AV vote, Yes campaign strong in Newbury, but what will you do? Options

[Andy Capp]

I have just read the Vote No leaflet. It deserves me to vote Yes based on that alone!

More coalitions. Maybe, but I don't see that as always a bad thing. Especially if no party has persuaded the majority to vote for them.

Only three other countries have it. I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad indicator. We only have the voting system we are permitted to have. We are not offered a full choice. This I suggest is an indication of the fear 'elected dictators' have for anything other than FPTP.

Third placed candidates could win. Well that is why AV is being proposed. Where there is a narrow margin, the candidate that is least offensive might win. But only in a small amount of cases.

It will cost £250m. What will cost £250m?

Someone's 5th preference is worth the same as your 1st. No it isn't.

Supporters of BNP and other fringe parties would decide who wins. AV provides the option where the most agreeable candidate is voted for. If that means right wing extremists, then if that is the will of the people, then it should be acknowledged. Is that not a democracy?

I haven't spotted the flaws yet, but I urge people to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

[NWNREADER]

In an ideal world there would not be such reliance on the documents produced by the already-committed sides. Most options have their strengths and weaknesses; some are no better at producing a desired outcome than another. Where is the independent guidance? I would not trust either of the campaign groups to give me a balanced appraisal.
FPTP is for a system where you are voting for an individual to be your representative; Whoever gets most votes of those that turn out wins. AV seems a way - if one person cannot be elected with a big enough majority - to see if someone can have a majority made up of 'the person I want' votes plus 'a person I don't mind' votes. PR is about voting for a party, and the party decides who it will fill the spaces with based on their own priority list.

[Jayjay]

If AV is brought in for the next election, all voters who were against it only voted for their chosen MP (ie one man, one vote) and didn't vote 2nd/3rd choice, how would this effect the result?

[user23]

Is your cat confused about the referendum on the voting system on the 5th May?

[Andy Capp]

If AV is brought in for the next election, all voters who were against it only voted for their chosen MP (ie one man, one vote) and didn't vote 2nd/3rd choice, how would this effect the result?

Perhaps you would work it out if it matters to you?

[JeffG]

Has anyone seen any literature from the Yes campaign?

[Andy Capp]

Yes.

[blackdog]

If AV is brought in for the next election, all voters who were against it only voted for their chosen MP (ie one man, one vote) and didn't vote 2nd/3rd choice, how would this effect the result?

In the Newbury constituency it would probably have absolutely no effect whatsoever.

[Darren]

Has anyone seen any literature from the Yes campaign?

Yes. A well-conceived mailshot with a list of celebs A-Z listers extolling me to get registered for a postal vote so I didn't miss out.

Having had a postal vote since it was launched, they clearly didn't check the roll very well.

You'll be pleased to know it has been recycled.

[NWNREADER]

Is your cat confused about the referendum on the voting system on the 5th May?

This is an example of the information I dislike. All very chatty and 'fun', with only a very small reference to the fact it is produced by the 'Yes' side......

[Andy Capp]

If AV is brought in for the next election, all voters who were against it only voted for their chosen MP (ie one man, one vote) and didn't vote 2nd/3rd choice, how would this effect the result?

It would depend on how popular their choice is. If their choice got over 50% of the vote it wouldn't make any difference.

What questions like this demonstrate is that some of the people entitled to vote in the referendum simply don't understand the principles they are entitled to vote for.

I urge people to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

[JeffG]

Yes. A well-conceived mailshot

Well, if as you say it was delivered by Royal Mail, and not just a leaflet through the door, I wonder why they missed me out?

(I thought these mailshots went to every household - I got the 'No' one.)

[Andy Capp]

In an ideal world there would not be such reliance on the documents produced by the already-committed sides. Most options have their strengths and weaknesses; some are no better at producing a desired outcome than another. Where is the independent guidance? I would not trust either of the campaign groups to give me a balanced appraisal.

That is regretable, but we have to try and work it out for ourselves.

FPTP is for a system where you are voting for an individual to be your representative; Whoever gets most votes of those that turn out wins.

This could be applied to AV as well. In practice, one doesn't necessarily vote for their preferred choice. Lets say I was a Labour supporter in Newbury, I would feel compelled to vote Liberal Democrat because the Labour vote is so poor in Newbury. Under AV, however; I may vote Labour (my preferred choice), but vote Lib Dem as second choice in an attempt to prevent a Tory win (which would be the thing I fear most).

AV seems a way - if one person cannot be elected with a big enough majority - to see if someone can have a majority made up of 'the person I want' votes plus 'a person I don't mind' votes.

That is a good way of putting it.

PR is about voting for a party, and the party decides who it will fill the spaces with based on their own priority list.

And is also not up for selection.

The advantage I see with AV is that it is more representative of the population's preference. The disadvantage is that the population isn't always the best opinion for the greater good. I suspect sometimes government needs the 'freedom' to do unpopular things. Children are not always the best judge of what is the best medicine. I also note that the Tories are largely unhappy with AV, yet use it to select their leader! I wonder why that is?

[JeffG]

I also note that the Tories are largely unhappy with AV, yet use it to select their leader! I wonder why that is?

This was laughably explained away on the Andrew Marr show this morning: "No we don't. The one with the fewest votes is eliminated, then we have a completely fresh ballot."

In other words "I don't have to express my second choice up front, but wait until later."

[Andy Capp]

This was laughably explained away on the Andrew Marr show this morning: "No we don't. The one with the fewest votes is eliminated, then we have a completely fresh ballot."

In other words "I don't have to express my second choice up front, but wait until later."

That's right; AV does away with a need for a fresh ballot. The electorate's preferences are known in advance.

[Strafin]

But in the tory party, they are all tories so their version of AV isn't quite the same thing.

[blackdog]

That's right; AV does away with a need for a fresh ballot. The electorate's preferences are known in advance.

The difference with the Tory leadership elections is that the electors can vote for a different candidate each vote - even if their original vote went to a candidate that is still in the running. Thus giving MPs a chance to jump ship and flock to the most likely winner in the hope that they will get some benefit from it when the government/shadow jobs are handed out.

On the Andrew Marr show Cameron made an issue of the fact that only Australia, Papua New Guinea, and Fiji(?) use AV - avoiding to note that it was his choice of alternative system to put to the country rather than the much more widely used PR - as would have been preferred by every other party with the possible exception of Labour.

He also pushed the idea that voting machines would be required and hence AV would be expensive. Strangely Australia manages without voting machines, presumably Cameron believes we are less competent than them. However, our American friends seem to find voting machines vital in their FPTP elections for President even when there are only two candidates.

Australia uses AV for its House of Representatives elections (their equivalent of the House of Commons); they are also far, far more democratic than us as they use PR for their Senate elections (their equivalent of the House of Lords).

Their final measure is compulsory voting - you have to vote (though it is not illegal to spoil or not mark your ballot paper).

Over here we have a PM who has appointed (not elected) over 100 new members to the Lords duing his first year in power - how can anyone trust this man when he claims the system he supports is more democratic!

[JeffG]

However, our American friends seem to find voting machines vital in their FPTP elections for President even when there are only two candidates.

And as we know, the previous president only got in because the machines didn't work properly.