UK Voting System
- Thread starter Nic
- Start date
I think it is very dangerous and you could end up with people like the BNP getting seats etc.
It should be 1st past the post, the person with the most votes should win. In a football match if its a draw you do not give the win to the person with the most shots. But it saying that in other sports you do have count back in the case of equal points lol.
I am not sure how I will vote it just seems like a way the Libs think they can win more seats.
Thanks Nic for the topic as I was getting all confused by it all due to the both parties running the country wanting different things.
It should be 1st past the post, the person with the most votes should win. In a football match if its a draw you do not give the win to the person with the most shots. But it saying that in other sports you do have count back in the case of equal points lol.
I am not sure how I will vote it just seems like a way the Libs think they can win more seats.
Thanks Nic for the topic as I was getting all confused by it all due to the both parties running the country wanting different things.
Snoo said:
It's a little different over here though Snoo. We're running on a political system here that was developed at a time that the First with the Plague system would have been just as apt as first past the post.
See, you say "whoever gets the most votes wins". Here, the Labour party could get 51% of all the votes in the country, but still end up not getting into power because they didn't win enough seats. Our first past the post system is flawed in that the party with the most votes across the country isn't guaranteed to get into power.
jokerman said:
Couple of points from this...
First up, how do you know that? We don't know what people's "second choice" would have been. Se don't know that with AV in place, the way people voted may have been completely different.
Which leads to the second point. So what? If a party is doing so abysmally that an election destroys them, then good! Take them into the back yard and put a bullet through their heads! Maybe if politicians were actually afraid of failure to the point they know they'd have no future in it, they'd be a little more on the ball? Knowing that, they would change their approach and gear up towards an AV system and with the change in policies and approach stop that from happening? You can't tack on historical figures to a new system and say "this is what it would have been like" - it can't be, because by changing the system, it would have changed the figures.
Personally, I think the current system of party politics is desperately broken and we need to sort something out. I'm not sure AV is the best system, but I think proportional representation goes too far. AV works elsewhere in the world, so why not here? One thing's for sure, we need to do something to shake up the politics in the UK and get politicians to wake up and smell the coffee. This could be a small change that actually starts off a larger chain of changes that improves the UK political landscape. It may fail miserably, but as our current system is a dead loss, I can't see any reason not to try.
jokerman said:
Yeah, they can all be taken out the back and be put out of our misery too*
*I agree in principle with the position of the house of Lords, I think that everything a temporary elected government does should be at least given a second glance by somebody independent, I just don't think that they perhaps the best people to do it.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Wait, wait, wait... wait.
We got a leaflet through the door today against it. It said "money wasted teaching people how to vote!" - but ...that's arealdy been wasted regardless? That isn't a reason to vote no, that's a reason to vote yes. Silly leaflet.
Anyway. I don't understand why people are saying that 2nd or 3rd could win in the AV system... Instead of keep saying it, can someone explian why they have that fear? From my perspective, the MOST PREFERED will win. My mum often votes for the compeition of party she least likes, because she knows so and so doesn't have a chance. She can't be the only one. And this is why I've refused to vote in the past. None of them are any good. Ranking them makes more sense, because the commulitative most prefered gets my vote and the vote isn't wasted.
Yeah. Think I'm gunna vote AV. When there are more than two parties, it just makes sense. People are so scared of change and terrified by the idea of spending money on OMG UNECCISARY THINGS that I somehow doubt it'll happen though.
We got a leaflet through the door today against it. It said "money wasted teaching people how to vote!" - but ...that's arealdy been wasted regardless? That isn't a reason to vote no, that's a reason to vote yes. Silly leaflet.
Anyway. I don't understand why people are saying that 2nd or 3rd could win in the AV system... Instead of keep saying it, can someone explian why they have that fear? From my perspective, the MOST PREFERED will win. My mum often votes for the compeition of party she least likes, because she knows so and so doesn't have a chance. She can't be the only one. And this is why I've refused to vote in the past. None of them are any good. Ranking them makes more sense, because the commulitative most prefered gets my vote and the vote isn't wasted.
Yeah. Think I'm gunna vote AV. When there are more than two parties, it just makes sense. People are so scared of change and terrified by the idea of spending money on OMG UNECCISARY THINGS that I somehow doubt it'll happen though.
For someone like me though that will never vote for the Cons it does not really help.
You would get three votes so who the hell would I vote for lol. Yes it would be a smaller party probably but its a waste. Until Clegg goes I will never vote for them simply due to all the lies and crap he came out with on the run up to the election.
Tbh none of the so called big three impress me at the moment, I dont think any of them have strong leaders that can actually get the job done.
