Turn on thread page Beta

Alternative voting - am I just helping Nick Clegg gain some popularity? watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gromit94)
    It will also get rid of the idea of a 'safe seat'.
    Not true. Look at this comparison of the safe seats in the UK against those in Australia, who do have AV:

    (Original post by random internet article)
    The usual definition of a safe seat is that a two-party swing of 10% of more is required to change hands. According to the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), 44% of seats in the UK House of Commons currently fall into this category, compared to 35% of seats in the Australian House of Reps. This is a bit of a crude measure but it suggests that Australian MPs may face more competitive electoral contests than their UK counterparts.

    Yet the evidence that AV would end the safe seat syndrome is hardly overwhelming. 32% of seats in the Australian House are “fairly safe” – that is, they need swings of between 5% and 10% to change hands. That figure is rather higher than the 26% of Commons seats that can be classed as “fairly safe”.

    As for marginal seats – constituencies that are vulnerable to swing of 5% or less – the two parliaments are close to level pegging. 33% of Australian House seats are marginal, compared to 31% of seats in the Commons.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The main, and best reason for voting for AV is not based on the merits or demerits of AV itself, but on the simple fact that a "No" vote will mean no more electoral reform in the next decade at least.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It gives people with minority views more power than those with majority views. Lets say my 5 favourite parties were the BNP, the Green Party, UKIP, the English Democrats and the Monster Raving Loonies, and they were all competing in a ward where most people voted Labour, and that I cast my votes in the order given.

    I cast one vote, for the BNP. They don't win. I then get to cast another vote, this time for the Green Party, who again don't win. I've now casted two votes, whilst those who voted Labour the first time round only got to vote once. So I cast vote number 3. This continues until finally I've casted 5 VOTES compared to a Labour supporter's ONE.

    This is not fair, nor is it proportional. It awards unequal power to people with differing popularity of beliefs, and screws over anyone who votes in favour of the most popular party.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Great Lord Xenu)
    No, this will make it easier, because people will just vote for every party other than the one that they don't want to let in, which isn't how it should work. The advantage of FPTP is that it forces you to decide which party you actually want to run the country.
    Yes this may happen, but it's only one theory. It is not know how the electorate will respond to a mutiple vote. Some may choose to take it as voting for just the 1 person they want to run their constituency/Government.
    But the point is that there's a bigger choice of candidates that could potentially get into power- not just the same old. If a candidate could potentially get in, then they may generate more support than they ever had before, where it was considered they didn't stand a chance.

    But, as I said, these are all just theories. It's hard to tell how it really would work out, besides being just a better and fairer system.

    It's times like these that I wish I could vote too.....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gromit94)
    Yes this may happen, but it's only one theory. It is not know how the electorate will respond to a mutiple vote. Some may choose to take it as voting for just the 1 person they want to run their constituency/Government.
    But the point is that there's a bigger choice of candidates that could potentially get into power- not just the same old. If a candidate could potentially get in, then they may generate more support than they ever had before, where it was considered they didn't stand a chance.

    But, as I said, these are all just theories. It's hard to tell how it really would work out, besides being just a better and fairer system.

    It's times like these that I wish I could vote too.....
    See the info I've posted above about AV in Australia.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NGC773)
    FPTP works. At one time the Lib Dems was the major opposition but the electorate moved towards labour. If they wanted the lib dems in they would vote for them
    6.8 million votes = 57 seats
    8.6 million votes = 258 seats.
    In the same election.

    There's clearly something wrong with a system that awards 4.5 times the number of seats to a party that only gets 25% more votes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    6.8 million votes = 57 seats
    8.6 million votes = 258 seats.
    In the same election.

    There's clearly something wrong with a system that awards 4.5 times the number of seats to a party that only gets 25% more votes.
    I think I've decided I'm going to vote against the AV system, mainly because I believe it will lead to more coalition governments and the Lib dems being made kingmakers.

    Also, I think it is adding more complication to a system, which will do nothing to reduce the low turnout numbers in elections.

    Finally, I reject the premise that changing the electoral system will lead to politicians behaving themselves. That is nonsense.

    Oh, and just a last touch, AV system means more power to parties like BNP.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marshmallowfudgecake)
    I think I've decided I'm going to vote against the AV system, mainly because I believe it will lead to more coalition governments and the Lib dems being made kingmakers.

    Also, I think it is adding more complication to a system, which will do nothing to reduce the low turnout numbers in elections.

    Finally, I reject the premise that changing the electoral system will lead to politicians behaving themselves. That is nonsense.

