[Closed] How to vote on this voting thing.

*shrugs*

dunno. Seems complicated

At the moment, thats correct.

But they want to change it so you rank the parties, so if your choice doesn't get in, your vote goes to your second choice.

It would be fairer in places such as Lewes in Sussex, where your vote is wasted if you vote labour, so all the labour supporters vote liberal to keep out the Conservatives.

In the new system, the labour supporters can vote labour as their first choice, and liberal as their second choice, the second choice vote means they haven't wasted their first vote on the party they actually support.

You could vote for all the minority parties such as the Greens, UKIP etc even if they haven't a hope of winning, showing your support and giving them a chance in subsequent elections, and your vote will still be valid and count towards the final result.

So I need to vote yes then?

I voted green last time (first time voting, how nervous!!) didn't fancy any of the others. Do I have to choose a second person?

I will be voting yes.

You can just rank the greens as 1, then leave the others blank, or you can rank them in say 1-5 in preference. Any parties you really don't like you can leave blank.

So if you want the greens to get in, but you would settle for liberal and labour in that order, and hate conservative, you would rank greens as 1, liberal as 2, labour as 3 and leave conservative blank.

If the greens didn't get it, your vote would then go to liberal, if they went out of the running then your vote would count towards labour.

I think the winning party is the first to get a 50% share of the total votes. If greens get over 50%, they would win and your vote wouldn't count towards anyone else.

Think I've got that right... 🙂

Right, so yes then?

BTW thanks spooky, that's the clearest explanation I've heard, makes sense now. *kisses*

Agree with emsz that actually made sense. I shall vote yes. Shame about the rubbish adverts out there for this at the moment . Ta spooky 🙂

I'm not sure how to vote.

If I don't vote that could be use to argue that I don't care about the voting system so if not enough people vote to pass the issue this will be used as an excuses not to have further referendum on the subject as not enough of the population care.

First past the post is a terrible system but I'm not really in favour of the alternative vote system. There is a reason internationally it' not a common system. I really don't see how first past the post has any real benefit other than keeping the status quo going and stopping any wider opinion and stopping collaboration between groups.

PR is the way to go but I can't express my preference for this.

So I'm stuck either as registering myself as uninterested in the subject, or voting for the alternative vote just not to vote for first past the post.

The conservatives have just made a very good move to allow the Lib dems to have their vote for another voting system other than first past the post but not allowing people to vote a descent alternative.

TheBrick, what's PR?

I think its a definite Yes vote if you like a minority party, so yes in your case.

If you had a situation where one party usually wins with 40% of the vote, and the other 60% of the votes are spread between several candidates, you might want to vote No as it would allow the votes for the other smaller parties to be combined in the recounts, making it more likely that your favoured party would lose.

But overall I think its a much fairer system, so Yes.

I'm also interested in the PR method...what is it?

The stuff I've typed is all what I learned from the leaflet through the door, not really seen/heard any of the adverts.

oh, I'm conservative though so perhaps I ought to vote no? Im confused again now 😳

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595 ]Easy guide to alternative vote referendum[/url]

This should help you make your own mind up.

emma82, I chose conservative as the example. In each area any party could gain or lose from the new method 🙂 Many areas it may not make much difference, except allowing people to show their support for a smaller party yet still have a valid vote for those that have a realistic chance of winning.

emsz - Member
TheBrick, what's PR?

Proportional representation so if one party get 30% of the vote the get 30% of the seats. There is usually a lower limit 5 - 10% so very small parties don't get any seats but small but significant parties do get a voice. This is how the EU voting works.

In a usual election where labour or tory win out right they frequently have only say 40% of the vote but end up with far more than 40% of seats. Under PR they would end up with approximately 40% of the seats.

AV is a terrible system. If you support a minority party followed by a mainstream party you are effectivley getting two votes for the price of one. That is not fair.

At least with first past the post you are getting one person one vote. As long as costituencies (sp) are the same size then its about as fair a aystem as you can get.

PR = Proportional representation, seats get handed out in Westminster based on the percentage of votes cast so your votes for minority parties have even more clout.

Alternative vote is a stepping stone to PR. Basically neither Labs or Cons will vote for this directly as they will be the main losers, trouble is with 1st past the post they win and keep the voting system as it is. To get it changed the smaller parties need power which they don't have = status quo. Clegg and co have finally got a chance due to the hung parliment to start making small changes which will in the medium term increase his and other minority parties say in parliment. What most of the Clegg bashers don't realise is that he had to get in bed with the COns to get this change through, no other way of doing it.

