Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    Then don't. You get as many or as few ticks as you want.

    I'm hoping we might be able to see some Independants in with AV over FPTP.
    I would never vote Tory or BNP. So that means everybody who is Tory will vote Tory and anything close to it's beliefs, same with Labour. Thats not tactical voting?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Oh my...
    Seriously. Before you make any comments, before you even form an opinion, but most importantly, before you vote PLEASE actually know what AV is.

    Whether you are for it or against it, at least know how it works before going to the polling station on the 5th of May, or posting in topics (unless you are posting asking for clarification).
    A fair few people in here know what they are talking about (not that its complicated), but I would say there are more people who are utterly clueless.

    Sorry, but ignorance of something which is so important really bugs me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The great misunderstanding of the people in this thread just demonstrates how much of a failure this voting system would be.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I will be voting no to AV. The idea that my second/third perhaps even forth choice could end up counting as my first is not an appealing one to me, especially when there is usually a lack of alluring parties/people to choose from.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For general elections to the House of Commons, I prefer FPTP. It is an easy and understandable voting system that we have had throughout our democratic history, as do many other countries. It produces a clear winner. And after all, in each constituency, surely the person with the most votes should win. It is common sense.

    However, although I support FPTP in the Commons, I would like to see the House of Lords being reformed under an elected system. Since there would be FPTP in the Commons, I think a fully proportionate system would be a nice alternative in the Lords. I suppose in that sense it would no longer be the 'Lords'. I just think Proportional Representation is the most democratic way, and isn't as complicated or controversial as AV.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andy5788)
    Well I'll be the first one to defend AV then....

    It doesn't do anything for proportionality no. But it does go some way to eliminating tactical voting and allows you to vote with your conscience. Preferential systems are also considered good enough to do most internal party elections, candidate selections etc so I don't see the difference.
    It won't get rid of tactical voting, if anything it will enhance it. The only tactical voting which goes on out there, is voting to prevent the tories from winning, so people vote for labour/liberals whoever has the best chance of winning. AV will just mean people select tories as their lowest preference choice but they may still (and for them to most likely achieve the result they want) put the more likely party to win as their top choice.

    AV is just an attempt for labour and lib dems to stop tories winning out right majorities again, even though labour will lose seats through AV...

    The fairer reform, and is being enacted by the tories, is more even population sizes in each constituencies, which means that the over representation of scotland in parliament is ended, and that the number of constituencies where the 'marginal vote' is nowhere near the last counted is reduced.

    Edit: Noticed you said 'go some way', but still, my point is valid and it will do nothing to stop tactical voting.

    Also, the system of AV is far too complicated for most people and is going to take a lot longer to count. Plus, it'll be so expensive...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redreynard)
    so which is better, the alternative vote - basically you vote for the different parties in order of preference - or first past the post - you vote for just one party?
    two questions really. firstly which is better as in fairer? and secondly, which is better in terms of getting the result you want!?
    ....
    i think AV is fairer. because if you like a small party, you can vote for them, knowing that if they do badly, your second vote will be taken into consideration. in this way small parties can pick up votes as not considered a "wasted" vote.
    ....
    i used to think that first past the post was better because then people are forced to vote for the tories or labour and so you get a clear winner. whereas AV might lead to more coalition governments - leaving us perpetually governed by soggy moderates and possibly meaning that the liberals are always in power as the second party - and i don't like the liberals. but nowadays given i don't anymore much like either of the two big parties and fancy little parties becoming stronger, maybe AV is better.
    ....
    conclusion: AV is fairer - and more importantly it is the system that is more likely to get the political results i want!
    OP read this, it's an article i wrote on it some weeks ago. : http://socyberty.com/politics/the-al...marmite-party/
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    AV is less fair than FPTP. Given the experience of Australia, I am quite sure AV will eradicate small parties and return us to a two-party system.

    This will suit Labour and the Tories fine and they'll use their secure position to prevent any move to PR.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just out of interest referendums are not legally binding in this country and are only used for advice so to speak. So if people vote YES to AV whats the chances of David Cameron bringing in an act of parliament to reverse it??
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    When Australia introduced it they had to make voting compulsory because voting numbers dropped. Now they and Fiji are looking to drop it.

    FPTP is a tried and tested system. Its simple it works we have had it for years, there no problem with it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    Just out of interest referendums are not legally binding in this country and are only used for advice so to speak. So if people vote YES to AV whats the chances of David Cameron bringing in an act of parliament to reverse it??
    I think he'd face a huge parliamentary rebellion, and would have his government kicked out on its ear.

    They may not be binding by default but Parliament has said in the Act that it will enforce the decision made by the electorate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be voting against AV. It is too expensive, its illogical and the only party that it will benefit will be the Liberal Democrats.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm torn now. I was a staunch defender of FPTP in the past, but now I see it's responsible for the monopoly the Tories and Labour have over this country. That's not democracy. That's sheep voting for the same two nomads because it's feels as un natural as eating puppies in Kent to vote for anybody else.

    I'm just not sure anymore. All I know is I want pure Tory or Labour governments to be a thing of the past......
    Offline

    15
    FPTP is better than AV, they need a different option if they want to change how people vote, AV is not it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    FPTP all the way! No thanks to having potentially far right idiots in the Houses of Parliament, they've got the EU Parliament for that leave them there!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    AV, but they're both rubbish.

    The best system is MMS (Mixed Member Proportional) q.f.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    AV simply because my big fear is if AV is rejected it will be taken as a sign that people don't want voting reform and any chance at getting STV will be gone for good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    AV is better than FPTP.

    The argument about extremist getting seats is a joke. The Tories are purely saying that because they know what AV means for them.

    How can an MP be elected with 40%?

    AV maybe not perfect, however, much better than FPTP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NGC773)
    When Australia introduced it they had to make voting compulsory because voting numbers dropped. Now they and Fiji are looking to drop it.

    FPTP is a tried and tested system. Its simple it works we have had it for years, there no problem with it.


    Except from the fact its insanely unrepresentative and parties often get a monopoly on power despite getting under 50% of the votes?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    Just out of interest referendums are not legally binding in this country and are only used for advice so to speak. So if people vote YES to AV whats the chances of David Cameron bringing in an act of parliament to reverse it??
    I'd imagine that if he did have the balls to try and go against a YES referendum result, the Lib Dems would pull out of the coalition and bring the government down.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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