UK Alternative Vote Referendum

[Neal]

On Thursday 5th May there will be a referendum on the voting system used to elect MPs in the UK. It is currently 'first past the post' and the proposal is to change it to the 'alternative vote'.

Below is a public information style video and booklet explaining it.



AV Referendum Explained PDF


What are your opinions on this and how will you be voting? The poll is anonymous if you'd prefer to keep your thoughts private.

 

[Famine]

I'm going to rank my choices 1 and 2, just to confuse things.

 

[Tesla]

We have the AV in Australia. Seems to make more sense on a larger scale (which is why I voted yes), but I still prefer First Past the Post. Just seems easier and fairer. Can't really to be bothered to put my long winded explaination of why.

 

[Famine]

Of course the biggest problem with UK Parliamentary elections isn't how we elect our MPs, but that we elect so many of them. Whatever the result of this, it won't change a thing.

Redraw the constituencies to 100 MPs maximum. Then fanny about with everything else.

 

[DK]

Personally, I believe that Proportional Representation (PR - which we use here in Ireland) is much better. As far as I can tell, there is still one candidate per constituency under AV.

 

[PeterJB]

If it gets the Conservatives out, then I'm all for it!

 

[drivehard]

It's difficult to voice an opinion in this matter being an American. Here in America you really only have two options, as South Park would say the choice between a douche and a turd, whomever has enough campaign funds to prop themselves up in the nationally televised debates. Not to mention the electoral college which I don't know anything about. Nonetheless the ballots count for something over here. And if the AV was implemented here it would most certainly do some justice for some of the candidates that are just as qualified - if not more qualified - than the candidates that have been "blessed" their partys' nomination. People like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader deserve serious consideration but seriously could never be elected over here.

 

[Robin]

If it gets the Conservatives out, then I'm all for it!

The funny thing is the BBC, or maybe it was ITV, did some calculations and eventhough the conservatives are backing no to AV it would actually do better for them in an election because it looks like they would win some marginal seats on the back of being a very popular second choice in those areas.

They are literally backing the wrong campaign!

 

[Famine]

The funny thing is the BBC, or maybe it was ITV, did some calculations and eventhough the conservatives are backing no to AV it would actually do better for them in an election because it looks like they would win some marginal seats on the back of being a very popular second choice in those areas.

They are literally backing the wrong campaign!

I don't see how those sort of calculations are possible - we don't have any basis to extrapolate people's second/third/additional votes to redistribute.

The concerns of the two main parties is that they will never be an alternative choice for voters of the other main party - there are entrenched Labour voters who absolutely will not vote Conservative regardless of any actual policies, because that's how they've always voted and it's how their parents have always voted and mumblemumble miners. Similarly, there are entrenched Conservative voters who absolutely will not vote Labour because, ya, they want to take all of daddy's money and give it to those terrible charv people.

AV won't benefit either the Conservative or Labour parties, because these people will give second choice to the Liberal Democrats, the racisttories (UKIP) or racistlabour (BNP) or the Greens. What we'll see is:

Typical Conservative voter
1. Conservative candidate
2. Liberal Democrat candidate
3. UKIP candidate
4. Green candidate
5. Independent candidate

Typical Labour voter
1. Labour candidate
2. Liberal Democrat candidate
3. BNP candidate
4. Green candidate
5. Independent candidate

Typical Liberal voter
1. Liberal Democrat candidate
2. Labour or Conservative candidate
3. Labour or Conservative candidate
4. Green candidate
5. Independent candidate

Typical "alternative" voter
1. BNP, Green or UKIP candidate
2. BNP, Green or UKIP candidate
3. BNP, Green or UKIP candidate
4. Independent candidate

Since it all comes down to which candidate polls more than a half of all remaining, highest ranked votes, this won't help alternative parties either - you may get a lot of second choice votes, but if you don't get enough first choice ones you will be dropped at the first round. The net outcome will then be the three main parties left. Safe Tory seats will return a Tory MP, safe Labour seats will return a Labour MP, safe Lib Dem seats will return a Lib Dem MP and marginal seats will return whomever from the traditional support and Lib Dems.

And then none of that will matter because of the way the constituencies are drawn - we'll get either a Labour majority or a Conservative majority, depending on the current whims, and we return 650 lawyers to take £200m a year off us in salaries and expenses and put our taxes up to pay for it.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, it's kind of stupid to just throw out the other guys-- the ones with only 1 vote.

There needs to be a voting system that rejects candidates too. Negative votes.

 

[Adam41]

Now if only I'd remembered the advantages and disadvantages of voting systems from my year 12 Politics AS level...

