As I say, AV is not ideal by a long way, but it is much better than the ridiculous and iniquitous current system. It's all very well TRB saying vote against AV but then lobby for for STV. That's pie in the sky. AV is the best that anyone will get in our lifetimes. Vote against it now and the question will be put to bed.   You'll be stuck with the current system for another 2 generations.

In fact, I think precisely the opposite- vote AV in and we'll be stuck with it for at least two Parliaments after this one. Keep the status quo, and the possibility of real change remains open.

Totally disagree. Where will the political pressure for STV come from? The Lib Dems are the motor for the change to PR. They are currently at a historical high water mark in terms of their political influence. For the next generation, their influence will be nowhere near as strong - if the next election is held under FPTP, the Lib Dems will be lucky to get 20 seats and they'll go back to their previous role as a pointless little fringe party.

So, in that scenario, with AV already having been comprehensively rejected, why should Parliament concern itself with more navel gazing over the voting system. The issue will have been put to bed, and you'll not see another referendum on the issue in your lifetime.

[The Red Baron]

If the Lib Dems get AV, they're unlikely to want further change- given that it will benefit them disproportionately. If it is rejected then they will have to come up with something better.

In any case, if you judge the campaign purely on its merits, Yes to AV deserves to lose. All the gambits that they hoped would work in their favour- holding the vote on the same day as local and assembly elections, allowing a valid vote on a low turnout- have backfired on them. And rather than make the case for change, they've resorted to abusing their opponents.

[Barmby Rover]

[attachment=631]AV.png[/attachment]
 


A convincing argument?

[River Don]

I'll vote yes. It's not ideal but it's a good step.

A yes vote would signal the public are open to change and the chances of a vote on PR would be increased.

A No vote will kill the debate and I doubt we'll ever get the chance for change again in our lifetimes. The Conservatives fear a yes vote, they stand to lose most from it, and they won't want to risk it again.

A yes is an opportunity not to be missed.

[Viking Don]

If the Lib Dems get AV, they're unlikely to want further change- given that it will benefit them disproportionately. If it is rejected then they will have to come up with something better.

In any case, if you judge the campaign purely on its merits, Yes to AV deserves to lose. All the gambits that they hoped would work in their favour- holding the vote on the same day as local and assembly elections, allowing a valid vote on a low turnout- have backfired on them. And rather than make the case for change, they've resorted to abusing their opponents.

I think you must be referring to the NO voters TRB. The yes voters get abused and the lies are told by the NO campaign. I'll point out them if I have to.

VOTE A BIG YES TO CHANGE THE SHIT POLITICAL SYSTEM WE HAVE.

The No voters just want to keep their shit government jobs easily - MAKE IT HARD FOR THE f**kERS!

[Viking Don]

A NO vote is a TORY vote. A YES vote will keep those f**kers out for ever.

So why do around 130 Labour MPs- over half the parliamentary party- say they'll vote NO? Could it be because they realise that only one party will benefit from AV- the Lib Dems.

NO. It's because around 130 Labour MP's don't give a f**k about you or me, just about their safe seats. They want things to stay the same because they've got a job. Change is bad in the eyes of the dinosaur.

Ed wants AV - at least the leader of the party isn't a dinosaur.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So why do around 130 Labour MPs- over half the parliamentary party- say they'll vote NO? Could it be because they realise that only one party will benefit from AV- the Lib Dems.

There are several reasons. Some of them are cantankerous old t**ts like Reid, Blunkett, Prescott or Beckett who made their names in ecosystem that gave them great power when their party got 40% or less of the vote. Traditionally, there has always been a streak in the Labour party that saw the current system as the only way that a strongly left wing Govt could ever be elected in this country - a very left wing party would never get 50% of the vote, but might squeak a majority with 35-36% due to the vagaries of the system.

You say the change to AV would benefit the Lib Dems. And so it should. I'm no fan of them but the current system is indefensible. The Lib Dems received 23% of the vote at the last election but only 8-9% of the MPs. That is TOTALLY undemocratic and to be blunt is a f**king disgrace. It's also a disgrace that both Tory and Labour MPs are supporting the system that allows such a perversion if the public will.

Prescott has openly said that he opposes AV on the simple grounds that Labour would be less powerful. The Tories oppose it for precisely the same reason, although they are too smart to say so, so they've muddied the argument with side issues like the cost (so democracy is less important than cutting costs! Socrates would turn in his grave!)

AV is not perfect but it would be a symbolic shift towards a more equitable system. As I've said before, if AV is defeated today, the issue will be off the agenda for 50 years and we'll be stuck with Lab or Con Governments given unfettered power on 38% of the vote. I
Genuinely baffled how any honest intelligent person can support that

[River Don]

I'd endorse every word of that BST.

[River Don]

AV explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTI3Xpkp0Y

[RobTheRover]

Really dont know on this one, I'm inclined to say no to AV on the basis that if its not broke dont fix it, and AV would complicate matters. People are stupid unfortunately, they barely give any thought into who to vote for in 1st past the post, never mind having to vote for 2nd and 3rd choices. I think most would just have a fav party to vote for and then put any old numbers in the other boxes, so it just makes a farce of it.

Having said that Our English Democrat mayor (who I voted for and glad I did) wouldnt have won if it were not for AV.

Those are the two things that spring to my mind and having considered both, I will be Voting NO to AV.

Let me shorten that for you Boomstick....

\"Really dont know on this one, I'm inclined to say no to AV on the basis that... thats what my Tory masters tell me to do!\"

;-)

[herouk87]

Surely since most of us live in Yorkshire it doesn't make a difference on a local scale. Labour will win by a country mile regarless of the voting system around here because of Thatcher