AV vote system - clarification

[R1Geezer]

must you rank all the candidates 1 to N? Can you omit some? can you use higher numbers and effectively not have your vote counted in the first round? Eg if you are a strong supporter of one candidated can you give them a 1 and that's it? What are the rules and will papers be more easily spoiled due to error misunderstanding etc?

[scotman]

Not sure but I think the level of detail you are considering would be decided later. I think the referendum will mainly be about the principle.

[modeller]

I have voted in an AV system and it doesn't work demorcratically. We had cases when the person who came last was elected. Those who came second or third were frequently elected .
How can that possibly be called fair . Once we realised what was happening we didn't use the second votes at all in that way our vote could not be used for somebdy we didn't want.

[venator]

You can just give one vote.

The whole thing is about keeping the lib dems in the running, after years in the wilderness.

After a few more referendums (a?) full Proportional representation will give us MPs from BNP and Monster Loony parties, too.

Can't wait...

[New Judge]

AV is a “losers’ charter”, is inherently unfair and is by no means democratic.

Voters voting for the candidate placed last have their second choices given the same weight as those who selected the winner as their first choice. Such voters effectively get two votes – a luxury not afforded to those who choose higher placed candidates as their first choice.

Apart from that it will lead to a permanently “hung” Parliament with all the problems manifested by the current Coalition. It is unlikely that any single party will ever gain an overall majority under AV.

[rov1100]

Anything that favours the Liberals should be thrown into the long grass. We have had 9 months of Liberals anti authoritan ideas and their support for the human rights legislation says it all.

Cameron has recognised this and is totally against AV. If the public had any sense they would also throw it out in May.

[TTG]

Ditto rovs comment.

[alexanderd]

Av would almost certainly mean no party getting overall control, it is meant to give the liberals some power and they can then side with whoever gives them the best deal as has just been proved

[Calibax]

You don't have to vote for all of them. For example if there were six candidates you could rate all six in order 1-6, your top 3 favourites 1-3 or one single candidate (1 only). They use this method in Australia but I think it only (vaguely) works because they have compulsory voting and so have a turnout of 95%. Can't see it working here with a 50% turnout.

[whiskeryron]

OK AV won't work so what system will ? For years we have voted in a system where the overall votes of the nation elect a minority government. If no one knows what I am talking about let me explain.
In a hyperthetical election you could have Tories 1000 votes, Labour 600 votes, Lib Dems 400 votes,Other Parties 300 votes. In this election the Tories would be the winners with 1000 votes but 1300 voters would have voted against the Tories so how can this be a fair election ? Or is there something I'm missing ?

[New Judge]

Yes, you are missing something, ron.

What has been missed by everybody for many years is the fact that the function of a Parliamentary election is not for voters to elect a government but to elect Members of Parliament to represent their interests at Westminster. It is those elected members who choose a government. So long as there are more than two parties there is every likelihood that the government will be formed by a party with fewer votes than the rest combined.

Party politics is responsible for this and the system we use was not designed to cope with party politics. It was designed for constituents to choose their Member to go to Westminster, and he would vote on individual issues according to their needs.

Any remedy (if one is necessary) must involve one of two things: either the connection between the voter and an identifiable, electable, Member of Parliament must be lost (voters will simply vote for a party to govern and it will be for the party to select their MPs); or the connection between an individual candidate and a “party” must be outlawed (highly impractical). If neither of these two principles are adopted no voting system will overcome the apparent weakness which seems to trouble many people. Any attempt to change the voting system without doing so will simply replace one perceived injustice with another.

Without these changes all the alternatives to the “first past the post” system suffer from the same problem – that of the voters’ intentions being modified by some means. The proposed AV system suffers particularly from this.

[McMouse]

There's a lot to be said for a 'benign dictatorship'. Present parliamentary system rarely allows free votes so policy is made and implemented by whoever is in No. 10 and look where that has got us.

[woofgang]

Mc Mouse there is NOTHING to be said for any kind of dictatorship...it might start of benign but rarely stays that way for long

[mike11111]

As the vast majority of support for AV will come from the LDs and smaller parties I think a combined Tory/Labour majority 'No' vote will see it off.

[seadogg]

The system of constituency voting is inherently unfair as a vote for party A in a party B stronghold is a waste and as judge has admirably pointed out the constituency is poorly represented in many ways as the MP is not a delegate from the constituency in these days of the Party machines.

Whether AV is any better though is not so clear.

[scotman]

Regarding benign dictatorships I am reminded of a comment someone made a long time ago

'A democracy is a very poor way of running anything; its only good feature is that all the alternatives are much worse.'

[whiskeryron]

would there be any way that the electorate could vote for persons to be in the govenment, for instant to select from a number of head masters/mistresses for the top post of minister for education, a list of financiers for chancellor of the exchequer, home secretary from legal experts & etc,etc.To form a complete cabinet ?. Ron.

[AB Editor]

Hi there, thought I'd drop this silliness in for your - this is a send up of the anti AV campaign:

http://av.argh.tc/o-matic/

I laughed anyway.