AV voting for UK. What is it?

loobylou

Have heard a lot about this on UK media.
Would anyone like to give an idiots guide as to what it involves?

Sulmac

Basically it's STV but with one seat. So like a Presidential election here [when we have one], but for the entire House of Commons.

BroomBurner

There's a really good interactive guide to AV, AV+ and STV on the Guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/may/10/proportional-representation-alternative-vote-plus

sink

It basically means that to be elected in a constituency you need 50% of the vote not just the simple majority. It works similar to our own in that the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. If no one gets over 50% of the vote in first preference, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes redistributed in accordance to the second preference; and it carries on like that until one candidate gets over 50% of the vote. The main difference between that system and our own is that only one candidate gets elected per constituency as opposed to two or more here.

For more info see wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Pittens

AV is not really proportional, though. You need multi-member seats to be proportional.

nesf

Pittens wrote: »

AV is not really proportional, though. You need multi-member seats to be proportional.

It allows parties on the same "wing" to compete against each other without having to worry about the other wing winning the seat due to said competition. Splitting the vote is a serious concern in First Past the Post systems and AV gets around this problem.

Victor

Pittens wrote: »

AV is not really proportional, though. You need multi-member seats to be proportional.

Its a lot more proportional and representative than FPTP.

PR-STV never manages perfect proportionality either.

Sulmac

Victor wrote: »

Its a lot more proportional and representative than FPTP.

PR-STV never manages perfect proportionality either.

Indeed, the only systems that come close to full proportionality involve lists (be it a national list - Israel, the Netherlands; or MMP - Germany, New Zealand).

STV definitely maximises voter choice, though.

Blisterman

It's a good compromise. The problem with full proportional representation, is you lose the local representation.

Sulmac

Blisterman wrote: »

It's a good compromise. The problem with full proportional representation, is you lose the local representation.

I think the Irish experience with it has shown that "local representation" is a bad thing, since it does nothing but encourage parish pump politics and detract from national issues.

Stronger local government would be better, in my opinion.

Pittens

Sulmac wrote: »

I think the Irish experience with it has shown that "local representation" is a bad thing, since it does nothing but encourage parish pump politics and detract from national issues.

Stronger local government would be better, in my opinion.

Parish Pump politics is generally an elitist term. Irelands problem is the opposite. Massive over centralisation in Dublin. Empowering local democracy with taxes entreches regional divisions.

Anyway the Libs want STV. They will gain very few seats under AV since they will merely be transfer fodder for the larger parties, except in the very few constituencies where they are second placed ( in which case they will receive transfers from Labour or Cons which may push them over a quota ).

If you want proportionality for the top three parties you need at least 3 seat constituencies.

Victor

Pittens wrote: »

Parish Pump politics is generally an elitist term.

Without wanting to go off-topic, but is it? Why should national resources be dedicated to fixing one (or more) perceived problems to the detriment of others, simply because of clientelism .

Irelands problem is the opposite. Massive over centralisation in Dublin.

Don't begrudge Dublin. Begrudge the bit between Kildare Street and Merrion Street.

Empowering local democracy with taxes entreches regional divisions.

Pardon?

except in the very few constituencies where they are second placed

Is this true? What are the numbers?

They will gain very few seats under AV since they will merely be transfer fodder for the larger parties,

I'm not sure if I agree. Conservative and Labout voters will both likely transfer to LibDems before they would transfer to the "other" party.

Pittens

Well the debates about clientalism are a bit off topic ( in reality the term clientalism is used to describe the political system where politicians are clients of voters rather than other groups).

Anyway the guardian had a synopsis on this a few days ago.

the results were

Con:307
Lab:258
Lib:57

AV would be

Con:281
Lab:262
Lib:79

STV

Con:246
Lab:207
Lib:162

so the libs will go for STV. AV is not even proportional, not much more than FPTP.

Pittens

Pardon?

I will answer this though. Think locally controlled schools and police. Think America.

Mike 1972

Pittens wrote: »

Well the debates about clientalism are a bit off topic.

Are they really ?

AV (rather than STV or a list system) is being proposed for the UK on the grounds that it "maintains the constituency link" which is little more than a polite way of saying "parish pump politics"

Pittens

Well STV maintains the constituency link so I dont get that.

Mike 1972

True (albeit with considerably enlarged constituencies)

But "Maintaining the constituency link" is the main justifications used by those proposing AV over PR-STV in the UK right now

Victor

Pittens wrote: »

Anyway the guardian had a synopsis on this a few days ago.

the results were

Con:307
Lab:258
Lib:57

AV would be

Con:281
Lab:262
Lib:79

STV

Con:246
Lab:207
Lib:162

so the libs will go for STV. AV is not even proportional, not much more than FPTP.

