Alternative Vote, please vote!

[SixT-4]

Apparently we've all lost by a landslide anyway. At least I have NI elections to vote for or else it'd be a wasted journey.

[Supergrunch]

It applies with the bullshit image Supergrunch posted, it implies that the majority want beer but in different factions, this is not how political parties operate, unless they have the same policies under a different name.

The picture is actually supposed to reflect political reality, although it's slightly idealised. Coffee represents the right wing, where there are overall fewer supporters, but less of a split vote (UKIP's the only other real right-wing contender apart from Conservative). And beer is the left wing, where there are more supporters but also more parties (e.g. Labour, Lib dems, Green, Socialist Worker's Party, etc.). Most of these voters would rather a left-wing party be in power, but the vote is so split that Conservatives end up winning under FPTP. But this isn't the case under AV, even without people resorting to tactical voting. Of course in reality Labour hold a lot more votes than any other left-wing party, but a system like AV could lead to fairer swings, with other parties like the Lib Dems potentially gaining power.

[EEVILMURRAY]

The picture is actually supposed to reflect political reality, although it's slightly idealised. Coffee represents the right wing, where there are overall fewer supporters, but less of a split vote (UKIP's the only other real right-wing contender apart from Conservative). And beer is the left wing, where there are more supporters but also more parties (e.g. Labour, Lib dems, Green, Socialist Worker's Party, etc.). Most of these voters would rather a left-wing party be in power, but the vote is so split that Conservatives end up winning under FPTP. But this isn't the case under AV, even without people resorting to tactical voting. Of course in reality Labour hold a lot more votes than any other left-wing party, but a system like AV could lead to fairer swings, with other parties like the Lib Dems potentially gaining power.

Perhaps, I'm always still lost on the concept of left-right wing [i was told at college around 8 years ago and forgot] but that image over generalises to the max.

 

Another example would be you and I:

You on many forums or me on one. You do the same on every forum and the same for myself. Based on First Past The Post I win. Let's say these are all in Nottingham, you would still get the more votes on a range of forums. In theory you would win. However I'm so popular on this one forum, where they enjoy swear words and random use of the word 'Shabba' (Albeit I've not used it in awhile) That I win overall. But these parties don't do the same thing as you would on each forum. As such they will not do [Let's face it, they won't.] any/every promise they made in each constituency, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the people of each constituency votes for the policies they want for their neighbourhood, I'm going to go far as to say that many residents are selfish and want only what is best for them and not the country (even with regards to public services). In which point alternative voting will more than likely fail. They should call it "The lesser of X evils" vote, because that is what it is, if their party X of choice won't win they would prefer party Y to Z as it's the lesser of two evils. Granted I've limited to three parties, but that's it's all it's ever been...

 

(This makes me think of an issue actually. As we know Conservatives/Liberal Democrats "won" this election, with regards to the Labour et al. areas, how much power/ability/funding were they given to fulfill their aims laid out in their manifesto [assuming they give a shit]. Either way, even if alternative voting wins there will obviously be areas where another party "wins", how much support will they get?)

 

This is where my amazing compromise comes in which I mentioned earlier.

[Rummy]

Unless I'm mistaken, I think you seem to be under the impression that any two different political parties must 100% definitely have completely opposite and opposing views, such that an individual could not identify with more than one of them. Therein lies the flaw to your entire reasoning as I see it.

 

Go back to the Beer/Coffee example. Make one lager, one stout, one wheat, and one a general beer party or something, and still keep coffee. Lots of people like beer, and those that tend to like one kind of beer like another kind of beer, and hate coffee. Sure, you the first preference stout voter may not win, but you'd prefer that if you didn't get stout you got the general beer party, you express them as a second preference, thus your vote still counting. When it's 45% to coffee and 40% to general beer, this could make a difference to what you would like. Take it off an individual level, and consider there may be lots of people like this in an area. Coffee continues to win because the majority of people like beer, they just all like different ones so it's split, in reality the majority of people don't really like/want coffee(though, there may be a few who might take it as second choice).

 

I'm sure you use second preference for lots of things in life, why not for voting in your government? You're hungry and go to the shop, they don't have what you want, do you turn around and go home still hungry or eat something else?

[The Mad Monkey]

I don't like beer or coffee, where are the parties for cider and tea?

