Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nilocy]

So, in 6 days I'm going to be going to the ballot box to place my vote for changing the UK election system. Personally I believe AV* is a small step in the right direction for making a fairer system.

What do you guys think? I'd like to hear views from people from countries that have AV system in place and also countries that have voted it out.

Also, a subtopic, what do you lot think about the way that the two sides have tried to make their plea to the public? When I see the fear-o-mercials (if you can call them that) for the No side very demeaning. It appears that all of them just say "ITS TOO HARD QQ." If its hard to rank your candidates representing you in an order of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th... then I doubt you should be voting.

*Alternative Votes

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm not from the UK and we don't have that in my country.

But I think we should have. It's not perfect by any means, but it's better than the current system. And it would help to cull nepotism and dead-weight political careerists.

I think it's telling how a lot of politicians are panicking about this kind of suggestions. Really, it's outrageous how decadent politics have become. Did you hear about how the Euro MP's voted en masse against restricting first class flights and lunch accounts? Outrageous.

[Leafsnail]

I dunno.  It's not a great system, but it's probably better than what we have at the moment.  And the "No to AV" ads seem to all be either horrible attack ads or patronising comments on how complicated it supposedly is (it's really not that difficult), which would incline me to side with "yes".

[Strange guy]

Some of the arguments I've heard on the "No" side basically come down to that the person who wins under AV could be different to the person who would win under the current system, which is kind of the point (the wording was more that the person who wins might be the person in 2nd or 3rd place, but the concept of 2nd and 3rd place being based on 1st choices isn't how AV works).

Though the pro-AV campaign hasn't been particularly impressive either. Still it is the fairer system, so I'll probably vote for it.

[PenguinOverlord]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Has this been posted yet? Nice and informative about the Alternative Vote, but there's also the situation where everyone agrees, say, a bear is the second best candidate, but he gets eliminated in the first round so he can't win and his votes go to the voters second choice.

[IronyOwl]

That is a nice video.

I can see why it's not perfect, but I have no idea how it would be worse than the standard setup. Well, except trying to figure out whether that weird loop-de-loop thing is a 2, 3 or 5.

[Max White]

Well we have that here in Australia, and while we still have two major parties duking it out, other parties, and even the independents have power. From what I can see, trying to find the forest from the trees as I am, it works very well. Few people are so daft they can not count to ten, and the party based system means voting above the line is an easy process.

So yea, get it in ya.

[SalmonGod]

If I'm understanding this right, it's something the u.s. desperately needs.  It might convince people not to vote for somebody they don't really want to, just because they're afraid of someone they dislike even more -- no more "You're throwing your vote away!!!!"

[Sowelu]

I always liked the system where you can vote for as many candidates as you want, and highest votes wins.  It doesn't let you rank, but it gets the guy that the most people tolerate.

It has its own vulnerabilities--it elevates centrists and media exposure into godly proportions, for example--but it doesn't divide parties for trying something new.

[knaveofstaves]

Well, I'm an American, and we only have this sort of thing for local elections in very left-wing areas. As it happens I'm from one of those places (the San Francisco area), and here's a flash-heavy demonstration. I can attest that instant runoff voting saves money and reduces the drama. The savings come from removing party primary balloting, and cutting down on recounts, neither of which are a problem in the UK that I'm aware of. Seems like you have plenty of drama though.

[Lagslayer]

I'd considered a system like that. Give each candidate a rank then add up all the cumulative ranks and the lowest score wins. Though, I wouldn't put it past a lot of people to get confused by it.

[lemon10]

I'd considered a system like that. Give each candidate a rank then add up all the cumulative ranks and the lowest score wins. Though, I wouldn't put it past a lot of people to get confused by it.

So joe the plumber from conneticut who gets a single vote would beat obama who gets 100000 votes? That seems a bit silly.
And if you don't allow write in votes that's a problem in and of itself.
Although would be cool in that you would have a small say in who wins, but a much larger say in who loses.

[ed boy]

Some of the arguments I've heard on the "No" side basically come down to that the person who wins under AV could be different to the person who would win under the current system, which is kind of the point (the wording was more that the person who wins might be the person in 2nd or 3rd place, but the concept of 2nd and 3rd place being based on 1st choices isn't how AV works).

You're right in that that argument is not a good one, but there are other arguments that have been bandied around:

-More hung parliaments. Very few people are fans of the current conservative/lib dem coalition, yet with AV we'd see more governments like it.
-Smaller parties fare better, but all smaller parties fare better, including extreme ones like the BNP.
--This is compounded by the fact that, under FPTP, lots of people whose first choice is a smaller party don't vote for them because they don't have a chance, and instead vote for their favourite of the candidates who have a chance. Under AV, this would change.
-There are very few other countries (3?) that use AV, presumeably for a reason. Furthermore, I have heard (though I in now way present this as an absolute fact about all australians) that a large number of australians, who use AV, do not like it.
-Some people's vote will count for more than others. There will be some people who only have their first choice count, and others who have their first, second, third, etc considered.
-As simple as our current system (say who you would most like) results in a lot of people not understanding it (there are tales of people who think you have to 'vote them off'). The new system has a lot more ways that peole can get it wrong (e.g. do you give your favourite candidate the biggest number or the lowest one).

[Earthquake Damage]

So joe the plumber from conneticut who gets a single vote would beat obama who gets 100000 votes? That seems a bit silly.
And if you don't allow write in votes that's a problem in and of itself.
Although would be cool in that you would have a small say in who wins, but a much larger say in who loses.

I think he means ranks as in your #1 pick versus your #2 pick.  Your #1 gets a single point from you.  So the candidate with the lowest total score is the collective #1.

I'm pretty sure he does not mean "trollolol the least popular candidate wins!"

[Criptfeind]

So joe the plumber from conneticut who gets a single vote would beat obama who gets 100000 votes? That seems a bit silly.
And if you don't allow write in votes that's a problem in and of itself.
Although would be cool in that you would have a small say in who wins, but a much larger say in who loses.

I think he means ranks as in your #1 pick versus your #2 pick.  Your #1 gets a single point from you.  So the candidate with the lowest total score is the collective #1.

I'm pretty sure he does not mean "trollolol the least popular candidate wins!"

Is point was, that way, the least popular candidate would win, because simply no one else thought of them enough to vote for them, thus giving them 'zero' points from most voters. Alternatively, you would not allow write in votes, but...

And if you don't allow write in votes that's a problem in and of itself.