AV - How can it be fairer...

[R1Geezer]

When you can come anywhere but last and still win?

[venator]

Nobody loves AV for itself, or believes it's any substitute for full Proportional Representation.

The Lib Dems desperately desire it, as it is the only thing that gives them a cat's chance of getting back in power.

The Labour Party likes it, because they see a coalition with the Lib Dems as their chance of getting back in power.

AV itself is not what the LDs and Labourites want - they want full PR, and there would be another referendum toute suite if they got in.

[Mampara]

Sqad

True. I hadn't really thought it through.

I'll be voting NO though.

[Sqad]

Mampara..:-)

[Gromit]

You need just 34% of votes to win a parliamentary election. So 66% of the voters did not get the person they voted for. And that is supposed to be fairer?

Also, there are many constituencies that always return the same party. In the last 30 years, my vote has never been for the winning candidate in a Westminster election. Where I live, you could put a Labour rossette on a dead sheep and it would get elected. The same happens all over the country with Conservative as well as Labour seats. If you live in those areas, and you vote against the sitting MP your vote is just wasted.

In fact only a small number of constituencies (probably about 20%) decide who the Government will be.

[craft1948]

I'm voting against it 'cos Labour want it.............

[jackthehat]

Wot's 'voting'.........?!?

[scotman]

The best system is one that gets you the government you want.
I am probably going to vote yes.

[R1Geezer]

yes there are issues with the current system but al least we get the person that the most people voted for. Sqad it is possible that someone with 0 primary votes can win. eg if 2 or more candidates get 0 then one goes out via lots, in reality though they'd presumably vote for themselves so they'd get at least one. There seems to be this obsession with a "majority" but it's a race so the losers will often add up to the winner and more but the winner is still the winner, i mean we don't demand that Usain Bolt beats the field by 50 metres do we?

[Gromit]

Geezer,

Blair won the 2005 General Election with 35.2%.

Nearly two thirds did not vote Labour yet they had a 66 seat majority.

Explain how that is fairer.

[R1Geezer]

Blair got the most seats, end of. In fact if you factor in those that didn't vote Blair actually got in with about 25% of the voting public voting. That is irrelevant though we have seats and they are won by those getting the most vote. No election ever in history has produced a win of over 50%. There is also the fact that many don't vote, AV won't change that.

[DTCwordfan]

Voting against it....there's only 2 countries in the world using it.

1. Fiji - and they are withdrawing it

2, Australia - and here they have had to pass laws to (i) make it compulsory to vote and (ii) that you must fill in a full ranking, i.,e. 8 candidates then rank 1 through 8.
and there are all sorts of inter-party deals being struck that counter it.

It is an unfair vote where a minority vote has undue influence on recounts, and it isn;t just one recount, it is each time a recount is needed as the last place is shaved off, until 50.1% is reached.

What I would like to see is:

(i) reduce the number of constituencies to say 350 and first past the post for those we have more MPs than the House of Congress does re congressmen and women for a population of over 300 mln).

(ii) then have proportional representation lists for say 150 seats to help balance the electorate vote.

This would cut the number of MPs by over 150 folk and save some considerable money.....(at least $10 mln plus all the other expenses and salaries). Indeed they could up the pay-packets of the remaining so to try and avoid us paying peanuts and getting monkeys running our Government.

[seadogg]

I think that your suggestion has common sense behind it DTC. A possible reservation might be

1. Would there be enough MPs to staff select committees etc?
2, Would it affect the MP's job as a delegate for his constituents?
Might be more when had time to digest your suggestion and my lunch,

[Gromit]

Geezer,

I did not ask HOW Blair got elected with 35%, which is obvious.

I ask you to explain how it is fairer than AV?

[scotman]

One of the 'reasons' put forward by the NO campaign seems to be that, if voted in, AV would be impossible to get rid of regardless of how it worked out. I am not sure how that could become the case. It is difficult but maybe there is a way we could give it a try for a few elections and then have another vote on whether to keep it or return to present system.

[R1Geezer]

it's fairer than AV because the party with the most votes won.

[ubasses]

What concerns me is A Voter goes to poll and votes for one of the main parties, does not under any circumstances want the other main party to get in so starts making 2nd, 3rd etc choices for parties like BNP, Monstor Raving Loony et al and if enough people do this some of these crackpots could end up running our country. Not only shall I vote No I will continue only putting one vote on my ballot paper which I understand will be legal. Hence if all No voters do this may be there will not be enough second votes for the system to work.

[Lonnie]

neither sytem is perfect, but for myself, I think out of the two, the present system is the fairer.