Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I'd be inclined to disagree there; AV gives voters two choices and I would reckon that the BNP would have been more likely to win in a seat like Barking because many voters would have chosen the BNP as their second choice. I doubt they would gain many seats but you might see them with one or two seats under AV.

    I will be voting 'no' in the referendum simply because I am a Labour man and FPTP is a good system for Labour. The only people who will really vote for AV are the people want to see more Coalition Governments (which clearly don't work) or if they support smaller parties.
    They would have to gain 50% of the vote in a a straight choice. AV gives people the choice to order down the ballot for as long as they wish. I'd imagine the BNP will be the bottom of the majority's list and it stops them from the possibility of getting a seat because the voting is split between the others.

    I mean, can you really imagine if it came down to two parties the BNP getting 50% of the vote over the other? Then I can't see them getting a seat under AV either.

    Nor are coalitions more likely under AV. There really are some misconceptions. What creates proportionality (and therefore coalitions) is multi-member constituencies, since votes that are not for the winning candidate are not cast away, but carried over and these small minorities add up. AV has single-member constituencies, just like FPTP, and is therefore no more likely to result in a coalition government. Indeed, traditionally is would have been good for Labour due to the fact that the centre-left vote has been split between Labour/Lib Dem and the 2nd preferences form Lib Dems would have gone to Labour. Now, in our current political climate this may not be the case, but it doesn't particularly favour one party or the other inherently, it merely stops the vote splitting allowing the other one in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    They would have to gain 50% of the vote in a a straight choice. AV gives people the choice to order down the ballot for as long as they wish. I'd imagine the BNP will be the bottom of the majority's list and it stops them from the possibility of getting a seat because the voting is split between the others.

    I mean, can you really imagine if it came down to two parties the BNP getting 50% of the vote over the other? Then I can't see them getting a seat under AV either.
    Indeed; however once all the votes are counted and no candidate has 50% of the vote then second preferences would be taken into account and I think this is what would get the BNP a seat. For example, in the last General Election, in Dagenham and Rainham the results were as follows:

    Labour - 40.3%
    Conservative - 34.3%
    British National Party - 11.2%

    Under AV, the second preferences would then be counted and I sincerely doubt that the Labour voters would choose the Conservatives as their second choice and I doubt the Conservative voters would choose Labour as their second choice; therefore, the vote share of the BNP would increase and we might see them get a seat.

    AV is not only undemocratic; as the candidate with the most votes may not be the elected MP but it also allows smaller extremist parties, like the BNP to actually do well and perhaps succeed. I think FPTP is the best option and we should keep it to 'one person, one vote'.

    Nor are coalitions more likely under AV. There really are some misconceptions. What creates proportionality (and therefore coalitions) is multi-member constituencies, since votes that are not for the winning candidate are not cast away, but carried over and these small minorities add up. AV has single-member constituencies, just like FPTP, and is therefore no more likely to result in a coalition government. Indeed, traditionally is would have been good for Labour due to the fact that the centre-left vote has been split between Labour/Lib Dem and the 2nd preferences form Lib Dems would have gone to Labour. Now, in our current political climate this may not be the case, but it doesn't particularly favour one party or the other inherently, it merely stops the vote splitting allowing the other one in.
    AV would see the Liberal Democrats gain more seats from the second preference votes; which would take votes away from the Labour or Tory candidate from winning? AV is actually designed to help the 'third party'.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Indeed; however once all the votes are counted and no candidate has 50% of the vote then second preferences would be taken into account and I think this is what would get the BNP a seat. For example, in the last General Election, in Dagenham and Rainham the results were as follows:

    Labour - 40.3%
    Conservative - 34.3%
    British National Party - 11.2%

    Under AV, the second preferences would then be counted and I sincerely doubt that the Labour voters would choose the Conservatives as their second choice and I doubt the Conservative voters would choose Labour as their second choice; therefore, the vote share of the BNP would increase and we might see them get a seat.
    Actually you forgot the smaller parties. People who voted for these parties Wouldn't necessarily vote BNP, and not everyone who voted labour or tory would have the BNP on their list at all (I would hope). AV is actually less likely to lead to extremist parties like the BNP. Most people will oppose them (that's kinda part of being an extremist party) and AV stops the splitting of the ant-extremist vote.

    AV is not only undemocratic; as the candidate with the most votes may not be the elected MP but it also allows smaller extremist parties, like the BNP to actually do well and perhaps succeed. I think FPTP is the best option and we should keep it to 'one person, one vote'.
    It's more democratic. Is it more democratic that over 100 MPs got elected despite getting less than 40% of the vote? What if the other 60% would have rather had anyone but them, but were simply split over who they did want? There is also the fact that the votes in most constituencies don't really matter. Unless you live in a marginal you're vote is worth much less than someones who lives in a marginal seat. This also helps combat voter apathy, which is a real danger to our democracy. Also I don't get your last part, everyone still has one vote.

