PDA

View Full Version : FPTP or AV?



Mathew
16-04-2011, 05:35 PM
Not sure whether this could be considered a debate or not, but I'm interested to know what the general opinion is on Habbox.

First Past The Post or the Alternative Vote - and why? :)
Matt

Charlottay!
16-04-2011, 06:02 PM
personally prefer first past the post then they clearly deserve to have won the election. if it is Alternate then you could win just because the person who came last rather likes a certain candidate second.

Johno
16-04-2011, 06:22 PM
personally prefer first past the post then they clearly deserve to have won the election. if it is Alternate then you could win just because the person who came last rather likes a certain candidate second.

I disagree that they clearly deserve to win, for example:
If A gets 4 votes, B gets 2 votes, C gets 2 votes and D gets 2 votes - A is the winner in FPTP but that's 6 people who don't want A to be in power.

I feel that AV is not exactly perfect but it works better and is more representative than FPTP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ahU0gsy-0

FlyingJesus
16-04-2011, 06:56 PM
In AV it's possible (although not likely by any means) to have someone elected who NO-ONE had chosen as their first choice. That scenario aside, a more proportionate merely means more likelihood of a hung parliament and slower decision-making

Hecktix
16-04-2011, 07:02 PM
AV is more representative but I wouldn't call it fairer, as a party who could come third or fourth on first preference votes (FPTP) could win on second, third, fourth + preference votes. I don't personally think it's fair, as the party with the most first-choice votes should win.

To be fair (and someone's gonna start going on at me about election turn outs being higher for AV but oh well), no election is representative of the public anyway so there's no point in wasting millions reforming it. You fight for a win in an election, you either win or you lose if you lose you accept the other party got more votes and move on with it. Also you have to judge how serious people are about their second, third choices etc - for instance on my ballot paper in 2010 I had five options, Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, UKIP and BNP, if I was asked to rank these in order it would be Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative, UKIP, BNP - however just because I put Lib Dems second, doesn't mean I want them in power and I wouldn't want to think that my vote contributed to the Lib Dems getting into power, under AV you have to put them in order of preference or not vote - I think this is unfair.

In these times with our economy how it is, we don't need to be wasting so much money on changing an electoral system, especially one that'll cost more and more every election :P

GommeInc
16-04-2011, 07:47 PM
Under AV you have to put them in order of preference or not vote - I think this is unfair.
I read somewhere that you can vote for 1 if you want to, you do not have to vote for other parties under the AV system. Did I misread that, because I wouldn't be surprised? :P

I'm not sure what to think. Technically FPTP is fairer as the person with the most votes clearly deserves that place, but AV allows for greater power as it gives a vote a value of 1 to 5, where before there was no power to the vote, a vote was just a vote.

Mathew
16-04-2011, 08:32 PM
I read somewhere that you can vote for 1 if you want to, you do not have to vote for other parties under the AV system. Did I misread that, because I wouldn't be surprised? :P
Yeah this is correct. You can just choose one option and be done with it. I read the little booklet that got sent through the mail about it, explaining the difference between the two, etc. :P

+ yeah I pretty much agree with the above posts. There's no point spending stupid amounts of money on reforming it when the current system is good enough (and has been for goodness knows how long). AV may help to bring a lot of the smaller parties to the public's attention, or perhaps it's just Labour's cry for help in regaining their power. We'll see.

GommeInc
16-04-2011, 08:55 PM
+ yeah I pretty much agree with the above posts. There's no point spending stupid amounts of money on reforming it when the current system is good enough (and has been for goodness knows how long). AV may help to bring a lot of the smaller parties to the public's attention, or perhaps it's just Labour's cry for help in regaining their power. We'll see.
I tend to find the Lib Dems are the ones pushing for the vote. The leaftlet I got was a complete joke, from the Lib Dems saying how "although they lied, we can at least keep this promise" which makes no blooming sense at all.

Hecktix
16-04-2011, 09:04 PM
Yeah this is correct. You can just choose one option and be done with it. I read the little booklet that got sent through the mail about it, explaining the difference between the two, etc. :P

+ yeah I pretty much agree with the above posts. There's no point spending stupid amounts of money on reforming it when the current system is good enough (and has been for goodness knows how long). AV may help to bring a lot of the smaller parties to the public's attention, or perhaps it's just Labour's cry for help in regaining their power. We'll see.

