Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 15 2011, 01:17 PM

The Yes campaign have been really strong in Newbury, and whether you agree with them or not it was good to see them with their flags and giving people information last Saturday. I'm not sure what would be best, but what do you intend to do?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 15 2011, 01:17 PM

There is a No campaign too: See this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obZ9OG_XKA&feature=player_embedded#at=221

Posted by: Strafin Apr 15 2011, 03:07 PM

I think AV is stupid. With FPTP you vote for who you want to win and if the majority agree then you get a democratically elected member. With AV you don't. I am hoping to be out of the UK and into a better country before the next general election though, so have voted "couldn't give a monkeys".

Posted by: ebalch Apr 15 2011, 03:26 PM

A vote for who you are going to vote for? What next, a vote for who you are going to vote for in the vote for who you are going to vote for......?

Posted by: GMR Apr 15 2011, 04:42 PM

I ticked no.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 15 2011, 05:06 PM

Who says? By what measure?

G-Man you really must learn about your local area. I've never felt West Berks has much time for combative rhetoric. That doesn't mean being passive, but please stick to facts. Exaggeration will rebound on you just as you wish it to with elected Councillors. Have opinions by all means, but set them out, don't beat us over the head with them.

Also. should you really use the forum for Labour Party opinion polling?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 15 2011, 07:21 PM

I have picked yes, just because the Tories are campaigning for a No.

Posted by: GMR Apr 15 2011, 07:38 PM

So you haven't got a mind of your own? You are just a reactionary?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 15 2011, 08:49 PM

Have you not seen them walking through town with banners, flags and putting posters up etc? They've had stalls in Thatcham and Newbury, the no campaign have done nothing in comparison. Makes them look strong here to me versus the no campaign.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 15 2011, 09:24 PM

I had something through the door from them and we are quite hard to find - we never get flyers from anyone!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 15 2011, 09:28 PM

We'll all be getting a leaflet nearer the day as both sides are allowed a free mail shot in the week of the ballot.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 15 2011, 10:01 PM

Simple, "you don't change the dope in the middle of a fix"

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 15 2011, 10:18 PM

Nope. Not a single one.

The 'Yes' campaign is the one for change, the one that needs to attract support. The 'no' campaign has little to do as they represent the status quo. It is always so the side wanting change tends to seek to make the noise. Doesn't make them right, or wise.

Visibility is not the same as strength, or wisdom.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 15 2011, 10:20 PM

Are those just your opinion of me, or genuine questions?

My philosophy is: anything Tories don't like must mean is progressive and fairer for all!

Posted by: GMR Apr 15 2011, 10:28 PM

Oh, I can't remember; I've been to the pub since and now back..... so don't put too much strain on my brain... pose the question tomorrow.



Really? When the labour where in power the margin increased between poor and rich.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 15 2011, 10:33 PM

What has that got to do with my view on what Tories think like?

Anyway; I don't think it matters how rich someone is as much as how poor people are. If the rich get even richer, but take the poor with them, that seems fine to me.

Posted by: GMR Apr 16 2011, 09:41 AM

My reply was directed at what was said.



I agree. We shouldn't be worrying about the rich, but those that need help.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 16 2011, 09:46 AM

That is just it; it didn't, but never mind, I understood what you meant, but as I have already said, I'm not sure that on its own, the gap between rich and poor is important.

Posted by: GMR Apr 16 2011, 10:20 AM

To be honest I agree; but it was the politicians who where trying to make something out of it. It is always a war of words rather than trying to get on with it.

Posted by: Jayjay Apr 25 2011, 03:13 PM

Voted no as we cannot afford it. Even if we do not need expensive machines, the man power will increase, possibly several fold. Under the present system each vote is counted once, under AV the same vote may be counted many, many times.

Also a protest vote against Mr Clegg. It is a pity he didn't show the same passion for his election promises and pledges that he is showing for AV.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 25 2011, 03:36 PM

I thought counts were performed by volunteers.


Slit your throat to spite your face? It could be said a 'No' vote is a vote for Cameron. Is that what you prefer?

