Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 143

Thread: Alternative vote - yes or no?

  1. #61
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstMove View Post
    I expect most councils will not even try to start counting until the following morning. In interesting seats, the count could go on for days and days. To avoid the need to count at weekends, I expect election day would have to moved to Monday or Tuesday.
    We can't have this. I would affect our dancing even more than it does already. I've already had to miss a night in Horsham because the hall was being used to send out the postal votes. And I've got another one in Eastbourne I can't have next week due to the elections themselves.

    Now I think about it, we really do need to go over to some kind of electronic voting so we can keep dance halls open and available for dancing.

    So there you have it, arriving from left field, another reason to vote against AV - it would interfere with our dancing!

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    Political parties doesn't want coalition governments either. Coalitions involve deal making behind the scenes and that is not what the public voted for.
    Since you know what the public want, perhaps you could enlighten us.

    Can you please tell us what the public voted for?

    And, once again, please explain how you would change FPTP to prevent coaolition Governments in the future, since they are such a terrible and unwanted thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    This means that you will have wasted your vote under AV. If you want to vote for one candidate AV is unsuitable.
    How is that less of a wasted vote than voting for any candidate contender that doesn't win under FPTP? I fail to see how the two situations are different.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    The problem with this is that you don't know who you are choosing between as, at the time of voting, you don't know who will be eliminated. If the situation is "one person, one vote" you are certain who you are choosing and the winner will have been 'chosen' by the majority.
    This I don't understand. The voter is required to rank all of the candidates. Are you saying they would know less about the candidates than under FPTP or run off or any other election system. If so, why do they suddenly know less? Or are you suggesting that the average voter doesn't understand what a rank means?

    If you're suggesting that your vote might go to a candidate that you didn't want, then either it's your fault for ranking them ahead of someone you did want or it's electoral fraud. Which of these do you think it is?

  3. #63
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    So many questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Since you know what the public want, perhaps you could enlighten us.

    Can you please tell us what the public voted for?
    The public voted for a person to represent them. That person is, usually a member of a political party and makes promises based on the manifesto of that party. The public did not vote for a coalition of two parties to govern as there was no manifesto for the coalition of those two parties. In other words, nobody gets the manifesto they voted for' they get some kind of deal making between two parties which cobbles together two manifestos. In the current case we end up being saddled with things from the manifesto of the party that placed third - a great example of an unwanted and unvoted for manifesto promise is this referendum on electoral reform.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    And, once again, please explain how you would change FPTP to prevent coaolition Governments in the future, since they are such a terrible and unwanted thing.
    As I keep repeating, run-off voting. It's still one person one vote for each poll, it's just that each person will need to be polled more than once.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    How is that less of a wasted vote than voting for any candidate contender that doesn't win under FPTP? I fail to see how the two situations are different.
    Not ranking candidates under AV means that you have not fully exercised your democratic rights. Once the first placed candidate fails to get a majority you end up having no further influence over the eventual result.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    This I don't understand. The voter is required to rank all of the candidates. Are you saying they would know less about the candidates than under FPTP or run off or any other election system. If so, why do they suddenly know less? Or are you suggesting that the average voter doesn't understand what a rank means?
    I am saying that most people have decided on the party they support and do not need to do any more reasarch to come to a decision. However, in AV they will have to do a whole load more research to be in a position to rank the candidates. This extra work may put people off voting or make people guess or rank candidates based on some irrational factor - just like choosing a runner in the Grand National because you like the sound of their name.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    If you're suggesting that your vote might go to a candidate that you didn't want, then either it's your fault for ranking them ahead of someone you did want or it's electoral fraud. Which of these do you think it is?
    I am suggesting that placing one candidate ahead of another is still voting for that candidate. And that may be a difficult choice when both candidates are ones you would vote against if you had the opportunity.

  4. #64
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    So many questions.
    Yep - mostly because the answers aren't making much sense and tend not to actually answer the question. That might mostly be because you're proffering an alternative that has precisely the same weaknesses as AV.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    The public voted for a person to represent them. That person is, usually a member of a political party and makes promises based on the manifesto of that party. The public did not vote for a coalition of two parties to govern as there was no manifesto for the coalition of those two parties. In other words, nobody gets the manifesto they voted for' they get some kind of deal making between two parties which cobbles together two manifestos. In the current case we end up being saddled with things from the manifesto of the party that placed third - a great example of an unwanted and unvoted for manifesto promise is this referendum on electoral reform.
    OK. Would it be fairer to have a manifesto implemented that a minority of people voted for? As you rightly say, people voted for parties, but they did not give any party a majority. As I see it, it would be profoundly unfair to manufacture a majority.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    As I keep repeating, run-off voting. It's still one person one vote for each poll, it's just that each person will need to be polled more than once.
    Run off voting would determine the winners in an electorate. But it would not make a difference in parliament unless you limit parliament to two parties.

