Voting time!

Calin Leafshade · Wed 04/05/2011 21:43:33

So britain is again in voting mode and I was wondering how people planned to vote and what their thoughts are on the AV referendum.

I shall be voting a firm 'yes'

Radiant · Wed 04/05/2011 21:55:07

What is the AV referendum?

Calin Leafshade · Wed 04/05/2011 22:02:13

we are voting whether or not to change our voting system from First Past the Post (FPTP) to Alternative Vote (AV).

an explination can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPFIpeiq5Uc&feature=featured

Ali · Wed 04/05/2011 22:12:45

You will be shocked to learn that I am also in the 'yes' camp. Not so much because I'm convinced by the 'yes' arguments, but because the 'no' arguments are moronic and I hate most of the people involved in the 'no' campaign.

This infuriating video is what galvanised me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obZ9OG_XKA

Having actors give seemingly genuine vox pops in a campaign film is very dodgy (unless they're not actors and are genuinely too stupid to understand the concept of numbering in order of preference).

Calin Leafshade · Wed 04/05/2011 22:22:12

The No campaign is verging on the illegal in places. I think some of them have forgotten that this is a referendum and thus governed by the electoral commission... You can't just say whatever you like...

Sam. · Wed 04/05/2011 22:23:21

Yes.

IndieBoy · Wed 04/05/2011 22:29:57

It is also the Scottish Parliament election tomorrow. A parliament that implements proportional representation and not the First-Past-The-Post system. Anyway I will be voting Yes to AV.

Igor Hardy · Wed 04/05/2011 22:34:26

The next time we'll be voting on something in Poland I'll create a thread titled "Voting time Again!" to ~~confuse everyone else~~ so that everyone involved can discuss it.

IndieBoy · Wed 04/05/2011 22:36:15

Well you know the internet was made to talk about religion, politics and sex.

Ali · Wed 04/05/2011 22:38:59

Quote from: Ascovel on Wed 04/05/2011 22:34:26
The next time we'll be voting on something in Poland I'll create a thread titled "Voting time Again!" to ~~confuse everyone else~~ so that everyone involved can discuss it.

You can VOTE in Poland? I need to read up on modern history...

Scarab · Thu 05/05/2011 08:18:56

Well the way I see it, there are three main categories that your vote can fall into.

Assume there are three parties to choose from: A, B and C.
In the first round, the tally is as follows:

          
Party A - 40% |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX------------------------------------------------------------|
Party B - 35% |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-----------------------------------------------------------------|
Party C - 25% |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Obviously in a real situation there would be more parties, in which case B represents all parties who could win with the alternative votes of C, which represent the parties with the fewest votes. Party A is the party with the greatest votes. Note that if A > 50% then this referendum would not come into play.

If the voting is counted using FPTP

Party A wins, regardless of how 60% of the population feels about them.

If the voting is counted using AV

If you voted for C, your party will not be elected, but you now have the opportunity to choose which of A or B will be more beneficial to you.
If you voted for B, your party have the opportunity of winning, given that your policies affect C more positively than that of A.
If you voted for A, you are at a disadvantage if your party's policies disregard C, although you need less of their 2nd round votes to win than anyone else.

Ultimately this can only be detrimental to Party A, and that's only if their policies are not appetising to anyone except those who voted for them in round 1, Which is more than half of the population. Thus it was perhaps better that they didn't win anyway.

I personally don't see how it doesn't benefit the population to switch to AV,
although if anyone can spot any flaws in my logic or understanding of the system, please do inform me.

Tuomas · Thu 05/05/2011 09:38:35

Don't know how close your minor parties are to the bigger ones, but I could easily see a second round of votes going to santa claus or Osama or what's common in your country (we vote for Donald Duck). I mean, if I already voted for a, say, left-wing party and they lost, I'd have to vote for either right-wing or social democrats, I don't know if I'd want to vote at all. I would of course, but... Do you mean you require a 50% + majority of votes to win?

