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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    I spent a whole term learning ****ing voting systems, and then got full marks on the exam. It's a particular interest of mine. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. If you can counter my point, please do so. Don't resort to ad-hominems.
    lol.. I've got to learn them all over Easter! FML!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    You really don't now what you're talking about.
    Generally, the largest support for the BNP comes from areas with political alienation and decaying local parties, incidentally this has very often been Labour constituencies. All of the areas that have had high(er) levels of BNP support have been former Labour strongholds; Burnley in the 2001 election, Barking and Dagenham in 2006 (when the BNP won 12 councillors in the area).

    A typical BNP voter is one who feels left down by the prevalent political party, which for the past 13 years has been Labour, meaning a large swathe of BNP supports derives from former Labour supporters.

    And you can still have power in commons without having 325 of the seats..
    That's true in some areas. In my areas they're all Tory and UKIP.

    At any rate, BNP voters are doing so as a protest vote against the political elite ignoring the white working class.

    It doesn't work as a protest very well if they're the second or third choice.

    And they STILL need 50% of the vote to get in anyway, which means its harder than if they could get through on 25% as per the current system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDL445)
    Wrong.
    Give me a realistic example of how the BNP could get a seat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    Give me a realistic example of how the BNP could get a seat.
    Wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst AV is by no means perfect, we need to get it if we're to get anywhere near PR. FPTP is entirely rubbish; what's really needed is Single Transferable Vote, as we use in sunny Northern Ireland.

    Hilariously, in Northern Ireland we'll be voting on whether we should use AV in national elections, whilst simultaneously using STV to vote for our MLAs.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    If no single person has the majority of the vote, second votes are counted and added and if still no-one has a majority, we go to third votes and so on and so forth.

    I wouldn't vote for anyone else in my constituency than Labour, but someone else might vote Tory and Lib Dem.

    Results:
    Tory 20%
    Lib Dem 30%
    Labour 40%
    Others 10%

    Now, in this scenario, I effectively have only voted once, whilst people who put second choices, get another vote.

    No sale.
    They don't get another vote. It's like asking for fish and chips in the chippy, they tell you they're out of fish so you have pie and chips instead. you've still only had one meal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand AV i get told different things from different people. I want proportional representation and I think that this isnt going to happen anytime soon.
    The outcomes will be:
    AV wins: "Oh good now the people have a voting system they like and we won't have to change it!
    FPTP wins: "People don't want a change in the voting system"

    Either way we will end up with an unfair system.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    That's true in some areas. In my areas they're all Tory and UKIP.

    At any rate, BNP voters are doing so as a protest vote against the political elite ignoring the white working class.

    It doesn't work as a protest very well if they're the second or third choice.

    And they STILL need 50% of the vote to get in anyway, which means its harder than if they could get through on 25% as per the current system.
    To get in? You mean to get a seat in Westminster? :confused:
    They don't need 50%, they just need the majority. Sorry I'm not following.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In many ways, it will be like using a random number generator to decide the election. People will vote 1st for the party they want to win, then for every other party except the party they don't want to win, probably in a pretty random order. Say 42% of people vote for everyone except Tory, 41% vote everyone except Labour, and 20% vote for everyone else except Tory and Labour because they hate both. Neither Tory nor Labour will get 50%, no matter how many rounds you have. Instead a virtually randomly selected A. N Other will be elected that no-one actually wants. Very ****ing democratic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    FPTP for the win.

    I do not understand the logic in giving some people more votes than others.
    Agreed I dislike the fact that some votes will effectively be worth more. That imo is not democracy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    GODDAMNIT THAT'S NOT HOW AV WORKS AND IF ANYONE ELSE SAYS SO I WILL MURDER THEM WITH AN AXE AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

    It works the same way as STV, that is, the SINGLE transferrable vote system. If someone's second or third choices are used then their earlier choices are removed. They only get one vote.

    ONE VOTE.
    Sorry, no. You clearly don't know how STV works, either.

    STV addresses the problem by diluting the strength of second/third/fourth preferences. Each recount means the first preferences are still strongest.

    The fact is AV doesn't do this, and therefore the votes are recounted entirely.

    Ergo, multiple votes.

    It depresses me that a website that is supposed to contain the cleverest segment of the student population is falling for all the *******s of the no campaign.

