Alternative Vote (May 5th)

[Jimbob]

On May 5th 2011, the United Kingdom will go to the polls to vote on the referendum for an alternative vote. If it passes, it will change the way we vote in the UK forever.

 

As you know the UK has a coalition government running the country at the moment, due to no party winning a clear number of votes. To save us all going back to the polls, or Labour taking over again, the Conservatives (who won most votes, but not a majority to take parliament) formed a joint government with the Liberal Democrats and together they run the country. Part of the deal to get the Lib-Dems to join the Conservatives, was for the Lib-Dems referendum (if they won government) to go through.

 

Their referendum is for an Alternative Vote system. Which, in their eyes would prevent a joint government from occuring again.

 

I'll explain this as best as i can now.

 

Present Voting System

 

At the moment, we go to the polls and pick 1 candidate by marking the box next to their name with an X. It gets put into a ballot box, and gets counted. The candidate with the most votes wins.

 

Alternative Voting System

 

The "proposed" system, which will take over the present one if voted "Yes" on will change the way we vote forever.

 

Basically, we would go to the polls as usual. But instead of voting with an X to just 1 candidate, we vote with numbers.

 

With me so far, ok....

 

It works like a ranking system instead, we would place a "1" next to the candidate who you would like to win. But now, we have a choice to make. We can either leave the "1" in the box and post as usual, or we can mark numbers down next to other candidates aka "2", "3" etc. In the case that we can't decide on just 1 candidate, we could vote for anything upto 4 candidates or more on the same ballot sheet(s).

 

When it comes to counting votes, they are all counted up to get an overall number. Then, they are counted by numbers. Aka, the candidate with the number 1 would go into 1 pile, the candidate with the number 2 would go into another pile. If the candidate who has the number 1 written next to their name gets more than 50% of the vote, they win that vote.

 

Still with me, right gets more interesting now.

 

If after all the votes are counted, and the candidate with the number 1 doesn't have 50% of the votes, then the candidate with the lowest votes would be elimintated. Their votes would be distributed amongst the remaining candidates. Aka, if the candidate with number 1 is voted on a sheet of the candidate who was eliminated, then if the candidate who is number 1 is rated on that sheet as number 2, they would win that vote.

 

Other candidates would have the votes, if they were voted number 2 on the eliminated candidates sheet.

 

If no-one has reached 50% yet, the process begins again, this time candidate with number 1 would get votes marked as number "3", same goes for the other candidates. And it will continue until one candidate has 50% of the vote.

 

So in the end, a candidate could win even if they don't have 50% of the votes to themselves, because eliminated candidates votes could go to them, even if they were not the initial choice for that voter. You would in-fact vote for a candidate to win, and not particulary want them to win.

 

Bit of a complicated system, which makes even more work for the vote counters.

 

I've read both the "Yes" and "No" campaigns, which are found on the corresponding word.

 

In my eyes, there is nothing wrong with the current system. It is simple, which is what is needed with the voters. By making things more complicated, it will deter voters in my opinion.

 

Plus, as i mentioned above. It would prevent a joint government. I believe it won't, because a candidate would get clear votes to win. But, the party would need a majority of candidates to win voters in order to win government still. This part doesn't change.

 

What do you peeps think about this?.

[MoogleViper]

You made it more complicated.

 

Basically if nobody has over 50% of the votes then they look at the 2s, then 3s, and so on, until somebody does have over 50%.

 

Personally I think it's better than the current system, but it's a poor substitute. Lib Dems should have held out for STV or PR.

 

However it's better than nothing.

 

My only worry is that if it votes NO, then we may get another referendum in the future on STV or PR, whereas if we vote YES, then we won't get another one in the foreseeable future.

[Nintendohnut]

Having looked at all the voting systems in my jounalism course (urgh) I would certainly say that it's a good idea to vote yes. Te system is much fairer and will actually represent what people want. At the moment you just have to have more votes than all other candidates, but if there are 5 people running in a constituency theoretically 4 of them could each get 19% of the votes, one could get 24% and even though 76% of the people didn't want them they would still be elected. Which is stupid.

 

Also sorry Jimbob but your explanation is really difficult to understand, I got really confused reading it and I actually know how the system will work!

[Daft]

Democracy is a lie.

[Jimbob]

Also sorry Jimbob but your explanation is really difficult to understand, I got really confused reading it and I actually know how the system will work!

 

I took most of that explanation from The Times, but changed quite a few words to make it sound more like something i wrote.

 

Sorry it's a bit complicated.

[Dyson]

Yeah, I'm lost. Can we get a more concise summary? (Sorry Jim!)