I imagine a shift in voting pattern would emerge, as left-leaning Lib-dem voters will no longer have to vote Labour to keep out a conservative MP. Compare Labour's performance between Westminster and Scottish parliamentary (actually, what voting system do they use for that?) results.

Capt'n Midnight

Then again the UK referendum is being run on a FPTP basis


Mary Robinson would have lost on FPTP
Because of AV she got 75% of Currie's transfers

Party 	Candidate 	 % 1st Pref 	Count 1 	Count 2
Independent 	Mary Robinson 	38.8 	612,265 	817,830
Fianna Fáil 	Brian Lenihan 	44.1 	694,484 	731,273
Fine Gael 	Austin Currie 	17.0 	267,902

transylman

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Then again the UK referendum is being run on a FPTP basis


Mary Robinson would have lost on FPTP
Because of AV she got 75% of Currie's transfers

Party 	Candidate 	 % 1st Pref 	Count 1 	Count 2
Independent 	Mary Robinson 	38.8 	612,265 	817,830
Fianna Fáil 	Brian Lenihan 	44.1 	694,484 	731,273
Fine Gael 	Austin Currie 	17.0 	267,902

And Lenny senior would have won. Best arguement for AV i have heard yet.

A Dub in Glasgo

There is a lot of misinformation and scare mongering by a lot of the media, Tories and the No2AV camp. The basic level of ignorance amongst the general public about voting systems other than FPTP is mind boggling. This referendum will fail.

Berns

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There is a lot of misinformation and scare mongering by a lot of the media, Tories and the No2AV camp. The basic level of ignorance amongst the general public about voting systems other than FPTP is mind boggling. This referendum will fail.

Thinkin this too

Not sure what the story with the AV is though, think LD's woulda wanted sumfin more like stv but settle for this with the coalition or sumfin.

Blisterman

Yeah, the pro AV advertising is not at all clear about why this system is needed.

The anti AV literature has ridiculous scaremongering statements like "At the moment, voting is one person one vote. Nick Clegg wants to change it so that the candidate who recieves the lowest amount of votes can win the election".

A Dub in Glasgo

The yes side has had to resort to showing the extremes of FPTP to even get AV into the minds of votes who seem to believe the bull that AV gives 4 votes to those who want to rank candidates and 1 vote to those who want to stop after their first rank.

stimpson

Explained for cats

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

The anti-AV ads are disgraceful appeals to emotion....



Saying AV will cost too much doesn't address the issue of why its needed.

Capt'n Midnight

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The anti-AV ads are disgraceful appeals to emotion....



Saying AV will cost too much doesn't address the issue of why its needed.

That's just shocking - complete FUD


The £250m comes from
The referendum itself: £91 million. - this was a condition of forming a coalition government. Was earmarked from day 1. Unless the government falls there was never any way this wasn't going to happen. And if the government fell the general election would cost far more.

Also it would be spent who ever wins :rolleyes:

The complete pisstake is that most of the €91 million will be spent on the other elections happening on the same day
Scottish Parliament elections
Welsh National Assembly elections
Northern Ireland Assembly elections
Northern Ireland Local council elections
English Local council elections
A by-election is being held in the constituency of Leicester South
As well as Leicester, polls will also be held to elect mayors in Middlesbrough, Mansfield, Bedford and Torbay.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12669017



Electronic vote counting machines: £130 million. - not needed , look at us



Explaining AV to voters: £26 million. - money well spent judging by the arguments the NO campaign can get away with ,also it's only 56p each or something. Again this money was spent as a pre condition of the coalition government , there is no way of saving it unless you have a general election or Labour form a coalition with the Tories.



So the true cost is really just printing and counting the ballots as all other costs are covered by the other elections or a pre-condition of government.


As for wasting money in the UK £4.1 billion will get you ONE working refurbished 1950's airliner with a 1990's electronics upgrade. Seriously anyone who thinks or suggests that any money saved would go directly to sick children instead of being squandered on sacred cows is either being disingenous or a complete muppet.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/27/nimrod_scrappage/print.html


And it will mean the British public will have the trill of watching which way the transfer go and see candidates geting eliminated one by one. There was such a cheer down in Wicklow when Dick Roache got eliminated the second time (he asked for a recount)

Blisterman

I just had the most infuriating conversation with a clueless English person as to why AV is more fair. His arguement was essentially "How can being able to vote more than once be fair?". I tried to explain that it was essentially just voting once, but he just didn't get it. I managed to get him to admit that the runoff system was fair, but he still maintained that AV or instant runoff was unfair.