[McPhee]

It amazes me how many people don't get the concept. In a nutshell, if you don't want the Tories to win a marginal seat ever again then vote 'Yes' If you want to vote Green, Lib Dem, UKIP etc. without fear of "wasting" your vote then vote 'Yes'. If you want to vote for who you believe in rather than feeling obliged to pick between the two most likely to win, then vote 'Yes'. If you'd like to see more parties and independent MPs, then again vote 'Yes'.

 

The 'No' Campaign has been the most flaccid thing I have ever seen. It's all based on fear-mongering, personal attacks and praying off peoples stupidity/naivety/laziness. In truth the Tories are genuinely worried that it'll make it impossible for them to ever get a majority government again. It's really quite sad that they didn't feel they could fight a campaign off the back of that. The Labour MPs backing the 'No' campaign really wind me up. Again, it's purely about self-preservation. AV will make it easier to vote for minority parties. You can back it up with a #2 vote for your preference between the Labour and Tory candidate with no fear of a wasted vote. To combat this reality they're using scare tactics about coalition government becoming the norm, which is a step short of an admission that they believe a lot of people only vote Labour/Tory because FPTP encourages them to.

 

Whatever happens, I look forward to seeing the result tomorrow.

[Ramar]

In FPTP if you vote for who you wanted, how is your vote wasted?

 

For example say I vote Green Party, I have placed my vote. Green Party do not win in my constituency, but my vote was registered and counted. Not wasted.

 

The problem isn't the system, it's the voters. Too many people think that if they vote for one of the smaller parties their votes are 'wasted' so vote Tories or Labour. Instead they need to be individuals and vote for who they really want in.

[MoogleViper]

The problem isn't the system, it's the voters. Too many people think that if they vote for one of the smaller parties their votes are 'wasted' so vote Tories or Labour. Instead they need to be individuals and vote for who they really want in.

 

But this system will allow voters to vote for their preferred party without fear of it being wasted.

[Supergrunch]

In FPTP if you vote for who you wanted, how is your vote wasted?

 

For example say I vote Green Party, I have placed my vote. Green Party do not win in my constituency, but my vote was registered and counted. Not wasted.

 

The problem isn't the system, it's the voters. Too many people think that if they vote for one of the smaller parties their votes are 'wasted' so vote Tories or Labour. Instead they need to be individuals and vote for who they really want in.

One example of a wasted vote is a "safe" constituency. For instance, my constituency has been safe Lib Dem for ages. Now, while the whole coalition/funding cuts mess could change this (in fact, it was a bit different in the last election), let's assume it won't, and there are plenty of other constituencies that will remain safe. In this case, if I vote for any party other than Lib Dem (with the possible exception of Labour), my vote will do nothing. So it's a wasted vote, and even if I like, say, the Green candidate, I'm better off voting Lib Dem to prevent the next major contender (Labour) from winning the seat, assuming I prefer Lib Dem. This isn't just because people are tactically rather than honestly voting - it's because there's such a massive core of genuine Lib Dem support. Now under AV, I'd be able to express Green as my first preference, to both show my support and give help in the (unlikely) chance that's it's useful, and then put down Lib Dem as my second preference for if Green gets eliminated. This is arguably even better in more marginal constituencies - the optimum outcome of tactical voting results, without people have to vote tactically at all.

[The Mad Monkey]

But this system will allow voters to vote for their preferred party without fear of it being wasted.

 

How is it not wasted when their first choice is knocked out in the voting counts and their second or third choice gets the vote instead. True there is no wasted vote, as somebody gets it, just not the party you really wanted to. If AV happens I can see a lot of people not giving a second or third choice for that reason.

[Ramar]

But this system will allow voters to vote for their preferred party without fear of it being wasted.

 

Thats a bit like having your cake and eating it, isn't it?

 

Basically AV says to me, that this system is for people who don't have the balls to vote a smaller party, but they would if they could vote for them and then put Labour in instead of the Tories.

 

And so people don't get the wrong impression I voted Lib Dem last general election.

[McPhee]

In FPTP if you vote for who you wanted, how is your vote wasted?

 

For example say I vote Green Party, I have placed my vote. Green Party do not win in my constituency, but my vote was registered and counted. Not wasted.

 

The problem isn't the system, it's the voters. Too many people think that if they vote for one of the smaller parties their votes are 'wasted' so vote Tories or Labour. Instead they need to be individuals and vote for who they really want in.

