AV of First Past the Post?

[River Don]

Generally yes maybe not in Harrogate for instance but that isn't the point. We regularly have governments elected that aren't what most people want. Is that right?

[herouk87]

Do we? I think America can claim that since 3 presidents have been elected despite having fewer votes than their opponents but thats not the case here. Of course a lot of people don't want to Tory's in power but someone had to lose the general election

I don't think that AV or FPTP is the problem its the constituencies. Whoever is elected skews the voting areas as much as possible so they maintain their majority during the next election.

What i do like about AV is that it forces candidates to canvass areas which they wouldn't do otherwise and actually give a damn about people that wouldn't normally vote for them

[River Don]

Do we? I think America can claim that since 3 presidents have been elected despite having fewer votes than their opponents but thats not the case here. Of course a lot of people don't want to Tory's in power but someone had to lose the general election

I don't think that AV or FPTP is the problem its the constituencies. Whoever is elected skews the voting areas as much as possible so they maintain their majority during the next election.

What i do like about AV is that it forces candidates to canvass areas which they wouldn't do otherwise and actually give a damn about people that wouldn't normally vote for them

That last sentence makes me think we're singing from the same hymn sheet./

[herouk87]

I can see the merits of both but don't see it making a difference in Donny. I'm not for AV cos it'll give more power to minority parties such as BNP etc and thats never a good thing

[River Don]

I can see the merits of both but don't see it making a difference in Donny. I'm not for AV cos it'll give more power to minority parties such as BNP etc and thats never a good thing

That's bollox, AV mitigates against extreme policy.

[RobTheRover]

Dont you think it can be swayed though to give minority parties votes in later rounds?  For instance.  What is to stop 2 relatively minor parties to form a coalition of sorts before the vote, and campaign their supporters to vote for the other as second choice?  One might go out in the first cut, but the other will get a swathe of second choice votes which might be enough to knock out one of the big three in some seats.

Havingsaid that, I'm all for it in the absence of a proper review of our voting system with ALL options considered.  My vote went in about 40 mins ago.

[herouk87]

If you've got the following list:

Labour
Tory
Lib Dem
BNP
Independent

People will pick their first choice on personal prefference. After that they will base opinions on a limited ammount of info. They might pick people like the BNP or Indies  as they represent ANY alternative to their least favourite party (normally Labour or Tory)

What i'm trying to say is that the big parties will polarise people and will get a lot of 1's or 5's. The minority parties will pick up lots of 2s, 3's and 4's

The BNP is a bad example because they alienate so many of the public, but a neutral party like the greens stand to gain a lot from it (like the Lib Dems...how convenient)

[RobTheRover]

Interesting that you pick an example with 5 candidates and allocate votes 1-5.  I wouldnt give the BNP or the Tories a vote at all.  In fact, I maynot vote for any candidate other than my favoured one.

[River Don]

If you've got the following list:

Labour
Tory
Lib Dem
BNP
Independent

People will pick their first choice on personal prefference. After that they will base opinions on a limited ammount of info. They might pick people like the BNP or Indies  as they represent ANY alternative to their least favourite party (normally Labour or Tory)

What i'm trying to say is that the big parties will polarise people and will get a lot of 1's or 5's. The minority parties will pick up lots of 2s, 3's and 4's

The BNP is a bad example because they alienate so many of the public, but a neutral party like the greens stand to gain a lot from it (like the Lib Dems...how convenient)

But the likes of the Lib Dems and Greens deserve more representation anyway. I don't see the problem.

I don't see anyone voting Con first and Lab second.

[River Don]

Interesting that you pick an example with 5 candidates and allocate votes 1-5.  I wouldnt give the BNP or the Tories a vote at all.  In fact, I maynot vote for any candidate other than my favoured one.

And you can still vote for just one candidate under AV. You don't have to nominate alternatives. I would vote Lab 1, Lib 2 and in a three horse race I wouldn't vote 3.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

That is one of my issues with it, you effectively give some people 2 votes and others not.  I mean I would vote Tory and have no interest in the others, like it or lump it that's who I tend to vote for.  But why should Paul down the street who wouldn't mind a couple get a couple of says when I only want one guy?  That's my problem with the system.

I voted no today, not to keep the Tories in a better position, hell I'm a tory voter in Doncaster the current system hardly gives my guy much of a chance, but I don't think AV is better, I actually think it's worse and will cause more problems.  People haven't liked this coalition (mainly because many forget things change from election campaigns to real government), AV would probably give us lots of coalition, when it isn't wanted.........

I expect the no vote to win, largely because AV isn't a great system, not because the system doesn't need changing.

[River Don]

I expect NO to win. Largely through misunderstanding, a desire to punish Nick Clegg and Tory voters and some left wingers looking after their own interests.

It's a great shame because the real issues aren't given enough consideration.

[herouk87]

I expect no to win too...the two big parties will protect their seats and try and keep it as a 2 party system.