The majority of the Labour Party disagree with AV, it's just Miliband (basically) that supports it and his argument is it represents the people, which is him portaying his message, to be fair Matt, no matter what system is in place Labour & Conservative will always be the two main parties, I don't think Labour need to "cry for help in regaining power" as the coalition are basically handing votes to Labour day by day. It's the Lib Dems who want it more than any other party and let's face it, you could definitely say they are crying for power and would do anything for it.

Mathew
16-04-2011, 09:11 PM
I tend to find the Lib Dems are the ones pushing for the vote. The leaftlet I got was a complete joke, from the Lib Dems saying how "although they lied, we can at least keep this promise" which makes no blooming sense at all.
lol is that what they've said?.. bless them :P


The majority of the Labour Party disagree with AV, it's just Miliband (basically) that supports it and his argument is it represents the people, which is him portaying his message, to be fair Matt, no matter what system is in place Labour & Conservative will always be the two main parties, I don't think Labour need to "cry for help in regaining power" as the coalition are basically handing votes to Labour day by day. It's the Lib Dems who want it more than any other party and let's face it, you could definitely say they are crying for power and would do anything for it.
Indeed, it's such a shame that people don't realise the benefits from the coalition :'( The only reason they're handing them votes is because people are too brainwashed to realise it's for the greater good. If only those people would come out of the cotton-wool ball of a Labour government :rolleyes:

Good point on the Lib Dems though. I can't help but feel slightly sorry for Nick Clegg and the amount of bad press he's getting; but then again, I think I would have done the exact same thing as him. For the pay packet, obviously :P

Hecktix
16-04-2011, 09:15 PM
lol is that what they've said?.. bless them :P


Indeed, it's such a shame that people don't realise the benefits from the coalition :'( The only reason they're handing them votes is because people are too brainwashed to realise it's for the greater good. If only those people would come out of the cotton-wool ball of a Labour government :rolleyes:

Good point on the Lib Dems though. I can't help but feel slightly sorry for Nick Clegg and the amount of bad press he's getting; but then again, I think I would have done the exact same thing as him. For the pay packet, obviously :P

The coalition isn't doing much good at all, it's making huge cuts to public sectors such as NHS, Police & Education who simply cannot afford it, but that debate is not for this thread. And I wouldn't have done the same as Nick Clegg, if I had worked hard enough to be elected the leader of my political party I would not stand for things that are against my party's values, completely tearing the party's reputation to shreds (not that it had much of a reputation).

-:Undertaker:-
16-04-2011, 09:22 PM
AV has been found to be, sometimes, more disproportional than FPTP which in itself is a rather bad system which leaves out millions of votes in favour for a three-party monopoly. Now as for myself, i've been looking into this over the past year and there really isn't a choice between these two systems - both are more or less the same, hence why we have been denied proportional representation which the Liberal Democrats promised to bring in (although its rather clear that PR would only serve to harm the Liberal Democrats as they are a protest party that has formed thanks to the FPTP system).

So while I may change what I vote for (if I even vote at all), I may just spoil my ballot by asking where my promised EU referendum is - of which all main three parties promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.


The majority of the Labour Party disagree with AV, it's just Miliband (basically) that supports it and his argument is it represents the people, which is him portaying his message, to be fair Matt, no matter what system is in place Labour & Conservative will always be the two main parties, I don't think Labour need to "cry for help in regaining power" as the coalition are basically handing votes to Labour day by day. It's the Lib Dems who want it more than any other party and let's face it, you could definitely say they are crying for power and would do anything for it.

Both of their [Labour and Conservative] membership are in freefall and have been for years, both are redundant and both recieve less and less votes at every election. While they may have the monopoly now, I wouldn't bet on them being around for much longer.

I'm basing this on membership figures by the way, the figures do not lie.


lol is that what they've said?.. bless them :P

Indeed, it's such a shame that people don't realise the benefits from the coalition :'( The only reason they're handing them votes is because people are too brainwashed to realise it's for the greater good. If only those people would come out of the cotton-wool ball of a Labour government :rolleyes:

You mean like Conservative voters who continue to believe that the Tory Party is any different to the Labour Party?