    So, are you suggesting that parliament be limited to only two parties? And, if not, how will you ensure that one party gets a clear majority?
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    Not ranking candidates under AV means that you have not fully exercised your democratic rights. Once the first placed candidate fails to get a majority you end up having no further influence over the eventual result.
    Two points here. Firstly, it's your choice - the choice not to vote is an exercise of rights as much as the choice to vote for a particular candidate. If you think that voting each candidate is so important, should be be compulsory to rank all candidates? And, therefore, shouldn't it also be compulsory to vote? Or should we let people make their own choices and merely focus on protecting their rights?

    Secondly, the case where your vote no longer counts sounds like what happens to the majority of votes under FPTP when your candidate doesn't win. Can you please explain how this different?
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    I am saying that most people have decided on the party they support and do not need to do any more reasarch to come to a decision. However, in AV they will have to do a whole load more research to be in a position to rank the candidates. This extra work may put people off voting or make people guess or rank candidates based on some irrational factor - just like choosing a runner in the Grand National because you like the sound of their name.
    OK. So AV forces people to know more about who they are voting for. That therefore means that under FPTP, they are making decisions based on less knowledge.

    How does expecting people to know more about the candidates before making a decision make AV worse than FPTP?

    Your alternative, run off voting, would require not just the same level of information, but we would be bombarded by it for much longer (the US presidential campaign is essentially a run-off campaign; it takes about 18 months to run that campaign).
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    I am suggesting that placing one candidate ahead of another is still voting for that candidate. And that may be a difficult choice when both candidates are ones you would vote against if you had the opportunity.
    Another two points there.

    Firstly, there is no obligation to rank people you don't want to vote for (so much of your argument rests on this point - which is your choice, not a feature of AV as proposed in the referendum; it would be nice if the critical parts of your argument were actually the way AV was going to work).

    Personally, if it comes down to two people, neither of whom I want to be represented by, I'd either not rank either or select the lesser of the two evils. It would depend just how bad they were (I can't, for example, ever foresee myself ranking a BNP candidate above anyone else; if I think someone else is just as bad I'd not rank either of them).

    Secondly, I would register my vote against two (or more) candidates that I genuinely disliked by ranking all other candidates.

    Again, under FPTP, the same situation does happen where the only two people likely to win an electorate might be two that I really don't want to vote for; I'd expect it to happen in run off voting as well. I either vote for someone else, or select the lesser of the two evils.

  5. #65
    Registered User NZ Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,109
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    Not ranking candidates under AV means that you have not fully exercised your democratic rights. Once the first placed candidate fails to get a majority you end up having no further influence over the eventual result.
    Isn't this the purpose of the vote of no confidence though? You're still excercising your democratic right to express that you don't want any of the candidates if you choose to use that.

  6. #66
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Can someone else who is going to vote "NO" reply to the supporters of AV?

    Every answer I give seems to result in even more questions. My answers are now in the nature of "I refer you to my previous answer".

    I, on the other hand, have no questions regarding AV. In my opinion it's a poor alternative to FPTP and has been adopted by only 3 democracies in the whole world - there's even a question about Australia keeping AV. I'm not saying FPTP is perfect and we do need an alternative in these days of multiple parties. But AV is so badly flawed it is even worse than the what it is proposed to replace.

    My single question is why have this referendum? We know it's part of the coalition deal. But why aren't we being asked to vote for Proportional Representation?

    N.B. Proportional representation is something I would vote against. Please don't ask me why, my answers would generate so many questions I may not live long enough to wade through them.
    Last edited by Andy McGregor; 1st-May-2011 at 01:45 AM.

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    Every answer I give seems to result in even more questions. My answers are now in the nature of "I refer you to my previous answer".
    That suggests to me that the answers you are giving are flawed. They are basically repeating the propaganda of the 'no' campaign and are often either just wrong (ie claiming AV is something it isn't) or empty (ie saying AV is bad because it's different, without explaining why it's bad).

    That is the main reason I am voting yes. The arguments of the no campaign are very, very weak.

  8. #68
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    That suggests to me that the answers you are giving are flawed. They are basically repeating the propaganda of the 'no' campaign and are often either just wrong (ie claiming AV is something it isn't) or empty (ie saying AV is bad because it's different, without explaining why it's bad).