I think if people think AV is a better democratic system than FPTP then they should vote 'Yes'. If not, then 'No', but to vote for any other reason is just plain silly and demonstrates one of the things that lets democracy down; voters.

*PS - The Lib Dems didn't win the election.

Posted by: JeffG Apr 25 2011, 03:46 PM

Is that a direct quote from the 'No' leaflet? I don't know what your definition of "many, many times" is. If there are two candidates, then each vote is counted once. If 3, then the third place votes may be counted twice - if four then it's possible that some fourth place votes may be counted three times if their second choice is for the candidate who then comes third.


Well, that's your prerogative. But in a coalition, there has to be a compromise over what committments are included in a joint programme and which not, otherwise there ain't no coalition.

My first thoughts when the 'No' campaign leaflet came through the door was that it was something from UKIP - it was printed in their colours, anyway. Odd choice, especially when (according to their web site) they support the Yes campaign.

I wonder why there hasn't been a 'Yes' campaign leaflet?

Posted by: Shabba Apr 25 2011, 09:14 PM

Er... wrong. With FPTP you vote for who you think is most likely to be able to beat the candidate who you don't want to win, and the candidate who gets one vote more than anyone else wins (which is not the same as a majority). With AV you vote for who you want to win, and the winner HAS to have express support from more than half of the voters, which IS a majority.


Er... wrong again. There will be no new machines - a figment of the No Campaign's imagination. Australia has AV, and has had for 80+ years. But no voting machines. And the number of staff needed to count AV votes is exactly the same as for FPTP - SOME of them MAY have to work for an extra hour or two, in those constituencies where the first preference votes don't exceed 50%, but the concept of a several-fold increase in manpower requirement is a complete myth.


ER... wrong yet again. Two thirds of the 2010 Lib Dem single party government manifesto is in the Coalition Government programme. How much more would you expect?

And if you are seriously and objectively considering the merits of changing/improving the UK parliamentary voting system on the basis of your Daily Mail-coloured opinion of one individual, then I think it's time you reconsidered your approach to politics! Sadly, I think your rather narrow-minded and partial assessment of the merits of the Yes case is one shared by Daily Mail readers across the country, which is likely to result in an ill-informed and regressive outcome.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 25 2011, 10:39 PM

Yes it seems absurd that voters will vote simply down to the person they like or dislike. We now have an opportunity to elect a system that removes the need for tactical voting, and people will avoid doing so because they don't like a certain politician. It is no-wonder we have the politics, politicians and media that we do.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 26 2011, 09:28 AM

If we get AV, it will be brilliant for Labour in Newbury, but I still can'tm see how it's fairer than what we have now? As for the yes and no campaigns, I just switch off now as it's pathetic. Unless somebody can convince me to vote yes, I will be happy to stick with FPTP. By the way, I saw Richard Benyon on Saturday and he reckons from his perception, the no campaign is up 7 votes for every one. That would tally with everything we have got on the doorstep, it will be intersting to see if that level of feeling translates throughout the UK.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 26 2011, 09:42 AM

Quite franlky, getting more peolpe out from behind the television to vote would have more of an effect on the whole electoral system than AV ever would.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 26 2011, 11:41 AM

Surely not having a need to vote 'tactically' is a very good reason to have AV? And yes, I would imagine the No vote is very high, probably because many voters are ignorant of the issues, or fear the effect AV would have in their own constituency.

As for 'fair', is it right to have a leadership that represents support from only a minority of the electorate?

Posted by: blackdog Apr 26 2011, 01:45 PM

It's not often I find myself in agreement with UKIP but the following paragraph from their website says a lot about FPTP v AV.

The First Past The Post (FPTP) system no longer has any legitimate claim to represent the will of the people. In 1955, 96% of voters voted for the main two parties, Labour and Conservative. In 2010, only 65% did. In 1955, 9 out of 10 MPs were elected with majorities of 50% or more; in 2010, it was one in three.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 26 2011, 01:47 PM

There you go Richard Garvie; there's some food food thought. I have no-doubt, however, that 'Tory' Newbury will follow 'party line' and vote No regardless.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 26 2011, 02:18 PM

I get what your saying, and Labour would definately benefit from it here. I guess I've always believed (rightly or wrongly) that anyone can win in a straight contest. Under FPTP, everyone votes once the candidate with the most votes wins. Under AV, some people have their first pref counted, second pref and possibly even third and fourth preferences. I just don't see how that can be fair.

