Scottlish Elections

[Woodstock Jag]

i was talking about my second preference vote not not voting at all

 

if i dont use all the preferences my vote is worthless, all av does i try to contrive a vote that suit one group

 

I KNOW you were talking about the second preference. The circumstances in which your vote is "worthless" under AV is exactly the same situation where it would have been "worthless" under FPTP.

 

If there were four parties in an election, say Tories, Labour, Lib Dem and SNP. You would vote Tory, both under FPTP and AV, right? So your vote would "count" in the first round, and any subsequent rounds where they hadn't already been knocked out (as they would have under FPTP too).

 

If there were only three parties in an election, say Labour, Lib Dem and SNP, however, let's analyse that situation. You say you didn't have a second preference in the previous one, right? That means you wouldn't vote for any of these three parties. Therefore you wouldn't vote anyway and your vote would have exactly the same bearing on the outcome of the result. Zero.

[jaggybunnet]

I KNOW you were talking about the second preference. The circumstances in which your vote is "worthless" under AV is exactly the same situation where it would have been "worthless" under FPTP.

 

If there were four parties in an election, say Tories, Labour, Lib Dem and SNP. You would vote Tory, both under FPTP and AV, right? So your vote would "count" in the first round, and any subsequent rounds where they hadn't already been knocked out (as they would have under FPTP too).

 

If there were only three parties in an election, say Labour, Lib Dem and SNP, however, let's analyse that situation. You say you didn't have a second preference in the previous one, right? That means you wouldn't vote for any of these three parties. Therefore you wouldn't vote anyway and your vote would have exactly the same bearing on the outcome of the result. Zero.

 

 

not according to the offical information, my vote would be void in the second vote due to not haveing a second preference

[Woodstock Jag]

like i said muddy the water and cause weak goverment and whos to say the tories are not happy with SOME of those lib policies.

 

Weak government? You really think this is a weak government? It's pushing through some of the most radical reform we've seen in years.

 

If the Tories are "happy" with some of those Lib Dem policies, they should have included them in their manifesto. Some of them they did. Indeed part of those figures will reflect both having got the pupil premium into the Coalition Agreement.

 

In the round, though, for a party with 1/5 of the popular vote, 1/13 of the Parliamentary seats and 1/6 of the Coalition's seats in Parliament to have got 3/4 of their manifesto turned into government policy, they must be doing something right!

[Woodstock Jag]

not according to the offical information, my vote would be void in the second vote due to not haveing a second preference

 

No, that's factually inaccurate. If the one and only party you vote for doesn't come last, it carries forward to the next round. That happens irrespective of how many or how few preferences you use.

 

If you vote for a party and they do come last, then your vote just isn't recycled into the run-off among the other parties. If you'd come last under FPTP you'd have had no say in the outcome between the other parties anyway, so AV makes no difference.

[jaggybunnet]

I KNOW you were talking about the second preference. The circumstances in which your vote is "worthless" under AV is exactly the same situation where it would have been "worthless" under FPTP.

 

If there were four parties in an election, say Tories, Labour, Lib Dem and SNP. You would vote Tory, both under FPTP and AV, right? So your vote would "count" in the first round, and any subsequent rounds where they hadn't already been knocked out (as they would have under FPTP too).

 

If there were only three parties in an election, say Labour, Lib Dem and SNP, however, let's analyse that situation. You say you didn't have a second preference in the previous one, right? That means you wouldn't vote for any of these three parties. Therefore you wouldn't vote anyway and your vote would have exactly the same bearing on the outcome of the result. Zero.

 

 

if that was all there was to vote for i would immigrate

[Woodstock Jag]

if that was all there was to vote for i would immigrate

 

i.e. you wouldn't be voting anyway. So why would it concern you?

[jaggybunnet]

No, that's factually inaccurate. If the one and only party you vote for doesn't come last, it carries forward to the next round. That happens irrespective of how many or how few preferences you use.

 

If you vote for a party and they do come last, then your vote just isn't recycled into the run-off among the other parties. If you'd come last under FPTP you'd have had no say in the outcome between the other parties anyway, so AV makes no difference.

 

 

i will try to find where i saw it (and it wasnt the no to av)

[jaggybunnet]

i.e. you wouldn't be voting anyway. So why would it concern you?

 

 

but there are not only three so whats your point??

[Woodstock Jag]

but there are not only three so whats your point??

 

The principle applies to any number of candidates. If, in an election, there is one candidate that you would have voted for if your preferred candidate could not win, then your vote moves to that candidate if they have a better chance of winning. That's how AV works! If there isn't another candidate you would have voted for then you wouldn't have *had* any vote to "count" in the first place.