The coalition isn't doing much good at all, it's making huge cuts to public sectors such as NHS, Police & Education who simply cannot afford it, but that debate is not for this thread. And I wouldn't have done the same as Nick Clegg, if I had worked hard enough to be elected the leader of my political party I would not stand for things that are against my party's values, completely tearing the party's reputation to shreds (not that it had much of a reputation).

Can you please stop repeating this concerning the 'cuts'? there are no cuts in government expenditure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8423832/Cuts-What-cuts-Spending-is-rising.html

I keep taking yourself and others to task on this issue and I never recieve a reply - this government is doing exactly what you and others continue to want, increased government spending year on year of which we cannot afford.

Mathew
16-04-2011, 09:26 PM
Let's be honest Dan, you can't deny the fact that the Tories are making more of an effort than our previous Government?

Couldn't agree with you more on the EU topic, may I add.

-:Undertaker:-
16-04-2011, 09:30 PM
Let's be honest Dan, you can't deny the fact that the Tories are making more of an effort than our previous Government?

Couldn't agree with you more on the EU topic, may I add.

What are they doing thats any different to the previous government? (apart from sometimes differing rhetoric)

Again, you can see the figures concerning government spending in the link above.

Hecktix
16-04-2011, 09:37 PM
I don't reply to you, Dan because I don't do talking to brick walls. The whole "the government are making no cuts" argument is bollocks, they may not be cutting the debt (but they are reducing the amount we are borrowing, which to be fair - is a start) but they are making cuts in the public sector which will damage this country. This topic is about the Electoral Reform referendum, but as usual you manage to take the topic elsewhere - something for which you are infamous on this forum.

In terms of proportional representation, I find that it's quite an idealistic system that would never work in practice.

Mathew
16-04-2011, 09:38 PM
The news article has told me nothing about where the extra "£3 billion a week" is going. It's all projections for the future but no facts of where it's going and how it's any different to Labour's fiasco.

..and indeed, if there was no "cuts," then how do you explain the past year of constant moaning from Britain's public? Tuition fees, petrol, tax, VAT, pensions, schooling - all places which has recieved cuts or increased fees (all in an attempt to help the Government make more money). Cuts in the public sector is where the Tories must make a start, but no doubt they'll be voted off before any benefits are seen. So where's it all gone? Don't tell me that UKIP have the holy grail of an answer.. :rolleyes: ;)

-:Undertaker:-
16-04-2011, 09:41 PM
I don't reply to you, Dan because I don't do talking to brick walls. The whole "the government are making no cuts" argument is bollocks, they may not be cutting the debt (but they are reducing the amount we are borrowing, which to be fair - is a start) but they are making cuts in the public sector which will damage this country. This topic is about the Electoral Reform referendum, but as usual you manage to take the topic elsewhere - something for which you are infamous on this forum.

In terms of proportional representation, I find that it's quite an idealistic system that would never work in practice.

I tell you what is simply maddening - responding to ridiculous posts about 'severe ConDem cuts' by providing figures to you which are then ignored while you continue to preach about the virtues of the Labour Party and their spending plans when the incumbent government is doing exactly what you want. Now be tribal all you want, but you and others are not getting away with it - I will continue to correct you with spending figures.


The news article has told me nothing about where the extra "£3 billion a week" is going. It's all projections for the future but no facts of where it's going and how it's any different to Labour's fiasco.

..and indeed, if there was no "cuts," then how do you explain the past year of constant moaning from Britain's public? Tuition fees, petrol, tax, VAT, pensions, schooling - all places which has recieved cuts or increased fees (all in an attempt to help the Government make more money). Cuts in the public sector is where the Tories must make a start, but no doubt they'll be voted off before any benefits are seen. So where's it all gone? Don't tell me that UKIP have the holy grail of an answer.. :rolleyes: ;)

Increased fees? isn't that what we had anyway during the last government when bin services were cut to fortnightly services, local services were slashed back all while council tax doubled I believe it was in the period of around 10 or so years. The last government raised government spending to extreme levels which we why we now have this large debt to deal with, yet at the same time it still cut back things such as bin collections whilst making you pay for it. And why? to continue to feed the likes of Foreign aid, the EU bill, state quangos - all of which are still rising and are due to rise.