Another ridiculous arguement that I've heard off a few people is "Only two countries in the world use AV", as if the other 200 all use FPTP.

Capt'n Midnight

They should not have called it AV.

A more explanitory name would have been better

It's FPTP if anyone get a majority on the first count, othewise it's devil take the hindmost and redistibute the votes of eliminateed candidateds.

But as Paul Weller pointed out back in 1980
You've made your bed, you better lie in it
You choose your leaders and place your trust
As their lies put you down and their promises bust
You'll see kidney machine replaced by rockets and guns

And the public wants what the public gets

getz

if it aint broke,dont fix it

oscarBravo

getz wrote: »

if it aint broke,dont fix it

...and if it is broke...?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

getz wrote: »

if it aint broke,dont fix it

Except in this case, it is broken.

getz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Except in this case, it is broken.

i think the system of one person one vote is working,since the first time since 1928,we face a possibility that one persons casting vote ,will be worth more than another.the AV system that will allow MPs to be elected to parliament,even if they do not win the majority of constituents first preferance vote.if this vote had been used at the last election,we may have had the likes of uk independance party/loony party/islamicparty and all the race hate parties in parliament

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

getz wrote: »

i think the system of one person one vote is working,since the first time since 1928,we face a possibility that one persons casting vote ,will be worth more than another.the AV system that will allow MPs to be elected to parliament,even if they do not win the majority of constituents first preferance vote.if this vote had been used at the last election,we may have had the likes of uk independance party/loony party/islamicparty and all the race hate parties in parliament

That can already happen and usually does!

A Dub in Glasgo

getz wrote: »

i think the system of one person one vote is working,since the first time since 1928,we face a possibility that one persons casting vote ,will be worth more than another.the AV system that will allow MPs to be elected to parliament,even if they do not win the majority of constituents first preferance vote.if this vote had been used at the last election,we may have had the likes of uk independance party/loony party/islamicparty and all the race hate parties in parliament

It is still one person one vote in AV. It happens regularly in FPTP that an MP is elected without ever getting near the majority of the votes.

It is very much broken and needs fixed although I am not confident about the Yes winning.

Capt'n Midnight

getz wrote: »

if this vote had been used at the last election,we may have had the likes of uk independance party/loony party/islamicparty and all the race hate parties in parliament

Only in areas where more than 50% of the voters gave them high preferences.

By putting BNP with your last preference (or voting for everyone else apart from them) there is no possible way they will benefit from your vote.

If you don't understand AV then please learn about it rather than parrot something you may not understand fully.

Yes of course AV will mean the smaller parties will get more seats - that is the whole point.

Compare Eurpoean elections
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm
Green Party got 8.6% of the national vote 2 seats
BNP got 6.2% of the vote , again 2 seats
(so more than 1 in 7 voters voted for these parties - hardly minority )

General Election http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/
Labour 29% of the vote, 258 seats
Liberal 26% of the vote 57 seats

Please explain how you could consider such a system to be fair where Liberals get 90% of the number of votes as labour but only a fifth of the seats ??


Northern Ireland parties got 17 seats on 1.7 % of the vote. (by this measure Liberals would only have needed 5.7% of the vote) 13 of those seats were for loony/race hate parties you claim to dislike - but by defending FPTP you are supporting them. AV would mean more seats for SDLP/Alliance/Moderate Unionists If you need any proof of this SF +DUP have 63/108 seats in Northern Ireland Assembly which uses AV which is a lot less than 13/17 under FPTP.

NI is a place where people vote for people they hate under FPTP because the alternative is someone you hate even more.


SNP also got 1.7% of the vote, but only 6 seats

UKIP got 3.1% of the Vote - and ZERO seats
regardless of how you feel about them it's not really democratic is it ?


Also I don't get how you can worry about the BNP when they are rank amatuers compared to what some of the NI parties have been accused of by governent ministers and law enforcement agencies.




FPTP means you can only vote FOR ONE candidate
If the person you want to vote for hasn't a decent chance of winning you MUST vote for someone else or your vote is esentially wasted except as a protest vote
you can't express how much you hate certain parties


AV means you ccould have a protest vote for a candidate who is sure to be eliminated on the first count
Av means you can vote for the person you want to win, and if they don't then your vote can carry over to the person you dislike least of the alternatives (but only when the person you voted for is eliminated)
AV means you can vote against candidates - you can choose who you hate the most
AV means all of the above, at the same time