I'm a little puzzled as to why those pushing for a change to an Alternative Vote system for electing MPs to Parliament haven't realised that it won't necessarily produce a different result.
If people are absolutelydetermined only to vote for one political party, surely they will simply just put one X in the box for their preferred candidate and not mark any other boxes for a second of=r third alternative choice. That would ensure that no other candidate accumulates votes. If everybody did this, it would end up effectively being another "first past the post" system. Or am I missing something?
That's up to the voter. If he or she doesn't want to make use of the system, then it's up to him or her. But other voters will be able to choose their order of preference from the list of candidates. So if my first choice candidate doesn't win, I'll be able to say who I least object to as the alternative candidate. Strikes me that's an improvement over the present system where we end up with a party in power who the majority of voters didn't want.
Or every chance that the party most people want least will be kept out.
Let's be honest about this. The Liberal party is a centre left party. There is a strong likelihood that many Labour votors will put Liberals as their second choice and vice-versa.
Or at least that's what the Torys are most frightened of.
It'll be interesting to see what happens at the moment the Yes (for the change to PR) campaign is marginally in front but it's hardly started yet
Not sure it would produce a result which most of the electorate want as a large proportion of them don't bother to vote anyway.
Ironically it usually seems to be the people who never bother to vote who are always the ones moaning most about the actions of whichever government iis n power at the time!