ChatterBank0 min ago
Referendum
18 Answers
We will be soon be taking part in a referendum on the voting system.
Do we continue to vote on the 'first past the post' system that we now use, or do we want to use the 'alternative vote' system?
Do you think enough will bother to get to understand the 'alternative vote' system and they will therefore stick again with the 'first past the post' system?
Even the Parties are split over this one so, what are there pluses and what are the minuses of each system?
Do we continue to vote on the 'first past the post' system that we now use, or do we want to use the 'alternative vote' system?
Do you think enough will bother to get to understand the 'alternative vote' system and they will therefore stick again with the 'first past the post' system?
Even the Parties are split over this one so, what are there pluses and what are the minuses of each system?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Let's shake up the political establishment, two horse race, get a mandate to rule on a minority vote system.
For heavens sake, what ridiculously low percentage of us actually voted for the last Blair government or some of the Thatcher governments?
Let's reflect the diversity of British people's political preferences.
It has got to be healthier than the so-called 'democracy' we put up with now.
For heavens sake, what ridiculously low percentage of us actually voted for the last Blair government or some of the Thatcher governments?
Let's reflect the diversity of British people's political preferences.
It has got to be healthier than the so-called 'democracy' we put up with now.
All very laudable, Zeuhl.
Unfortunately the AV system that is proposed will do none of these things. It is essentially a “losers’ charter”. Those voters who vote for the losers (i.e. those candidates coming at the bottom of the poll) get a second chance to vote after their first has been discarded. Their second choice votes are treated exactly as if they were first choices. They get added to the totals for the candidates higher up the polls and are given exactly the same weight as the first choice votes those candidates received. The voters who voted for the winner (and those near the top of the poll) are afforded no such privilege. Their second choices (and possibly third if needed) are simply ignored.
It will do nothing to increase the turnout. (Indeed it may well depress the numbers as many voters may feel put off by a more complicated system than simply putting a cross by their chosen candidate). It will do nothing to “...reflect the diversity of British people's political preferences...” The usual suspects will still gain most of the seats. The only difference will be that those who voted for one of the minority parties or assorted lunatics that stand for election and lose their deposits will have their second choices counted as if they were their first. A by-product of this is that people who voted for the winner in round one may well see their candidate overtaken by the second choice votes of those who would ideally prefer somebody else entirely.
We have lost sight of the fact that in the UK we do not elect a government we elect Members of Parliament. It is those MPs who select a government on our behalf. Until this principle is restored in people’s minds and so long as more than two candidates are allowed to stand for each seat various schemes like this will be put forward as being “more democratic” and they are nothing of the sort.
Unfortunately the AV system that is proposed will do none of these things. It is essentially a “losers’ charter”. Those voters who vote for the losers (i.e. those candidates coming at the bottom of the poll) get a second chance to vote after their first has been discarded. Their second choice votes are treated exactly as if they were first choices. They get added to the totals for the candidates higher up the polls and are given exactly the same weight as the first choice votes those candidates received. The voters who voted for the winner (and those near the top of the poll) are afforded no such privilege. Their second choices (and possibly third if needed) are simply ignored.
It will do nothing to increase the turnout. (Indeed it may well depress the numbers as many voters may feel put off by a more complicated system than simply putting a cross by their chosen candidate). It will do nothing to “...reflect the diversity of British people's political preferences...” The usual suspects will still gain most of the seats. The only difference will be that those who voted for one of the minority parties or assorted lunatics that stand for election and lose their deposits will have their second choices counted as if they were their first. A by-product of this is that people who voted for the winner in round one may well see their candidate overtaken by the second choice votes of those who would ideally prefer somebody else entirely.
We have lost sight of the fact that in the UK we do not elect a government we elect Members of Parliament. It is those MPs who select a government on our behalf. Until this principle is restored in people’s minds and so long as more than two candidates are allowed to stand for each seat various schemes like this will be put forward as being “more democratic” and they are nothing of the sort.
As I see it there are a number of ways of looking at this.
(In any case I'm unsure a second choice vote should carry the same weight as a first choice. Value should half each move surely ?)
Anyway, either a change will make no difference to the result, or it will make a difference.
If in practical situations changing the system turns out that the middle-of-the-road candidates always go out first, leaving the field as a straight choice between left and right, then we are just wasting millions of £s to make a few folk feel better.
However if changing the system tends to result in either the left or right candidate going out first, then few votes are going to switch for the candidate with the opposing view, so middle-of-the-road candidates pick up any movement, and have been given an advantage.
Would this be a good thing ? You'll reduce the chance of enacting any extreme measures that could need to be done in order to sort something. You'd have compromise in all legislation. And as a consequence many more coalition compromise governments than before with the usual problems that entails..
In fairness the AV is the best of the alternative systems, since at least it doesn't make it even harder to separate parties from parliament, and it is obvious that a candidate that has to toe a party line can't at the same time guarantee to be voting according to their electorates wishes, so parties are the antithesis of democracy. But whether it is better than the current system is very debatable.
IMO the claim that present day MPs are elected with more folk voting against them than for them is patent nonsense. When you vote for a candidate it is a vote for someone, not against someone else. I think this is just trying to make folk feel better when the candidate they didn't really want but could suffer if need be, gets in. Something to keep the proletariat content and quieten them
(In any case I'm unsure a second choice vote should carry the same weight as a first choice. Value should half each move surely ?)
