Bollitics: The AV Referendum

[Jon]

so does that make the principal behind AV redundant if people don't bother to turn up and vote ?

No more than it makes fptp redundnant if a majority who would have overturned the actual results didn't turn up

So I have no viable second choice, and the system is no use to me.

Hopefully we won't base such decisions on 'what is good for me'.

We will, though.

I don't vote on "what is good for me". (i'd guess you do the same Mike?)

I vote on a belief on "what is good for the country".

Might be misguided, but that's my general voting ethos.

not sure about the rest of the populace though. I guess there may be more of a selfish calculation going on for some?

Yes, I should perhaps clarify.

I meant that the proposed AV system would not affect my voting as there is now only one party that I could in all conscience vote for (and that is not a total wasted vote under FPTP or AV, such as the Greens).

Surely that depends where you live though?

Where i live, it is in effect pointles me voting. And the other 20,000 or so who also don't vote Tory.

We may as well not bother.

TBH I'm in one of the safest Tory seats in the country, so even AV may not be enough to affect our result.

However, I don't think there are a lot of "sleeper" Tories in our constituency. I think they come out in force for a GE. Were the voting system to change, more non-tories may be encouraged to come out and vote, in the hope of affecting a change of MP.

Maybe I just need to move somewhere that's a marginal for some more excitement instead. :winkold:

[NulliSecundus]

I guess that most of the media are either on the side of Tories or Labour, and will be against AV. Therefore they're not giving much exposure, hence the lack of understanding and apathy. The most effective "No" campaign will be one that gives the whole issue as little exposure as possible.

Quite the contrary, I saw a great article in the Express of all papers (I know who would have thought pigs could fly) about AV being good because it gives parties such as UKIP (see, Daily Express!) a better chance of getting into power. As others have said, I believe it will start to kick off a few weeks before.

[Danwichmann]

I guess that most of the media are either on the side of Tories or Labour, and will be against AV. Therefore they're not giving much exposure, hence the lack of understanding and apathy. The most effective "No" campaign will be one that gives the whole issue as little exposure as possible.

Quite the contrary, I saw a great article in the Express of all papers (I know who would have thought pigs could fly) about AV being good because it gives parties such as UKIP (see, Daily Express!) a better chance of getting into power. As others have said, I believe it will start to kick off a few weeks before.

I was going to vote for it, but I don't want to vote on the side of the Express?! What to do!

[mjmooney]

I guess that most of the media are either on the side of Tories or Labour, and will be against AV. Therefore they're not giving much exposure, hence the lack of understanding and apathy. The most effective "No" campaign will be one that gives the whole issue as little exposure as possible.

Quite the contrary, I saw a great article in the Express of all papers (I know who would have thought pigs could fly) about AV being good because it gives parties such as UKIP (see, Daily Express!) a better chance of getting into power. As others have said, I believe it will start to kick off a few weeks before.

Much more likely that wasted UKIP votes would probably have a second choice of Conservative, and thus benefit the Tories.

[Rodders]

Will. vote for it. as i think the chance it will "block" reform is misguided. This is the only reform we're going to get and it's better than nothing if still quite flawed.

I want far more wholescale reform too but I also want a lottery win, yet I'd settle for a £10,000 scratch card win.

[tonyh29]

they've actually helped the party who their core support see as "the enemy"

there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest that Lib Dems do see Tories as the enemy though , see my post on page 1

One of the surveys we carried out back in 2010 showed the second preferences of Lib Dem supporters as being

Labour 34%

Conservatives 26%

in the London mayor elections in 2004 Lib Dem first choice voters went 29 % Livingston to 22 % to Steven Norris

2008 Lib Dems went 31% to Ken and 30% to Boris ..

[bickster]

I guess that most of the media are either on the side of Tories or Labour, and will be against AV. Therefore they're not giving much exposure, hence the lack of understanding and apathy. The most effective "No" campaign will be one that gives the whole issue as little exposure as possible.

Quite the contrary, I saw a great article in the Express of all papers (I know who would have thought pigs could fly) about AV being good because it gives parties such as UKIP (see, Daily Express!) a better chance of getting into power. As others have said, I believe it will start to kick off a few weeks before.

From your description its actually a crap article. UKIP would actually fare worse as a minority party, in nearly every seat they stand in their votes would be transferred before and of the major parties.

A completely Made up Election Result for the sake of argument:-

Conservative 10,000

Labour 7,000

Liberal 5,000

Green 1,000

UkIP 500

BNP 400

Local Nutter 50

Local nutter get knocked out and his votes transfer, has no real effect

BNP gets knocked out next, still no real effect

Lets say the voting is now:-

Cons 10,050

Labour 7,040

Liberal 5,030

Green 1,010

UKIP 600

UKIPs vote transfer

Cons 10,250

Labour 7,060

Liberal 5,040

Green 1,020

It sort of gets interesting at this stage with the Greens (but not much)

Cons 10,250

Labour 7,330

Liberal 5,440

Where do the Liberals transfer their votes? In reality it doesn't matter because:-

a) they won't all transfer

they won't all go to the same party (they may even split roughly equally)

Net result is no change at all, small parties completely marginalised.

Biggest party on first ballot still wins and if anyone holds the balance of power its the third party. For the Liberals to have an effect they would have to almost single handedly all transfer to Labour to make a difference and I very much doubt that would ever happen.

AV will make so little difference in most constituencies in this country, nothing will change, the odd extra Liberal seat, thats it!