The downside to AV & PR is more hung parliments abd no overall winners. For some this is a terrible idea, personally I think it might start to curb some of the crap politic we have now which is very sensational popularity driven and force a few of the aprties to start properly co-operating. Will take a while though and whilst they learn to work with each other not a lot will get done. That however may be blesssing in disguise though, most of our institutions could do with a period of stability rather than another new government ripping up everything their predecessor had done and start a completely new costly policy which to is doomed to scrapped after the next election.

Many areas it may not make much difference, except allowing people to show their support for a smaller party

Agreed.

The problem I have with it is that although it allows you to show support for another, it allows others to piggy back on peoples 2nd or 3rd votes. But at least support for varying parties will count a little more in the statistics, and it's these floating voters that the politicians play for.

emma82 - Member
oh, I'm conservative though so perhaps I ought to vote no? Im confused again nowher party it allows you

Please don't vote along party lines, vote what you feel is best and fairest. Although personally how anyone can find the current system fair is beyond me. This is one of the biggest problems with politics, the tribal nature where people follow the party they vote for to closely rather than look at each proposal objective and weigh up it's merits. Crying every proposal the conservatives make is bad if they are a labour supporter and every proposal the conservatives make if they are a labour supporter e.t.c.

Right, thanks, read some more on PR, it's a better system than AV isn't it, why can't we have that?

stumpyjon, weird, I was just thinking won't it be difficult to decide who's won, but then I read your post, and I agree with you, it will make them stop being so headline chasing won't it?

[i]Please don't vote along party line vote what you feel is best and fairest[/i]

Hear hear!

[/politician mode]

At least with first past the post you are getting one person one vote. As long as costituencies (sp) are the same size then its about as fair a aystem as you can get.

it's not fair at all as it all depends on the boundaries, the vote a conservative supporter living in a labour strong hold is pointless, and vis vera. Parties end up with far more representation and support in parliament than they have on the ground.

Basically neither Labs or Cons will vote for this directly as they will be the main losers, trouble is with 1st past the post they win and keep the voting system as it is. To get it changed the smaller parties need power which they don't have = status quo.

Agreed, it's easier for both the main parties if it stays as it is.

Right, thanks, read some more on PR, it's a better system than AV isn't it, why can't we have that?

Because the conservatives would not allow it as a referendum option. The referendum is only occurring because it was a condition of the collation government.

it all depends on the boundaries, the vote a conservative supporter living in a labour strong hold is pointless, and vis vera. Parties end up with far more representation and support in parliament than they have on the ground.

But with PR you run risk of not having any local representative, so PR is not the answer IMO

[i]AV is a terrible system. If you support a minority party followed by a mainstream party you are effectivley getting two votes for the price of one. That is not fair.[/i]

Its fairer for the minority party. 10% of the population may support them, but 8% will vote for a main player as they don't want to waste their vote. So no one gets to see a true picture.

Though I agree, the PR system sounds much better.

That may be of use to you.

You don't currently vote for a party. You vote for an MP for your constituency. The party, or parties that form the government are the ones that can form a parliamentary majority (more than half of the MPs in the house of commons).

Say if Labour won 45% of the seats, mainly by large majorities in each constituency.

But the Conservatives won 55% of seats, but only marginally in each constituency.

Then more people would have voted Labour, but a Conservative government would have been returned as the winner.

I don't think AV is an ideal system (I don't think one exists) but it's better than FPTP (first passed the post) and a No result in the referendum would kill the chance of electoral reform for the foreseeable future, if not a generation.

But with PR you run risk of not having any local representative, so PR is not the answer IMO

You can still have local representation though other means, confusing local representation with representation of your vote in parliament are two different issues. First past the post potentially allows the situation where 33% of the vote could results in 100% representation in parliament. It multiplies the support of the part and gives them a larger mandate to do what they want than people voted for.

On a national level on national issues the first past the post system we have dose not allow representation it is unfair. There are arguments for it such as sting governments and leadership but the fairness and representation is not one of them.

But with PR you run risk of not having any local representative

Yeah but how useful is that, really? MPs do raise local questions, but they don't vote along local lines. And Govt is totally devoid of any local concerns.

why would you not get a local MP under PR?