    I bet you're also against AV because all the money used on those expensive counting machines could go towards saving puppies/babies/soldiers, right?
    How insulting - absolutely not. I recognise the No side has been dirty, but a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think I'd rather have AV because fewer people would feel like they have to vote Labour or Conservative just because they can't risk letting the other into power. I agree about a problem with 'watering down' policy, but then Labour and the Tories are hardly poles apart.
    PR would be the way to go, and I fear voting for AV might seem like 'backing down' to PR.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KissMyArtichoke)
    I think I'd rather have AV because fewer people would feel like they have to vote Labour or Conservative just because they can't risk letting the other into power. I agree about a problem with 'watering down' policy, but then Labour and the Tories are hardly poles apart.
    PR would be the way to go, and I fear voting for AV might seem like 'backing down' to PR.
    Tricky situation, if the nation doesn't accept AV then there won't be seen to be a desire for electoral reform and if the nation does accept AV then there won't seen to be a desire for more electoral reform.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NGC773)
    AV does not solve that the problem because it is not proportional. Indeed in some circumstances, it makes unrepresentative governments more powerful.

    Its not fair that someone with more first votes could come in second place under AV. Why should someone get their vote counted twice or three times and someone else once?

    One person = one vote
    Which is why I said in my other post I am a supporter of STV.

    AV isn't proportional although it is more proportional. Personally I don't like the system and its far from perfect, but my fear is if it is voted down then it will be taken as a sign that people don't want voting reform and any chance of ever getting STV will be lost.

    Thats why I would personally urge people who want STV to vote AV.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    AV is a completely stupid system and won't do anything to increase democratic accountability or reduce tribal voting. All that will happen is that Tory voters will tick Tory, and then every other party except Labour, and Labour voters will tick Labour and then every other party except Tory. It'll make the system worse, not better.
    This. :facepalm:

    Whether you liuke FPTP or not, surely you can all see that we'll still have tactical voting?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    To get in? You mean to get a seat in Westminster? :confused:
    They don't need 50%, they just need the majority. Sorry I'm not following.
    50% is a majority...

    I assume you mean a plurality, ie, the largest number of votes out of every candidates.

    Currently, an MP can be elected with 25% of the vote as long as its a plurality (so no other candidates with more than 25%)

    Under AV, they need at least 50%. This makes it harder for radical parties like the BNP to become elected, they need more people to vote for them than they do under FPTP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    Which is why I said in my other post I am a supporter of STV.

    AV isn't proportional although it is more proportional. Personally I don't like the system and its far from perfect, but my fear is if it is voted down then it will be taken as a sign that people don't want voting reform and any chance of ever getting STV will be lost.

    Thats why I would personally urge people who want STV to vote AV.
    Yes that makes sense, if you want the system to get better, vote for it to get worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callum828)
    50% is a majority...

    I assume you mean a plurality, ie, the largest number of votes out of every candidates.

    Currently, an MP can be elected with 25% of the vote as long as its a plurality (so no other candidates with more than 25%)

    Under AV, they need at least 50%. This makes it harder for radical parties like the BNP to become elected, they need more people to vote for them than they do under FPTP.
    And what if no-one gets 50%?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    FPTP is a bad system, but AV is worse. This isnt the first time recently that electoral reform has been considered. In 1998 the Jenkins commission reported on which system was best, deciding that was AV+, Labour decided not to implement it but the report still makes interesting reading.

    Amoung the choice statements from the report on AV:

    "Simulations of how the 1997 result might have come out under AV suggest that it would have significantly increased the size of the already swollen Labour majority. A 'best guess' projection of the shape of the current Parliament under AV suggests on one highly reputable estimate the following outcome with the actual FPTP figures given in brackets after the projected figures: Labour 452 (419), Conservative 96 (165), Liberal Democrats 82 (46), others 29 (29). The overall Labour majority could thus have risen from 169 to 245"

    so with 42% of the vote a majority of 245. Another simulation on the 2005 election indicates that with only 3% higher share of the votes than the Conservatives Labour would have got another triple figure majority under AV. AV section conclusion:

    "First, it does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it. Second, its effects (on its own without any corrective mechanism) are disturbingly unpredictable. Third, it would in the circumstances of the last election, which even if untypical is necessarily the one most vivid in the recollection of the public, and very likely in the circumstances of the next one too, be unacceptably unfair to the Conservatives"

    once again: "disturbingly unpredictable"...

    Finally on the idea that AV is a stepping stone to PR: it has never happened before in any other country. If people like AV we stick with it, if we dont like it its back to FPTP.

    So personally agree with the No 2 AV yes to PR campaign
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    Which is why I said in my other post I am a supporter of STV.

    AV isn't proportional although it is more proportional. Personally I don't like the system and its far from perfect, but my fear is if it is voted down then it will be taken as a sign that people don't want voting reform and any chance of ever getting STV will be lost.

    Thats why I would personally urge people who want STV to vote AV.
    EXACTLY!

    People who want a more radical reform (ie everyone) are only going to be able to get one by getting their foot in the door with AV. Voting no will only mean no reform ever.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

    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.