    AV would see the Liberal Democrats gain more seats from the second preference votes; which would take votes away from the Labour or Tory candidate from winning? AV is actually designed to help the 'third party'.
    Not at all. There is a huge difference between AV and 'proper' proportional representation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Indeed; however once all the votes are counted and no candidate has 50% of the vote then second preferences would be taken into account and I think this is what would get the BNP a seat. For example, in the last General Election, in Dagenham and Rainham the results were as follows:

    Labour - 40.3%
    Conservative - 34.3%
    British National Party - 11.2%

    Under AV, the second preferences would then be counted and I sincerely doubt that the Labour voters would choose the Conservatives as their second choice and I doubt the Conservative voters would choose Labour as their second choice; therefore, the vote share of the BNP would increase and we might see them get a seat.
    Actually, in that scenario, the BNP votes would be discounted, and the second preferences of BNP voters would be allocated to Labour and Conservative. Thus they would have 0 chance of getting a seat in this scenario.

    They'd have to be in the top 2 parties to even have a chance.

    AV is not only undemocratic; as the candidate with the most votes may not be the elected MP but it also allows smaller extremist parties, like the BNP to actually do well and perhaps succeed. I think FPTP is the best option and we should keep it to 'one person, one vote'.
    What AV allows is for preferences to be more accurately represented, since tactical voting is not beneficial. The optimal choice, if you want candidates to get in, in a certain order is to order them on your ballot that way.

    As you showed above, you clearly have some misconceptions in the way you think the voting system works, and this is probably why you point out bad things that don't actually exist under AV.

    AV would see the Liberal Democrats gain more seats from the second preference votes; which would take votes away from the Labour or Tory candidate from winning? AV is actually designed to help the 'third party'.
    AV would not necessarily help the Lib Dems, although they might on better on second/third/fourth preference votes, they'd still have to be in the final 2 to have a chance. Even so, what it really does it stop the splitting of the vote, which would primarily help Labour or the Conservatives, depending on which one the Lib Dems are a hinderance to under FPTP (which traditionally was Labour as the Lib Dems were viewed as centre-left, but with the shifting perception of LDs now we have the Coalition, it will hinder the Conservatives).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    There's no reason the BNP would be more likely to gain seats under AV than FPTP. They would still have to gain a majority in a single constituency to gain a seat.; just as they'd have to gain a plurality in a single seat under FPTP.

    I mean, there may be a marginal difference one way or the other, but I very much doubt we'd be looking at any BNP seats in the current political climate (of course that may change by 2015).
    When I was reading about AV on the bus there was a passage saying if you allocated seats on the voting percentages in the UK population there would be 10 BNP MP's and 16 UKIP MP's - I assumed they were talking about AV being implemented as I have never really looked into it.

    However, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm shows that Labour would benefit from it along with the Lib Dems at the Constervatives expense.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    When I was reading about AV on the bus there was a passage saying if you allocated seats on the voting percentages in the UK population there would be 10 BNP MP's and 16 UKIP MP's - I assumed they were talking about AV being implemented as I have never really looked into it.

    However, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm shows that Labour would benefit from it along with the Lib Dems at the Constervatives expense.

    We can't say for sure who would benefit because we can't know whoes peoples second choice would be, but should that really be the issue? It's a system that is fairly anti-extremist because most people are unlikely to put parties like the BNP high on their list. If just 50%+1 don't have BNP on their list then there is no way for them to win in that area.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Actually you forgot the smaller parties. People who voted for these parties Wouldn't necessarily vote BNP, and not everyone who voted labour or tory would have the BNP on their list at all (I would hope). AV is actually less likely to lead to extremist parties like the BNP. Most people will oppose them (that's kinda part of being an extremist party) and AV stops the splitting of the ant-extremist vote.

    It's more democratic. Is it more democratic that over 100 MPs got elected despite getting less than 40% of the vote? What if the other 60% would have rather had anyone but them, but were simply split over who they did want? There is also the fact that the votes in most constituencies don't really matter. Unless you live in a marginal you're vote is worth much less than someones who lives in a marginal seat. This also helps combat voter apathy, which is a real danger to our democracy. Also I don't get your last part, everyone still has one vote.

    Not at all. There is a huge difference between AV and 'proper' proportional representation.
    I would like to thank my Honourable Friend for the pretty colour he used in his response. In regards to the BNP, I still reckon they would be more likely to succeed under AV; we don't know what the voters second choice would be but I could be damn sure that the white working classes in Dagenham would be more inclined to vote for the BNP as a second choice than the Tories. AV is an untested system; I mean its only used in three countries in the world so we cannot be sure at this stage.

    I believe in the simple majority. If we had worked under AV then Labour would have lost so many seats, despite having most of the votes. Even if a candidate has five more votes than the other person, they still have the most votes and have won fair and square.