    That is the main reason I am voting yes. The arguments of the no campaign are very, very weak.
    Until yesterday I had not read ANY of the 'propaganda' about AV. I came to my conclusions on my own having read about AV many years ago. My conclusions are based entirely on my own reasoning, not what's been said about AV - I haven't read any articles on this subject because I've already decided how to vote. My decision to vote 'no' has nothing to do with the affect the change might have on the balance of power in politics, it's to do with my individual voting power - I want to vote for an individual to represent me. In that matter 'there can be only one' - unless there's more than one position. I am decisive and have no second, third, fourth, etc, choice.

    Back to propaganda, I had two 'vote No' leaflets drop through my door yesterday - as we are debating AV on here I read the leaflets. You are right that their arguments are weak - I could produce stronger arguments against FPTP. The only thing that was new to me was the news that only 3 countries currently use AV and that "Australia doesn't want it" - I used quotes because I googled this statement and the survey used to deduce this may have been flawed.

    Why are the arguments in the two 'no' leaflets so weak when there are stonger arguments to be made? My guess is that consumer research has revealed that these are the ones that will get people to vote 'no'. Why are these weak arguments effective with consumers? I've done much consumer research over the years and have often been amazed at the results - I now accept that the public think what the public think.

  9. #69
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    That is the main reason I am voting yes. The arguments of the no campaign are very, very weak.
    I would like to think this is untrue. You seem much smarter than this.

    Your voting decision should be based on your selection of the voting process you believe is the best. Your decision should not be based on whose campaign you think is the strongest or weakest. That means you are selecting the campaign with the best advertising agency and marketing deparment.

  10. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    336
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    My problem with AV is it attempts to shortcut multiple-round vote-offs and pre-empt how people would "probably" choose the outcome of each round. Obviously I realise that multiple-round voting would be prohibitively expensive both in money and time (not to mention frustrating for the electorate), but it is the much fairer form of what AV attempts to accomplish through a single vote alone. With AV you don't know who is going to be knocked out first - that factor alone can drastically alter who people would place their subsequent vote for. More's the point, in subsequent rounds more people can vote if they feel more strongly about a candidate not getting into office.

    This point can be easily illustrated with the French presidential elections. In 2002 Jean-Marie Le Pen commanded second place in the first round, and when the French people saw how dangerously close they'd come to electing the National Front, a lot more people came out to vote in order to ensure Le Pen didn't win.

    Now imagine if that vote had been conducted in a single round with AV - it is quite conceivable (though obviously not provable) that Le Pen could have won. Imagine the outcry. Under FPTP, the first round would have been the only round and he would still have lost.

    These are all hypotheticals but that's really all we can cite when talking about which system is better. Under AV or single-round FPTP, you don't get a second chance if your preferred candidate goes out. But under FPTP, it's binary - your candidate wins or they don't. Under AV, your votes are re-assigned according to your preferences, but it is done without prejudice. That's where the problems lie - people's feelings change substantially when they know who is going out after the first round. You might say AV is more fair for this, but I think this simply risks alienating the voters.

    Dislike is a big motivation of how people vote - 'tactical votes' under FPTP are people who want to keep a party out at all costs, as much as they are people voting for a party because they don't believe their preferred candidate will win. I doubt AV is really going to solve either - people will still vote tactically to keep out the party they don't want to win. They might vote for their preferred candidate but, honestly, I don't see it changing much.

    I'm voting 'no' because I'd really rather not see this country waste everyone's time and risk creating more apathy and disconnection with politics. AV is more complicated and obfuscated - not in a trite, condescending "you won't understand it" way - the problem is not the technicality of it. What is more complicated is having to care how you like the candidates in relation to each other. It risks being a big turn-off in getting people to vote.

    Unless, of course, we go the Australian route and make not voting a punishable offence!
    Last edited by DJ Mike; 1st-May-2011 at 12:32 PM.

  11. #71
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by NZ Monkey View Post
    Isn't this the purpose of the vote of no confidence though? You're still excercising your democratic right to express that you don't want any of the candidates if you choose to use that.
    In the UK there is no mechanism for the public to express a 'no confidence' vote. The only thing we can do is wait for an election and then abstain from voting.

    This brings me on to the nature of majority. We talk about majority as if getting over 50% of the votes cast is the holy grail. As if that is what should give the elected officer the mandate to represent the public. There is another argument that the person has not been elected by 51% of the voters, just 51% of those bothering to vote.

    In local council elections the turnout is usully between 30% and 40%, in national elections it's about 65% and in European elections it's about 35% (these figure are my recollection, not based on statitical analysis or research - my get out for this sloppy use of numbers is that we don't know what the turnout will be in future elections).