Or to put it another way

\"The enemy of my enemy is my friend\"

[BillyStubbsTears]

That is one of my issues with it, you effectively give some people 2 votes and others not.  I mean I would vote Tory and have no interest in the others, like it or lump it that's who I tend to vote for.  But why should Paul down the street who wouldn't mind a couple get a couple of says when I only want one guy?  That's my problem with the system.

I voted no today, not to keep the Tories in a better position, hell I'm a tory voter in Doncaster the current system hardly gives my guy much of a chance, but I don't think AV is better, I actually think it's worse and will cause more problems.  People haven't liked this coalition (mainly because many forget things change from election campaigns to real government), AV would probably give us lots of coalition, when it isn't wanted.........

I expect the no vote to win, largely because AV isn't a great system, not because the system doesn't need changing.

The two vote issue is EXACTLY what I meant earlier when I said that the Tories have been deliberately muddying the water.

The have made hay with this minor issue whilst totally diverting the debate from the fact that in 2010, they received 36.1% of the vote but 47% of the seats. In 2005, Labour got 35.2% of the vote but 54% of the seats. THAT is the morally corrupt issue at the heart of the debate. It's the fact that the current system is utterly non-democratic. It's not about whether a few BNP voters would have a chance to have their vote transferred to the Monster Raving Loony Party. It's about the fact that the vast majority of MPs win their seats on a MINORITY of the votes cast.

Well doen to the Tories actually. Politically, they have played it brilliantly, and once again, the Lib Dems have been inept in their politicking. Miliband has been shady but sensible, saying that he supports AV on principle, but seeing the say the wind was blowing and refusing to be a public figure on the issue - htat way he leaves the Lib Dems to look like the fall guys.

By the way, you mention coalitions. We've had 3 de facto coalitions over the last 9 parliaments (now, 92-97 when Major needed support from the Ulster Unionists to survive, 74-79 when Labour needed support by the Liberals). So the current system is both totally undemocratic AND not guaranteed to give us strong Govt. And, the current system allows the abomination of a Thatcher Govt being allowed to drive a fundamentalist right wing revolution when consistently a large majority of the votes were cast AGAINST her. Totally, totally indefensible.

[Chris]

So far...

Yes - 3,310,655
No - 7,179,466
65% of voting areas declared

Crushing defeat for AV!

[The Red Baron]

I'm not surprised by the result, but I am by the scale of it. Then again, I think the Yes campaign has been very poor indeed. I think the reason for all the bitterness from the Lib Dems is because they thought the Tories would sit on their hands and allow Yes a fairly easy ride. As a result, they tried to win with a low-key campaign.

My local council has gone from having a Lib-Lab coalition to an outright Tory majority, with Labour losing a couple of apparently safe seats to the Greens. Analyse that, if you will!

[Viking Don]

Jeezes.

Can somebody put another ten bob in the meter?

I see the Grange Hill school of philosophy wins out again. Let's not try and fix it, because it's absolutely perfect as it is.

Well done.

[Boomstick]

Phew, thank god for that. I'm so glad the country saw what a farcical system AV would be. A bad night for gonzo and co too especially in scotland!:woot:  

[Viking Don]

I wonder if your children will be thanking you when we get another Thatcherite government a few years down the line.

AV is just so complicated.

I really can't see why anyone who hasn't got a vested interest would have voted NO. Unless they're just a bit stupid of course. I guess that covers about 67% of the population though, so no surprise. And that's being generous.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I wonder if your children will be thanking you when we get another Thatcherite government a few years down the line.

AV is just so complicated.

I really can't see why anyone who hasn't got a vested interest would have voted NO. Unless they're just a bit stupid of course. I guess that covers about 67% of the population though, so no surprise.

The YES campaign was pathetic. The Lib Dems couldn't really front it because they know that people would rather have the rotting corpse of Fred West round for dinner than admit that they agree with anything that Clegg says (or the different thing he'll say next month).

Labour wouldn't front it because (a) they risked a split and (b) why stick your head above the parapet to be shot down if the vote went wrong?

So all I got stuffed through my letterbox was a message from a bunch of showbiz luvvies telling me how awfullyh nice it would be if we had AV and there'd be an end to nastiness, world poverty, kiddy porn and Eric Pickles. (I voted YES based on the last one...)

The Tories played a blinder. Bided their time then smashed into the debate head-on like a tackle from Alan Warboys, Animal and Hugh Dowd combined. The Lib Dems were left blubbering on the side saying, \"Big kids playing too rough\" and the job was done.

Politics eh? f**king hell.

[Viking Don]

Too f**king right Billy.

It was left in the hands of incompetent buffoons. It was writing on the wall before it even started. Pathetic.

Yesterday was the first time I've bothered voting for over 25 years as it might have actually counted this time, but hey, I won't f**king bother again. Like at least 35% of the rest of the population.