Anyway, either a change will make no difference to the result, or it will make a difference.
If in practical situations changing the system turns out that the middle-of-the-road candidates always go out first, leaving the field as a straight choice between left and right, then we are just wasting millions of £s to make a few folk feel better.
However if changing the system tends to result in either the left or right candidate going out first, then few votes are going to switch for the candidate with the opposing view, so middle-of-the-road candidates pick up any movement, and have been given an advantage.
Would this be a good thing ? You'll reduce the chance of enacting any extreme measures that could need to be done in order to sort something. You'd have compromise in all legislation. And as a consequence many more coalition compromise governments than before with the usual problems that entails..
In fairness the AV is the best of the alternative systems, since at least it doesn't make it even harder to separate parties from parliament, and it is obvious that a candidate that has to toe a party line can't at the same time guarantee to be voting according to their electorates wishes, so parties are the antithesis of democracy. But whether it is better than the current system is very debatable.
IMO the claim that present day MPs are elected with more folk voting against them than for them is patent nonsense. When you vote for a candidate it is a vote for someone, not against someone else. I think this is just trying to make folk feel better when the candidate they didn't really want but could suffer if need be, gets in. Something to keep the proletariat content and quieten them
So having a winner when most people voted for something else is ok is it?
Why?
new judge <<econd choice votes are treated exactly as if they were first choices. They get added to the totals for the candidates higher up the polls and are given exactly the same weight as the first choice votes those candidates received. The voters who voted for the winner (and those near the top of the poll) are afforded no such privilege. Their second choices (and possibly third if needed) are simply ignored. >>
And what's wrong with any of that?
Better to have elected someone who was preferred to some degree by a greater number of people.
Unless one is locked into the mentality that we have to have a winner who is the prime choice of the largest minority. And everyone just puts up with their vote not being represented or wasted. Why is that such a good idea?
Why?
new judge <<econd choice votes are treated exactly as if they were first choices. They get added to the totals for the candidates higher up the polls and are given exactly the same weight as the first choice votes those candidates received. The voters who voted for the winner (and those near the top of the poll) are afforded no such privilege. Their second choices (and possibly third if needed) are simply ignored. >>
And what's wrong with any of that?
Better to have elected someone who was preferred to some degree by a greater number of people.
Unless one is locked into the mentality that we have to have a winner who is the prime choice of the largest minority. And everyone just puts up with their vote not being represented or wasted. Why is that such a good idea?
I personally don't know which system may prove the best, all I do know is that I am sick & tired of the present way of electing candidates in both municipal & general elections when the majority count of the electorate is totally ignored in order to allow a major party to win. When you consider that the total number of votes for several different candidates can sometimes add up to more than a winning party's number of votes there is something sadly wrong with the system. Ron.
No, John, your vote would not be void if you only select your first choice.
The idea that it is somehow unfair to elect a candidate when more people have voted against him is a little strange. Voters don’t vote for the candidate they don’t want, they vote for the one that they do. Furthermore, it is not cured by the AV system (at least not in a fair manner).
There is a considerable amount wrong with the aspects of AV I have pointed out, Zeuhl. I am indeed locked into the mentality that the winner should be the candidate who attracted the greatest number of votes. The notion that a vote is wasted because it was not cast for the winner is about as logical as suggesting that a goal scored for a losing football team is “wasted”. Under AV a candidate polling 49.9% of the votes in round one could see the seat lost to the second placed runner who may have secured, say, 45% of the votes. He could win by virtue of the 5.1% of transferable votes cast as second or subsequent choices for the losing candidates. Now that would be extremely unfair.
The idea that it is somehow unfair to elect a candidate when more people have voted against him is a little strange. Voters don’t vote for the candidate they don’t want, they vote for the one that they do. Furthermore, it is not cured by the AV system (at least not in a fair manner).
There is a considerable amount wrong with the aspects of AV I have pointed out, Zeuhl. I am indeed locked into the mentality that the winner should be the candidate who attracted the greatest number of votes. The notion that a vote is wasted because it was not cast for the winner is about as logical as suggesting that a goal scored for a losing football team is “wasted”. Under AV a candidate polling 49.9% of the votes in round one could see the seat lost to the second placed runner who may have secured, say, 45% of the votes. He could win by virtue of the 5.1% of transferable votes cast as second or subsequent choices for the losing candidates. Now that would be extremely unfair.
AV almost seems like an anti-vote. In a 3 horse system, you vote for who you do no want. The unfortunate down side of that is that the more extreme parties get represented. If that was the true intention of the voter, that would be OK, but I am not sure it is.
In a constituency that has been Labour held, a disgruntled voter would normally vote Conservative. Under AV, they might vote Conservative and as their second choice might pick UKIP or the BNP. If enough did the same, the extreme party might get some seats, based entirely on the 'anti-vote coming out.
Some may say thet is fine, but I cannot help but feel it is all very negative. Vote for who you want not to win who you don't want. Do not feel bad if they lose, or feel unrepresented.
In a constituency that has been Labour held, a disgruntled voter would normally vote Conservative. Under AV, they might vote Conservative and as their second choice might pick UKIP or the BNP. If enough did the same, the extreme party might get some seats, based entirely on the 'anti-vote coming out.
Some may say thet is fine, but I cannot help but feel it is all very negative. Vote for who you want not to win who you don't want. Do not feel bad if they lose, or feel unrepresented.
1 to 18 of 18
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|