Alternative voting.
which essentially means swapping from first past the post to representational.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:44, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

Apologies to detract from what I agree is a valuable point of discussion (I'm all for AV and am very keen to see it introduced),
but the term "Alternative Vote" cracks me up. I choose to believe it means that everyone has to dress up like they're off to Bloodstock or Slimelight before their vote counts.
(Darth Foxtrot A one-man army dedicated to making fetch happen, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:46, Reply)

I'm not.
Giving up a system that's been in place for hundreds of years and is perfectly capable of working very well if people could actually be fucked to walk 300 yards to a polling station once every three to five years mostly based on the relentless whinging of one secondary party and a fistful of minors is daft.

The only reason it's getting any credence now is that the LDs are capable of whining slightly more loudly than normal.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:52, Reply)

How does that work? So that, say if there were 100 seats, and 30% voted for Labour, labour would get 30 seats?
Who is the PM and all that then, if that happens?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:50, Reply)

Pretty much, yeah.
PM would be the leader of the biggest party. It'd lead to more coalitions, but other parties would feel better and that's the main thing, isn't it.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:53, Reply)

Wouldn't it allow for the likes of the BNP and (if-they-politicalise) EDL to get involved?

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:57, Reply)

Yup. Rather than being marginalised by only winning the odd seat.
They'd gain the same percentage of seats as the percentage of votes they'd received.

Edit: Or maybe not
V
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:58, Reply)

You're implying that the whole of the UK would vote purely based on party then they'd allocate
That's not it at all.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:00, Reply)

I didn't realise that it was a half-arsed mixture of the two.
lack of research on my part.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:02, Reply)

research the ability to give a flying fuck about lefties whinging again
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:04, Reply)

Pretty much.
Although my politics are a little convuluted and I swing wildly between left and right depending on the subject matter.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:07, Reply)

Would it be split up down to the area...
... eg, say, barnet gets 30% labour and 70% conservative... conservative would get barnet's seat, or would they have to scoot down and share the seat 30% with labour. Or would it be country-wide so although Labour lost that seat, they can add up that 30% to someone elses so they win that area.

wait, I don't think that makes sense, is it....
- Is it the seats in the houses of commons is split up by the whole country's vote.
- Is the seats for each council split up by that council's votes... and if it is this, what one gets to go to parliment?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:03, Reply)

I was basing my assessment on the assumption that it would work along similar lines
to the American system. I haven't really been taking alternative voting seriously as I doubt it'll last as an option past this Government and because I think changing the way the country votes to try to fix a symptom, rather than the cause, is a bloody silly way to behave.

BA knows a damn sight more than me on how it would be applied here. Sounds dreadful, anyway.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:05, Reply)

I quite like the idea of a world in which a vote for a party you don't loathe isn't just pissing in the wind.

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:10, Reply)

Jill..... JILL........ JILL !!!!!!!
ARE YOU FOR AGAINST PROPORTIONAL VOTING IN A DEMOCROSIED SOCIETY?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:12, Reply)

So do I
And should people get off their backsides and start voting for minor parties, the current system is perfectly capable of delivering.

People assume that the Tories or Labour are going to win and so assume there's no point in voting for anyone else. The more seats won by minor parties means they have a larger representation. The two bigger parties then have to adjust their politics accordingly.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:13, Reply)

Given that the entirety of the national media, and both major parties, spend the whole of election time
drumming home that a vote for anyone else is a complete waste, I don't see that ever happening. So, a change in the system.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:15, Reply)

That isn't going to change with a change in system, though.
They're still going to drum home that there's no other viable alternative. What needs to change is peoples' interest in politics, not the way we vote.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:17, Reply)

Well not with the AV system, but if we were allowed a compelte PR system
like the one in the Netherlands, then you can end up with huge turnouts because people are aware that their votes mean something.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:23, Reply)

I've often thought that internet voting would be an excellent way of mobilising more people.
Plus it would make referendums much quicker and cheaper to execute, meaning we could have more of them and, therefore, more direct control.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:27, Reply)

Which would, in turn
mobilise more the electorate to vote.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:28, Reply)

Hmmmm, I don't want lots of referendums
If I wanted to run the country myself I'd become a politician, I don't want to do that, I want the people I elect to run the country in accordance with the promises they set out when I voted for them.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:29, Reply)

You say that, but you've just freely admitted you haven't looked at *anything* to do with AV before declaring your opposition to it.

(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:28, Reply)

www.b3ta.com/questions/offtopic/post1128692
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:29, Reply)

It's not capable of delivering at all
the support for a minor party has to be hugely concentrated for them to have any chance of winning a seat.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:16, Reply)

Right:
With AV, you rank your candidates in order of preference on your ballot. They then add up all the "first" places, and see if anyone has over 50% of the vote. If not, then they add the "second" choice places and see if that gives someone over 50% of the vote, and so on. Hence why it would be difficult for the BNP etc. to gain representation.

First candidate to get to 50% in the constituency becomes the MP.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:13, Reply)

I'd also like to point out that I'm fucking shocked that people are so opposed to change when they don't even know what the change is.

(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:23, Reply)

I didn't say I was against it.
I am strongly suspicious of it and the motives behind it.
( Kroney, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:25, Reply)

The motive is to get a more representative voting system.
It's not the ideal voting system, but there is not one single argument in which FPTP comes out in front of AV, so from that point of view it ought to be a forgone conclusion.

The fact that the NO campaign is pedalling lies and negative ideas just goes to prove that they have nothing good to say about their choice.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:31, Reply)

But your suspicion is based on your mistrust of a party, rather than being informed about what it actually is.

(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:32, Reply)

What happens if no-one gets 50%?
Is that technically a possibility?
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:26, Reply)

I'm not very good at doing maths with percentages
But thinking about it logically, I think it would be impossible.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:29, Reply)

That's an interesting idea.
If you have five candidates and each got 20% and nobody put a second preference for anyone, then yes I guess you could have a tie. But I think the likelihood is so low.

Plus there will almost certainly be a contingancy for one candidate not getting 50% but still having the highest percentage.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:33, Reply)

Oh, I think I like that.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 13:30, Reply)

Sorry to butt in
But thats not quite how it works... If no one person has acheived 50% of the vote then the person polling the lowest number of votes is eliminated and that second choice is added and so on, it is the "single transferable vote" AV is a misleading term.
(Bonzodog29 is an unemployed sponge of the worst kind, Mon 21 Mar 2011, 16:16, Reply)

The constituencies would remain the same size and require the successful candidate to have over 50% support, so it's extremely unlikely.
Probably at least as extremely unlikely as it is now.
(BelladonnaAnodyne Melissa's gonna wet herself, I swear..., Mon 21 Mar 2011, 12:59, Reply)