Turn on thread page Beta

Tories 'have nothing to fear from AV' watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joker370)
    I don't fully understand the implications - surely it leads towards proportional representation which will result in weak minority governments and coalitions by the bucketful?
    Not really, AV is still a one member per constituency system. It just tweeks the way of choosing that member slightly. All one member per constituency systems are inherently unproportional. In fact you could argue that the fairer the system is, the less proportional it will be.

    There is a much bigger gap between PR and AV than there is between AV and and FPTP. "Thin end of the wedge" arguments are pretty desperate in my opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    we all know the left-wing can't compete intellectually with the Tories, so when it's come down to who's got the best tactical approach, the Tories will win.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    I was gonna vote for this but worried that it will just lead to labour and lib dem to be in power. It may be fairer but the general population is retarded
    I'm guessing you are a Tory which basically means everybody who votes different from you is a retard. Good logic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    I'm guessing you are a Tory which basically means everybody who votes different from you is a retard. Good logic.
    New labour but seeing as they have decided to change policies tory now
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    AV is not fairer than FPTP. Lord Jenkins said that it was disturbing unfair, that is exaggerated results and was less proportional than FPTP. Now I have sympathies with REAL electoral reform, I personally have a liking for the additional member system, however, the fact is, AV is neither proportional nor fair.

    It treats someones third preference as equally as their first, which is nonsense in of itself. Rather than FPTP whereby the candidate who wins did so because of a larger preference for that candidate exists, AV puts a candidate in power on the basis of "he isn't as bad as the other guy".
    It is perfectly fair, since it is merely runoff voting.

    Currently we have huge tactical voting where people's third preferences are counted as their first, but their first never has the chance to be represented. AV also prevents the splitting of the vote, where a less preferred candidate can sneak in because a block of voters are split between two parties such that you may end up with CON: 30%, LD: 30%, LAB: 40%, where the Conservative or LD voters would rather have the other than Labour. Indeed, you end up with a situation where the MP in a straight run-off with either party would lose, yet wins under FPTP.

    As for proportionality, that's just a feature of single-member constituencies, and really doesn't come into it in an AV vs. FPTP debate, sometimes AV would be more proportional, sometimes less but it produces largely the same results - it's just a better electoral system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Tories clearly feel there is reason to fear AV because if a party does not get a majority vote, over 50 % then the other votes are taken into account and apparently minor parties such as the BNP could benefit. This is what Cameron keeps saying.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    x
    Care to engage in discussion instead of negging?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Care to engage in discussion instead of negging?
    1. Why assume its me?
    2. I haven't anymore to say on AV.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Noone can predict the results
    people will vote completely differentaly
    for example, people will be much more likely to vote for BNP, UKIP and the green party, with a main party as their second choice
    hell, the entire of tory voters could think FTS im voting BNP first choice!

    personally i think the French electoral system is the way to go
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ben Butler)
    The Tories clearly feel there is reason to fear AV because if a party does not get a majority vote, over 50 % then the other votes are taken into account and apparently minor parties such as the BNP could benefit. This is what Cameron keeps saying.
    AV will not help any party other than the Liberal Democrats when they do relatively well.

    For the system to help the BNP, they would have to poll within around 15% of the winning 1st preference vote. Given that they averaged 1.9% at the last election and that number will not rise significantly it is highly doubtful the BNP will gain from AV unless their vote is concentrated into a handfull of seats.

    I am a Conservative but in this case Cameron and Warsi are fibbing.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joker370)
    I don't fully understand the implications - surely it leads towards proportional representation which will result in weak minority governments and coalitions by the bucketful?
    Not really, no. We will literally swing from massive majorities to hung parliaments, it is a highly unpredictable electoral system.

    What AV does is put the balance of power in the hands of the third party. If the Liberal Democrats are within around 15% of the winner then we see a tiny majority or hung parliament, if they are not then we will see stupidly big majorities (1997 election would have given a Labour majority of 245).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What the Conservatives and Labour fear - justifiably from a selfish perspective - is full Proportional Representation. I think that AV and FPTP are both bad voting systems - both are not proportionate, and therefore inflate big parties share of the vote - but are not equally bad. At least with AV, you have the choice to defer the largely unused vote you otherwise would have. Supporters of the Green Party, for example, will now (albeit only in unlikely circumstances) be able to cast a vote to the candidate of their choice from the main parties. With FPTP, supporters of small parties neither get representation in parliament or are able to have any impact on the result of their parliamentary election. It's a 'meh' choice, but still an important one.

    And even if it (AV) were to be bad for the Conservatives, the mollycoddling of the constituencies which was put through in the same bill as allowed for the referendum will more than compensate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    best thing would be that everyone gets 2 votes

    1 for their local mp
    1 for the prime minister

    that way, there's no tactical voting, nd every vote is of equal worth
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Acerbic;30762706]What the Conservatives and Labour fear - justifiably from a selfish perspective - is full Proportional Representation. I think that AV and FPTP are both bad voting systems - both are not proportionate, and therefore inflate big parties share of the vote - but are not equally bad. At least with AV, you have the choice to defer the largely unused vote you otherwise would have. Supporters of the Green Party, for example, will now (albeit only in unlikely circumstances) be able to cast a vote to the candidate of their choice from the main parties. With FPTP, supporters of small parties neither get representation in parliament or are able to have any impact on the result of their parliamentary election. It's a 'meh' choice, but still an important one.

    And even if it (AV) were to be bad for the Conservatives, the mollycoddling of the constituencies which was put through in the same bill as allowed for the referendum will more than compensate.[/QUOTE]

    I hope you do not think of that as a bad thing.

    Labour screwed around so much in power that is Labour and the Conservatives had an equal percentage of the vote, Labour would have 7% more parliamentry seats.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tearingfuture)
    best thing would be that everyone gets 2 votes

    1 for their local mp
    1 for the prime minister

    that way, there's no tactical voting, nd every vote is of equal worth
    I like that idea. I've no idea how it would work in practice but I do like the idea.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    I like that idea. I've no idea how it would work in practice but I do like the idea.
    Having a separately elected PM was tried in Israel in the late 1990s. It was a disaster and they promptly returned to the Westminster system.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Having a separately elected PM was tried in Israel in the late 1990s. It was a disaster and they promptly returned to the Westminster system.
    Hence the fact I'd have no idea how it would work in practice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acerbic)
    And even if it (AV) were to be bad for the Conservatives, the mollycoddling of the constituencies which was put through in the same bill as allowed for the referendum will more than compensate.
    You mean equalising the constituency sizes so that we end the situation where traditional safe Labour seats are smaller than those of the Conservatives. You mean, making the electoral system fairer? Wowza.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    1. Why assume its me?
    2. I haven't anymore to say on AV.
    Since you were the one I was replying to, it shaved off 5 reputation points and your reputation power is 5.

    So you have no more to say after your arguments against it have been taken apart? It seems all you can do is parrot the No campaign, yet when there's any counterargument the case for FPTP seems to fall apart.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    You mean equalising the constituency sizes so that we end the situation where traditional safe Labour seats are smaller than those of the Conservatives. You mean, making the electoral system fairer? Wowza.
    Equalising not on the grounds of population but on the basis of the electoral register. Poorer areas tend to have lower electoral registration, therefore will be disproportionately represented under the reforms proposed. It is mollycoddled equalising, and I oppose that, yes.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.