Now as for them figures, they are the governments own projections (not including the expensive PFI schemes Mr Brown left us behind) - not mine, not Mr Bookers - their own spending projections which state they are going to spend more than Labour ever spent whilst in office.


So where's it all gone? Don't tell me that UKIP have the holy grail of an answer..

Well the coalition increased the foreign aid budget by 37% so there's a start.

Mathew
16-04-2011, 09:56 PM
Increased fees? isn't that what we had anyway during the last government when bin services were cut to fortnightly services, local services were slashed back all while council tax doubled I believe it was in the period of around 10 or so years. The last government raised government spending to extreme levels which we why we now have this large debt to deal with, yet at the same time it still cut back things such as bin collections whilst making you pay for it. And why? to continue to feed the likes of Foreign aid, the EU bill, state quangos - all of which are still rising and are due to rise.

Now as for them figures, they are the governments own projections (not including the expensive PFI schemes Mr Brown left us behind) - not mine, not Mr Bookers - their own spending projections which state they are going to spend more than Labour ever spent whilst in office.



Well the coalition increased the foreign aid budget by 37% so there's a start.
You appear to disagree with the increase in council tax and cuts in the "all important bin collections" (and indeed, you appear to disagree with tuition fees, VAT and the likes)... are you suggesting they should be reduced and no effort be made? Surely you'd be even worse off.

Don't get me started on Foreign Aid though, I think it's absolute crap how we dish out such large chunks of money to foreigners when the country is as it is. The Pakistan deal killed me. That's partly a reason why I disagree with charities too. I agree with you that we shouldn't be giving money through Foreign Aid and the EU, but you still can't deny the fact that the Tories are making cuts and managing to extract more money from the taxpayer than Labour ever did (which is obviously what is needed).

GommeInc
16-04-2011, 10:01 PM
Don't get me started on Foreign Aid though, I think it's absolute crap how we dish out such large chunks of money to foreigners when the country is as it is. The Pakistan deal killed me. That's partly a reason why I disagree with charities too. I agree with you that we shouldn't be giving money through Foreign Aid and the EU, but you still can't deny the fact that the Tories are making cuts and managing to extract more money from the taxpayer than Labour ever did (which is obviously what is needed).
Charity is an odd topic. I find it weird how the Government give away aid when charity should be done voluntarily and at home, not by force and done through a bureaucracy. The British people are charitable enough as it is, we don't need the Government to enforce this with aid that goes to the wrong places, like Pakistan, Libya and a few others. The aid tends to go to other Governments anyway, rather than the desired areas.

-:Undertaker:-
16-04-2011, 10:05 PM
You appear to disagree with the increase in council tax and cuts in the "all important bin collections" (and indeed, you appear to disagree with tuition fees, VAT and the likes)... are you suggesting they should be reduced and no effort be made? Surely you'd be even worse off.

Don't get me started on Foreign Aid though, I think it's absolute crap how we dish out such large chunks of money to foreigners when the country is as it is. The Pakistan deal killed me. That's partly a reason why I disagree with charities too. I agree with you that we shouldn't be giving money through Foreign Aid and the EU, but you still can't deny the fact that the Tories are making cuts and managing to extract more money from the taxpayer than Labour ever did (which is obviously what is needed).

Stage 1: I'm suggesting we cut public spending (which the coalition are not doing) which is the general thing you need to do in order to get the debt down. So anyone would agree there who has a grasp on numbers, that in order to get down X you need to actually cut back enough so that you have a surplus in the budget which would then go to pay the debt - this is not due to happen.

So thats firstly what we need to do.

Stage 2: The second part on what to do next is to decide what we need to cut to get back to this surplus so that we can pay our debts along with pay the debt interest at the same time. I propose we cut the following first (as would anyone else who has an ounce of common sense); our EU payments, foreign aid payments, state quangos, PFI schemes, the welfare state, layers of management within Whitehall.. and i'm sure we could find much more which would not affect needed frontline services.

