Vote Yes on 5th May

[Loz]

MrBen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there truth that AV is currently only used in

> three nations worldwide; Australia, Fiji and Papua

> New Guinea? And that Australia is looking to drop

> the system?

As the resident Aussie, I'm happy to knock that one on the head - again. That is a complete fabrication by the No camp. There was a single poll held in the days following the last general election (which had ended in only the second hung parliament in Australia in a century). That poll did indicate dissatisfaction with the current voting system, but actually found that most Australians would actually prefer Optional Preference Voting ? i.e. the version of AV that would be adopted in the UK ? to either Compulsory Preference Voting (the current Aussie system) or First Past the Post.

But also, the No camp fail to tell you that no one is embracing FPTP - in fact, quite the opposite. As a report says:

Over the course of the 20th century, a number of states have opted to switch away from FPTP. From Australia in 1913 through to New Zealand in 1993, successions of states have embraced wholesale electoral reform. More tellingly, no major democracy in the modern era has gone the other way and adopted FPTP. Since 1945, only three new democracies have introduced FPTP based on the British model ? Albania, Macedonia and Ukraine ? and even these countries subsequently decided to switch to a different system.

Of course, most countries are introducing forms of PR, but this does at least show FPTP is totally unsuited to modern-day politics. If we don't grab the chance and vote yes on Thursday then I really do believe electoral reform will be lost for a generation.

PS Nice to see some more voices - on both sides - into the debate.

[Karlene]

Bob, you are utterly hilarious. I have no idea HTF it all works and what is best but you have given me a bloody good laugh! I am supposed to be voting via post. Hope I haven't missed deadline, don't even know which way I am voting yet..yes, it get's worse...

[Brendan]

There will be 2 boxes on the form, one marked YES the other NO. Put a 1 in the one you prefer and a 2 in your second choice.

[Loz]

Karlene Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bob, you are utterly hilarious. I have no idea HTF

> it all works and what is best but you have given

> me a bloody good laugh! I am supposed to be voting

> via post. Hope I haven't missed deadline, don't

> even know which way I am voting yet..yes, it get's

> worse...

Get your skates on Karlene - it has to arrive before Thursday, so if you don't get it in the post today (or maybe tomorrow) you'll miss out.

[LilDT]

I'm currently a neutral on this and am still listening to both sides of the debate and will probably only make my mind up on the 5th. Keep the lobbying coming it could help me (and others like me out there) decide.

[aspidistra]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What was the problem? Wrong colour?

Crap information on the form, bad layout, bad grid... Info on there that shouldn't be (but is required by law), lack of info that should be (that would actually help the voter, but isn't required by law)... About 40-50 problems identified with the ballot at the time. (But then there are other ballots that have 100+ easily identifiable problems...)

One issue with ballots is there is very little learning: many are first-time voters, the rest can't remember the last form. They need to be completely self-explanatory, and they need to be usable by absolutely all adults (so a much wider demographic than, say, bank cash machines).

[Loz]

LilDT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm currently a neutral on this and am still

> listening to both sides of the debate and will

> probably only make my mind up on the 5th. Keep the

> lobbying coming it could help me (and others like

> me out there) decide.

Anything in particular concerning you LilDT? There are many, many pages of debate (and some posts from silverfox) over in the Drawing Room

If it's any help, this video Brendan found explains AV in an easy way, and even features a cat with lasers for eyes. Who could ask for more?

 

[Brendan]

It basically says that even though at least 60% of the country are basically left wing i.e. they think that government policy should be ultimately routed in social justice. This 60% are also too fickle and unfocused to have one practical ideological position and their votes are consequently spilt up amongst different parties.

On the other hand you have a right wing who, although in the minority and only managing about 36% of the vote even after the most disastrous Labour administration in living memory, are nevertheless a tribe broadly represented by a single party.

(There is about 14% of the vote which gets filed under ?other?. These are the racists the commies and the IRA.)

In the current system this means that while the right can under favourable circumstances only muster 36% of the vote they can quite easily end up with almost all the power.

This is either the fault of an unfair system or the fault of the left for being too useless to present a unified front.

Either way under AV the result will be that the left is better represented and therefore the government will be more representative of the population i.e. fickle and unfocused.

This is the problem with democracy. People can?t be trusted to know what is good for them. If people had their way we'd probably have a laser cat economy, monthly oral sex holidays and juggling policemen.

[*Bob*]

Do you mean monthly oral sex holidays 'for him' or 'for her'?

[Brendan]

Depends, why don?t you rate them in order of preference.

[huncamunca]

shit in = shit out

Nothing will change when you have opportunistic bland filth like Clegg as part of the machine

[mockney piers]

"This is either the fault of an unfair system or the fault of the left for being too useless to present a unified front."

Or indeed why Franco the Spanish Civil War.

[Brendan]

I dunno. Why Franco the Spanish Civil War?

[mockney piers]

*won goddamit. Look I'm struggling to keep my eyes open here.

[Huguenot]

Ha ha.

Silverfox was wondering why The Times wasn't supporting AV, the answer is that Cameron bought them off..

Yet more chicanery and manipulation from the 'No' crowd.

Vote Yes to democracy.

[MrBen]

Thanks Loz, for enlightening me on the Australian system. I'm guessing that for many on the street, and regardless of politics, it partly boils down to whether it's just a bit too progressive for us old school Brits?