[MoogleViper]

Yeah, I'm lost. Can we get a more concise summary? (Sorry Jim!)

 

Rather than voting for a person you rank them (1 being your preference). They count up the 1s, if nobody has over 50% of the ones then they go on to the other numbers until somebody has over 50% of the votes.

[chairdriver]

Democracy is a lie.

 

This.

 

..

[MoogleViper]

In my eyes, there is nothing wrong with the current system. It is simple, which is what is needed with the voters. By making things more complicated, it will deter voters in my opinion.

 

Well if people find this too complicated then they're morons and we'd be better off without them voting. How hard is it to rank candidates? And it's not like you have to, you can go and just vote 1 for the person you want and not vote for any others.

[Pestneb]

Having looked at all the voting systems in my jounalism course (urgh) I would certainly say that it's a good idea to vote yes. Te system is much fairer and will actually represent what people want. At the moment you just have to have more votes than all other candidates, but if there are 5 people running in a constituency theoretically 4 of them could each get 19% of the votes, one could get 24% and even though 76% of the people didn't want them they would still be elected. Which is stupid.

 

 

Using another theoretical consituency

Labour 49%

Conservative 33%

Lib dem 19%

BNP 13%

Raving Looney 8%

 

Currently labour would gain the seat.

 

with the proposed system, with the exception of the raving looney party, any of the other parties could theoretically get in.

Ok, labour have 51% of the population who would prefer another candidate, but conservatives have 67%, lib dems 81% and BNP 87%.

 

I'm not saying the current system is best, but I do believe it is fairest. The current system favours libdems because they seem to be no ones first choice, hence their appalling results in elections. The next beneficiary are labour, who could count on lib dems voting them in second over conservatives. Conservatives are hoping that by further splitting the left vote (vote lib dem, if it fails your vote goes in to labour) they can hopefully squeeze past the 50% on the first round and win there.

All this does is change the tactics, the game, for the politicians. In the long run it doesn't actually improve our chances of gaining the candidate we actually want, nor, as I have heard argued, does it help keep a candidate we particularly dislike out.

[ReZourceman]

I R ARTICHOKE.

[Pestneb]

the future on STV or PR, whereas if we vote YES, then we won't get another one in the foreseeable future.

 

Genuine question here: PR.. how do you see that working? as in, taking a scenario where we have 3 constituencies each of equal size and just two parties, A and B. each fields just one candidate in each constituency

Parliament is tiny and there are only three seats.

The results are as follows.

 

1 - A 51% B 49%

2 - A 1% B 99%

3 - A 53% B 47%

 

How many MP's would each party have? surely constituencies 1 and 3 get the candidate for party A, it seems only fair as they have democratically voted for that candidate. However, nationally party B has 65% of the vote, so surely they would then need to have 2 seats, while at constituency level they have only one? so which constituency is denied to have it's vote fairly counted?

 

PR for choosing the prime minister might work though, so in this instance there would be 2 MP's for party A, and one for party B, but party B would get to choose the prime minister? A bit more like the american system I suppose..

[MoogleViper]

Using another theoretical consituency

Labour 49%

Conservative 33%

Lib dem 19%

BNP 13%

Raving Looney 8%

 

Currently labour would gain the seat.

 

with the proposed system, with the exception of the raving looney party, any of the other parties could theoretically get in.

Ok, labour have 51% of the population who would prefer another candidate, but conservatives have 67%, lib dems 81% and BNP 87%.

 

I'm not saying the current system is best, but I do believe it is fairest. The current system favours libdems because they seem to be no ones first choice, hence their appalling results in elections. The next beneficiary are labour, who could count on lib dems voting them in second over conservatives. Conservatives are hoping that by further splitting the left vote (vote lib dem, if it fails your vote goes in to labour) they can hopefully squeeze past the 50% on the first round and win there.

All this does is change the tactics, the game, for the politicians. In the long run it doesn't actually improve our chances of gaining the candidate we actually want, nor, as I have heard argued, does it help keep a candidate we particularly dislike out.

 

Genuine question here: PR.. how do you see that working? as in, taking a scenario where we have 3 constituencies each of equal size and just two parties, A and B. each fields just one candidate in each constituency

Parliament is tiny and there are only three seats.

The results are as follows.

 

1 - A 51% B 49%

2 - A 1% B 99%

3 - A 53% B 47%

 

How many MP's would each party have? surely constituencies 1 and 3 get the candidate for party A, it seems only fair as they have democratically voted for that candidate. However, nationally party B has 65% of the vote, so surely they would then need to have 2 seats, while at constituency level they have only one? so which constituency is denied to have it's vote fairly counted?