The referendum is only occurring because it was a condition of the collation government.

Yeah but how useful is that, really?

Pretty ****ing useful if you need someone from the national legislative to take up your case or ask questions on your behalf. If MPs appear aloof from their constituents now, what do you think it would be like if they were elected from a national list ? And how far do you think someone in the North of England for example, should have to travel for an MP's surgery - Westminster ?

Then more people would have voted Labour, but a Conservative government would have been returned as the winner

Party lists?

so a party is declared the winner, and they get to choose who the MP is?

that doesn't seem right 🙄 So we can't see who'd be our MP before we get to vote?

But with PR you run risk of not having any local representative[/qoute]

It depends on how it's implemented. The Scottish parliament is elected using a form of PR and it has constiuency MSPs.

 

they publish the list so you Leader is first etc It strengthens party lines as they can demote you [on the list] to remove you if you dont behave - ie vite a sthey tell you. Currently your local party need to remove you [de select]. You may know who your MP is depending on the system
For example you may cast a vote for a local MP and a vote for the PR lists ie for a party. Parliament is made up of half from each system for example.

AV is a terrible system. If you support a minority party followed by a mainstream party you are effectivley getting two votes for the price of one. That is not fair.

You still only get one vote. It is transferred to your second choice, if your first is knocked out in the first count.

But with PR you run risk of not having any local representative[

Firstly, this isn't a referendum on PR. Secondly, you could still have a local representative under PR.

I'm a Yes man.

My vote has never counted for [b]ANYTHING[/b] and I [b]ANGRY[/b] about it.

Firstly, this isn't a referendum on PR.

Yeah, I know, don't be so patronising;-) but the Brick was banging on about it so I was highlighting its major drawback. Although I find the idea of PR in parliament appealing I think the local representation is more important.

Yes. AV is not getting two votes, it is a single transferable vote.

AV is a step toward PR.

PR: I think ensuring that the makeup of parliament represents the nation's political opinion, fairly and proportionately, is the most important thing.

Most PR systems use locally elected MPs.

hhhhmmmmm ... nope. 😆

djglover - Member

AV is a terrible system. If you support a minority party followed by a mainstream party you are effectivley getting two votes for the price of one. That is not fair.

AAAAAAARGH it's last week's thread again.

In AV, nobody gets more votes than anyone else. There's 2 ways to look at it, both are right, choose whichever you prefer:

1) You get one vote, but if your original candidate is one of those knocked out, your one vote for them no longer counts and so is reapplied to your next choice.

OR, my preferred explanation

2) Everyone gets multiple votes, but after the first round anyone whose candidate has been knocked out votes for someone else whereas everyone whose candidate is still in the running still votes for their candidate

Either way, nobody has more votes than anyone else, unless people choose either to not vote at all, or to not give more than one vote, which is their own choice.

The top-up system for PR is an area of conflict. IMO, lists can be made up from runner-up candidates of the vote. That way, they are MPs elected by our votes rather than selected from a crony list. It also helps prevent freaks become MPs.

If Lib/Lab had won enough votes to form a government at the last general election, we would be voting for PR now.

We are not being offered PR with the Con/Lib, it doesn't suit the Conservative demographic. That's why Cameron is against AV, because he knows it will evolve into PR.

most people in this country are wasting their time voting under the current system, At most a few thousand votes decide the election. Now can anyone tell me that is fair?

How is it that a achieving less than 40% of the vote can give a party a massive majority of MPs, can anyone tell me that is fair.

So the choice is status quo or change, if you vote against AV it will be assumed as a vote for FPtP, even if that isn't what you meant.

AV is far from the best system, but it at least shows a change is wanted.

And talking of change, what is happening with the house of lords!!!!

So, with AV, if 49% of the population vote Labour with say the Green Party as their 2nd choice {we all have a conscience don't we, so would put Green as our 2nd choice} and another 49% of the population voted Conservative with the Greens as their 2nd choice {yes, even the Cons have a social conscience} then the Greens would run the country?

no, because you need to look at the constituencies rather than as a national whole.

But in a constituency, if 49% vote Labour, 49% tory, 2% liberal, but 100% vote green second then On first count, Liberal is dismissed as in last place, leaving 49% labour, 49% tory and 2% green. the second vote of the liberal voters is now considered instead of their first choice. Green is now dismissed as in last place and the third choice is looked at, keep on going until you get to the point where one party gets over 50%.