Nick Cleggs Lib Dems would benefit most from AV

[nightrider]

PR is fairer - AV certainly is not.

 

Someone asked about the fairness of the vote/seats at the last election.

 

Do you think it is fair that someone could win a seat while coming 3rd after the initial round of voting, but win the seat?

 

Obviously it is - if you cannot convince 50% of the electorate to tick your name why should you get elected?! It puts the "post" into FPTP, where currently you can win even if only 30% of people cote for you i.e. 70% don't want you representing them - that is absurd.

[frank ryan]

But at least a start.

 

disagree, if AV comes in, we'll be stuck with it, there's no 'rolling' programme of voting systems leading to % representation

[altus]

disagree, if AV comes in, we'll be stuck with it, there's no 'rolling' programme of voting systems leading to % representation

 

The two main parties aren't ever going to go for PR in any case. Labour only put AV into their manifesto for the last election because they hoped promising electoral reform would gain them a few Lib Dem votes - it might have worked in the previous election but not the last one. The Conservatives only agreed to a referendum on it, in the hope that it will fail, because they would have had to form a minority government if they didn't.

 

This is the best chance we are going to get to improve the fairness of our electoral system, even if only by a small amount, for a long time.

[mj.scuba]

Will AV be good for the smaller parties? Some seem to be backing it, some seem to be against it?

[frank ryan]

Only in that they know they won't be elected, so they might recommend who to put as their second choice etc.

 

that's the 'kingmaker' effect, smaller parties do deals on carrying 2nd preference from their supporters, knowing that their own chances are zilch, nick griffiths will have done the maths

[nightrider]

Only in that they know they won't be elected, so they might recommend who to put as their second choice etc.

 

well probably a lot more people will vote for smaller parties under AV, because they know they still get a say between lab and tory if it comes to it. Under FPTP people won't because they think noone else will vote for the small party and hence they have to pick labor or tory to have any say (even though they want neither of them).

[HeadingNorth]

Will AV be good for the smaller parties? Some seem to be backing it, some seem to be against it?

 

It will be very rare that any party (in England) other than the main three have enough votes to even make a difference under AV.

[HeadingNorth]

Nobody is claiming that AV is the completely fair - just that is it less unfair than the current system.

 

That just depends on how you define fair. Under AV, you can have a candidate fail to win because too many people selected him as first choice!

[esme]

disagree, if AV comes in, we'll be stuck with it, there's no 'rolling' programme of voting systems leading to % representation

I agree that there's no rolling programme of voting systems that will be introduced in turn

 

my fear is that if the people say no to this, then there is a very large group of, largely conservative, MP's who will stand up and say "The people have spoken, the people do not want any change to the voting system" and will use this result to stonewall any progress on PR

 

this would be the same large group of MP's who managed to get PR taken off the table in the first place and forced the compromise to AV, they would have denied the referendum altogether if they could have but it was part of the coalition deal

 

so we're damned if we do, because AV isn't that great a system and we'll be stuck with it for a very long time

 

and we're damned if we don't, because I believe the result will be used to stonewall progress on PR

 

I want PR rather than AV but it's not being offered and I can't see it being offered in my lifetime and I'd really like my vote to count one day

 

in my opinion, which is just my opinion and could very well be wrong, we are slightly less damned by saying yes to AV, as this at least proves that the people are open to the idea of changing the voting system

 

but it's a poisoned chalice either way

 

and yes I'm aware of politicians saying that politics cannot be subject to repeated changes, so if we say yes to AV we'll be stuck with it

 

personally I reckon that

1. they are politicians and they would say that to preserve their own position of being the ones who make such decisions
   
2. politics is all about change, that's what MP's do all day, work on legislation, changing it, adapting it and making it anew to meet the needs of the day, why should the legislation the puts them in office be different

if we vote yes that sets a precedent that the people can change politics, some MP's are very uncomfortable with that idea

 

if we vote no, those MP's will sigh loudly, stop sweating, and go back to business as usual by ignoring us until the next election

 

so I'm going to vote yes, because while AV isn't perfect by a long shot it's better than what we have now

[esme]

Apparently, they would have put all 3 on the referendum but due to the cuts they couldn't afford the ink.

 

Seriously though, how difficult would it have been...

well according to some MP's it would be completely impossible, we might as well throw politics out of the window and just have a straw poll when a decision needs to be made, they reckon there would be no more need ...for .....politicians ...... at all

 

hang on a mo