    Politicians claim to represent the public. However, using my guesstimated figures above, in a general election a 51% majority vote with a turnout of 65% means you were supported by just one third of the electorate. In local or European elections this figure drops to around 20%!!!

    As I said, let's make voting compulsory and have politicians who REALLY represent the electorate.

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    I would like to think this is untrue. You seem much smarter than this.
    The no campaign has to convince me that FPTP is better than AV. It has failed quite miserably (as, I must add, have you).

    Each side has presented arguments and one set of arguments is completely unconvincing and based on various lies and half truths then I think that it's a pretty rational decision to reject those arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    That means you are selecting the campaign with the best advertising agency and marketing deparment.
    Quite the contrary. It's pretty clear that the 'NotoAV' campaign has significantly more advertising and marketing money that is spent.

    Given how effectively you repeated their arguments without realising you'd been subjected to them (ie the untruths about how AV works) suggests they had far more effective propaganda.

  13. #73
    Registered User Allez-Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The rooftops
    Posts
    207
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    It is broke ... FPTP worked fine in the 1950s when 98% of people voted ... FPTP does not work in the 2010s when only 65% of people do so. It disenfranchises a larger percentage of people, and the results have far less legitimacy because of that.
    People disenfranchise themselves by withholding their vote, whether it be through 'protest' or sheer apathy. Exercising one's democratic vote should be obligation of citizenship.

  14. #74
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    The no campaign has to convince me that FPTP is better than AV. It has failed quite miserably (as, I must add, have you).

    Each side has presented arguments and one set of arguments is completely unconvincing and based on various lies and half truths then I think that it's a pretty rational decision to reject those arguments.
    It is a rational decision to reject untruths and half-truths. I agree that the 'no' campaign is weak - I have said so on here. However, it is up to a thinking men and women to come to their own decisions based on their own analysis. That decision should not be based on the strength or weakness of a campaign, it should be based on the decision at hand 'yes' or 'no' to AV.
    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Quite the contrary. It's pretty clear that the 'NotoAV' campaign has significantly more advertising and marketing money that is spent.
    Are we now asked to vote 'yes' because the 'no' campaign has a bigger budget?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Given how effectively you repeated their arguments without realising you'd been subjected to them (ie the untruths about how AV works) suggests they had far more effective propaganda.
    I am very clear what AV involves and I have stated my argument against it. I formed this opinion many years ago when I read about AV.

    Are you saying I have got AV wrong? Are we not required to rank our choices? Because it's at that point I reject it. In movie parlance "you lost me at 'rank the candidates' ".

  15. #75
    Omnipresent Administrator Franck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    3,045
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allez-Cat View Post
    People disenfranchise themselves by withholding their vote, whether it be through 'protest' or sheer apathy. Exercising one's democratic vote should be obligation of citizenship.
    That might be true in some places, but in Scotland, many became disenfranchised (before devolution) as there was hardly any point voting (the majority in Scotland were either Labour or SNP but the Conservatives (Margaret Thatcher) kept getting re-elected...
    When your vote gets ignored decade after decade, you might start thinking what's the point.

    Many people who would have voted Liberal, Green Party, independent candidate felt this would be a wasted vote, so either changed to the least worst alternative (Labour or Conservative) likely to get first past the post, or didn't bother in apathy or in protest at the paucity of adequate candidates.

    AV will be an improvement if it gets through as your voice is more likely to count and your representation increase.
    Franck.

    There's an A.P.P. for that!

  16. #76
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Franck View Post
    AV will be an improvement if it gets through as your voice is more likely to count and your representation increase.
    And 'your voice' will be diluted and lost as AV is likely to result in nobody knowing what they are going to get because there will be no particular party in power. Government will be done in back-room deals and compromises to maintain a coalition rather than provide us with a government that has a clear vision and provides proper leadership.

    The ship of state requires one captain and one course. Having a load of people behind the scenes whispering in the captain's ear while he's in his cabin will mean course changes, delays, wasted fuel, detours, etc, etc.

    We could even crash into the rocks if the delays lasted too long. My guess is that The Falklands would now be the Malvinas and part of Argentina if we'd had a coalition government at the time.

  17. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    And 'your voice' will be diluted and lost as AV is likely to result in nobody knowing what they are going to get because there will be no particular party in power.
    Why do you keep repeating this point?

    Please for once and for all answer three questions:

    Firstly, how does AV make it more likely that there will be more coalitions? (And remember that AV does not change the way the Government is formed; it changes the way we elect who represents each individual constituencies. It's also worth remembering that, in Australia, AV does not make coalition and minority Governments more common - they've had about the same number as the UK since they introduced AV).