Now i'm not saying that will pay the government debts off fully, but thats where you start in order to minimise the damage to the people on this country when cuts in schools, council services and so forth would need to be made - but as I point out above, the coalition aren't even past stage one yet. Ontop of this you also cut back in order to accomodate tax cuts which stimulate growth in the economy.

It is all very well debating what we should cut/what should not be cut - but whats the point of debating this when the 'cuts' are simply a sham?

Mathew
16-04-2011, 10:25 PM
Stage 1: I'm suggesting we cut public spending (which the coalition are not doing) which is the general thing you need to do in order to get the debt down. So anyone would agree there who has a grasp on numbers, that in order to get down X you need to actually cut back enough so that you have a surplus in the budget which would then go to pay the debt - this is not due to happen.
In that case, where do you propose the cuts come from (ignoring places that the coalition, or Labour for that matter, have already tried)? It's all well and good saying "cutting the bin men didn't work," but why would it when you consider the tiny proportion? "Public spending" is too big of a hypernym to even do that statement credit.

Obviously it needs to happen, and yet again... you can't deny the fact that the coalition have tried when the evidence is clear in black and white.


Stage 2: The second part on what to do next is to decide what we need to cut to get back to this surplus so that we can pay our debts along with pay the debt interest at the same time. I propose we cut the following first (as would anyone else who has an ounce of common sense); our EU payments, foreign aid payments, state quangos, PFI schemes, the welfare state, layers of management within Whitehall.. and i'm sure we could find much more which would not affect needed frontline services.
I agree with cutting the majority of those listed. The EU has good intentions with it's trade links and mutual relationships, but the Union is also the main reason for our arguably "messed-up" immigration system (which in turn has links to a boat load of other problems in the UK). I would hope that the UK is a big enough country (or perhaps I'm still living in the past) to work out it's own trade routes rather than getting the easy deal (or maybe not) with the EU.

Welfare State, well I'm not too sure. Free NHS is something which is particularly British to me, and I think it's a true benefit to being a citizen of the UK; however the amount of benefits and compensations people can apply for is simply ridiculous, and I would agree that this junk needs some reformation.

-:Undertaker:-
16-04-2011, 10:36 PM
In that case, where do you propose the cuts come from (ignoring places that the coalition, or Labour for that matter, have already tried)? It's all well and good saying "cutting the bin men didn't work," but why would it when you consider the tiny proportion? "Public spending" is too big of a hypernym to even do that statement credit.

I have just listed what I would cut.


Obviously it needs to happen, and yet again... you can't deny the fact that the coalition have tried when the evidence is clear in black and white.

No and why? because public spending is increasing. They have 'tried' only with their rhetoric as have the Labour Party concerning these 'cuts' which are not cuts at all as, again, public spending is due to increase. Mr Osborne is the Chancellor who is in control of the finances of government and at the end of his term in office the government will be spending more per annum than the previous Labour government ever spent.

'Cuts'? no.


I agree with cutting the majority of those listed. The EU has good intentions with it's trade links and mutual relationships, but the Union is also the main reason for our arguably "messed-up" immigration system (which in turn has links to a boat load of other problems in the UK). I would hope that the UK is a big enough country (or perhaps I'm still living in the past) to work out it's own trade routes rather than getting the easy deal (or maybe not) with the EU.

We have a trade deficit with the EU and not with the rest of the world, leaving the EU also would not mean that we pull the drawbridge up and do not talk, trade or continue friendly relationships with them - quite the opposite, our relationship would likely improve as a result. The intentions behind the EU, I can only commend you to this programme which is a brief summary of a vast vast topic but rather does it justice; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSQiPY3VVyA


Welfare State, well I'm not too sure. Free NHS is something which is particularly British to me, and I think it's a true benefit to being a citizen of the UK; however the amount of benefits and compensations people can apply for is simply ridiculous, and I would agree that this junk needs some reformation.