 

[Danisfast]

Well, it should be rather interesting to see how it all pans out. I mean, I'd have put money on it being massively beneficial for the Lib Dems. But, ironically, they gave up so much of their popularity to get it, that I can't even guess who'll benefit the most.

What does look likely, though, is that seats wil open up to alternative parties. Whilst AV is by no means a perfect system, by God we can't do much worse than our current one (which entrenches the biggest parties and has everyone voting out of fear). I voted for the Lib Dems primarily because they wanted to change the electoral system. Much beyond the current climate, we can set foundations for a more open political landscape and future for the UK. So despite all of their compromises, the Lib Dems are alright by me if we get it.

PS I'd have liked that video to briefly explain WHY the referendum was happening, and WHY specifically the Alternative Vote system was the alternative choice. Otherwise, I think people will just choose based on which system is simpler. It's not a bad reason to choose it, but it just grossly oversimplifies the situation.

 

[Sureboss]

Yeah, it's kind of stupid to just throw out the other guys-- the ones with only 1 vote.

There needs to be a voting system that rejects candidates too. Negative votes.

A friend suggested a system where you vote for the person you don't want to win!

I don't want AV, I want PR, but we won't get that. That said, I am voting yes to AV, as 1) it'll annoy the tories and 2) if it does pass, I am going to enjoy the continuing in-fighting within the coalition government. If this government lasts till the next GE, I'll eat my hat.

Also, also, even with AV, I'd only ever put one mark down, I can imagine many others will too. Unless I've missed something that says you have to number all of them.

 

[lbsf1]

The current system is completely broken, AV is slightly less broken, so I would if I could vote for AV.

The conservatives don't want it changed so have chosen possibly the most confusing and illogical system possible as oposition to first past the post. And it allready is a compromise (if a party gets 50% they are automatically in), however so people don't vote for it they pretend that that isn't the case.


However my little brother came up with a great idea, you have the (lets say 5) candidates and you rank them 1 to 5, the person you vote 1 gets 5 points, 2nd gets 4, and so on. You then tot up everyones points and the party with the most wins. It is a great idea and have yet to come up with any floors in it.


This is all my opinion, not fact.

 

[Sureboss]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/av-campaign-created-stupidity-whirlpool

Brooker at his best, again. I really am fed up of the (obvious) lies (that jump out from every direction) from both sides during the campaigning. It's beyond pathetic.

 

[Famine]

Yep, I'm going to spoil my paper again.

 

[crooky369]

However my little brother came up with a great idea, you have the (lets say 5) candidates and you rank them 1 to 5, the person you vote 1 gets 5 points, 2nd gets 4, and so on. You then tot up everyones points and the party with the most wins. It is a great idea and have yet to come up with any floors in it.


This is all my opinion, not fact.

As explained by Famine all the Labour/Conservative voters which despise their opposites will only vote for one of the two parties so the middle-ground parties like UKIP and the Liberal Democrats will pick up consistent 2nd and 3rd place points which could allow them to win.

I would name it the "Keke Rosberg" voting system!

 

[Famine]

UKIP couldn't win a seat in an Ikea raffle, never mind under AV - they'd need enough votes to not be ditched first time round in order to pick up any alternate votes.

 

[lbsf1]

UKIP couldn't win a seat in an Ikea raffle, never mind under AV - they'd need enough votes to not be ditched first time round in order to pick up any alternate votes.

Another candidate for post of the year there.

This AV system is so much more complicated than it needed to be.

 

[Danisfast]

A friend suggested a system where you vote for the person you don't want to win!

That'll be First Past The Post, then...

 

[Touring Mars]

The first results are coming in, and it looks like a bad day for Nick Clegg is about to get considerably worse

FPTP: 69.84 %

AV: 30.16 %

I voted Yes (in favour of AV), but I am largely indifferent about it to be honest. Still, I did think that AV had a good chance, but if the early results are anything to go by, AV is getting it's alternative arse kicked. And the odds of Nick Clegg resigning before the night is out have probably shortened dramatically.

 

[Sureboss]

Yup, a vote against electoral reform means we're stuck with the piece of **** we have now for a few more centuries. What we need is PR, but that's not going to happen.

Also, one step closer to building that trench along the border, TM?

Fully expecting AV to be a massive no, which I suppose could bring down the coalition. Which would be good.

 

[Neal]

Arse.

 

[Famine]

Yep, I'm going to spoil my paper again.

It's worth a note that the counting centres are reporting all the rejected ballots (I say "all" - we're numbering about a half a percent), but the BBC are completely ignoring them.

