Chris_Sleeps Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I'm undecided, but I think that I shall swing towards the "yes" option. I am happy to be talked around though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 of course it would because in the end you have a final round with two candidates. If the one with 49% in the first round cannot convince anyone else to vote for him in further rounds then he should not get in. AV puts the post in FPTP - under AV you have to convince 50% of all voters to support you. If not you don't get in. Under FPTPF you can get in even if 70% of the electorate voted to NOT have you - how is that fair? Exactly...:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I'm undecided, but I think that I shall swing towards the "yes" option. I am happy to be talked around though. Bet you say that to all the boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Bet you say that to all the boys. I never expected that response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossyrooney Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 This poll doesn't allow for second and third vote options. Not really A.V. friendly is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcrust Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 of course it would because in the end you have a final round with two candidates. If the one with 49% in the first round cannot convince anyone else to vote for him in further rounds then he should not get in. AV puts the post in FPTP - under AV you have to convince 50% of all voters to support you. If not you don't get in. Under FPTPF you can get in even if 70% of the electorate voted to NOT have you - how is that fair? Your argument only stands if you accept that second preferences are as important as first preferences. I don't accept that. I might give my second preference to Party X because I find them slightly more palatable than Party Y. That is not 'support', and that '2' should not carry equal importance to a heart-felt and emphatic '1' cast by a supporter of Party Y. The 'myth' that under AV, an MP is elected with 50+% support of voters is just silly. Comparisons with two round systems also don't stand. For starters, the final choice in such elections is between the two most popular candidates. Mr 20% from the scenario we discussed and other third place candidates wouldn't make it that far. Run-off elections are about first choices. You get a first choice in round one, and a first choice in round two. Giving a second preference to a candidate is not the same as voting for them directly in a final round, where you have a clear choice between the most popular candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Your argument only stands if you accept that second preferences are as important as first preferences. I don't accept that. I might give my second preference to Party X because I find them slightly more palatable than Party Y. That is not 'support', and that '2' should not carry equal importance to a heart-felt and emphatic '1' cast by a supporter of Party Y. The 'myth' that under AV, an MP is elected with 50+% support of voters is just silly. Well it is support for party Y and forces them to work for your vote. In short its simply a better system. Its only the VI's who want to keep FPTP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 of course it would because in the end you have a final round with two candidates. If the one with 49% in the first round cannot convince anyone else to vote for him in further rounds then he should not get in. AV puts the post in FPTP - under AV you have to convince 50% of all voters to support you. If not you don't get in. Under FPTPF you can get in even if 70% of the electorate voted to NOT have you - how is that fair? What do you mean 'final round'? There is only one round of voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 What do you mean 'final round'? There is only one round of voting. theres more than one round of counting though I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie_w Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Rubbish. Under AV, a candiate who gets 49% of first preferences could lose to a candidate who only got 20% of first preferences!! Would that reflect the will of the electorate? Really? This isn't really a sensible example - if Mr 49% is popular enough to gain that amount of the vote in the first place then surely he will have enough support elsewhere to get that last 1%. Besides, if Mr 49% can't drum up the extra 1% support from voters outside his support base then does he deserve to represent his constituency? By contrast, as a REAL example, Sheffield Central's result at the last election was decided by 165 votes. Out of a 41,468 turnout, does that reflect the will of the electorate? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.