[jaggybunnet]

The principle applies to any number of candidates. If, in an election, there is one candidate that you would have voted for if your preferred candidate could not win, then your vote moves to that candidate if they have a better chance of winning. That's how AV works! If there isn't another candidate you would have voted for then you wouldn't have *had* any vote to "count" in the first place.

 

 

so what is the point in av then?

 

in a perverse way i hope it gets through , then people will see how bad it is and how much they have been conned

[Woodstock Jag]

so what is the point in av then?

 

in a perverse way i hope it gets through , then people will see how bad it is and how much they have been conned

 

The point of AV is to produce candidates which are more acceptable to (if you like, more "representative" of) the views of their constituents. The ironic thing about First Past the Post is that there is no "post" at all. AV creates a post, and finds a fairer way of redistributing votes of the less successful candidates to find out who would have reached that post had they not ran.

[jaggybunnet]

The point of AV is to produce candidates which are more acceptable to (if you like, more "representative" of) the views of their constituents. The ironic thing about First Past the Post is that there is no "post" at all. AV creates a post, and finds a fairer way of redistributing votes of the less successful candidates to find out who would have reached that post had they not ran.

 

 

ah well we will agree to disagree how fair it is

[twinny]

so what is the point in av then?

 

in a perverse way i hope it gets through , then people will see how bad it is and how much they have been conned

 

Why? It is better than the current system. It was used to choose the leaders of the three main political parties (in Cameron's case a variant of AV) with the very similar (and slightly less fair) ssupplementary vote used to elect the mayor of London. If it is good enough for so many politicians why isn't it good for the country?

 

The arguements of '1 person 1 vote' and 'losers will win' are completely redundant. Everyone is allowed to rank their preference for each candidate, if you choose only to rank your first choice and not the others then it is you who has lost out, as you have had a chance if that candidate is eliminated.

 

I feel that it won't get through though, as the negative campaigning will probably win out (AV would potentially weed out negative campaigning and favour those who are more positive with their electioneering) as it panders to those unable to understand the complexities of a better system.

[jaggybunnet]

Why? It is better than the current system. It was used to choose the leaders of the three main political parties (in Cameron's case a variant of AV) with the very similar (and slightly less fair) ssupplementary vote used to elect the mayor of London. If it is good enough for so many politicians why isn't it good for the country?

 

The arguements of '1 person 1 vote' and 'losers will win' are completely redundant. Everyone is allowed to rank their preference for each candidate, if you choose only to rank your first choice and not the others then it is you who has lost out, as you have had a chance if that candidate is eliminated.

I feel that it won't get through though, as the negative campaigning will probably win out (AV would potentially weed out negative campaigning and favour those who are more positive with their electioneering) as it panders to those unable to understand the complexities of a better system.

 

 

so people are forced to have another choice or there vote dosnt count?? realy fair

 

why dont we all just have a big group hug and everyone can be in charge.

 

av there to help those parties not good enough or popoular enough to get in the proper way

[yoda-jag]

SNP x 2

 

 

 

Twinny, you broke a 18 post love-in, realise I hope you do!

[Phoenix]

You don't "vote tactically" and you don't "have three chances".

 

This idea that some people's votes "count for more" is simply rubbish. The people who back the candidates who are not eliminated have their vote counted again as well! You aren't "voting tactically" if your candidate loses. You are backing a candidate which you find least objectionable who has a chance of winning.

 

Take, for example, a constituency where there are four big parties. One is the Tories, who get 26% (mopping up almost all of the voters who are right of centre). Then you have Labour on 25% (mopping up the authoritarian left), the SNP on 25% (mopping up the independence and centre/centre-left vote) and the Lib Dems on 24% (picking up the liberal centre/centre-left vote). Clearly if the Tory candidate wins, they do so with a mandate which comes from a minority of voters. If the Lib Dem candidate had never stood, most of the people who voted for them would have either voted SNP or Labour, because they are centre/centre-left. Then the Tories would almost certainly not have won. Which is the better situation: the one where the winning candidate represents either a majority or close to a majority of the actual constituency's political views; or the one that is able to mobilise the biggest core vote, no matter how repugnant or disagreeable the vast majority of people find their politics?

 

Under the current system, people who support smaller parties are forced to vote tactically, especially in marginal seats, because otherwise the vote splits and someone with as little as 26% of the vote can realistically end up in power. AV allows people to vote first and foremost with their conscience, but also express a preference between the candidates most likely to be in the running.