Might as well leave it the way it is until people get utterly utterly pissed off with it

[bickster]

Like I said before AV is still a first past the post system, except the post is at a fixed distance

[Condimentalist]

I'll be voting yes, for many of the same reasons as others have outlined here. It won't make a huge difference, but I think it might increase voter turnout a little, and I do think it's an incremental step in the right direction, because PR isn't really on the agenda at all at the moment.

[Danwichmann]

they've actually helped the party who their core support see as "the enemy"

there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest that Lib Dems do see Tories as the enemy though , see my post on page 1

One of the surveys we carried out back in 2010 showed the second preferences of Lib Dem supporters as being

Labour 34%

Conservatives 26%

in the London mayor elections in 2004 Lib Dem first choice voters went 29 % Livingston to 22 % to Steven Norris

2008 Lib Dems went 31% to Ken and 30% to Boris ..

I have to admit, I find that surprising. If there was an election tomorrow, in all honesty I think my best choice of action would be to drop a match in the ballot box. I really feel the whole process is quite pointless at the moment, most votes don't count (under either system), and even if they did I can't see that anyone deserves my vote.

[bickster]

The are two sorts of Liberals.

Disaffected Labour supporters who could never vote Tory

Disaffected Tory supporters who could never vote Labour

Oh and theres a third sort, the politicians who will no just about anything to get elected, the party of the disparate and the desperate

And in the UK right now (and for the last century at least) all AV would do is give them slightly more power and look what they did with it this time

[Gringo]

I have to admit, I find that surprising. If there was an election tomorrow, in all honesty I think my best choice of action would be to drop a match in the ballot box.

1 down, 6,999 to go, BIAD.

What is proposed is better than what we have. Not what is needed, but a step. Once people get used to change then they might not vote on the simple lines they have previously chosen.

However I don't understand how labour supporters can feel let down by the lib dems - after 13 years of red party tory rule they would have no option to vote for.

If however an AV was available in 1992, we would have had a labour majority govt not led by tories in sheep clothing, and wouldn't have ended up with clegg at all.

[bickster]

CHarter 88's take on AV (from a good while ago but still valid)

[NulliSecundus]

I guess that most of the media are either on the side of Tories or Labour, and will be against AV. Therefore they're not giving much exposure, hence the lack of understanding and apathy. The most effective "No" campaign will be one that gives the whole issue as little exposure as possible.

Quite the contrary, I saw a great article in the Express of all papers (I know who would have thought pigs could fly) about AV being good because it gives parties such as UKIP (see, Daily Express!) a better chance of getting into power. As others have said, I believe it will start to kick off a few weeks before.

From your description its actually a crap article. UKIP would actually fare worse as a minority party, in nearly every seat they stand in their votes would be transferred before and of the major parties.

A completely Made up Election Result for the sake of argument:-

Conservative 10,000

Labour 7,000

Liberal 5,000

Green 1,000

UkIP 500

BNP 400

Local Nutter 50

Local nutter get knocked out and his votes transfer, has no real effect

BNP gets knocked out next, still no real effect

Lets say the voting is now:-

Cons 10,050

Labour 7,040

Liberal 5,030

Green 1,010

UKIP 600

UKIPs vote transfer

Cons 10,250

Labour 7,060

Liberal 5,040

Green 1,020

It sort of gets interesting at this stage with the Greens (but not much)

Cons 10,250

Labour 7,330

Liberal 5,440

Where do the Liberals transfer their votes? In reality it doesn't matter because:-

a) they won't all transfer

they won't all go to the same party (they may even split roughly equally)

Net result is no change at all, small parties completely marginalised.

Biggest party on first ballot still wins and if anyone holds the balance of power its the third party. For the Liberals to have an effect they would have to almost single handedly all transfer to Labour to make a difference and I very much doubt that would ever happen.

AV will make so little difference in most constituencies in this country, nothing will change, the odd extra Liberal seat, thats it!

Might as well leave it the way it is until people get utterly utterly pissed off with it

I think the point was that you need 50% approval and MPS of whatever background wouldn't be able to rest on their laurels about getting an easy 35% of the vote.

[bickster]

This 50% approval isn't necessarily true either. It's only actually 50% of the votes in the final round not 50% of the votes cast. It is perfectly possible to win a seat under AV with less than 50% approval of the total votes cast.

[Jon]

I have to admit, I find that surprising. If there was an election tomorrow, in all honesty I think my best choice of action would be to drop a match in the ballot box.

1 down, 6,999 to go, BIAD.

What is proposed is better than what we have. Not what is needed, but a step. Once people get used to change then they might not vote on the simple lines they have previously chosen.

Exactly. It's a step in the right direction, so a Yes from me.

I think it vote No (were I to do so) on the grounds that whilst i recognise it's an improvement, it's not a big enough improvement, would just be sheer folly.

I don't think it would stop the calls for a more pure PR system either.

[Danwichmann]

I have to admit, I find that surprising. If there was an election tomorrow, in all honesty I think my best choice of action would be to drop a match in the ballot box.

1 down, 6,999 to go, BIAD.

What is proposed is better than what we have. Not what is needed, but a step. Once people get used to change then they might not vote on the simple lines they have previously chosen.

However I don't understand how labour supporters can feel let down by the lib dems - after 13 years of red party tory rule they would have no option to vote for.

If however an AV was available in 1992, we would have had a labour majority govt not led by tories in sheep clothing, and wouldn't have ended up with clegg at all.

Birmingham Institute of Art and Design?

[bickster]

NO it stands for Burn It All Down

[Danwichmann]

That would make more sense.

[bickster]

Its a small relatively unknown political alliance formed… erm … on VT