Referendum

[JohnH]

No wonder the Lib Dems want AV. Rolling Eyes

They don't. AV is a Labour policy. The Lib Dems want Single Transferable Vote, but since they'll never get that they're backing AV as a step in their desired direction.

Thanks for the hair-splitting, Mike. My point was that any alternative to FPTP would increase the likelihood of a hung parliament -- a desirable outcome for the party who'll decide the balance of power.

And frankly, anyone who finds AV too complicated probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. "Rank these candidates in order of preference" - not hard, is it?

I think people are unsure about the way that the votes are counted and allocated, not about voting itself.

 

[Easy_Rider]

I believe there really should be a "non of the above" box

So in AV would I have to rank or could I still just vote for one candidate? Because I don't think I could ever put a mark next to a labour candidate even if it for last place.

Just to add to my previous post, because of constituency sizes, in the last election the conservatives would have needed close to 40% of the overall vote to win outright where labour only needed 34% to win outright, hence the coalition we are stuck with now. Labour won in 2005 with 35%

I know in the past the winning party has won with fewer vote percentage but I don't think it's realistically possible today. Again because of the above. Labour constituencies had much larger populations back then than they do now.

 

[MikeD]

Not unless the voter doesn't know all the candidates.. and not every voter will have the time and/or inclination to do the research.

If you don't know anything about a candidate, don't rank them. Easy. You don't have to fill in all the boxes, you can just vote for one if you want.

Or perhaps they just don't have the head for politics.. doesn't make them simpletons or less than average intelligence..

No it doesn't, which is fine, because that's not what I said. I said that an inability to understand the procedure of voting under AV is indicative of being a bit slow, and that if someone's unable to follow basic instructions it's arguable how much responsibility they should bear for deciding who gets to run the country

Not being engaged in politics is an entirely different issue. That's inclination, not inability.[/quote]

 

[IDB1]

The hung parliament thing. . is that a fact?

Only asking because, since Australia have been voting with AV, they have had 2 hung parliaments and the UK, in the same time period, has had 3..
Or that's what I read anyhoo..

But apparently Canada has had loads..

 

[MikeD]

I think people are unsure about the way that the votes are counted and allocated, not about voting itself.

So in AV would I have to rank or could I still just vote for one candidate?

It's not really splitting hairs to point out which party actually supports which voting system, I don't think. Especially since AV and STV are substantially different beasts. I'll grant you that's it's something of a moot point given that STV isn't in the running, though

 

[JohnH]

The hung parliament thing. . is that a fact?

Only asking because, since Australia have been voting with AV, they have had 2 hung parliaments and the UK, in the same time period, has had 3..
Or that's what I read anyhoo..

But apparently Canada has had loads..

Like the US, Austraila only has two major parties -- the Labour party and the Liberal party. So the vote has to be very close to force a hung parliament, because there's only one other major party to beat to form a majority.

 

[IDB1]

Like the US, Austraila only has two major parties -- the Labour party and the Liberal party. So the vote has to be very close to force a hung parliament, because there's only one other major party to beat to form a majority.

Gotcha..

 

[REKIBorter]

The Lib-Dems have been for Proportional Representation since I studied politics back in the early 80's. The AV system is a watered down compromise.

As said earlier if people don't understand the new system they shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's common sense FFS. The current FPTP system can elect a government that the minority of voters support.

I will try again:

40% of the votes go to party A
30% of the votes go to party B
30% of the votes go to party C

Party A wins the election but 60% of the voters did not vote for them.

 

[REKIBorter]

Just got the 'No Vote' leaflet in the post. Picture of the runners - the sad one is the winner, pathetic lazy marketing. Oooooh, pretty lady doctor - ditto.

 

[clockworkgazz]

The Lib-Dems have been for Proportional Representation since I studied politics back in the early 80's. The AV system is a watered down compromise.

As said earlier if people don't understand the new system they shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's common sense FFS. The current FPTP system can elect a government that the minority of voters support.

I will try again:

40% of the votes go to party A
30% of the votes go to party B
30% of the votes go to party C

Party A wins the election but 60% of the voters did not vote for them.

don't really get what point your making, who says you have to have a majority over all of the other parties votes lumped together? And why does someone elses second choice then take on the same weight as my first choice? Just to get you to this majical 51% figure?

Someone who votes BNP first and then conservative second can help the tory boys to govern, if the BNP come last and we start the count again- yeah thats a great system.