 

It's not wasted, but there's a perception that it's wasted. If you live in a Labour/Tory marginal, support the Greens but really don't like the Tory MP there's a high chance of you voting Labour instead. You shouldn't, but it allegedly happens quite a lot. Under AV you could put the Greens as your first choice even if you think they've not got a cat in hell's chance of winning, and Labour as your second choice. Assuming FPTP is an accurate representation of people's views you would then find that the Greens come last and your vote gets added to the Labour pile. You both voted for the Greens and opposed the Tories. If FPTP is inaccurate (as the 'No' campaign seem to think, it's where the hung parliament argument comes from) then there's a chance that the seat would no longer be a Labour/Tory marginal. Maybe a lot of people put the Greens, Lib Dems, independent candidates or others down as their first choice? It could be that in that particular constituency the BNP received the least votes followed by Labour, because everyone had them as 2nd choice. Who knows who would win the seat then? The Greens might actually take it!

 

Under FPTP voting for candidates that have little to no chance of winning is seen as wasting a vote, your vote is very unlikely to carry any weight when it comes to the final result. This view is the thing that makes it so difficult for small party and independent MPs to win seats. AV would hopefully remove that psychological barrier.

[MoogleViper]

How is it not wasted when their first choice is knocked out in the voting counts and their second or third choice gets the vote instead. True there is no wasted vote, as somebody gets it, just not the party you really wanted to. If AV happens I can see a lot of people not giving a second or third choice for that reason.

 

Because I like Green party, but don't vote for them as it will be "wasted" (sorry Ramar, but I appear to have mislaid my testicles). So instead I vote Lib Dem. Now (ignoring this whole coalition) I like Lib Dem and agree with most of their policies, but I prefer Green. So it's a choice of voting for a party I want but them having no chance of getting in, or having to vote for a part I like because they have a greater chance of getting in.

 

But AV gives me the option of voting for Green, but also putting LD as my second choice. So I can vote for green and let them get in, but if not I can still vote for LD and get them in, rather than voting for one party and allowing a party I hate (conservatives) to get in.

 

Thats a bit like having your cake and eating it, isn't it?

 

Basically AV says to me, that this system is for people who don't have the balls to vote a smaller party, but they would if they could vote for them and then put Labour in instead of the Tories.

 

What's wrong with having my cake and eating it? Why the hell would I have a cake if I wasn't going to eat it? What's the point of cake otherwise? (It really is a stupid saying.)

 

And what's wrong with that voting system? Would you not prefer to be able to choose who you want without the fear of spreading votes and allowing a party you dislike to gain power?

[The Mad Monkey]

Because I like Green party, but don't vote for them as it will be "wasted" (sorry Ramar, but I appear to have mislaid my testicles). So instead I vote Lib Dem. Now (ignoring this whole coalition) I like Lib Dem and agree with most of their policies, but I prefer Green. So it's a choice of voting for a party I want but them having no chance of getting in, or having to vote for a part I like because they have a greater chance of getting in.

 

But AV gives me the option of voting for Green, but also putting LD as my second choice. So I can vote for green and let them get in, but if not I can still vote for LD and get them in, rather than voting for one party and allowing a party I hate (conservatives) to get in.

 

You aren't convincing me of any differences in outcome there.

[Ramar]

And what's wrong with that voting system? Would you not prefer to be able to choose who you want without the fear of spreading votes and allowing a party you dislike to gain power?

 

What's wrong is voter attitude. I vote for who I want without fear, if everyone else did the same FPTP would be enough. If my candidate doesn't win, then fair enough, I've had my say. Democracy wins to fight another day. I don't get my vote, then say well if my guy doesn't win, I'd like A,B,C in instead of D..

[MoogleViper]

You aren't convincing me of any differences in outcome there.

 

I'm not saying their would necessarily be a different outcome in every election. But this system gives the smaller parties a chance to be voted for, and removes the necessary element of tactical voting that has allowed many politicians to gain seats with very few votes. In last years election we had MPs gaining seats with little more than 20% of the vote. So over 75% of the constituency didn't vote for them, yet they still represent that constituency.

 

If you want to ignore the fairness aspect of it all and vote based on political preference (though I imagine you abstain from voting as that way you're sticking it to the man), then vote NO if you support tories, UKIP etc. and vote YES if you support Labour, Lib Dem, Green and a lot of the small parties and independent MPs.

 

Or just continue to ignore everything people say, refuse to try and make a difference and continue to whine and complain about not having rights or whatever bulllshit. What was it you said in the minority report thread? That we obviously don't stand up for ourselves and our rights? Well I'm voting YES to do just that. You continue to whine and bitch, we'll see who makes more of a difference.