 

PR for choosing the prime minister might work though, so in this instance there would be 2 MP's for party A, and one for party B, but party B would get to choose the prime minister? A bit more like the american system I suppose..

 

Those are both highly unlikely cases. Using ridiculous examples to say that a voting system isn't fair is stupid. All you've shown is that it isn't perfect, but nobody said it was, people are just saying it's better.

[gaggle64]

Democracy is a lie.

 

Tell that to someone who doesn't have it.

[flameboy]

I don't know what I even care about to be honest. Voted Lib Dems all my life and now I see them playing to the tories tune so pfffff. I think though its rather telling that theres only something like 3 countries that use the Alternative Vote. Also I do wonder it means I have to start prioritizing after you've chosen you're number 1 and that either something people wouldn't understand, don't want to do or couldn't do. Your essentially prioritizing parties that you don't believe in which is a strange place to be in.

[MoogleViper]

Also I do wonder it means I have to start prioritizing after you've chosen you're number 1 and that either something people wouldn't understand, don't want to do or couldn't do. Your essentially prioritizing parties that you don't believe in which is a strange place to be in.

 

No because you don't have to do it. You can still vote as normal, the only difference is now you put a 1 instead of a X.

[Raining_again]

We do it this way for local votes already.

[Ashley]

Does anyone know if you can vote by proxy or whatever? I shall be in London but still on the electoral role for my old house.

[MoogleViper]

Does anyone know if you can vote by proxy or whatever? I shall be in London but still on the electoral role for my old house.

 

You might be able to get a postal vote (don't know though, never done one).

 

http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/postal_vote_application/postal_vote_application.aspx

[Pestneb]

Those are both highly unlikely cases. Using ridiculous examples to say that a voting system isn't fair is stupid. All you've shown is that it isn't perfect, but nobody said it was, people are just saying it's better.

 

Really? they're ridiculous and highly unlikely? wow, I never imagined that numbers I plucked out of the air and exagerated for the sake of simplicity wouldn't form an accurate model of reality. wow. Thanks for your insightful and edifying response, it was really worth your time.

 

Would it be possible for you to actually address my second post now, rather than to just point out that the scenario itself is unlikely to play out?

[Iun]

Verhaltniswahlrecht...

[MoogleViper]

Really? they're ridiculous and highly unlikely? wow, I never imagined that numbers I plucked out of the air and exagerated for the sake of simplicity wouldn't form an accurate model of reality. wow. Thanks for your insightful and edifying response, it was really worth your time.

 

Would it be possible for you to actually address my second post now, rather than to just point out that the scenario itself is unlikely to play out?

 

Constituency 1 would get candidate B. Well done, you've just proved that a scenario exists where PR wouldn't be fair. Now lets go back to the real world where Tories, get 36% of the votes, yet get 47% of the seats, Lib Dems get 23% of votes but only 9% of seats. I don't need to fabricate ridiculously unlikely examples to show that first past the post system we currently use is unfair.

[Pestneb]

Constituency 1 would get candidate B. Well done, you've just proved that a scenario exists where PR wouldn't be fair. Now lets go back to the real world where Tories, get 36% of the votes, yet get 47% of the seats, Lib Dems get 23% of votes but only 9% of seats. I don't need to fabricate ridiculously unlikely examples to show that first past the post system we currently use is unfair.

 

1st

calm down, I was asking a question on how the system works, not trying to prove a point, as I have now had to state three times GENUINE QUESTION. it is simply a conflict with no real fair solution so I was wondering how PR would cope with it. Thank you for your answer, I thought that would be the most likely resolution but it is nice to have had my suspicions confirmed.

 

2nd

I agree that fpp is unfair on a national level, but at the local level (Which is the level at which we are directly voting) it is fair. The translation of local results and the ramifications of those at national level is the flaw (and I agree a sufficiently troubling one) in the current fpp system, but the alternative proposals I have seen so far seem to me to be either superficial or problem shifting, either damaging democratic powers at a local level or making a cosmetic change to shift attention from more fundamental flaws in our democratic process.

Just my opinion.

 

I will be voting against, but only because I feel this change is a superficial one. A mere gesture of no consequence (a sentiment the conservatives agreement to this vote seems to confirm). If a change is made to the system I would only vote yes if I were convinced of its clear benefits/superiority, and as yet I haven't seen any such argument.

[MoogleViper]

1st

calm down,

 

Calm down? CALM DOWN!?! DON'T TELL ME TO CALM DOWN!!!

 

Seriously though sorry. I wasn't actually angry or anything it just came across that way.

[Hamishmash]

Can't we just vote that all the candidates have a fun time?