InCreator · Thu 05/05/2011 10:56:19

Ladder of democracy, my view:

Gods/Stonemasons/UFOs/New world order/jews/fate --

Gigantic corporations and banks -- control all...
World leaders -- who are in power thanks to...
Medium/local corporations -- which buy power to elect...
Leading parties -- who rose from...
Parties -- who try to get step above by making agreements with....
Smaller corporations -- who pick between (and buy a little of power by this)...
New parties -- which are created by more active...
Normal people -- who realize there's nobody to pick really
Naive people -- who just vote someone hope their pick does any good
Idiots -- who fanatically pick a party disregarding bad things about the party

Now, chances are, you are somewhere among last three... No party can get into power without votes AND monetary support and while votes come from being "good", monetary support from corporations is probably more related to the evil side: the more you promise to bend the laws, make tax exemptions, etc , the better your chances are.

But due populism, all votes usually go the most popular party and parties get popular thanks to PR, which uses money gained due having lots of bad side.

But no voting method can get unpopular (thus not so evil) party into office. There's simply too much idiots.

veryweirdguy · Thu 05/05/2011 12:28:48

Just back from voting, I went for "maybe."

I'm in Glasgow, so we had the Scottish parliament thing to vote for as well. HOW EXCITING! The ballot was roughly 15ft long.

Hudders · Thu 05/05/2011 12:31:42

It doesn't matter who you vote for: that's a choice for you and you alone. The most important thing is to utilise your right to vote. You can be damn sure that the nutjobs will use theirs so, if nothing else, you're helping to stop them get into power.

Technocrat · Thu 05/05/2011 14:16:36

I'm voting "yes, please", because I went to private school.

Also, doing it by post.

Intense Degree · Thu 05/05/2011 14:21:31

I voted No (contrary to popular AGS opinion apparently!

), although the No campaign themselves nearly put me off it.

Personally, I generally find it hard enough to vote for someone, not in terms of bothering to get along, but simply finding the least worst. I simply do not want to have to vote for more than 1 party, If I vote for one thing then that is what I want (or deem "best") there should not be a "well if I can't have it then this will do" vote as well.

Of course, you may say that I don't have to vote for any more than 1 party, but then my vote is not worth the same as other people's, in my opinion at least.

If the debate were FPTP vs PR then I might well think differently, but this version of AV is too wishy washy for my taste.

I see the point that, should a party win with 40% of the vote, that means there are 60% who did not vote for them (I do not accept that that means all of that 60% are against them) and that may seem unfair as it is not a "majority mandate". However, if a party with 40% of the vote gets another 11% or more through the AV second preference system, then that party (candidate) is elected with 20%+ of his/her "supporters" preferring someone else to do the job. This is not the same as directly winning a majority of the vote and I do not see it is any better than a FPTP result of 40% giving the win.

If there is a situation as Scarab sets out above, A - 40%, B - 35% and C - 25%, and "second choice" votes mean that B ends up with 51% then we have a candidate elected who had less "first choice" votes than candidate A. To me this is not fair, sensible or democratic.

Furthermore, it is the "second vote" of the people who voted for the party with the least votes which will count (unless I have misunderstood), rinse and repeat until we have more than 50% for one party. Why should people who vote for fringe/no hoper/nutter parties get to make the difference? Why should it not be the second vote of everyone who has voted?

Finally, the biggest benefit of AV would probably be to the Lib Dems. Of the "Big 3" they are the only party that I think would not be capable of governing alone and I much prefer a "one party" government to a coalition in any event, even if the "one party" is not one I voted for.

Hudders · Thu 05/05/2011 14:36:43

m0ds · Thu 05/05/2011 14:44:46

I intend to vote "No". AV came out of nowhere, has been pushed from nowhere and I just don't properly agree with the way you could 'win' as a party from it.

Ali · Thu 05/05/2011 14:56:52

Quote from: Mods on Thu 05/05/2011 14:44:46
I intend to vote "No". AV came out of nowhere, has been pushed from nowhere and I just don't properly agree with the way you could 'win' as a party from it.

It didn't quite come out of nowhere, the referendum is what the Lib Dems got in exchange for David Cameron getting to be Prime Minister. I doubt any of them still think it was worth it.

(Hope you change your mind at the last minute!)

Voting time!

m0ds