It is going to be a tough one, as I need to forget who is running the country now and think who could be in 4 years time 20 years time etc. I just do not see how AV will improve things, but it could have meant we did not have this joint party thing at the moment.
You would get three votes so who the hell would I vote for lol. Yes it would be a smaller party probably but its a waste. Until Clegg goes I will never vote for them simply due to all the lies and crap he came out with on the run up to the election.
Tbh none of the so called big three impress me at the moment, I dont think any of them have strong leaders that can actually get the job done.
It is going to be a tough one, as I need to forget who is running the country now and think who could be in 4 years time 20 years time etc. I just do not see how AV will improve things, but it could have meant we did not have this joint party thing at the moment.
Nic
Strata Poster
In theory, this is less likely to happen. Whilst there will be a core of voters who put them at their 1st choice, its still very unlikely to be more than half. People are less likely to put them as a 2nd choice (if they really believed in their extreme policies, then they'd have ranked them number 1), so the chances of them getting a majority in AV is quite low. Whereas, in FPTP, there's only got to be a relatively small number of nutters putting an X next to them, so they're more likely to get in.marc said:
That's the idea, anyway.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
When I look at the parties, none of them ever stand out as being an obvious choice. Labour, as a whole, are more likley to be sympathetic and supportive to myself, my family and my friends struggles, which is clearly the most important thing in anyone's life. But when I look at my borough and compare it to the boroughs around it, I see the blindingly obvious benefits of conservative. My borough is clean, well kept and home to far nicer people than surounding boroughs. People congregate in places where it's easier to survive, and labour have made it just... too easy. But I'm suffering from my borough being conservative. I feel like becuase I never payed much attention until recently to politics, and it's only now that I'm coming to look at it with a clean slate with no prejudices and no indoctrination from parents or peers, I can clearly see that there is no right or wrong way to run things... And this is why I've never voted.
ciallkennett
Strata Poster
Reading through some responses I just have a valid point to make:
This referendum is NOT party politics. yes, some parties are throwing their weight to YES, some to NO, but you can't judge what YOU will vote for simply on whether the Lib Dems/Tories/Labour supports one side or not. The parties have pretty much nothing to do with this referendum and YOUR decision. So please, don't use your vote to spite a political party or because Nick Clegg was a twat, use it based on your judgements on what is best for British politics.
That is all... for now.
This referendum is NOT party politics. yes, some parties are throwing their weight to YES, some to NO, but you can't judge what YOU will vote for simply on whether the Lib Dems/Tories/Labour supports one side or not. The parties have pretty much nothing to do with this referendum and YOUR decision. So please, don't use your vote to spite a political party or because Nick Clegg was a twat, use it based on your judgements on what is best for British politics.
That is all... for now.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
^ Indeed, and on top of that, I cant see why any logical person wouldn't see that the AV is clearly fairer. Everyone should watch the vid Plod posted.
SaiyanHajime
CF Legend
Er, did you miss the part about how in the current system someone can win even if MOST of the population really didn't want them to?jokerman said:
One example that really stands out to me in the video was if you have 3 parties, a, b and c... And parties b and c are more similar than a, then a will win even if more people vote for b and c - because their votes are devided between two. In the new system, those who voted c could put b as a second choice (and viseversa) which would prevent such bollocks.
It clearly makes more sense to allow people to give a second choice and vote for the party they actually want to win. This way, people won't think "oh it's pointless voting for c because then a will win" and actually vote for c in confidence, putting b as second. You may find that c is actually far more popular when people arren't voting strategically.
I see no benefit to the old system except the money saved. But if you think that money would be put to better uses you're delusional. It would be wasted somewhere else instead.
^So again, this comes down to party politics because the Lib Dems know that they will get all the second votes from Labour and most likely conservatives.
And as far as I can see, AV doesn't sort out the problem with not having a true majority. To get a majority in the commons, you need to get 50% of the votes from 50% of constituencies. That's not the same as having 50% of the population supporting you.
I'd actually be more in favour of a referendum on proportional representation, because AV is just a **** compromise.
And as far as I can see, AV doesn't sort out the problem with not having a true majority. To get a majority in the commons, you need to get 50% of the votes from 50% of constituencies. That's not the same as having 50% of the population supporting you.
I'd actually be more in favour of a referendum on proportional representation, because AV is just a **** compromise.
No necessarily though. I tmay be that a second choice for a Conservative voter is BNP, or Green for a Labour voter (or whatever). There are other parties that people will side with, Lib Dems are not a "default number 2" for everyone. It may even be people are more likely to go for a minority party as number 1 (BNP say) and Conservative number 2. Knowing that their true vote may not get through, but the vote isn't wasted as they will have their "backup major player" there too.
