General Chat

I used to be all for PR.... until I had it explained to me on the news the other night.
Not so fair after all.
I don't need it explaining yet again..... I just am not for it now that I know more about it.

Ah well, no doubt this will be another long running argument.
I don't mean us, I mean the country. ha ha ha
Bless us all. ;-0)
Deanna X

I'm still undecided - initially I was completely against it but not so sure now.

Now:- Labour 1st, Cons Second, Lib Dems 3rd. So Labour are elected on a minority vote.

Under AV Cons are likely to get more support than Labour from the Lib Dems as second place choice and will win the seat.

Cons 1st, Labour 2nd, Lib Dems 3rd

Getting to like it.....!

I wouldn't bank on that one IGP lol,

I know a lot of people who vote Lib Dem...they do so because they lived through the Thatcher era ( so would sooner cut off hand than vote Cons'), but perceive their own income/standard of living might be threatened by Labour (higher taxes) ...if push came to shove they still wouldn't vote Conservative though :)

I understood that the Australian system ws AV, and that that it has proved quite successful. Yet I see Aunty Sherlock from there quotes the definition as being proportional representation. The idea that it had worked there ws influencing me to support it - is it AV?

Apparently there was a big debate on this subject on the Daily Politics this morning..but I haven't got around yet to watching it.

It's available on iplayer..here's the link if anyone's interested...http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b010919w/The_Daily_Politics_Andrew_Neil_chairs
_a_debate_special_on_the_Alternative_Vote_referendum/

I will definately be watching tomorrow morning whilst I tacke my pile of ironing lol x

Rose, AV works both ways - but you can see the point I was making about giving more people a choice in who is eventually elected..

As far as we are concerned, Margaret Thatcher was the best thing that could have happened. A bit like now, the country was virtually bankrupt with the outgoing Labour lot virtually throwing in the towel. If she hadn't sorted thing out, someone else would have had to do it, and it could have been a lot worse. Under MT we were able to move from a grotty two bed terraced to a four bed detached - but with hard work and not without a lot of inconvenience, moving twice across the country.

Contrast that, under TB and GB we were robbed of half our savings and a quarter of our pension, and to add salt to the wound I was made redundant with no chance of any state benefit until state pension kicks in.

Here in New Zealand we have Mixed Member Proportional. We have 60 electorates in which we vote for our choice for the seat, using the FPTP system, then we have another vote for the party of our choice. There are (about) 60 seats which are distributed according to the proportion of the vote. If a party has already won an electorate, it can have more seats according to the proportion of the party vote, but if a party has not won an electorate it needs to get at least 5% of the party vote to get any of the other seats. I believe it is much fairer than straight FPTP, as it gives those who believe in the policies of a smaller party a chance to have their voices heard in parliament. Under FPTP there was a 3rd party which throughout NZ received 21% support, but won only 2% of the electorates. How fair is that? And several times under FPTP Labour had the support of more people nationwide than National (conservatives) had, and yet National became the govt because they had won more electorates than Labour.

Unfortunately, with MMP a third party can become the 'tail wagging the dog' if one of the big parties needs their vote/s to become govt. eg if the 2 main parties fail to win 50% of the seats in their own right. The electors can punish them at the next election if they dont like the results, but 3 years is a long time to suffer and the country's assests could all be sold off by then! But I still prefer MMP.

Huia.

One problem we have is that parties receive govt funding at election time, based on the number of seats they currently hold. Small parties who are currently unrepresented in parliament receive a small amount, nowhere near as much. They also do not receive any coverage in the news, unless it is of a scandalous nature! How fair is that to a small party trying to win votes? The big parties have been around long enough for most voters to know what their policies are and how much they are to be trusted. The unrepresented parties have great difficulty letting the voters know what their policies are. It is supposed to be a 'level playing field' when an election is being held, but it is tilted severely in favour of the current incumbents.

As you might guess, I support one of the currently unrepresented parties. It is not what I would call extremist. We merely hold different views on money. We do not support the current debt finance system.

Huia.

Please don't make this a party political debate.

I really am only interested in the voting system.

Blimey...that was one for the diary.

Watched the Daily politics AV debate on Iplayer this morning and I was shocked to find myself nodding in agreement with...............JOHN PRESCOTT of all people LOLOLOLOL.

Very interesting...and for anyone who is unsure of which way to jump...it was very balanced and answered a lot of the questions ...

On the panel...for AV were Charles Kennedy and Tessa Jowell...and against John Prescott and MIchael Howard.

Worth a look x

Hi Sharron,

I agree AV should not be about politics. However it is very hard not to keep AV separate because it is per se a method of electing those politicians who will run the country for a number of years.

And not all Lib-Dem voters are in favour of AV. I shall be voting Lib-Dem in our local elections but I shall be voting against AV on the same day.

OK, so first past the post is not ideal but I still think it is better than someone being in second place in the first round, then coming from behind and winning at a later stage. As I explained in my earlier post, someone can win with only 37% of the vote in First Past The Post, but use AV and the second placed person can then win with 33% of the vote.
I do not think that that can be described as fair.

"As I explained in my earlier post, someone can win with only 37% of the vote in First Past The Post, but use AV and the second placed person can then win with 33% of the vote.
I do not think that that can be described as fair. "

So, it's fair to have someone who might not be wanted by 63% of the people, but it isn't fair to have someone who is supported by >50% - even if that wouldn't be their first choice?

Well, I'm confused.

What about those places who are predominantly Labour (for example), but who have a Conservative MP because the Labour vote gets split between an "official" candidate and an independent? Please explain why *that* is fair because I honestly can't see why.

FPTP discriminates against people who dont vote for the main party in that seat. They might as well not bother to go out to vote. Their vote is worth nothing, unless the seat is one in which there is a neck-and-neck race between two parties. At least with some other systems your vote does count.

Huia.

In the 33 / 37% example... To say the under AV the elected candidate only gets 33% is missing the point.

Because you are adding the second choices from the eliminated third candidate, the elected candidate now has the majority of the votes, more than the candidate who originally pooled 37% even with his second choices added.

That is why it is considered by some to be fairer.

Sorry but the fact remains that candidate only got 33% of the votes. Unfair !

Vote NO

One thing you do need is a change of the present debt-finance system.

Huia.

Elizabeth says AV was successful in Australia. Not according to an article in the press a couple of days ago. The number of voters dropped so much so that Australian Government brought in compulsory voting (which I have always thought we should have).

methinks i'll go for a yes,Vote

might shake em all up a bit..