I suspect my feelings about the BBC are well known by now though

Edit: No, Sky are following suit too.

It's baffling to track turnout (thus percentage of people who don't care enough to vote or didn't get to vote) and then ignore some of those who did vote, particularly when these numbers are reported by the counting officers. Add together the percentage of Yes and No votes and you don't get 100% - it's not 31.5% Yes to 68.5% No, it's 31.2% Yes to 68.2% No.

 

[Owen.C93]

Why does every internet site I go on seem to be 90% in favor of it, yet when it comes to the vote its only 30%. I have to say I really didn't like the FPTP campaign, to me it seemed to be full of BS.

 

[Danisfast]

I think that it's largely to do with the basic misconceptions that people believe in. Some people are stupid, some are ignorant and some are misinformed. I have no doubt there are good reasons to support the 'No' vote. But how many people who voted for it did so with clarity of judgement is likely to be depressingly low.

A big part of the 'No' campaign was based on misrepresentations, and outright lies. For example, the 'more coalitions' argument was peddled by many a campaigner, despite a total lack of evidence (and in fact evidence to the contrary) to support this claim. Another example is on the quite frankly unbelievable assumption that running the referendum (which was always going to happen anyway) and using the system in the future was costing servicemen's lives. The list of similar atrocities to the quality of British politics goes on, and some of which people believed. This includes 'it's fairer' (which, upon investigation, is a statement of loose interpretation), 'it means the BNP will run the country', 'it destabilises government' and the personal attacks on people backing the 'Yes' vote - to name a few.

It doesn't help though, that AV is really only an overcomplicated compromise between FPTP and PR. Really, everyone wants PR (Proportional Representation), and why we didn't just vote for that will probably be the subject of great debate among the Lib Dem elite, and frustration amongst everyone else.

The 'Yes' campaign was, quite frankly, not good enough. They were hardly anywhere to be seen, and they managed to throw away a massive lead in the polls to what now appears to be a crushing defeat. Most of the people I knew personally were voting 'no'. When I asked them why, it was almost always was because they either backed the 'No' campaign (which, as mentioned, rested on many a falsehood), simply didn't understand AV (and thought it was all too complicated), or a combination of those two things.

Ah well, what can you do, eh?

 

[Neal]

Why does every internet site I go on seem to be 90% in favor of it, yet when it comes to the vote its only 30%.

Because the internet sites you frequent aren't populated by stupid old fools who think change is bad and believe a system that has been in place all their lives must be right.


Also Famine you'll be pleased to hear my views on spoiled papers has changed from it being a waste of time, serving no purpose and no different to not voting to the purpose you intend which is effectively "none of the above"...assuming I've got your intention right.

 

[Famine]

I see it like voting for your favourite religion.

People who turn up and vote for a religion favour that religion.
People who don't turn up are agnostic.
People who turn up and spoil their ballot either didn't understand the question, are rebelling against the system (rah!) or are atheists.


You have to take into account the fact that some rejected ballots are, basically, stupid people or people who want to prove how counterculture they are - just as you have to take into account that some who don't vote didn't do so because they were unable or were prevented from doing so, rather than not being bothered enough to do so.

But I can live with that. I will vote (unless prevented from doing so) and if there's no option I want to vote in favour of I won't vote for any option.


As a sidebar, our local parish council election was yesterday too. We were instructed to vote for no more than six of eight candidates (five of which were Liberal Democrat. No guesses who controls our parish council tonight ). I'd not even heard of a one of them, so you can tell exactly how much they'd been campaigning for my vote - I don't even leave the house and they didn't so much as post a leaflet between them. Our MP posted a leaflet to say "Vote for your Liberal Democract councillors!", but he didn't tell me why or what the difference between the five of them was.

 

[PeterJB]

Only 16 million people bothered to vote. How representative of the nations best interests.

 

[Ardius]

I voted No in the end. And not because of who said what as far as campaigns go - this wasn't a vote on who has the best campaign.
I voted on the principle that I didn't see the benefit of AV, the end result from it would be no different so why bother? If this was a vote on PR, then I would have voted yes.

It seemed to me most people who were voting yes were doing so on the idea that having AV would be "one step closer to getting PR". Which isn't a very solid argument why we should have AV.

There are other aspects of politics which need to be looked at first, the voting system is the last thing that needs changing right now. This very referendum displayed the complete lack of public debate and discussion from politicians, they almost seemed to remain aloof on the subject!
The fact people are resorting to calling the public "dumb" on the matter, says it all really.