As for the "works harder" argument, surely an MP who works hard under FPTP will get a good vote. Under AV, it would possibly be the "compromise" candidate who is elected.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 26 2011, 03:21 PM

That is countered by: is it fair that a party that is not endorsed by the majority is entitled to govern? You also ignored the point about tactical voting. It wouldn't be 'necessarily' to vote tactically. How is tactical voting even right, let alone fair? And what about the argument about a nation that is now split three ways. Years ago it was a two horse race, now it is three. And remember: FPTP didn't prevent a hung parliament this time round.

Posted by: Bofem Apr 26 2011, 04:22 PM

I can't believe our first referendum in 35 years is about something so esoteric.

We have the technology to have direct democracy these days, so we don't need representatives in the current guise.

AV is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 26 2011, 04:54 PM

How would this work?


That might be so, but that is all that is on offer.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 26 2011, 08:02 PM

The stats about voting balance are interesting, but usually stats tell little apart from where to ask the next question. Back in the 50s the country was much more divided red/blue with few viable alternatives. The parties were likewise out and out representative of Right and Left, not all competing for the centre and dressing up 'same' as 'different'.
I also think more people voted then than now, and I believe that is a core issue. The parties have played a part in making voting for one or the other pointless, as the difference is minimal and the lesser parties have no real alternatives. Look at the mess the LDs are in having promised the moon and then found they are being held to account.
AV will, I believe, lead to more obfuscation. So often 'solutions' lead to a different problem, not no problem.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 26 2011, 08:10 PM

While I agree with the second part of your statement, I'd be interested in what you mean by 'lead to more obfuscation'.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 26 2011, 08:22 PM

Multiple parties trying to chummy up to each other in order to become a majority unit, losing their identity and becoming a mishmash of populist vote-catchers.
Politics has become about winning more votes come what may, not offering a vision and inviting people to buy into it, warts/pain/tears and all. "This is what we stand for", not "We are the ones to give you what you want".

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 26 2011, 08:30 PM

I understand, but I am not sure AV will have much effect on that, any more than FPTP anyway. FPTP created a coalition. Perhaps a mishmash is what the country is asking for, or at least what previous governments have created.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 26 2011, 08:36 PM

'Coalition' is (to me) a positive, a bringing together of minds. 'Mishmash' is negative, a desperate struggle to find ways to ensure extended majority.

Just my opinion

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 26 2011, 08:42 PM

An 'advantage' the Tories and Lib Dems had, was a 'good' reason to reel in spending. If there was money about, it might have been harder to come to an agreement.

Back on topic, I am not sure that the voting systems effect this that much.

Posted by: user23 Apr 26 2011, 09:37 PM

Doesn't look like the Yes campaign is that strong in Newbury.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 26 2011, 09:47 PM

Not on a sample of 29. I suppose that would only be a valid sample if it produced the result you hoped for, and was reflected in the real result.......

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 26 2011, 10:19 PM

I suspect that will be true in strong Tory seats. I see the No campaign as largely Tory based; they stand to lose-out most in AV.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 26 2011, 10:22 PM

I suspect the 'Yes' campaign would always benefit the party seeking the controlling majority - however small. the party that already has the larger slice is never going to campaign for a system that can only risk weakening its position.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 26 2011, 11:56 PM

The trouble is that the larger parties at present only have the support of 35% or so of the electorate. With FPTP they have a good chance of getting a working majority in the Commons, based on the support of just over a third of the voters - how can that be a fair voting system?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 27 2011, 06:14 AM

'Fair'? It is well established and properly applied with all aware in advance. With low turn-outs it is hard to see any other system would be 'fairer'.
It is as much democracy to chose not to vote and to accept the outcome of that decision. A good MP represents all his/her constituents all the time, regardless of who they voted for. There is much more to being an MP than voting in Parliament.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 27 2011, 09:43 AM

Except under the current system we got a government nobody voted for; is that fair, or even right? Had people understood the eventual outcome, would the voting pattern have been different. Would more people have voted Labour? AV at least offers people the option to avoid voting 'tactically'. That on its own seems better, if not fairer.