    Oh, and just a last touch, AV system means more power to parties like BNP.
    Four points which reference absolutely nothing I said in the post you quoted :tongue:
    Do you really think the current system is fair? 6.8m votes gives you 57 seats, and 8.6m votes gives 258 :curious:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Student2806)
    6.8 million votes = 57 seats
    8.6 million votes = 258 seats.
    In the same election.

    There's clearly something wrong with a system that awards 4.5 times the number of seats to a party that only gets 25% more votes.
    Thats an issue with consituency size. Under AV its not fair that a party with 49% of first choice votes could get beaten by the second or third runner up.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    i vote then too. vote for it because its a start to a fairer democracy... dont worry, nick cleggs ****ed fimself over with the whole tution fees argument. if you conservative then vote against but why would you want to do that now?
    Are you trying to judge someone based on one policy? That is just ridiculous, short-sighted and frankly pathetic. Please, think more in the long-term than in the short-term. Do you think Clegg will be unpopular in 2015 if the economy is going very well? Do you think anyone will be stupid enough to say "Right, economy is growing at **%, and this is the best rate in a long time, but I will still vote against Clegg because of tuition fees"

    That is a simply stupid logic. I am feeling increasingly tempted to vote for AV to give Clegg some reprieve, even though it would mean voting for that tit Miliband and his prefered policy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stanley Baldwin)
    Are you trying to judge someone based on one policy? That is just ridiculous, short-sighted and frankly pathetic. Please, think more in the long-term than in the short-term. Do you think Clegg will be unpopular in 2015 if the economy is going very well? Do you think anyone will be stupid enough to say "Right, economy is growing at **%, and this is the best rate in a long time, but I will still vote against Clegg because of tuition fees"

    That is a simply stupid logic. I am feeling increasingly tempted to vote for AV to give Clegg some reprieve, even though it would mean voting for that tit Miliband and his prefered policy.
    i agree that this is just one policy, but whats to stop him changing his mind again. hes says one thing when hes going to do another. we can only trust clegg on what hes done in the past and for me hes tripped himself up and doesnt deserve anyone vote.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No to AV, Yes to PR.

    I'm Conservative, I'm not about to vote a system in that makes my vote even more worthless than it already is. I'll take FPTP any day over it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NGC773)
    Thats an issue with consituency size. Under AV its not fair that a party with 49% of first choice votes could get beaten by the second or third runner up.
    Hmm... extremely, extremely unlikely with 49% of the vote. Is this even possible?

    If Party A has 49 votes
    Party B has 48 votes
    Party C has 3 votes

    All three people in Party C will have to have put Party B as second choice in order for Party B to win. On a large scale, with people having different orders and such it's simply not going to happen. And if it does then I think Party B and Party A deserves to win! It gets even less likely with a larger difference;

    Party A has 49 votes
    Party B has 40 votes
    Party C has 11 votes

    All eleven of Party C must have Party B as second choice in order to win. If two put A as second A wins and if one puts A then it's a draw! This gets even more unlikely if there are more than three parties.

    You might as well consider a fault of FPTP that it lets party gets in, in theory, with 1% of the vote if everyone has less! It's not a realistic flaw.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm voting for it as a small step towards proper PR. Whether or not Nick Clegg will benefit is not a factor in my decision.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by U.S Lecce)
    Read my article on it. It has everything you need to know : http://socyberty.com/politics/the-al...marmite-party/
    You write for triond?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to vote 'no,' mainly because of tactical voting.

    I live in a Lab/Con, relatively marginal constituency. Should AV be in place in 2015, I would place Labour first, and Conservatives last. (Behind the Green's, BNP, UKIP, etc.) This is clearly bull**** and not representative of my views, but I would do it to increase Labour's chances of winning ahead of the Tories. Surely everyone living in a 2 way marginal constituency would do the same, should they have a clear preference?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marshmallowfudgecake)
    Hi, I'm 18 and am going to vote on May 5, but don't know enough about the issue to make an informed decision.

    What are the main arguments for alternative voting, and am I just voting for more coalition governments in the future by voting yes?

    Help me out with what AV actually means.

    Thanks

    :/
    Yes, probably. Pfft. AV, has it's advantages and disadvantages.

    I don't think I'd vote for anything Nick Clegg was associated with now though. He's such a hypocrite.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm very much in the No2AV camp. It's a shoddy little system, it's not proportional, it's not real reform. Real reform would be AMS, STV, or straight PR. AV is a step back and will not lead to further reform.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick1sHere)
    You write for triond?
    Yeah sometimes.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,405

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.