AV - how to vote?

[truman]

Same can happen with 1st past the post too.

 

Especially if there are only 2 candidates.

 

Run that by me again..how can the person coming 2nd in a FPTP system win? Sorry if I've missed something obvious..

[bethwebb]

Run that by me again..how can the person coming 2nd in a FPTP system win? Sorry if I've missed something obvious..

 

Take the recent election, more people didn't want Cameron as our Prime Minister than those who did, yet he's our Prime Minister...

[TTM13]

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/67427/1302893882/AV.jpg

[dosxuk]

In my opinion the best thing about AV is that it means your vote is always counted.

 

Here's an example: You really want the Green party to win your seat, but you really don't want the Tories to get in. Under FPTP, if you want your vote to count, you have to vote Labour. Under AV, you can put Green as your first preference, and then other parties that you prefer over Labour, and eventually everyone else other than the Tories.

 

The established parties don't want this, as they know that currently many people just throw away their votes by voting for the smaller parties, and there is no point campaigning to those people. Under AV they would have to, as it could be those who vote for those smaller parties that swing the result. For voters, it means they can vote for who they actually want, rather than the party they think has the best chance of beating the one they don't want to win.

 

Here's another example :- a local decisive issue has three independants standing, candiate A who disagrees with the plans, and candidates B & C who agree with the plans, but have slightly different views on how they're implemented. A vote is held, and the results come back as A : 35%, B: 34% and C: 33%. Under FPTP, candidate A will win, and the plans are scrapped, despite them obviously not representing the majority view. Under AV, Candidate C would be excluded, and those who voted for him will be recounted for second preferences (in this case, as B & C broadly agree, we will say that B is their second preference). The new count has A: 35% and B: 67%, and therfore B wins. As Phili Buster above says, the second to last in the first round can eventually win. Personally I think this is a good thing. Others think this is a travesty.

 

Whatever happens, ignore the claims about costs from NOtoAV, they're baloney. And ignore the claims from both sides that the opposite makes it easier for the BNP to get in, they're just trying to scare you.

[mattleonard]

I'm still undecided, but I have some big concerns about AV.

 

I recently heard a guy on Any Answers ring in and say how the current system was a mess, because for the past 50 years he'd been voting and each time his vote hadn't counted. When pressed it turned out that what he meant is he'd voted, and on no occasion had the candidate he'd voted for won. It worries me that many people are attracted to AV because they are in his position, and therefore think that the current system is undemocratic. This seems to be pretty explicit in the dog-poo/mars-bar analogy.

 

My other concern is that it seems to me that under AV some people's votes actually count for more than others. As an example, say someone votes for a comparatively unsuccessful party who are eliminated in the first round. Their second choice vote wins in the second round. Despite being eliminated, the fringe party may have had a higher share of the vote than in a previous election in the first round, and may consider that a "victory" for them. They may publicise it as such in future elections and use it to build momentum. Surely this voter's "vote" has counted more than a voter who put the winning party as their first choice.

[truman]

Take the recent election, more people didn't want Cameron as our Prime Minister than those who did, yet he's our Prime Minister...

 

That is the same for just about all elections here..the government get in with much less than 50% of the vote..whether it be Labour,Conservative or whoever (in fact wasn't the tory %age higher last year then Labour's before)..but they still have the largest number of seats of any single party...my question was how can someone who comes 2nd in a FPTP system win?

[dosxuk]

my question was how can someone who comes 2nd in a FPTP system win?

 

When you're talking about the person who comes second to last (i.e. not last) out of two people, as was stated in #2.

[truman]

I'm still undecided, but I have some big concerns about AV.

 

I recently heard a guy on Any Answers ring in and say how the current system was a mess, because for the past 50 years he'd been voting and each time his vote hadn't counted. When pressed it turned out that what he meant is he'd voted, and on no occasion had the candidate he'd voted for won. It worries me that many people are attracted to AV because they are in his position, and therefore think that the current system is undemocratic. .

 

In actual fact I suppose it's a small number of people in the marginal seats that decide the out come of elections under the FPTP..many votes have no effect in the blue or red heartlands..

[truman]

When you're talking about the person who comes second to last (i.e. not last) out of two people, as was stated in #2.

 

I was replying to post #10...how can someone who comes second in an FPTP win?

[mattleonard]

Take the recent election, more people didn't want Cameron as our Prime Minister than those who did, yet he's our Prime Minister...

 

AV isn't going to change this. AV is going to affect the process of voting in an MP.

 

The voting figures from the last election tell us very little about who people wanted as Prime Minister. I didn't vote according to who I wanted as PM, and that will be the case for many people. When voting in a general election a vote is for who we want to represent us in our constituency.

 

Governments will still be "elected" on the basis of forming majorities in parliament. The introduction of AV will probably make people feel less disenfranchised, but mostly because it will be more opaque. Statements like "more people didn't want Cameron as our Prime Minister than those who did" will be even more difficult to quantify.