True, but I don't see what this has got to do with the topic in hand.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 27 2011, 12:15 PM

How about one that would result in a parilament that reflects the voting pattern of the electorate? AV certainly isn't the fairest voting system but it is a huge improvement on FPTP.

If every vote counted would turn out be as low? FPTP is the system most likely to persuade voters that it isn't worth bothering to vote, particularly in places where one party dominates.

As for 'well established etc' being anything to do with fair - slavery was well established once, was that fair?


AV doesn't make voting compulsory, nor would you have to express a preference for more than one candidate.

MPs work on behalf of some constituents on a day to day basis - but most have no contact with their MP, ever. Some of those who ask their MP for help will, no doubt, be delighted by the response, others not. However, the biggest impact on most constituents lives is through the legislative work of parliament - and the more undercover work of ministries and their statutory instruments. All of this is dominated by the idea of collective responsibility - the party decides and thenceforth thou shall toe the party line, whether you agree with it or not.

Posted by: Squelchy Apr 27 2011, 02:42 PM

Odd that a vote on A.V is being conducted using the FPTP system.

Posted by: JeffG Apr 27 2011, 02:58 PM

Durr! There are only two candidates: Yes and No. So both systems would be equivalent. Though I suppose we could have the option of making Yes the first choice and No the second choice, or vice versa.

(Unless you meant the poll at the top of the page, in which case I agree we need to know the second choices of the "Don't give a monkey's" voters.)

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 27 2011, 07:04 PM

The problem with AV is someone may have only one candidate they wish to support: they do not have a desire to assist any other candidate to succeed. After all, who would a left wing Labour supporter have as their second choice if the alternatives were Conservative, UKIP, BNP, Monster Raving Looney, etc?

Posted by: user23 Apr 27 2011, 07:17 PM

Then they should only mark the paper once with their preferred candidate.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 27 2011, 07:30 PM

Which proves it is no longer '1 man 1 vote'?

Posted by: user23 Apr 27 2011, 07:39 PM

It's never been "1 man 1 vote" given there's a percentage of the population that don't vote.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 27 2011, 07:43 PM

The choice not to vote does not mean the opportunity does not exist. Everyone who fits the criteria has one vote which they cast (or not). Under AV people can have more than one go at selecting the member.

Posted by: user23 Apr 27 2011, 07:46 PM

Not so. Under FPTP I have two goes at selecting councillors for the ward I live in.

"1 Man 2 Votes"

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 27 2011, 07:53 PM

There are two seats, so you have one vote for each of them.

What colour is the fluff in your bellybutton?

Posted by: user23 Apr 27 2011, 07:56 PM

Indeed, so it's "1 Man 2 Votes" as I said.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 27 2011, 08:01 PM

user23 has already pointed where you are in error: you don't have to vote for anyone you don't want to, but another thing to remember: you only get another choice if your preferred candidate come last and nobody polled over 50% of the vote. I would even as a Labour voter, prefer a Tory administration than a UKIP, BNP or MRLP one. AV allows me to express that opinion, but FPTP doesn't.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 27 2011, 08:03 PM

I don't do 'error'.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 28 2011, 02:41 PM

But AV would apply to general election ballots, not local (as yet)!!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 28 2011, 05:42 PM

Indeed, so people voting for you will not get a second choice....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 28 2011, 08:35 PM

Agreed. User23 is wrong (AGAIN!!!)

Posted by: user23 Apr 28 2011, 09:00 PM

Yes they will.

People in Speen Ward where he's standing get two votes for the District Council so yes, they will get a second choice.

Unfortunately they won't be able to vote for another Labour candidate as Richard manage to mess up the nomination of his proposed counterpart in this ward.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 29 2011, 03:11 PM

they do net get a 'second' choice, they have two choices. Not the same thing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 29 2011, 03:18 PM

They have more than two choices, but they may only chose two. Not the same thing!

