[Judas]

Will you be voting for or against the new voting system this May?

FPTP - Current System (First past the post)
- You put a cross by the canidate you want to win
- The canidate with the most crosses wins that seat, even if they didn't get over 50% of the vote

A.V - Proposed New Sytem (Alternative vote)
- In this system to be elected you have to get over 50% of the vote
- When voting rather than crossing who you want to win, you but numbers by your preferences, for example, your favourite candidate number 1, your second favourite number 2
- If not candidate gets over 50% the candiate with the least votes is eliminated, and the second votes are balloted up
- This continues untill one candidate has over 50% of the popular vote
- It is argued this system will mean all parties have a larger chance of being considered

[KG.]

I'll be voting for it I think, I'll need to read up a bit more about it closer to the time though before I decide properly.

[MTVN]

Rather it was between FPTP and PR, AV just looks like's a pretty crap compromise. It seems all a bit complex and I doubt it will be that more reprsentative at all, it treats 2nd/3rd/4th choice candidates with the same weight as 1st choices I think, and MP's will be getting elected who the public were never really that keen on. I'm no fan of FPTP but I'd rather it stay tbh

[arista]

I only Vote for 1 MP

I do not want 2nd and 3rds.

[Grimnir]

We should get rid of House of Commons with hundreds of corrupt MPs

Instead we should elect 1 person and have an election once per year.

If someone wants to be leader of the country they campaign and put forward their manifesto.

One with most votes is democratically elected.

[joeysteele]

I absolutely 100% agree with MTVN on this one, I too would prefer full PR but I think that's unlikely for decades yet.
I have a current massive grievance with the Lib Dems at present and I also think around £250,000,000 is a ridiculous outlay for this referendum, AV really will not change much except help the Lib Dems get a lot more seats and as MTVN says is pretty bad compromise.
I will therefore be voting no,t keep things as they are for now with fptp and really near all the people I talk to and also those I know are also going to vote no to changing it too.

[Niamh.]

We already have that system in Ireland (AV) I think it works pretty well. Like this general election just gone for example the guy I put as No.1 didn't get in but my number 2 did so I know atleast that my vote helped to get him there and it wasn't just wasted cos my first choice didn't make it

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Grimnir

We should get rid of House of Commons with hundreds of corrupt MPs

Instead we should elect 1 person and have an election once per year.

If someone wants to be leader of the country they campaign and put forward their manifesto.

One with most votes is democratically elected.

So just elect a dictator but give him only a very short space of time to actually do anything? Sounds like an awful idea

[bananarama]

A few months ago I would have probaly said yes and voted fort it.

However after consideration I think it is a poor substitute for a PR sytem.

On a personal basis I could not vote for more than one party (It's difficult enough choosing any of the corrupt rat bags)

To vote for an alternative would mean contributing to the election of a party I detest........As a matter of principle I could not betray my own beliefs by choosing an alternative to the rubbish I would have voted for in the first option.....

Also I think a lot more needs to be known of how the alternative counting sytem works........If Cameron was telling the truth when he was talking it down a few days ago then the counting system sound very very dodgy indeed and may produce ridiculous results not based on fairness...

What happens if thousand or even millions like me cannot bring themselves to put their name to a second choice!!!!!! If millions only select one party which they still have a right to then having AV is somewhat pointless........

There are other matters I think voters should have had a say in.......One being the length of term in a fixed parliament. I think 5 years is far to long, should be four year fixed term. also no prime minister should be allowed more than two terms......Power corrupts and they hang on against the interests of the country.........Thatcher did it and Blair did it.

Although it may save money I don't agree with reducing the number of MP's. Less MP's means bigger constituencies and less effeciency when MP's have to meet the public in their surgeries.....

I do agree that the boundaries should be adjusted to make them similar in size......

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bananarama

A few months ago I would have probaly said yes and voted fort it.

However after consideration I think it is a poor substitute for a PR sytem.

On a personal basis I could not vote for more than one party (It's difficult enough choosing any of the corrupt rat bags)

To vote for an alternative would mean contributing to the election of a party I detest........As a matter of principle I could not betray my own beliefs by choosing an alternative to the rubbish I would have voted for in the first option.....