The parts you mentioned would be the bulk of it (concerning benefits, yes) - the NHS on the other hand, while I think it should be privatised (as its not free at all to those who pay taxes) it can still make a great saving by cutting. The NHS is the third largest employer in the world behind the PLA and the Indian Railway Service with vast swathes of layers of management which can be cut; http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=NHS+more+managers+than+nurses&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=ac1173e8e69c353d

Many sources on the rapid rise of management that occured under Labour, all those non-jobs should be cut - not just in the NHS, in Whitehall, in education.. the list goes on and on. I do apologise for this going into public spending/debt by the way, but I have tried to get debates going on this with others in the past (in threads posted for that very purpose) and yet nobody from the Conservative or Labour Party wants to discuss the issue in a sensible manner where we could discuss what is actually happening as opposed to cheap talk and rhetoric.

alexxxxx
16-04-2011, 11:17 PM
AV is better than FPTP, but they are really quite similar. I don't buy the whole 'well i don't see why someone should be in when they don't win the first round' - well i don't see why someone should get in when they have less than 50% approval.

PR is obviously the best system, but I think it wouldn't work in this country as people like having local MPs that are accountable to them. MPs in this system are more likely to look after local issues.

AV is a step in the right direction. Obviously it still prefers the bigger parties, but It'd be definitely interesting to see the 'true' votes of UKIP, Greens, BNP etc.

I think this is the best explanation I've seen so far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

RyRy
17-04-2011, 07:18 AM
Here's a fine example of why AV is good.

Recently I attended the NUS UK Conference, where the Alternative vote is how we elect *all* our candidates. I was part of a campaign team, and I can tell you I wasn't campaigning towards one set of voters, I was campaigning for all the voters since the second preference vote was essentially what would decide the presidential election for NUS UK. Funnily enough, do you know who were the ones who had the deciding vote? The left wing voters, those who would usually feel so excluded by the democratic procedure but instead felt united in a cause. A lot like that Big Society that Cameron was once referring to, heh.

Now we go into a new year with a president that both right wing, centrists and left wing voters wanted. Unity within the National Union of Students. Under First Past The Post, we would've ended up with a presidential candidate who wasn't voted in by a majority of the voters, nor would his policies affect those who didn't want to vote him as he was thoroughly against direct action like the outgoing president, Aaron Porter, once was. Just one of many reasons to vote yes to AV.

-:Undertaker:-
17-04-2011, 11:24 AM
Here's a fine example of why AV is good.

Recently I attended the NUS UK Conference, where the Alternative vote is how we elect *all* our candidates. I was part of a campaign team, and I can tell you I wasn't campaigning towards one set of voters, I was campaigning for all the voters since the second preference vote was essentially what would decide the presidential election for NUS UK. Funnily enough, do you know who were the ones who had the deciding vote? The left wing voters, those who would usually feel so excluded by the democratic procedure but instead felt united in a cause. A lot like that Big Society that Cameron was once referring to, heh.

Now we go into a new year with a president that both right wing, centrists and left wing voters wanted. Unity within the National Union of Students. Under First Past The Post, we would've ended up with a presidential candidate who wasn't voted in by a majority of the voters, nor would his policies affect those who didn't want to vote him as he was thoroughly against direct action like the outgoing president, Aaron Porter, once was. Just one of many reasons to vote yes to AV.

It must be said though that all NUS Presidents end up as mere Labour stooges, which Douglas Murray pointed out I think it must have been something like all NUS Presidents have ended up being slipped into Labour safe seats in the future, a reward which likely awaits Aaron Porter.

Not that that is against AV, because a throughly left wing organisation will of course have a left wing President. But i'm just saying that theres no pretence here that the NUS is indicative of student opinion when it is a sideshow of the Labour Party.

It was Lord Browne *Labour* afterall who recommended the tuition fee rises before the election.

GommeInc
17-04-2011, 11:52 AM
It must be said though that all NUS Presidents end up as mere Labour stooges, which Douglas Murray pointed out I think it must have been something like all NUS Presidents have ended up being slipped into Labour safe seats in the future, a reward which likely awaits Aaron Porter.

Not that that is against AV, because a throughly left wing organisation will of course have a left wing President. But i'm just saying that theres no pretence here that the NUS is indicative of student opinion when it is a sideshow of the Labour Party.

It was Lord Browne *Labour* afterall who recommended the tuition fee rises before the election.
There is some truth in your method, strangely :P Whenever I hear of the NUS, you get the people who are not always associated causing disruption. It does just seem like an organisation that doesn't necessarily have a voice.

