TransFans.co.uk

Post by **Best First** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:38 pm

Brits

What are your thoughts on this.

I am slightly unconvinced however the No campaigns combination of patronising guff such as "it will be complicated" and "other countries don't do it" and the fact vested Tory interests seem to be against it may sway me towards a yes.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:48 pm

I'm voting yes. Mainly because the Tories don't want me to.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:10 pm

HDMI is better.

#helpful

#happybirthday

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 2:18 pm

Voting yes because its the only fresh thing on the menu.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:21 pm

Yes.

Mainly because it is a system where the successful candidate does reflect the voting preferences of the majority.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:38 pm

I'm voting yes. With no as my second choice.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:02 pm

Brendocon wrote:I'm voting yes. With no as my second choice.

*golf clap*

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:18 am

You're a golf clap.

Yeah. I went there.

Post by **Kaylee** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:35 pm

Brendocon wrote:You're a golf clap.

Yeah. I went there.

you're a Brendocon, and that's far worse

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:54 pm

Oh who here isn't.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:20 am

Post by **Best First** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:33 am

Quality

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:56 am

Rebis wrote:

That is just really well done. No snark. Absolutely brilliant.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:19 am

I'm not for AV, I think you can safely say (using voting data) that once most ppl put down their first choice party in 1st they will then place the 'opposition' party in last place.
2nd place will generally fall to the 3rd place party. I.e. Lib-dem.

The rest of the places will be randomly assigned as most ppl won't know jack about their policies.

Ex.So, let's say I'm a labour voter.

1. Labour

I don't want the Tories in as I vote labour!

Last. Tories

Hmm who next? Well I'd rather lib dem then Tories...

2. Lib-dem

So, with only 3 parties running today an average ballot paper looks like:

1.labour
2.lib-dem
3.Tories

Or

1.Tories
2.lib-dem
3.labour

We already no that the polls tell us that voting between the Tories and labour is pretty much 50/50...

So the winner will by default will probably always be lib-dem, until everyone starts getting smart with the vote and sticking their preferred choice in 2nd place....

What I want to know is. The ppl of England wanted a new voting system looked into, where was the choices?

Why AV?
Why not the US system for example, or a version of it??

Why has this system been proposed as the only other choice?

I don't like the current system either but how come there was no other choices available?

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:34 am

Professor Smooth wrote:That is just really well done. No snark. Absolutely brilliant.

It does rely on the notion that all the beer drinkers are picky enough to name a specific pub, whereas the people who want coffee are indifferent enough to not commit to either Starbucks or Costa.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:04 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I'm not for AV, I think you can safely say (using voting data) that once most ppl put down their first choice party in 1st they will then place the 'opposition' party in last place.
2nd place will generally fall to the 3rd place party. I.e. Lib-dem.

The rest of the places will be randomly assigned as most ppl won't know jack about their policies.

Ex.So, let's say I'm a labour voter.

1. Labour

I don't want the Tories in as I vote labour!

Last. Tories

Hmm who next? Well I'd rather lib dem then Tories...

2. Lib-dem

So, with only 3 parties running today an average ballot paper looks like:

1.labour
2.lib-dem
3.Tories

Or

1.Tories
2.lib-dem
3.labour

We already no that the polls tell us that voting between the Tories and labour is pretty much 50/50...

So the winner will by default will probably always be lib-dem, until everyone starts getting smart with the vote and sticking their preferred choice in 2nd place....

That's not strictly the case. The AV system considered is optional preferential voting, meaning that if you want to vote, you can list as many or as few preferences as you like.

If, as in your example, there are only 3 candidates to choose from, you're a labour voter, so you'll vote for the Labour candidate. You then have the option of putting another candidate as a second preference, or not. You hate the Tories, so why would you put down the Tory candidate as another preference?

What I want to know is. The ppl of England wanted a new voting system looked into, where was the choices?

Why AV?
Why not the US system for example, or a version of it??

We already do. We both use FPTP. The differences being that the US also has primaries, which are used to decide who will be a party's candidate, and an electoral college, whose electors are decided using FPTP, while the UK maintains granularity at the constituency level, rather than county or regional levels.

Why has this system been proposed as the only other choice?

I don't like the current system either but how come there was no other choices available?