 

What's wrong is voter attitude. I vote for who I want without fear, if everyone else did the same FPTP would be enough. If my candidate doesn't win, then fair enough, I've had my say. Democracy wins to fight another day. I don't get my vote, then say well if my guy doesn't win, I'd like A,B,C in instead of D..

 

But why is tactically voting for one party to get a much worse party out wrong? Sure it's not perfect, and it would be much better if we all voted for who we wanted (look at the policies not parties website thingy, over 50% of people preferred Green policies, yet they've only ever had one seat), but the world doesn't work like that. AV is a way of making it possible for people to vote without fear. How is that a bad thing? Surely it's fixing the problem with voter attitude.

[Jonnas]

What's wrong is voter attitude. I vote for who I want without fear, if everyone else did the same FPTP would be enough. If my candidate doesn't win, then fair enough, I've had my say. Democracy wins to fight another day. I don't get my vote, then say well if my guy doesn't win, I'd like A,B,C in instead of D..

 

Well, yeah, the AV system exists mainly to prevent a party that 50%+ of the people hate from getting in office.

 

In a group of 10 people, if 7 people hate coffee but are undecided on the alternative (Whisky, Beer, Wine, even Tea. Though they'll gladly drink anything that isn't coffee), and 3 people want coffee, what happens with FPTP is, the 10 people will drink coffee.

 

If the people have the balls to say their truly preferred drink from the get-go, 70% (as opposed to just 30%) end up with a drink they hate, instead of possibly the second-best choice. That is what's wrong with the system.

[The Mad Monkey]

If you want to ignore the fairness aspect of it all and vote based on political preference (though I imagine you abstain from voting as that way you're sticking it to the man), then vote NO if you support tories, UKIP etc. and vote YES if you support Labour, Lib Dem, Green and a lot of the small parties and independent MPs.

 

Or just continue to ignore everything people say, refuse to try and make a difference and continue to whine and complain about not having rights or whatever bulllshit. What was it you said in the minority report thread? That we obviously don't stand up for ourselves and our rights? Well I'm voting YES to do just that. You continue to whine and bitch, we'll see who makes more of a difference.

 

Of course I vote, I voted Lib Dem last time, at a national level, and Labour locally as she's a good MP and has helped me personally with some things. I thought the Lib Dems stood a chance that time, as they were ahead in all the polls, and they were the less of three evils. Fat lot of good that did.

[McPhee]

If you voted for your Labour MP then how did you vote for the Lib Dems at a national level? Just curious.

[gmac]

ah but with AV the Lib Dems would have had more seats and therefore they would have had more of a say in the direction that any Coalition would have taken, and a couple more high profile cabinet positions.

[Mr-Paul]

I just did that vote for policies thing again.

It confirmed how I voted last year. Labour matches me most, followed by Green, followed by Lib Dem, with the Conservatives matching my ideological standpoint the least.

Unfortunately, I live in a Tory safe seat, with Lib Dems in a safe second place. Which means if I want there to be any chance for the Conservatives to be beaten, I have to vote Lib Dem, despite them being my third choice.

Under AV, I could happily vote for Labour without feeling like my vote is being wasted, as if they got eliminated my support would go to one of my other preferences.

Under the current system, my views get ignored.

[MoogleViper]

If you voted for your Labour MP then how did you vote for the Lib Dems at a national level? Just curious.

 

He probably means councillor.

[James McGeachie]

Well I've voted yes, but going by the fact that it doesn't even seem like the majority online are going with a unanimous yes, despite the internet in general being a left-wing haven and combined with the fact that everyone I've met in real life outside of University's default position has been "no", I think sadly it's going to be an overwhelming no vote.

 

Unless most of the no crowd doesn't bother turning out.

[McPhee]

ah but with AV the Lib Dems would have had more seats and therefore they would have had more of a say in the direction that any Coalition would have taken, and a couple more high profile cabinet positions.

 

In all honesty, I think AV would have handed Labour the last election. There was a lot of people (myself included) who guiltily voted Lib Dem knowing fine well it would pave the way for the Tories to take the seat. Under AV I'd have put Labour as my second choice and my vote would have transferred to them.

 

It's all speculation though. Only one thing is certain, if we get AV it will screw the Conservative Party over big-time. There ain't many people who will have the Tories down as a second or third choice, you either love them or you hate them. If they have under 50% of the first votes then more often than not they'll lose the seat.

[Diageo]

I know next to nothing about Politics and don't live in UK. But even I can see that AV is better than FPTP. It allows you to choose who you want in order of preference, so if your #1 gets too little votes, your lower preferences still get your support. It's quite simple really.