It will change the way people vote, and it will change the way parties chase after voters. The British party political system is broken at the moment, that's not going to change by carrying on the same way we have for hundreds of years.
It will change the way people vote, and it will change the way parties chase after voters. The British party political system is broken at the moment, that's not going to change by carrying on the same way we have for hundreds of years.
^I'm going out on a limb here and say that most, not all but most, labour voters would have Lib Dem as a second choice. Even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, it's certainly true from what I can see that there are more major parties to the left than there are to the right, and that it is unfair then on the right parties.
Anyway, I've broken my own rule and started talking about parties again, but it is hard to get away from it.
Anyway, I've broken my own rule and started talking about parties again, but it is hard to get away from it.
So if most people want labour or lib dems, why is it fair on all those people we have a conservative/lib dem coalition? Surely we should be looking at a Labour/Lib Dem one, or an outright win by either? We're not, because the FPTP system doesn't favour what the majority of people actually want.
As Joey said, the current system means that if two thirds of the population want a more left/centre government, they wont get it because their votes are split. Conservatives take the lion's share and we end up with the mess we're in now. Okay, it may have meant more people voted Lib Dem than Conservative last time, but... If that's what people want to vote, then we should give them the chance to vote that way.
It's not about making it "fair" for the parties. the current anti-racism laws make it unfavourable to be a BNP candidate, but nobody has a bleeding heart for their party being hard done to. If the right wing deserve the win, then they'll get it. Next election very few are going to vote for the Lib Dems, in the same way that in 1997 very few people voted Conservative. If you do a good job in office, then you will get the votes you deserve. People should have the right to go into a polling booth and put down who they actually want to govern and if the majority of people are leaning one way, then that should be the government that is formed. The Conservatives may hold a blinding office over the next 5 years. They may turn around the fortune of the country. If they do, then they needn't worry about AV as people will vote to keep them in.
In other news... just seen a link to this
http://rdouglasjohnson.com/misc/av-dog****.gif
As Joey said, the current system means that if two thirds of the population want a more left/centre government, they wont get it because their votes are split. Conservatives take the lion's share and we end up with the mess we're in now. Okay, it may have meant more people voted Lib Dem than Conservative last time, but... If that's what people want to vote, then we should give them the chance to vote that way.
It's not about making it "fair" for the parties. the current anti-racism laws make it unfavourable to be a BNP candidate, but nobody has a bleeding heart for their party being hard done to. If the right wing deserve the win, then they'll get it. Next election very few are going to vote for the Lib Dems, in the same way that in 1997 very few people voted Conservative. If you do a good job in office, then you will get the votes you deserve. People should have the right to go into a polling booth and put down who they actually want to govern and if the majority of people are leaning one way, then that should be the government that is formed. The Conservatives may hold a blinding office over the next 5 years. They may turn around the fortune of the country. If they do, then they needn't worry about AV as people will vote to keep them in.
In other news... just seen a link to this
http://rdouglasjohnson.com/misc/av-dog****.gif
^To actually find where the "majority" vote is in AV though, you often have to look at people's choices much further down their list of preferences, where to be honest, a lot of people don't actually care.
And I still don't believe that the party in government will have the majority of people's votes that the yes2av campaigners seem to be saying. The maths doesn't follow.
And I still don't believe that the party in government will have the majority of people's votes that the yes2av campaigners seem to be saying. The maths doesn't follow.
I agree, they'll have cooked the numbers, but it's still a better representation of what people want, and it's more likely to encourage more voters to vote for what they want. The more we have people voting, the better representation the country has of the people's wants.
One thing AV I hope will achieve is more of a polarisation of the two main parties. It's more difficult to vote (and has been for many years), simply because the main two parties are so alike. How long has it been that the position of opposition has been literally that, whether the party in power is actually spouting almost identical rhetoric to the opposition party? Then when the parties swap over, the new government simply keeps the policies they fought against and just add to them.
People don't really know how to vote because everyone is just like everyone else. This is why we need shake up, and we need both voters and politicians to have a good wake up call.
One thing AV I hope will achieve is more of a polarisation of the two main parties. It's more difficult to vote (and has been for many years), simply because the main two parties are so alike. How long has it been that the position of opposition has been literally that, whether the party in power is actually spouting almost identical rhetoric to the opposition party? Then when the parties swap over, the new government simply keeps the policies they fought against and just add to them.
People don't really know how to vote because everyone is just like everyone else. This is why we need shake up, and we need both voters and politicians to have a good wake up call.