Also I think a lot more needs to be known of how the alternative counting sytem works........If Cameron was telling the truth when he was talking it down a few days ago then the counting system sound very very dodgy indeed and may produce ridiculous results not based on fairness...

What happens if thousand or even millions like me cannot bring themselves to put their name to a second choice!!!!!! If millions only select one party which they still have a right to then having AV is somewhat pointless........

There are other matters I think voters should have had a say in.......One being the length of term in a fixed parliament. I think 5 years is far to long, should be four year fixed term. also no prime minister should be allowed more than two terms......Power corrupts and they hang on against the interests of the country.........Thatcher did it and Blair did it.

Although it may save money I don't agree with reducing the number of MP's. Less MP's means bigger constituencies and less effeciency when MP's have to meet the public in their surgeries.....

I do agree that the boundaries should be adjusted to make them similar in size......

first of all (if it's the same system as ours) you don't have to vote for 2 different parties, you could vote for 2 candidates from the same party and you don't have to give a No.2 votes either you can just do a No.1 then it's pretty much the same as the X system

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

wut

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Grimnir

We should get rid of House of Commons with hundreds of corrupt MPs

Instead we should elect 1 person and have an election once per year.

If someone wants to be leader of the country they campaign and put forward their manifesto.

One with most votes is democratically elected.

LOL. Is this a joke? So you propose we get rid of the whole of parliament and just have 1 person 'in charge'. So how exactally would we get laws passed?

[Shaun]

Seems very bureaucratic and complicated. I don't really see too much of a problem with the current voting system - I think the desire for this change is driven as a result of the Hung Parliament, and to be honest that's more of a problem to do with the very similar political parties than the electoral system.

[Mystic Mock]

the majority should always rule,unlike america with bush.

so im voting a.v

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Seems very bureaucratic and complicated. I don't really see too much of a problem with the current voting system - I think the desire for this change is driven as a result of the Hung Parliament, and to be honest that's more of a problem to do with the very similar political parties than the electoral system.

I disagree with you saying it is driven as a RESULT of of the hung parliament. The LD always wanted electoral reform, and they were going to pursue it if they ever got into government, whether through a hung parliament or majority rule.

I kind of see your argument about it being bureaucratic, although surely you could say that is true of any voting system?

[Angus]

FPTP and the only option is NO???? Talk about a rigged vote.

AV will produce perverse results and does nothing to enhance or improve the voting system. I would favour PR as the most democratic, but as that isn't an option this time round, I will vote to stick with FPTP.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by angus58

FPTP and the only option is NO???? Talk about a rigged vote.

AV will produce perverse results and does nothing to enhance or improve the voting system. I would favour PR as the most democratic, but as that isn't an option this time round, I will vote to stick with FPTP.

The other thing with AV Angus58 is that if a party is well ahead as with 1997 with Tony Blair and Labour (also 2001 too),that if we had then had AV the overall majorities that were massive ones anyway would have been even bigger under it, so it can with a party that is well ahead of the others, make a more disproportionate result.

As you and MTVN say, PR is the better system, I feel AV is only (in the next election at least anyway) a bit of a life saver for some Lib Dems as they would on the current poll figures get something like 30 seats under AV as opposed to 10 to 12 with fptp.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by bananarama

What happens if thousand or even millions like me cannot bring themselves to put their name to a second choice!!!!!! If millions only select one party which they still have a right to then having AV is somewhat pointless........

But surely it's better to have this hear than not? Millions may not want to select just one party. Although I agree with the other matters you raised re: 4 year terms/max 2 terms.

Kind of related, I've volunteered to ring people up for the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign... I'm expecting lots of abuse on the phone

[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

We already have that system in Ireland (AV) I think it works pretty well. Like this general election just gone for example the guy I put as No.1 didn't get in but my number 2 did so I know atleast that my vote helped to get him there and it wasn't just wasted cos my first choice didn't make it

No, we have PR in Ireland, proportional representation. It's different in a number of ways, but mainly in that you don't need to get 50% of the vote to get elected. You have to reach the quota which works out at around 10,000, 11,000 votes in our constituency. The formula is that in a three-seater, it's a quarter of the total valid poll, plus one, in a four-seater a fifth of the valid poll plus one, and so forth.
If no-one reaches the quota on the first count the lowest one, two, three or even four five candidates are eliminated, if they have a very small vote each and don't amount to a quota between them.
The other significant difference is that the transfers aren't just taken from the bottom up, as the OP describes. In PR, every time someone is elected the distribution of their surplus is the next count. For instance, if you got 12,000 votes and the quota was 11,500, the next count would be the distribution of the No.2s of that elected person. ALL of the number twos but the allocation of votes is 'proportional', so if you got 12% of all my no.2s, you'll get 12% o the 500 vote surplus, as described above.
It's incredibly fair and I was at the count in one of the centres here 'til two in the morning see the final outcome last weekend. I've attended the counts for years. They are utterly fascinating.
If you study the voting, your vote, under the PR system, can be significant in electing all four or five of the TD's elected in your constituency. It's a magnificent system - the epitome of democracy - and widely recognised as such. It's one of the few things we can be proud of at the minute

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

No, we have PR in Ireland, proportional representation. It's different in a number of ways, but mainly in that you don't need to get 50% of the vote to get elected. You have to reach the quota which works out at around 10,000, 11,000 votes in our constituency. The formula is that in a three-seater, it's a quarter of the total valid poll, plus one, in a four-seater a fifth of the valid poll plus one, and so forth.
If no-one reaches the quota on the first count the lowest one, two, three or even four five candidates are eliminated, if they have a very small vote each and don't amount to a quota between them.
The other significant difference is that the transfers aren't just taken from the bottom up, as the OP describes. In PR, every time someone is elected the distribution of their surplus is the next count. For instance, if you got 12,000 votes and the quota was 11,500, the next count would be the distribution of the No.2s of that elected person. ALL of the number twos but the allocation of votes is 'proportional', so if you got 12% of all my no.2s, you'll get 12% o the 500 vote surplus, as described above.
It's incredibly fair and I was at the count in one of the centres here 'til two in the morning see the final outcome last weekend. I've attended the counts for years. They are utterly fascinating.
If you study the voting, your vote, under the PR system, can be significant in electing all four or five of the TD's elected in your constituency. It's a magnificent system - the epitome of democracy - and widely recognised as such. It's one of the few things we can be proud of at the minute

ahhh, ok. Thanks for that Patsy

[patsylimerick]

Sorry if that came off like a lecture, Niamh I'm afraid politics is my football. I'm a little bit addicted

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

Sorry if that came off like a lecture, Niamh I'm afraid politics is my football. I'm a little bit addicted

haha, no you're grand, I wouldn't be overly into politics at all really, just started taking more of an interest lately with how bad things have gone(like alot of people I suppose!)

[joeysteele]

Well really AV will make little difference.
At the last election had we had AV, Conservatives would have likely got 281 seats(26 less than they did). Labour would have got likely 262 seats (4 more than they did), the Lib Dems would have got 79 likely(22 more than they did).
Still a hung parliament.
In the current polls in an election tomorrow, Labour would likely get a 65+ overall majority under fptp.
Under AV they would still get a 60+ overall majority on the current polling figures but the Lib Dems would only get about 12 seats currently under fptp but likely 30 to 35 under AV.

Such a small change that would only benefit the Lib Dems as to the voting system as AV would is, 1) not worth the bother of voting for it and 2) certainly not the worth the estimated cost of £250,000,000 for the referendum.

Full PR is a different thing but to waste so much time on this AV referendum is a waste of that time and the £250 million cost of it could be used better elsewhere.

[Livia]

I'm shocked so many people have said they would vote 'yes' to AV. Only three other countries in the whole world use AV - Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia. Fiji are planning to get rid of it and in Australia, six out of ten people asked have said they would scrap it. Nick Clegg, who insisted on a referundum for AV as part of the package for throwing in his cards with the Conservatives, described it as "a miserable little compromise". It's complicated and will cost a huge amount of cash to implement and run which would be much better spent elsewhere.

[Judas]

Here is the earlier poll, Shaun. I just wondered if anyone was interested in looking at the big swing to no since March. It was 64.71% to 35.29% (Yes).