No to AV

[Jedi Shrimper]

Over the weekend I recieved not one, but two No to AV leaflets....​

What a load of scare-mongering crap!​

If I’m honest I was already fairly certain I was going to vote YES in the referendum, but I wanted to read the No to AV leaflets to get some serious debate, what I got was scaremongering at best and downright misleading information at worst.​

Some of the points that ****ed me off included...
* The BNP will have more power - Of course that’s why they’re campaigning for NO. AV provides another layer of protection against extremeist parties.
* That AV will lerad to more hung parliments - How? It simply makes the election of each individual MP fairer.
* We have a tried and tested system - why change it? - democracy has always evolved, from having none, to votes for working & middle class people, to votes for women.​

BUT what annoyed me most was this map;-​

　​

Whilst factually correct it’s very misleading, the implication being that all the other countries use first past the post as we do, when in reality about 83 countries use full Proportional Representation, at least 15 have no elections whatsoever and who knows how many where elections are pseudo at best.

 

[Napster]

AV is wrong for the simple reason that the MP elected won't be everyone's first choice. It's a compromise vote; the least worst rather than the best. Only the LibDems are really in favour of AV because that's their best chance of consolidating their flimsy foothold in contemporary politics.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Why does there have to be 'a layer of protection against extremist parties'? If people want to vote for the BNP, their vote should be worth just as much as any pantywaist who votes for the Greens. The idea that a voting system is 'good' because it makes life difficult for a legitimate political party is utterly contemptible.

 

[Napster]

I think the Labour party are extremist.

Actually, to be fair, last year we had the Fascist Party standing - nice bloke, lived with his Mum, who he cared for. Sadly, he was a West Ham fan, so it was a no-brainer

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

AV is wrong for the simple reason that the MP elected won't be everyone's first choice.

How is that any different from now?

Why does there have to be 'a layer of protection against extremist parties'? If people want to vote for the BNP, their vote should be worth just as much as any pantywaist who votes for the Greens. The idea that a voting system is 'good' because it makes life difficult for a legitimate political party is utterly contemptible.

Ok valid point, what bugged me was the notion that the No campaign is trying to say that AV will give smaller parties such as the BNP or the Greens more power, it won't.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ok valid point, what bugged me was the notion that the No campaign is trying to say that AV will give smaller parties such as the BNP or the Greens more power, it won't.

I know you're a fair minded chap DS, my exasperation is aimed at both campaigns who seem to think that marginalising the vote of a good chunk of people is a sound vote-winning strategy.

 

[Napster]

How is that any different from now?

Well, in the FPP it's obvious who wins, and even if it isn't a majority, it's still the favoured candidate; in cricket, who scores the most runs wins. In AV, sometimes the candidate who was the favoured candidate loses because someone else who isn't quite as good but is a least worst option sneaks in, much like erm the Battle of the Millibands!!!

The system isn't broken, it doesn't need changing.

In any case, the arguments are superfluous - the turnout will be less than 30%.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

I know you're a fair minded chap DS, my exasperation is aimed at both campaigns who seem to think that marginalising the vote of a good chunk of people is a sound vote-winning strategy.

Thanks Rusty. As I said at the outset, I thought I knew which way I would vote but wanted both sides of the argument so i could make an informed decision. But all that the No leaflets have suceeded in doing is make me feel my intelligence has been insulted and pushed me closer to voting Yes. That said I've not had any literature from the Y campaign yet, if that's full of just as much crap I could well not vote.

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

Well, in the FPP it's obvious who wins, and even if it isn't a majority, it's still the favoured candidate; in cricket, who scores the most runs wins. In AV, sometimes the candidate who was the favoured candidate loses because someone else who isn't quite as good but is a least worst option sneaks in, much like erm the Battle of the Millibands!!!

The system isn't broken, it doesn't need changing.

In any case, the arguments are superfluous - the turnout will be less than 30%.

But AV will only have any effect in marginal seats. The irony being I live in Rayleigh where AV would make no difference, perhaps that's why I'm in favour as I want to feel my vote does count in some way.

 

[MK Shrimper]

You can argue until the cows come home but I'd put my mortgage on the fact that it ain't going to happen. The British public care more about X-Factor than who runs the country. I'm poll clerking again Thursday week and I'm going to make sure that I've got plenty of good books to read to keep my entertained.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Well, in the FPP it's obvious who wins, and even if it isn't a majority, it's still the favoured candidate; in cricket, who scores the most runs wins. In AV, sometimes the candidate who was the favoured candidate loses because someone else who isn't quite as good but is a least worst option sneaks in, much like erm the Battle of the Millibands!!!

The system isn't broken, it doesn't need changing.