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 29 2011, 04:03 PM

Na-nah-ne-naaaa- NAAAAAAAA!

Agreed.

Why is it only other people are pedants?

Posted by: user23 Apr 29 2011, 04:18 PM

Unless they mark the paper at exactly the same time with both choices one will be first the other will come second, therefore voters in Speen get a first and a second choice.

As a general rule on this forum, if Richard is agreeing with you then you're probably wrong.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 29 2011, 04:22 PM

The order of the marking is not the same as the order of preference. To me, 2nd choice is less favoured than 1st choice
1st selection and 2nd selection are merely counts of selections made.
AV is distinct about the 2nd choice being less preferred than the first choice, even if the marking of the paper is not in that order.

Just my thoughts.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 29 2011, 05:49 PM

So if I put a mark against my second choice first if becomes my first choice?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 29 2011, 05:58 PM

Posted by: user23 Apr 29 2011, 06:02 PM

The first name you choose to put a mark against on the ballot paper is your first choice, that's the person you chose to vote for first.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 29 2011, 06:14 PM

Isn't this fun?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 29 2011, 06:42 PM

The difficulty starts at the count; the order of choice cannot be determined, but fortunately nor does it matter!. Hoorah!

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 29 2011, 07:47 PM

I should give up User? Or try lobbing a larger smoke grenade than usual.......

Posted by: Darren Apr 30 2011, 04:43 AM

It's all academic. The No vote will win and then the politicians can actually get back to what their 'job' is.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2011, 07:32 AM

It is academic for the reason you cite, but it is interesting how people think. I suspect few people have thought about this and made up their mind based on the arguments for or against. Many people tend to make their mind-up, then look for evidence to support their point of view. Indeed, some people have displayed ignorance that suggests they would vote while not understanding the facts.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 30 2011, 09:42 AM

No - my first choice is the candidate I most want to win a seat, the first one I decide I will vote for; my second choice is the other one I will vote for - regardless of the order I put my crosses on the ballot paper. My choice is made long before I get to the polling station.

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2011, 09:45 AM

Your choice is made when you put the mark(s) on the ballot paper. Whilst you can decide who you might put a mark against before hand, you cannot make your choice before you mark the ballot paper itself.

Up until you make your choice you can change your preference as many times as you like.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2011, 10:06 AM

You are all arguing with a silly argument. 'First choice' is an ambiguous statement. On one hand it can refer to your preferred choice, on the other hand it can be the one you chose first. You are both right and wrong at the same time; it depends on what you are trying to say. In my view, if I read 'first choice', I take that to mean the preferred choice, not necessarily the chronological order with which the choice is made.

Can we now move on?

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2011, 10:22 AM

Indeed, one's choice is made when they mark the ballot paper, and under FPTP in some wards it's "1 Man 3 Votes" or choices. Let's move on now.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2011, 12:03 PM

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

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 30 2011, 02:15 PM

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.

Posted by: Jayjay Apr 30 2011, 02:48 PM

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?

Posted by: user23 Apr 30 2011, 04:32 PM

http://youtu.be/HiHuiDD_oTk

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2011, 06:07 PM

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

Posted by: JeffG Apr 30 2011, 06:43 PM

Has anyone seen any literature from the Yes campaign?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2011, 07:52 PM

Yes.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 30 2011, 10:32 PM

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

Posted by: Darren May 1 2011, 03:54 AM

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.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 1 2011, 07:55 AM

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......

Posted by: Andy Capp May 1 2011, 09:10 AM

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

Posted by: JeffG May 1 2011, 09:53 AM

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.)

Posted by: Andy Capp May 1 2011, 11:50 AM

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


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).


That is a good way of putting it.


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?

Posted by: JeffG May 1 2011, 01:51 PM

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."

Posted by: Andy Capp May 1 2011, 02:03 PM

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

Posted by: Strafin May 1 2011, 02:34 PM

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

Posted by: blackdog May 1 2011, 02:39 PM

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!

Posted by: JeffG May 1 2011, 05:47 PM

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