 

If a Lib Dem candidate didn't stand in my constituency, it doesn't mean I wouldn't express a preference from among the other candidates from other parties. What AV does is simulate what would have happened if the smaller parties' candidates in a constituency had never ran. It's not "giving me a second chance"; it's asking for a more detailed expression of preference.

 

 

In the example you've just given the person elected would have recieved less than the 26%.

If they were even less popular to start with then they represent even less of the people. Simply looks like people will be voted in just because thet are the lesser evil.

Not for or against AV because it wont make the blindest bit of difference. The people who want to stand for election are the last people who should be allowed o stand (copyright Billy Connelly)

[Woodstock Jag]

In the example you've just given the person elected would have recieved less than the 26%.

If they were even less popular to start with then they represent even less of the people. Simply looks like people will be voted in just because they are the lesser evil.

Not for or against AV because it wont make the blindest bit of difference. The people who want to stand for election are the last people who should be allowed to stand (copyright Billy Connelly)

 

Less than 26% of first preferences.

 

The whole point is that someone who gets 25% of first preferences isn't necessarily less popular than someone who gets 26% of first preferences. It could be that there are two candidates with very similar views, who a lot of people like, and one candidate who is, for want of a better analogy, Marmite and has completely different views from the vast majority of the constituency.

 

Under First Past the Post, people are left with the option either to vote for a candidate who they genuinely support, increasing the risk of a candidate they really don't want from getting into power, or else vote tactically for a candidate they think is okay, but not their favourite. AV allows them to express support for their favourite without increasing the risk of letting someone they really don't like in by the back door.

 

This is sort of the point that AV tries to make. Politics shouldn't be so utterly tribal. Support for one candidate doesn't mean you disagree with everything every other candidate says. Your vote should be more "intelligent" than simply becoming a statistic under a red, blue or yellow flag. It should be a comprehensive expression of which individuals you feel most and least content to be represented by.

[The Devil's Point]

Lib Dems x 2

 

Yes to AV.

[twinny]

so people are forced to have another choice or there vote dosnt count?? realy fair

 

Yes, that is exactly what it means <_>

 

Twinny, you broke a 18 post love-in, realise I hope you do!

 

To be fair it was me that set it off to begin with.

[1 John Lambie]

No to AV, & probably labour. SNP won't get my vote as Salmond is a w*nker.

 

 

 

Also, it's quite clear from this thread that some aren't sure what AV is all about & how it works, I would imagine there are millions in Britain who are in that situation, how can people vote for something that they don't really know about?

 

The No campaign, whether right or wrong, have done a good job of putting people off voting for it.

Edited May 2, 2011 by 1 John Lambie

[Woodstock Jag]

No to AV, & probably labour. SNP won't get my vote as Salmond is a w*nker.

 

Also, it's quite clear from this thread that some aren't sure what AV is all about & how it works, I would imagine there are millions in Britain who are in that situation, how can people vote for something that they don't really know about?

 

The No campaign, whether right or wrong, have done a good job of putting people off voting for it.

 

I think it's funny how those who don't understand AV seem to be the ones who are going to vote against it.

[Woodstock Jag]

Lib Dems x 2

 

Yes to AV.

 

Sing it to the rooftops, brother

[jags365]

Still not decided about 1st Vote, but Greens and Yes to AV.

[1 John Lambie]

I think it's funny how those who don't understand AV seem to be the ones who are going to vote against it.

 

But how can you possibly vote for something when you don't understand it? The Yes campaign should have done more to explain what it's all about & get the facts out there. A guy came to my door to 'sell it' to me, a Lib Dem, all he could do was criticise the no campaign!

 

I do understand it, but don't agree that it's a good system.

[twinny]

I think it's funny how those who don't understand AV seem to be the ones who are going to vote against it.

 

It's for that reason they won't. If a system is too complicated to understand (which it isn't, it's easy to understand) then the public won't like it, and the NO to AV campaign are painting AV as a horrendously complicated system. They're also lying about how much it will cost to implement the AV system, claiming the switch would cost £250million. They claim that £130 million will be spent on 'electronic vote counting machines' whilst there are currently no plans for this and Australia who use the same system don't use any electronic equipment to count votes. They are then adding on £80 million for the cost of the referendum, this money will be spent whether we go to AV or not. This leaves £40 million for voter education, which isn't all that much considering the amount that is spent overall on elections. For me though, if you can't understand the system and as a result spoil your ballot, you aren't really smart enough to vote anyway.