AV - How can it be fairer...

[R1Geezer]

When you can come anywhere but last and still win?

[karenmac60]

The present system doesn't work. Something has to change, so why not give AV a chance?

[R1Geezer]

have you read this thread EDDIE? no party has ever won over 50% of the vote, ever. This whole hysteria about majority is not joined up thinking. Under the AV system it is possible to be almost last and win the seat, fact, Eddie, fact not bullsh1te, why is it bullsh1t? You can get 49% of the vote and lose, again, fact. Do they not have arithmetic on your planet Eddie? I prefer a system where the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, end of. PR cannot ever work, totally, flawed.

[R1Geezer]

the present system does work Karen, why do you say it doesn't?

[karenmac60]

I've said it before R1 - Scotland has had only 1 conservative MP since 2001 (before which we had none at all), yet we are ruled by a Conservative government (with a hint of Lib Dem). How is that a fair system that works?

[R1Geezer]

that's because the sweaties don't vote Tory, not the systems fault. It ain't perfect but what we have is by far the best system ever devised for democracy.

[karenmac60]

Excuse me? The Sweaties? Oh, you are very mature aren't you. You have not explained how this is fair - all you have done is basically reiterate my point in an offensive manner. If Scottish votes meant England had a government that they had most definitely not voted in, there would be an uproar, but when it happens the other way round all we get is a shrug of the shoulders and a 'tough luck' attitude. It is an unfair system. We do not vote Tory, yet we are lumped with them.

[R1Geezer]

W_T_F are you talking about Scotland is run by the party they Elected SNP. Similarly Britain is run by the parties elected. You cannot take isolated areas and say it's not fair because they don't vote X but the government is X. OK karen explain how it should work then. Do you want PR by party and by geography????

[karenmac60]

I suggest you look a little more into 'devolved government' R1. Holyrood have some powers, but we are still ruled by the Westminster government. You state that AV is a system whereby you can come anywhere but last and still win (an argument I fail to see), and that the current system is fairer. My argument is that in the current system a party which has only one seat in one of the 4 nations of the union can still rule that nation.

[heathfield]

You select the party candidate of your choice as number 1. If you wish, (you don't have to), you select number 2 as being the candidate you would least object to if your number 1 lost. You select the remaining candidates, 3,4, etc, using this method as your order of preference. The result is that the winning candidate is the one who the majority of people object least to overall. Seems better than the system in use till now, where the majority of people don't want the winning candidate to get in, but are left stuck with the result. Something I haven't heard mentioned in the media or by politicians is that student councils in universities are elected using the AV system as being the fairest method. If it's good enough for them, then why not the British public?

[R1Geezer]

this can happen Karen. Let's say there are 5 candidates A, B, C, D, E no one gets an overall majority so let's say A to E are ranked in that order so E drops out and the 2nd choices come into play. Now if enough people put D down as second preference even though D is 4th in the first phase it could well be 1st once the 2nd preferences are counted, see?

[R1Geezer]

what will happen is that many will have a minority party as their second choice, eg I would vote Tory then UKIP. The Tory may well win the first phase but UKIP may well be a popular 2nd choice. Believe me if this goes through you will see more MP's from the extremes.

[karenmac60]

I think it's highly unlikely that the majority of people will all vote for the same extremist party for their second choice R1. It is more likely to be one of the main parties unless folk are very stupid indeed!

[mike11111]

Highly unlikely R1G. If E drops out only his 2nd choices come into play. This could not give D a majority. Only if this fails to give A or B, say, a majority does the process continue. In my opinion the worst case scenario is if D and E all make C their 2nd choice he could win. Having said that, I have already voted NO by post.

[R1Geezer]

Not at all, no Labour voter would put a secondary vote for the Tories or Lib dems, ditto across the board so the minority parties would get a lot more secondary/tertiary votes etc, that will produce minority MP's that are virtually no one's first choice. UKIP is especially going to benefit as the main parties have some anti EU factions. This will be especially likely in the marginals between Labour and the Tories. The current system is the most logical and simple, the candidate with most votes wins, end of!

[steg]

if my 1st choice loses and my 2nd choice wins, i'll be a lot happier than if my last vote wins.... think i may vote yes

[mike11111]

Whilst I agree that no Tory is going to vote Labour as 2nd choice, quite a few Lab and Lib voters might make the other their no. 2. This certainly what Clegg and Miliband hope, hence the vote, the great anti-Tory coalition.

[R1Geezer]

yes steg but how happy would you be if your first choice gets 49% of the vote but loses out to other people's second choices?

[steg]

even if that very highly unlikely scenario happened, then every one started with the same rules and it is not all about what i want, so i would still be happy

[IggyB]

Boris Johnson is against it - AV was used to elect him as london mayor
David Cameron is against it - AV was used to elect him a the conservative party leader

maybe it isn't as good as PR but its not very hard to understand - for example when someone is going to the sho have you ever said anything like "please can you get me a coke and if they don't have that then get me a fanta"... well AV works like that, if you can't have your first choice you get your second rather than nothing at all.

Under first past the post the winner can be someone who got less than half the votes - how can that be a good way to represent an area? This won't happen under AV and will mean that the person people won't be forced into tactical voting as they worry their vote would be wasted... I'm going to be voting yes.

[whiskeryron]

R1Geezer //Question Author
yes there are issues with the current system but al least we get the person that the most people voted for.//
Really, so explain this to me then. Example 1000 votes, Tories 400, Labour 350, Lib Dem 150, Others 100.At present with 1st past the post Tories would win with with 400 votes
BUT if you total up the other votes it means that 600 people voted against the Tories so how the hell can that be a fair system?Ron.