We've got an appalling track record for world leading legislative change on a wider basis and so as a neutral I'm inclined to take this unique opportunity and bother my arse to vote YES on Thursday.

[Willard]

Whilst ticking various candidates in order of preference is of course very easy to grasp, what I feel hasn't been explained is how all the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choices manifest into results. E.G: if Liar X gets 27% of 2nd choice votes, is he or she more popular than Liar Y who got 54% of 3rd choice votes, assuming that both Liars had an equal amount of 1st choice votes?

[Brendan]

Dunno. If liar X leaves Birmingham at 6pm travelling at 56mph and liar Y leaves Leeds at 8pm travelling at 120mph which of them gets a bigger second home?

[silverfox]

In the Drawing Room Loz has stated:

"...AV is easy to understand - the only people who could possibly find AV complicated are those that can't count to ten."

Well here's a great example from westdulwich in the Drawing Room:

"If, for sake of argument, 10,000 people vote as follows:

4,100 vote Party A as their first preference, with 800 voting Party B and 3,300 voting Party C as their second preference

3,000 vote Party B as their first preference, with 1,500 voting Party A and 1,500 voting Party C as their second preference

2,900 vote Party C as their first preference, with 800 voting Party A and 2,100 voting Party B as their second preference

Have I understood this correctly?

Party A has the most first preference votes

Party C is the party that most would be prefer, if their first choice was eliminated.

Under FPTP, Party A is the winner, with 41% of votes cast.

Under AV, Party B is the winner, with 51% of votes cast (after Party C is eliminated and its votes distributed)."

(In fairness Loz has qualified the bit about first choices being eliminated)

As simple as counting 1 to 10 eh?

Let's ignore all the mumbo jumbo and look at what's really happened here. Let's call Party A Green & Black's chocolate, Party B Mars Bar and Party C Wagon Wheel.

Oooh, shock horror, we've all ended up with Wagon Wheels but it's the fairest result if we but realised it - we've been empowered by our votes, our votes have really counted etc etc

"Err Hello...?" as my children would say if I tried to fobb them off with Wagon Wheels

Even small children realise when they've been ripped off

[Brendan]

But what if your first choice is Mars Bar but if Mars Bar is out of stock you would much rather have Wagon Wheels (or indeed be skinned alive and dragged by a team of horses across a salt pan) than be forced to eat green and blacks?

[Huguenot]

I'm not sure whether you're being obtuse Willard, the situation you referred to has no relevance. Your reference to 'liars' suggests you have no interest in an answer and you're just messing around.

In the first round the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated. Their votes are reallocated according to voter preference.

Once again the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are reallocated until either one candidate hits at least 51% or one candidate remains.

There is no question of 2nd or 3rd votes being less valuable, they are simply reallocated as first choices are eliminated. Everyone has one vote and if their original choices are eliminated it's reallocated according to their preference.

You can allocate your preference as far as you wish.

The key is this - politicians use AV in their own elections because they know it's best. If they don't want us to have it, it's because they're being dishonest.

[Huguenot]

Yes silverfox, party A does not win under AV because they do not have a majority.

To give party A control when the majority do not want them in power is not democracy, it's a large scale fraud as big as the one the Tories are currently perpetrating on the public by ruling when 65% of the voters did not want them in power.

In your chocloate analogy the the majority of people who would have been ripped off by having a solution forced upon them by a minority. The people who would have been 'fobbed off' would have been the majority.

That's absolutely clear and simple.

You know it's clear, you know it's simple, you've been told a hundred times before.

What you have then done is turned to your asinine trolling strategy of trying to confuse the issue. It's dishonest and tragic.

Vote Yes to AV, because it's democratic, it's honest and it's representative.

[silverfox]

No Huguenot, you're wrong yet again. The majority have been ripped off. Look at the figures again.

By contriving to allow Party C to win the MAJORITY of people, ie the 4,100 and 3,000 who voted for A and B with their first choice (7,100 out of 10,000) have ended up with what they didn't want in the first place - Wagon Wheels

We're back to Loz's ice cream example where more people ended up with an ice cream they didn't want after AV than would have been the case if they stayed in bed and hadn't voted in the first place

[Willard]

Edit to say this is in response to Huguenot....

Yes I am slightly messing about but I am 100% interested in an answer. I guess my reference to liars reflects my (and who knows, possibly a lot of other peoples) lack of faith in the integrity of politicians and the political system at large.

Yes, marking your candidate choice in order of preference, that's easy.

BUT the counting process afterwards still remains a mystery for a lot of people, maybe even most people. I think the YES campaign have slightly messed up here by not explaining it as well as they could have done, instead focussing on why FPTP is "bad".

"In the first round the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated."

I assume here you mean: the candidate with the least amount of 1st choice votes? I'm not being obtuse here, I genuinely don't (didn't) know how the counting works, but your explanation makes sense. My fear is this hasn't been communicated properly to enough people.

Yes, it's a well known fact that Cameron was elected leader of the Tories through AV, and yes it makes his championing the NO vote look mighty lame.

[silverfox]

Imagine living in the following world with these headlines from the AV Chronicle:

Fat kid beats Usain Bolt in 100 metres final after AV redistributes seconds to make it fairer

Or

West Ham win Premiership title after AV redistributes points to make it fairer