FlyingJesus
17-04-2011, 12:10 PM
AV is better than FPTP, but they are really quite similar. I don't buy the whole 'well i don't see why someone should be in when they don't win the first round' - well i don't see why someone should get in when they have less than 50% approval.

Winners of 2nd/3rd rounds of AV don't have 50% approval either, they're just people who are the less hated ones. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that having someone who was everyone's 3rd choice and no-one's first take the seat of power is fair


Now we go into a new year with a president that both right wing, centrists and left wing voters wanted.

You mean you ended up with a president that the majority didn't actually vote for originally

alexxxxx
17-04-2011, 03:45 PM
[QUOTE=FlyingJesus;7075086]Winners of 2nd/3rd rounds of AV don't have 50% approval either, they're just people who are the less hated ones. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that having someone who was everyone's 3rd choice and no-one's first take the seat of power is fair
[QUOTE]
You are not forced to write numbers for everyone. I would never put a number next to UKIP or the BNP as I wouldn't approve of them at all. By writing in a number you do approve the candidate, whether or not it was your first choice is another matter. If you only want one of the candidates and no others - then you vote for them and them only.

Hecktix
17-04-2011, 04:08 PM
[QUOTE=FlyingJesus;7075086]Winners of 2nd/3rd rounds of AV don't have 50% approval either, they're just people who are the less hated ones. It's utterly ridiculous to suggest that having someone who was everyone's 3rd choice and no-one's first take the seat of power is fair
[QUOTE]
You are not forced to write numbers for everyone. I would never put a number next to UKIP or the BNP as I wouldn't approve of them at all. By writing in a number you do approve the candidate, whether or not it was your first choice is another matter. If you only want one of the candidates and no others - then you vote for them and them only.

This is something that will confuse a lot of people though and they will probably put preference regardless

FlyingJesus
17-04-2011, 06:46 PM
Unless you can vote one party as your 1st 2nd and 3rd choice then I'd personally feel extremely disenfranchised having only a third of the say of other people just because I had strong views. In reality I don't vote anyway and will live with whatever goes down but I'm sure plenty of people wouldn't want to end up not having had any part of the 2nd/3rd rounds of voting and having their entire vote totally nulled

GommeInc
17-04-2011, 07:32 PM
This is something that will confuse a lot of people though and they will probably put preference regardless
Indeed, you should only put other candidates if you are happy with most of the policies or the candidate/party in general. You should never vote for someone you are totally against or feel you should vote for more than one for the sake of it :P I might number mine, as I do feel a mix of candidates have decent policies, and to see if a fairer result comes of it.

redtom
17-04-2011, 08:28 PM
People get blinded by quotes like

The X choice party can get into power with AV
The fact of the matter is that this will rarely happen, much like current coalitions in the UK.
FTP forces wasted votes, and because of this leaves smaller parties ultimately powerless. The AV isn't great but its a step in the right direction, creating a better reflection of public views and making politics more competitive.

FlyingJesus
17-04-2011, 09:01 PM
Are you suggesting that it's rare for a party to not gain a 50%+ vote in the first round because unless that's the case then yes, the "X choice" party will be far more likely to win

Ajthedragon
18-04-2011, 09:14 AM
I prefer the system we have now because it's less complicated, cheaper, easier to count (we get the result overnight!) and reduces the chances of hung parliaments. It also means extremist parties might be elected into parliament. Plus the system we have now is traditional and doesn't really benefit any of the political partys. With a new system liberal parties would walk away with it, you either love or hate right-wing politics. And if the Labour Party won all the time it wouldn't really be democracy...


No system truly reflects public views.

alexxxxx
18-04-2011, 11:46 AM
Unless you can vote one party as your 1st 2nd and 3rd choice then I'd personally feel extremely disenfranchised having only a third of the say of other people just because I had strong views. In reality I don't vote anyway and will live with whatever goes down but I'm sure plenty of people wouldn't want to end up not having had any part of the 2nd/3rd rounds of voting and having their entire vote totally nulled
I don't really understand what you're getting at. If you only liked one party's views then you'd have no need for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice - you don't have only a 3rd of the choice - you have as much of a vote as anyone else.