    It would be two votes; if no candidate receives 50% then your second preference would be added which essentially two votes. Let's say in Dagenham, my first choice was Labour and my second was BNP; if the Labour candidate only got 43% of the vote then second choices would be added and the BNP would get my vote too. Two votes? Please correct me if I have got this wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    However, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm shows that Labour would benefit from it along with the Lib Dems at the Constervatives expense.
    Looking at the 'Change in Seats' chart it is only the Liberals who consistently benefit from AV; thus making a Hung Parliament more likely. Both the Conservatives and Labour have ups and downs under AV.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I would like to thank my Honourable Friend for the pretty colour he used in his response. In regards to the BNP, I still reckon they would be more likely to succeed under AV; we don't know what the voters second choice would be but I could be damn sure that the white working classes in Dagenham would be more inclined to vote for the BNP as a second choice than the Tories. AV is an untested system; I mean its only used in three countries in the world so we cannot be sure at this stage.
    As you say it's all simply educated guesses as we simply don't know. Do you really think that over 50% would have the BNP on their list at all? Do you not think it's more likely that a few BNP supporters may have Labour as their second choice? Or the tories? Or that the other smaller parties may have one of those two?

    On another note, Is it right for us to make a decision based on who would benefit? We shouldn't be manipulating the public and deliberately using systems that will benefit our party. That's undemocratic.


    I believe in the simple majority. If we had worked under AV then Labour would have lost so many seats, despite having most of the votes. Even if a candidate has five more votes than the other person, they still have the most votes and have won fair and square.

    You continue to show a poor understanding of AV, and rather than take on the knowledge we are trying to give you to help you make informed decisions you simply continue with what you already thought and ignore that which contradicts it. Ok, let me give you an example. A 3 way tie (with some smaller groups) gives this outcome:

    35% - Tories
    30% - Labour
    25% - Lib dem
    10% - Other

    This is similar to the three way marginals we see. What if the lib dem voters would have preferred Labour to the tories? (We'll split the others between them) Thats 60% who didn't want the tories (and under AV we would thus get a Labour MP) and only 40% who wanted the tories. Yet under FPTP the tories win that seat. This is obviously undemocratic.


    It would be two votes; if no candidate receives 50% then your second preference would be added which essentially two votes. Let's say in Dagenham, my first choice was Labour and my second was BNP; if the Labour candidate only got 43% of the vote then second choices would be added and the BNP would get my vote too. Two votes? Please correct me if I have got this wrong.
    You have. Everyone gets one vote, it's simply if your first choice is no longer in the running (due to having too many votes) that your second choice is used instead. Let me run through an example here as well. On first choice the result is:

    Dagenham and Rainham

    Labour - 40.3
    Conservative - 34.3
    BNP - 11.2
    Liberal Democrat - 8.6
    UKIP - 3.5
    Independent - 0.7
    Christian - 0.7
    Green - 0.7

    Since nobody has a majority, we go to the next round. The Greens (as the lowest) are knocked out. I think it's safe to assume their second would be labour, whoes share goes to 41%. Then the Christians, elc. etc. As you can see with these results, the BNP would have a 0% chance of winning as even if all the parties with less than 10% of the vote had BNP as their second choice their vote would only be 25.4%. Thus they would be knocked out and we would use their second choice (and the third choice for anyone who used BNP for their second choice). Thus with the 2010 results the BNP would be unable to win that seat.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    paddy__power is the new leader of TSR Labour.

    I've stepped down as I'm the longest serving Labour party leader ever on TSR I think so I've been in the role long enough. We got some good stuff through in my time but my creative juices have dried up and I don't think the house is as appealing to me as it used to be.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    paddy__power is the new leader of TSR Labour.

    I've stepped down as I'm the longest serving Labour party leader ever on TSR I think so I've been in the role long enough. We got some good stuff through in my time but my creative juices have dried up and I don't think the house is as appealing to me as it used to be.
    Did you guys elect him as the new leader? Or?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    Did you guys elect him as the new leader? Or?
    Yes?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    Did you guys elect him as the new leader? Or?
    Yeah. There were only 2 people interested in the position though unfortunately.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wish Paddybackinpower (thanks, have you tried the chicken, I hear its great) the best of luck. Here is a welcoming present:

    Do you still wish to withdraw Britain from the E.U.? If yes, will this be at odds with Labour's current policy?
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    I wish Paddybackinpower (thanks, have you tried the chicken, I hear its great) the best of luck. Here is a welcoming present:

    Do you still wish to withdraw Britain from the E.U.? If yes, will this be at odds with Labour's current policy?
    Can't rep you yet, but good question.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    I wish Paddybackinpower (thanks, have you tried the chicken, I hear its great) the best of luck. Here is a welcoming present:

    Do you still wish to withdraw Britain from the E.U.? If yes, will this be at odds with Labour's current policy?
    I don't, no.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I don't, no.
    What changed your mind?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by aaran-j)
    What changed your mind?
    I've never been implacably anti-EU; I still maintain that a lot of what it does is superfluous but think that to abandon something that could be really good is probably not the right thing to do. There are many things about the EU I still don't like but have changed my mind about what actions to take in light of this. I think the EU should facilitate rather than interfere and coerce, and I think it does too much of the latter - it's an issue for which my opinion has been constantly developing to be honest.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaran-j)
    What changed your mind?
    I whipped him.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    I whipped him.
    :sexface:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.