Aside from AV, other proposed systems were AV+ and STV. However, while the latter two can cater for multiple seat elections, they can be implemented almost identically for single seats. Plus, while the Conservative were willing to allow the Referendum if it would gain LibDem support for a coalition government, there was no way they were going to agree to any reforms that would cause a major shake-up of constitutional boundaries (and the potential loss of Conservative interest).

Post by **Best First** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:19 pm

Yes, so the reason we were not given more options is the custodians of our democracy would not allow it.

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:08 pm

Best First wrote:Yes, so the reason we were not given more options is the custodians of our democracy would not allow it.

I don't blame them... Have you seen the general populace?

Post by **Best First** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:19 pm

ok, but if we are going down that track, as previously stated - I will be in charge.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:34 pm

Thanks Rebis that's cleared it up for me, I thought u had to list in order of preference!

Question?

Am I better to stick my fav party as 1st choice. List all other parties under that, except the part I most dislike?

Ex:

1. The super party
1-5. Never going to win parties

And completely leave off the ballot the super party opposition.

Will this help keep the opposition party out of power more than just voting for one party?

Post by **Best First** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:19 pm

on an individual level - yes, it means your vote goes to anyone but them and all the other parties have a potential +1 from you to be offset against whichever party it is you don't want to get in.

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:07 pm

I'm very interested that many people (you're not alone, Mark!) think AV means you're vote can be used to elect someone whom you don't want to be in power.

Maybe that's why it's trailing so badly?

Shame really. It's not perfect but it'd be nice for things to be a little less sewn up between Labour and Tory...

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:36 am

Yep, there seems to be either a very successful misinformation campaign or a very bad actual campaign.

Had to correct somebody on Twitter who thought AV meant a party that gets 49% of the vote can lose out to one that only gets 20%. Explained that yes they can, but only if the 49% party are absolutely nobody's second, third or fourth choice.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:51 am

Brendocon wrote:
Professor Smooth wrote:That is just really well done. No snark. Absolutely brilliant.
It does rely on the notion that all the beer drinkers are picky enough to name a specific pub, whereas the people who want coffee are indifferent enough to not commit to either Starbucks or Costa.

Excellent point.

Jack Cade · Post by **Jack Cade** » Mon May 02, 2011 6:31 pm

Brendocon wrote:It does rely on the notion that all the beer drinkers are picky enough to name a specific pub, whereas the people who want coffee are indifferent enough to not commit to either Starbucks or Costa.

But in terms of the analogy, that is the reality. Conservatives vote tory (UKIP and BNP votes tend more to be anti-Europe/anti-immigration protest votes) while someone vaguely left-liberal leaning might be a Labour voter, a Libdem voter or a Green voter.

I've *always* voted Green because their policies are the ones that best fit my beliefs and ideals. Anything else would be a tactical vote, which scuppers any notion of real democracy. As a result, there's currently one (and before that none) MP who properly represents my vote in any way, shape or form.

With AV, there's a much greater chance of getting someone you actually voted for, even if they were your second or third choice. By putting second and third choices, you're effectively offering compromises to each other. Compromise is a fundamental part of society going anywhere.

The effect on MPs' behaviour can't be discounted either. Part of the reason Labour have become a fairly centre-right party while still retaining their position as opposition (effectively creating a two-party system where neither party is left of centre) is because they've consistently marketed themselves as the *only* alternative to the tories, and people *have* voted for them purely on that basis. Under AV, we say, "That's fine - I'll put you down as my third choice, then I can still keep the tories out while making my preference clear."

Under that system, Labour will have to work a lot harder to get your primary vote or lose significant ground to the smaller parties.

There's one reason and one reason only why people in the know are urging people to vote No to AV - because it threatens their ability to retain power while still doing whatever they want.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Tue May 03, 2011 7:02 pm

Being a cynical ****, when the question was asked as an image challenge on b3ta, I entered this:

http://www.b3ta.com/board/10390308

Being a bunch of cynical ****s, b3ta went and voted it as the winner. Note for Merkins and other aliens: if you don't know who that woman is, be very, very grateful.

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Tue May 03, 2011 7:51 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote: http://www.b3ta.com/board/10390308

So true.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue May 03, 2011 8:20 pm

Metal Vendetta wrote:Being a cynical ****, when the question was asked as an image challenge on b3ta, I entered this:

http://www.b3ta.com/board/10390308

Being a bunch of cynical ****s, b3ta went and voted it as the winner. Note for Merkins and other aliens: if you don't know who that woman is, be very, very grateful.