Indeed, you should only put other candidates if you are happy with most of the policies or the candidate/party in general. You should never vote for someone you are totally against or feel you should vote for more than one for the sake of it :P I might number mine, as I do feel a mix of candidates have decent policies, and to see if a fairer result comes of it.
This just needs to be made clear so Labour party people don't end up putting conservatives as their 2nd choice.

I prefer the system we have now because it's less complicated, cheaper, easier to count (we get the result overnight!) and reduces the chances of hung parliaments. It also means extremist parties might be elected into parliament. Plus the system we have now is traditional and doesn't really benefit any of the political partys. With a new system liberal parties would walk away with it, you either love or hate right-wing politics. And if the Labour Party won all the time it wouldn't really be democracy...
Hung Parliaments and Coalitions are signs of a functioning democracy. If the labour party with the lib dems were in coalition almost every election because the electorate voted them in, it would be a democracy. The new voting system would not have to expensive, i'm surprised that electronic vote readers are not used.

No system truly reflects public views.

Mathew
18-04-2011, 01:01 PM
There's a clear distinction between the two main parties and you're either classed as a Conservative or a Labour voter. There are very few people, if anyone, that would put both of them down on their ballot paper, if we were to change to AV.

Taking that into account, you're left with all the minority parties which simply aren't advertised enough for people to consider putting them down (and by "people" I mean the general public, typically those lacking political knowledge). People don't know enough about UKIP, BNP and the Green Party for them to even consider winning an election.

Now it's all well and good for you to suggest "you can just vote for one party," but in that case... why bother changing the system at all? People don't know enough about the rest, so the majority of people will stick with Lab/Con and the results will be clear (51% or more) at the end. It just seems an expensive and pointless change which is only being brought to public attention because of the Lib Dem's floundering support.

GommeInc
18-04-2011, 05:40 PM
There's a clear distinction between the two main parties and you're either classed as a Conservative or a Labour voter. There are very few people, if anyone, that would put both of them down on their ballot paper, if we were to change to AV.

Taking that into account, you're left with all the minority parties which simply aren't advertised enough for people to consider putting them down (and by "people" I mean the general public, typically those lacking political knowledge). People don't know enough about UKIP, BNP and the Green Party for them to even consider winning an election.

Now it's all well and good for you to suggest "you can just vote for one party," but in that case... why bother changing the system at all? People don't know enough about the rest, so the majority of people will stick with Lab/Con and the results will be clear (51% or more) at the end. It just seems an expensive and pointless change which is only being brought to public attention because of the Lib Dem's floundering support.
Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are practically the same. People could vote for both of them on their ballot papers if they wanted (I say both because the Lib Dems are like leeches that stick to whatever party is the strongest), they're not extreme opposites as we would believe. Both dry hump the NHS and are lousy with finances, and usually harp on about creating jobs, boosting education and public services, the only difference is they change the words slightly :P

-:Undertaker:-
18-04-2011, 05:50 PM
Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are practically the same. People could vote for both of them on their ballot papers if they wanted (I say both because the Lib Dems are like leeches that stick to whatever party is the strongest), they're not extreme opposites as we would believe. Both dry hump the NHS and are lousy with finances, and usually harp on about creating jobs, boosting education and public services, the only difference is they change the words slightly :P

One hundred percent correct, +rep.

Anyone of these parties could be in office and nothing would change (as we've seen right now and I dare anybody to point out actual policy differences between the parties as opposed to differing rhetoric which is used to win elections). The thing that prevents this however is the belief, among the tribal voters of these parties that they are somehow different and that it actually matters which one gains the keys to number 10.

I would love all three of them to campaign on a pledge of what they actually do whilst in office; signing away our sovereignty to a foreign power, promising referendums then denying them, allowing foreign courts to overrule British courts, allowing mass migration, throwing money at the global warming climate change gravytrain, continuing a vast welfare state, throwing money at a health service which is bloated with layers of managerial staff, increasing foreign aid by billions + many more.. and raising taxes to pay for it all of course.

We could then have a proper debate as a country on what where we wanted to go - the above or something different.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!