    Secondly, if coalitions are so bad, then how do you ensure that one party has a majority in parliament under any system? (Once again, remember that cannot be solved at the constituency level - parliament is where coalitions are formed - run off votes in an electorate will not prevent coalitions).

    Thirdly, if no party gets the majority of the vote, then please explain how it can be said that any single party has the mandate provided by the vote of the population?

    If you are going to repeat it that claim then you really owe us an answer to those questions. Thus far, you have not provided it. If you want me to stop asking questions of this position, then give clear answers on these three points.

  18. #78
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    And 'your voice' will be diluted and lost as AV is likely to result in nobody knowing what they are going to get because there will be no particular party in power.
    I must admit, I find the more you argue the less convinced I am. Franck makes an excellent point - in Scotland where we voted in one single conservative mp yet have a conservative PM, there is no surprise that voters simply don't care about the process. I see AV as a way to get voters interested again. No matter how ignorant people may be regarding policies and parties I think it is unlikely that they will apply random ordering to their voting forms. FPTP encourages tactical voting or voting by colour - AV looks like people will be encouraged to apply actual thought to their choices.

  19. #79
    The Dashing Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    3,556
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I know it was a Billy Connelly quote but i like "anyone who wants to be a politician should be banned from being one"
    I suspect Douglas Adams probably beat him to it:
    Quote Originally Posted by HHG
    The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of who you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

    To summarize:- It is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary:- anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary:- people are a problem.
    Love dance, will travel

  20. #80
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Alternative vote - yes or no?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Why do you keep repeating this point?

    Please for once and for all answer three questions:

    Firstly, how does AV make it more likely that there will be more coalitions? (And remember that AV does not change the way the Government is formed; it changes the way we elect who represents each individual constituencies. It's also worth remembering that, in Australia, AV does not make coalition and minority Governments more common - they've had about the same number as the UK since they introduced AV).
    I believe AV makes it more likely that there will be hung parliaments. And that is why there will be more coalitions.

    Why do I think there will be more hung parliaments? Simply because I predict that under AV there will be an increase in support for the Liberal Party. My guess is that voting will be split 3 ways with an increase in the number of Liberal MPs. I also think that the Liberals will benefit from the long tail of smaller parties that can only increase under AV. Please note, I am not basing this on the experience in Australia, I am basing this on my prediction. Make your own prediction and see if you think that Liberal support and the number of Liberal MPs would rise under AV.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Secondly, if coalitions are so bad, then how do you ensure that one party has a majority in parliament under any system? (Once again, remember that cannot be solved at the constituency level - parliament is where coalitions are formed - run off votes in an electorate will not prevent coalitions).
    I don't think we can prevent hung parliaments under the current political system. I have never said that we could. I simply believe, for the reasons given above, that AV will result in more hung parliaments.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Thirdly, if no party gets the majority of the vote, then please explain how it can be said that any single party has the mandate provided by the vote of the population?
    Wooly question, but I'll guess what Geoff really means. Let's assume that a party has a majority of MPs in the House of Commons but their MPs received only 40% of the vote. The reason they are in power is because that is the current system in the UK - they are legally entitled to run the country. It is an assumption that Geoff have made that a party needs the support of more than 50% of the vote - currently that is not the case. Therefore the ruling party has a mandate from the electorate, however, it is true that it's not been provided by 50% of the electorate.

    How would I fix this to ensure that the Governing party has the support of over half of the electorate?

    1. Make all constituencies the same size.
    2. Make it compulsory to vote.
    3. Introduce run-off voting where we keep voting until someone gets more than 50% of the vote.

    N.B. Of course I'd do something to make sure that voting was quick and cheap and could be done as often as necessary - this could be done electronically. Arguments could be made that this would introduce electoral fraud - as we are debating in dreamland, my counter-argument is that my electronic voting method would not allow fraud.

    p.s. While I'm making the above changes I think I'll re-introduce the death penalty and re-instate a monarchy in Scotland and Wales*.

    *Ireland could do what it likes, it would be one country

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lisbon 2 - If you have a Vote, would you vote Yes/No
    By Alan Doyle in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 5th-October-2009, 10:35 AM
  2. Vote for Jon and Julia in SCD - ITT tonight !
    By Bigger Andy in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10th-December-2004, 01:36 PM
  3. Alternative ways of leading moves.....
    By Jon L in forum Intermediate Corner
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2nd-February-2004, 12:52 AM
  4. Vote Ruby!!!
    By Jayne in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13th-March-2003, 09:18 PM
  5. The alternative LoTR council!!
    By TheTramp in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28th-December-2002, 03:42 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •