The UK 5th May vote on AV (proportional representation)

[RegisterMe]

I really am in two minds about this, and really don't profess to understand the issues well enough to make an informed judgement.

So which way will you be voting, and why?

Thanks,


RM

PS. I know this has been discussed before, but seeing as we have the actual vote coming up in a little over a month didn't think it would be wrong to reopen this topic for conversation.....

[|M|]

For.

While there will still be some safe seats, they won't be quite as safe, and hopefully we'll be seeing more of the smaller parties rising as people don't just think "if I vote for the one I really want, my vote will just be wasted, so I'll vote tory/labour".

The Tories keep putting forward the fact that it would result in more coalition governments as a bad thing, but I think this can work well; the Aussies seem to cope well and when was the last time they had a dominany party? Coalitions should help trim the more extreme changes each party wants to make, and gives the ability for a government to fall apart over very contraversial issues, so that people can vote again on that issue.

[Rapier]

I really am in two minds about this, and really don't profess to understand the issues well enough to make an informed judgement.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) you're not the only only one who doesn't know enough to make an informed judgement. I heard someone senior in the 'No' campaign on the radio earlier saying that having AV would mean people voting for smaller parties "like the BNP" will have their votes counted twice. How exactly? It's called 'Alternative Vote' and not 'Extra Vote' because that's what it is; you indicate the alternative candidate you would like to vote for if your preferred choice gets eliminated.

[Observe]

I have absolutely no idea what "AV (proportional representation)" is.

Perhaps a linky to assist those of us who live in the rest of the world?

[imperium3]

For.

I really don't like the gerrymandering/rearrangement of MPs and constituencies they're putting along with it, especially reducing the number of MPs as this hands more power to the executive. However even if the referendum is defeated, they'll find a way to get that through anyway, and AV is far too important to vote against because of that.

Plus any chance to get rid of our good-for-nothing idle Tory MP with his 7,000 majority would be nice...

[silentWitness]

While the Alternate Vote system is a step towards Proportional Representation, you're still not really getting PR...

[|M|]

While the Alternate Vote system is a step towards Proportional Representation, you're still not really getting PR...

Unfortunately, if AV is defeated, the politicians will say "That's a vote of confidence for FPTP, no referendums!". Better to have a slightly better system than the very broken status quo.


For reference;

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

[Alee Enn]

Against, I'd rather not have the BNP and EDL with any power, thank you.

[RegisterMe]

For Observe, and our other non-UK forum dwellers, here's a wiki link (I've also edited the title to make it clearer):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... ndum,_2011

This bit at the end is interesting, does it mean that a "vote with no votes" is now valid?

"Remember—use 1, 2, 3 etc at this election—this is an election using the alternative vote system. Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate). You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on. You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish. Do not use the same number more than once. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may not be counted."

[Gavrushka]

Against.

It is not representative- Some links would be good - People are voting for something they simply don't understand. - This is not proportional representation, and is a system of voting only used by two other democracies in the world -Australia and some other slighly smaller island as I remember.

A recent poll (not sure if AV was employed ) showed Australians were against it.

AV can throw up some very strange results, but thankfully they would not include EDL or BNP gaining representation.

[CBJ]

My concern with PR has always been that it would lead to more coalition governments, and that that would leave those governments less able to act decisively. However I'm increasingly of the cynical opinion that a) governments are perfectly capable of being indecisive even with only a single party involved and b) decisiveness is not always a positive trait among politicians in governments with a big majority anyway. So on balance I think I'm probably in favour, as a step in the right direction.

[Gavrushka]

I think one of the issues with AV is the labour/conservative loathing... SO the fear that the 'NO' campaigners are stating is that smaller, radical parties, may well receive 'preferences' over and above more mainstream parties - Making for a vote spread which is less representative.

I do not have a fear of coalition governments any longer, and I would love to see a true version of PR come in now, where a regional percentage of votes was reflected in a regional representation according to that overall vote spread... AV is anything but.

AV is nowhere near true PR.

Who would put choice 1 as Labour and choice 2 as Conservative? It is not going to happen...

[mbthegreat]

I would vote yes but I'm itching to give the Lib Dems a good kicking so I'm a bit torn. If the referendum failing were to collapse the coalition that would be a far greater victory than AV.

[brucewarren]

Vehemently against.

I think some forms of AV are a deceit. I am not sufficiently aware of the
different systems to know which are honest and which are not.

Explanation.

When I was at UNI, PR was a hot topic. One of the arguments was
"Oh but under the presen t system, no party gets more than 50% of
the vote" Under a three party system I would expect that to be the case
unless the main opposition were total muppets.

I had to program a single transferable vote system as an excercise.

Under that one the winning party is guaranteed more than 50%
of the vote, but this is done by redistributing the votes of the losers
to the other parties.

I have two problems with this

a) You have one man, up to as many votes as candidates.
b) The winner appears to have many more votes than in the old system
but the same people are voting

Two me this is "'phonier than a three dollar bill" (quote from "Dukes of Hazard")

I cannot speak for all PR systems only the one I studied. Perhaps the
one being proposed is more honest, perhaps not.

What I do find very suspicious is that the party that come in last want to
change the system to something that favours themselves.

While it is claimed the existing system favours the big parties, I don't
really believe this is true. The liberals are actually centuries older than
labour. If they have insufficient votes it is because they screwed up, not
because of the voting system.

My third problem is complexity. The average voter is not a genious versed
in the way of political systems. The status quo is something he/she can
understand.

Last time there were two votes on the same day in Scotland there was a
spectacular fiasco where thousands of people did nor understand the
difference between the two voting papers.

Mr Cameron has chosen to call this vote on the date of the election of
MSPs in Scotland. So up here at least, it will happen again.

Lastly I have a more fundamental issue.

If someone changes the rules and it alters the outcome of the vote, my
natural suspicion is that the rules were carefully chosen to obtain that
result. In other words I would suspect the system was rigged.

[|M|]

I would vote yes but I'm itching to give the Lib Dems a good kicking so I'm a bit torn. If the referendum failing were to collapse the coalition that would be a far greater victory than AV.

Then we'll just end up with another all-powerful labour or tory government, who could pretty much do whatever they liked for the next 5 years. You think the Lib Dems have 'betrayed' their voters by letting the tuition fees stuff through, it would have been a lot more painful if the government had been solid tory.

[Bishop149]

For

I think.

I have mulled this over and over and listened carefully to most of the arguments against and some of them do concern me, but in the end it all comes down to this.

It can't possibly be as undemocratic as FPTP.

[Avis]

I really am in two minds about this, and really don't profess to understand the issues well enough to make an informed judgement.

So a 3rd option in the poll for 'not sure yet' might have been good

..b) decisiveness is not always a positive trait among politicians in governments with a big majority anyway. So on balance I think I'm probably in favour, as a step in the right direction.

This is pretty much how I feel, I'm no great fan of the current system that was created in an age of a 2 party state and might have been functional then.


The coalition for all it's imperfections is imho the best we could have hoped for, the thought of Labour getting another term made my blood run cold and the thought of a Conservative victory filled me with more than a few pangs of dread but Lib Dems were never a serious party imho anyway but being in a coalition it seems to have taken the extremes out of the equation for both Conservative and LibDems,, I guess what I'm saying is I don't see the problem with coalition governments overall they are probably better than a party majority.

Personally I'm going to do some serious OCD'ing as to what the score is with the version of AV that is proposed before making my mind up one way or another but I'm currently inclined towards anything is better than FPTP

[Rapier]

The Alternative Vote (AV) system is a long way from Proportional Representation (PR). My quick summary for the un-initiated

First Past the Post (FPTP): The country is divided into constituencies with one person elected to represent each constituency. People can vote for one person and the winner is the one who gets the most votes.
Pros - It's simple and everyone (in the UK) is familiar with it. No change so no cost.
Cons - If you don't vote for someone with a chance of winning, your vote is effectively wasted (leading to a lot of tactical voting, ' I want to vote for X but I'm going to vote for Y because I really hate Z'; it's not as simple as some make out)

Alternative Vote (AV): The country is divided into constituencies with one person elected to represent each constituency. People vote for the person they want to represent them, but can also rank the remaining candidates in order of preference. The winner is the person who gets over 50% of the votes, if no-one gets 50%, then the person with fewest votes is eliminated and peoples votes are re-distributed according to their preferences.
Pros - Removes the need for tactical voting as you can vote decide where your vote goes if your first choice doesn't win.
Cons - People will have to learn a new way of voting. Change costs money.

Proportional Representation (PR): The country is no longer divided into constituencies with a single representative, but into areas (or even the whole country) with many representatives. People vote for a party and the seats are given to the parties in proportion to the number of votes cast (e.g. if there are five representatives, one post is awarded for each 20% of the votes cast, The remaining seat or seats go to the parties with the highest number of votes remaining after the exclusion of the full 20%s). Parties set a list before each election to say who the representatives will be if/when they win seats.
Pros - Every vote counts and counts equally. Often leads to election of candidates from smaller parties.
Cons - Difficult to explain the counting method. Often leads to election of candidates from smaller parties, and thus to no party getting overall control.

There are several forms of proportional representation, and some hybrids. What the UK is getting to vote on is the choice between FPTP and AV.

[Alee Enn]

Anyone still thinking of voting "FOR", bear in mind this episode of Auf Wiedersen, Pet (and you can look this up to check I'm not making it up) :

In the episode, the lads decide to paint the inside of their hut. But no-one can decide on the colour to paint it. So they all vote on it.

To make it fair, they have two votes, a 1st choice and a 2nd choice. Everyone voted for a different 1st choice, so the voting went down to the most 2nd choices. Two people voted for yellow. So they painted the hut yellow, and no-one liked it. It was not a colour any of them wanted.
--------------------------------------------------

Now vote in favour of any voting system other than FPTP.

[Rapier]

However, under the system that's being proposed in the UK, 'Yellow' would not have been an option for second choice votes, since no-one voted for it first time around.