In any case, the arguments are superfluous - the turnout will be less than 30%.

The cricket argument worked very well until the advent of Duckworth, Lewis, now I'm not so sure if it's the case.

I'd be fairly sure as to which candidate I'd want to vote for in a General Election, however what happens if I don't opt for putting any of the alternatives in order, is my ballot paper deemed spoilt? I think there should be a box for none of the above if you've voted for your first preference.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

AV is wrong for the simple reason that the MP elected won't be everyone's first choice. It's a compromise vote; the least worst rather than the best. Only the LibDems are really in favour of AV because that's their best chance of consolidating their flimsy foothold in contemporary politics.

That's democracy for you. Democracy has always been about compromise.

Why does there have to be 'a layer of protection against extremist parties'? If people want to vote for the BNP, their vote should be worth just as much as any pantywaist who votes for the Greens. The idea that a voting system is 'good' because it makes life difficult for a legitimate political party is utterly contemptible.

Surely the Greens are an extremist party?

 

[Uncle Leo]

The cricket argument worked very well until the advent of Duckworth, Lewis, now I'm not so sure if it's the case.

I'd be fairly sure as to which candidate I'd want to vote for in a General Election, however what happens if I don't opt for putting any of the alternatives in order, is my ballot paper deemed spoilt? I think there should be a box for none of the above if you've voted for your first preference.

I believe you're free to tick just one box. So if AV does get the go-ahead, people against it can still continue to use FPTP for their own votes.

 

[WightShrimper]

The cricket argument worked very well until the advent of Duckworth, Lewis, now I'm not so sure if it's the case.

I'd be fairly sure as to which candidate I'd want to vote for in a General Election, however what happens if I don't opt for putting any of the alternatives in order, is my ballot paper deemed spoilt? I think there should be a box for none of the above if you've voted for your first preference.

As I understand it, you don't have to grade the candidates and one cross is sufficient. However, I am not sure where that then puts the system!

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I will always vote for the Max Power party whenever they're on the ballot.

 

[Napster]

I believe you're free to tick just one box. So if AV does get the go-ahead, people against it can still continue to use FPTP for their own votes.

But it isn't quite the same, is it? I believe in one person, one vote, not one person, lots of votes just in case the one I want to win doesn't.

 

[Pubey]

But it isn't quite the same, is it? I believe in one person, one vote, not one person, lots of votes just in case the one I want to win doesn't.

But it's not about whether the one you want wins or not, it's about avoiding the situation where someone wins where the majority of the constituency are completely opposed to that person.

It seems a pretty sensible system to me, I'll be voting YES

 

[Neil_F]

That said I've not had any literature from the Y campaign yet, if that's full of just as much crap I could well not vote.

I get loads of Yes campaign "literature" living in London. There argument is always summarised in three points:

- MPs will work harder under AV
- no safe seats under AV
- the expenses scandal wouldn't have happened under AV

All total rubbish. More than 200 current MPs were elected with more than 50% of the vote. As a few have said here, AV will only really change things in the marginals and it will act to strengthen the Lib Dems.

Personally I've found the whole thing pretty depressing from both sides. No one seems interested in having a serious discussion about the constitution and how we elect a government.

I'm against AV for the reason Napster gave: the least objectionable, bland candidate wins. Some may see that as a good thing but it means that it becomes so much harder to change anything. What about the candidate with the radical ideas (not the same thing as extremist), or the candidate pushing a single issue (for example the doctor who won his seat two elections ago on the single issue of preventing a hospital closure)? AV is a merciless race toward the bland consensus of "the centre" for the main parties.

One of the interesting things that will happen is the fracturing of parties. If AV passes then new parties will appear (they have in every country that has adopted AV, especially New Zealand fairly recently). Smaller parties will see their share of the vote increase in the first round under AV, including the BNP, but they still won't win (m)any seats - that's hardly any fairer.

 

[Neil_F]

But it's not about whether the one you want wins or not, it's about avoiding the situation where someone wins where the majority of the constituency are completely opposed to that person.

It seems a pretty sensible system to me, I'll be voting YES

AV doesn't assure this. To start with, it won't be the majority of the constituency as not everyone will vote. Secondly, it won't be a majority of the votes as more than one vote may be cast by each person.

Finally, it is perfectly possible to win a vote under AV with less than 50%. This happens when a significant number of people don't put a second preference. The BBC recently ran a poll in Brentford under AV where the winning candidate got 49% of the vote:

 

[GrumpyBlue]

AV is wrong for the simple reason that the MP elected won't be everyone's first choice. It's a compromise vote; the least worst rather than the best. Only the LibDems are really in favour of AV because that's their best chance of consolidating their flimsy foothold in contemporary politics.

Quite Right