The K M Links Game - January 2025 Week 1
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
AV referendum.
70 Answers
Just watching the Andrew Marr Show and the PM said that AV is used only by Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinnea. So do we really want a system that is so unnattactive? Apparently to make this work Australia has made voting a legal requirement. Surely any system where a stick is needed if flawed. Sorry if this has been discussed already,I'm a recent joiner.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by CanisMajor. 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.
I would imagine that Nick Clegg or, at least, his policy advisory committee, decided on the wording of the question. This whole farcical (and hugely expensive!) charade is nothing more than Cameron's sop to Clegg in order to guarantee the continued support of the Lib Dems. Without that, the Lib Dems could switch their support to Labour who would almost certainly table a vote of no confidence in the government, forcing another general election.
Still voting 'yes' Ron...?
Still voting 'yes' Ron...?
A 'NO' to AV result coupled with the LibDems being decimated at at the local elections will see grassroots LibDems revolt and break the Coalition.
Labour will pick up most of the LibDem's disgruntled voters in the Autumn General Election. The Tories could not get a majority last time when all their policies were secret. They will lose voters and Labour might actually get a small majority.
Which leaves me with a dilemma. I want to vote YES for AV, but voting NO May see off this Government which has been disastrous for the country for the past year.
Labour will pick up most of the LibDem's disgruntled voters in the Autumn General Election. The Tories could not get a majority last time when all their policies were secret. They will lose voters and Labour might actually get a small majority.
Which leaves me with a dilemma. I want to vote YES for AV, but voting NO May see off this Government which has been disastrous for the country for the past year.
It may well break up the coalition, but not necessarily lead to a general election. This would only happen if there were a vote of confidence in which every non-Tory MP voted against the government. A few sops to the SNP, Ulster Unionists and Plaid Cymru and the government could well survive as a minority government. In any case I don't think the LibDems are too keen on elections right now.
Markrae
FPTP wins with 34% for and 66% against. The majority don't get their say. AV isn't much better, but keeping with a very bad system merely because we have used it for a long time isn't much of a decision.
Mike111
You may be right about LibDems not wanting elections so soon after these (which may be very bad for them). The dilemma for them is the damage to their party will be greater, the longer they prop up the Tories. DIfficult call, but as they lose a lot of councillors, their will be a lot of dis-satified LibDems about causing trouble.
FPTP wins with 34% for and 66% against. The majority don't get their say. AV isn't much better, but keeping with a very bad system merely because we have used it for a long time isn't much of a decision.
Mike111
You may be right about LibDems not wanting elections so soon after these (which may be very bad for them). The dilemma for them is the damage to their party will be greater, the longer they prop up the Tories. DIfficult call, but as they lose a lot of councillors, their will be a lot of dis-satified LibDems about causing trouble.
the percentage argument accepted at least with FPTP the candidate with the most votes wins, under AV, as far as I can tell you can still win with a poor showing in the first instance. For example there are anti EU factions in the main 2 parties that may well put UKIP as their second choice so you could end up with UKIP picking up seats when the first preference votes were anything but in favour of UKIP. I agree with Mark AV is much worse than what we have now.
-- answer removed --
Actually that is not quite true, mike.
By far and away the biggest beneficiary of the second choice votes was Brian Paddick (LibDem) who received 37.66% of those second choices. However, the London Mayoral election is different to the AV system proposed for Parliamentary elections. In the London vote if no candidate receives 50% of the first choice votes all the candidates from third place down are immediately eliminated. The second choice votes of people who voted for those candidates are scrutinised and if they are for either of the two top placed candidates then those votes are added to their first choice votes. Boris received just 124,977 second preference votes (7.34%) and Ken 135,089 (7.93%) and the 10,000 or so difference scarcely affected the result. It matters not because under this system he was eliminated after round one, but Paddick finished only 2% behind Livingstone and 7% behind Johnson when his second choice votes were added.
If the London election had been held under the AV system proposed for Parliament the outcome may have been very different indeed. The candidates finishing in third and fourth places (Paddick and Sian Berry, Green) polled almost 60% of the second choice votes between them. Assuming that people voting for the lower placed candidates as their first choice may have been unlikely to vote for either of the two main contenders there is a strong likelihood that the second choice votes (which attract equal weight to first choice votes) may well have enabled one of those two to win the election And they were the first choice of just 9.8% and 3.2% of the electorate respectively.
Would that have been fair? I think possibly not. But such are the vagaries of what I consider to be the gross unfairness of the proposed AV system where some people get two or more votes, but those choosing the first round winners are denied such a privilege.
By far and away the biggest beneficiary of the second choice votes was Brian Paddick (LibDem) who received 37.66% of those second choices. However, the London Mayoral election is different to the AV system proposed for Parliamentary elections. In the London vote if no candidate receives 50% of the first choice votes all the candidates from third place down are immediately eliminated. The second choice votes of people who voted for those candidates are scrutinised and if they are for either of the two top placed candidates then those votes are added to their first choice votes. Boris received just 124,977 second preference votes (7.34%) and Ken 135,089 (7.93%) and the 10,000 or so difference scarcely affected the result. It matters not because under this system he was eliminated after round one, but Paddick finished only 2% behind Livingstone and 7% behind Johnson when his second choice votes were added.
If the London election had been held under the AV system proposed for Parliament the outcome may have been very different indeed. The candidates finishing in third and fourth places (Paddick and Sian Berry, Green) polled almost 60% of the second choice votes between them. Assuming that people voting for the lower placed candidates as their first choice may have been unlikely to vote for either of the two main contenders there is a strong likelihood that the second choice votes (which attract equal weight to first choice votes) may well have enabled one of those two to win the election And they were the first choice of just 9.8% and 3.2% of the electorate respectively.
Would that have been fair? I think possibly not. But such are the vagaries of what I consider to be the gross unfairness of the proposed AV system where some people get two or more votes, but those choosing the first round winners are denied such a privilege.
In that case I think the system used in the London Mayoral election is even more unfair than the AV being proposed. In our mayoral election you have two votes. All but the top two are eliminated if the front runner does not get 50% and then second preferences redistributed. Thus only those who make one of the top two their second choice get their second vote counted.
Voting in Australia has been a legal requirement for a long, long time.
I think we should do it here.
As for AV
http://www.crashbangw...to-a-wiedersehen-pet/
I think we should do it here.
As for AV
http://www.crashbangw...to-a-wiedersehen-pet/
This referendum is taking place for one reason only: the price of support of the LibDems to form a coalition. I am still waiting for an answer to a question I have posed twice now: if the YES vote wins, are the government legally obliged,or have they committed themselves, to changing the system? My understanding is that referenda in this country, being relatively novel, are not constitutionally binding.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|