may 5

[dreadnoughtheating]

Even though the country ended up with ConDem alliance, I would vote against it. Only because it may just allow 'nutter' candidates to gain more notoriety than they deserve.

But, if the system does change, voters can still vote for just ONE candidate, they do not have to give any other votes if they do not wish, so why do the protagonists not state this plainly?

answers on a postcard please,

DH

 

[JohnD]

well I got my first election leaflet today, the Conversative candidate is very anti-AV, so that settles it.

AV gets my vote.

 

[howy1]

AV seems rediculous to me because if you are a true tory , lib or labour or whatever supporter why would you want to give another vote/ chance to the opposition as in JohnD hating tories for instance .
Perhaps i am missing the trick and someone could enlighten me .
Till then No to AV

 

[JohnD]

Lets suppose there are four candidates

Excellent party
Reasonable party
Quite good party
Absolutely terrible party

and suppose (as at present) the majority of people spread their votes amoung the three fairly good ones, and are strongly opposed to the 4th. But all the nutters vote for the 4th.

Although most of the voters don't want them, they get in under todays FPTP process.

 

[adlplumbing]

all parties are lie
if i was change voting system i would like to do this
any can stand if no one gets just over 50%
then top 2 canidates stand next week
and i would like directed elected prime minster

 

[Mickymoody]

I understand it more now, and the argument is, is that as the vote is imminent, then it will help keep the current fools in power...

However..after watching QT, You vote for who you want, then have a 2nd, 3rd, 4th vote, if they don't win, then 2nd choice wins if 1st choice doesn't win. Added up. So, if you want Labour in, 1st tick, but don't wan't Tories in, you are going to vote 'mad guy at the end wearing fancy dress', as second choice. And as choice is, the loon might win; not so.

As you DON'T have to make a second choice.

I think that is what worries people, as people say their second choice would be a loony party, that they might get in, in a hung parliment, to oppose their biggest rival.

It's Australia that uses the AV system, and their PM is Welsh?

I think it's better than the current swing system, as Labour had no chance of winning from the outset, without a massive landslide, the public have never seen, so AV is good. Just vote for one, as you have always done. And not get a system of a government that nobody voted in. These people tell us what we do in our daily lives, but they haven't been voted in by us, and seemingly don't know what they are doing. AV means we can vote for people to represent us.

 

[imamartian]

why is no one talking about PR? doesn't that work?

 

[Mickymoody]

why is no one talking about PR? doesn't that work?

I think people have become fed up with technobabble PR, rolled out time and time again, so people are just blase about it, it talk talk talk...what did you say? Ignore.

 

[howy1]

Not having to make a second choice as said why would you bother with AV if that was the line you were following .

 

[RedHerring2]

Has anyone had their voting slip yet?
Do I put a number "1" in the "Yes" space and a number "2" in the "No" space?
Or do I just put a cross in the "Yes" or "No", depending on which way I want to vote, assuming it's a straight contest between the two?

 

[JohnD]

why is no one talking about PR? doesn't that work?

The two big parties don't want it because it takes away their opportunity to get a massive parliamentary majority even when they don't get a majority of votes cast.

which incidentally is why I do want it.

 

[ellal]

why is no one talking about PR? doesn't that work?

Because True PR - 'one person, one vote' - isn't fashionable amongst the ruling elite, despite it being the fairest system!

 

[D_Hailsham]

None of the explanations of the AV system I have seen explain it properly. So here's my attempt.

Round 1
All votes sorted according to First choice. If a candidate scores more than 50% of the total votes, they are declared the winner. If not, we proceed to:

Round 2
The candidate with the least votes in round one is eliminated and his votes are distributed among the remaining candidates according to their second preference. If a candidate scores more than 50% of the total votes, they are declared the winner. If not, we proceed to:

Round 3
The candidate with the least votes in round two is eliminated and his votes redistributed as follows (and this is where it gets confusing): If the eliminated candidate was the first choice, then the second choice is used. If he was the second choice, then the third choice is used.

And so on.

This means the winning candidate could be a mixture of first, second, third, fourth, fifth etc choices.

 

[ellal]

And as a recent 5live dummy election showed, the elected candidate won't necessarily need to get 50% of the vote!

'tis all b*llocks meant to divert attention from the real issue of lack of representation

 

[JohnD]

the elected candidate won't necessarily need to get 50% of the vote!

they don't need to get 50% of the vote now. For example if there are ten candidates now, they can score 11%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 9% and the 11% man gets in, even if he was the most unpopular one who was despised by 89% of the voters who didn't want him in at any price.