Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

I have read all three pages of this thread to try and read and understand the opinions for and against and am just as confused about my opinion.


The concern I have about changing from the current system is that people will not understand it and make mistakes, deliberate or not, which could have disastrous consequences.


Could someone explain the difference between proportional representation and alternative voting, please?

Can't really help you there PeckhamRose except to say that this referendum has nothing to do with PR.


However, you're right to be concerned and I advise you just to vote a big fat NO (only one x required here)


Put it like this: the men's 100 metres final in the Olympics will be won by the person who runs the fastest and breaks the tape first. If AV reasoning was applied to this this is unfair because the other seven racers lost. the reason the winner won was because he was the fastest. But he may of had longer legs, more stamina, been fitter, trained harder, a bigger lunch box etc. none of this matters. apply AV and give it to the fat asthmatic kid with eczema


Could someone explain the difference between proportional representation and alternative voting, please?



PR is only really useful where you are electing more than one candidate (e.g. in Australia it is used for electing Senators to the upper house, where each state returns 10 senators). It allots a representative based on the total number of votes. In theory, a party that gets, say, 15% of the vote should get 15% of the elected candidates. Note that PR is not on offer in the upcoming referendum.


AV is useful when electing one candidate, like for the current Westminster system of electing an MP. If, say, you have 5 candidates then instead of just placing an X next to your preferred candidate (as you currently do), you number the candidates in order of preference. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated and there votes redistributed based on the voters preferences until two candidates remain - one of which will have >50% of the vote.


As I said, PR plays no part in this referendum - you are being asked to decide whether to retain the current First Past the Post method or switch to the Alternative Vote method.

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Put it like this: the men's 100 metres final in

> the Olympics will be won by the person who runs

> the fastest and breaks the tape first. If AV

> reasoning was applied to this this is unfair

> because the other seven racers lost. the reason

> the winner won was because he was the fastest. But

> he may of had longer legs, more stamina, been

> fitter, trained harder, a bigger lunch box etc.

> none of this matters. apply AV and give it to the

> fat asthmatic kid with eczema


You really don't understand voting systems, do you?

just looking at the latest pro-AV junk mail to come through my door (how many millions are being wasted on this?)


point two states under the heading 'A stronger voice' this philosophical gem:


"Ranking candidates in order gives you more say -in who comes in first and who comes in last. By ranking as many or as few candidates as you like, you can still have a say even if your favourite doesn't win"


This goes back to your ice cream example Loz where everyone was 'Forced' to have vanilla ice cream which hardly anyone wanted in the first place. Neo-fascism abounds in the AV lobby


See Loz's ice cream example above where, after three votes, more people ended up with an ice cream they didn't want (70%) than if they hadn't bothered to vote in the first place (60%).

silverfox Wrote:

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

> See Loz's ice cream example above where, after

> three votes, more people ended up with an ice

> cream they didn't want (70%) than if they hadn't

> bothered to vote in the first place (60%).


Again, you really don't understand voting systems, do you? Your 100m example actually makes more sense than this bizarre view on preferences.


But again, as before, I think you are purposefully feigning daftness. No one, but no one, can take this long to understand a relatively simple concept.

The Electoral Reform Society website gives good explanations of the various different systems and their pros and cons.


Not too surprisingly they back a yes vote, but their system of choice would be STV which manages to achieve a greater degree of proportionality whilst maintaining the link to constituencies. Rather ironically, if it wasn't for the House of Lords, we would have had STV in this country even before women had the vote.

To add my previous post - for this forthcoming vote on AV - there should be a minimum threshold. I'd prefer 50% as a minimum but would settle for 35% - 40%. Otherwise apathy wins and the British Constitution could be changed simply because the issue isn't sufficiently interesting to anyone but a few politco geeks (like me - and other posters on here).

Loz said: ".... No one, but no one, can take this long to understand a relatively simple concept."


Today's Sun says: 349-word solution to grasp AV


THE Alternative Vote system is so complicated the Electoral Commission took 349 WORDS to explain it.

By contrast, the current First Past the Post system was unravelled in 57.


The commission, overseeing the May 5 voting referendum, yesterday sent information booklets to 28 million homes.


The plain language experts it used took seven times longer to decipher AV.


Meanwhile, David Cameron attacked the system in a Swansea speech.


The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV meant "the most worthless votes go to the most worthless candidates".


He added competitors "coming second or third can end up winning", and said: "We wouldn't do it in the Olympics, we shouldn't do it in politics. We've got to vote no to this crazy system."


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3505610/Electoral-Commission-takes-349-words-to-explain-the-AV-system.html

He added competitors "coming second or third can end up winning", and said: "We wouldn't do it in the Olympics, we shouldn't do it in politics. We've got to vote no to this crazy system."


You do realise that the election of the host city for the Olympics was done via a form of AV? And that Cameron (and Milliband, for that matter) were both elected by forms of AV? In fact, Cameron himself cam second after the first round of MPs voting. Had they used FPTP then David Davis would be leader of the Tories.


The No camp talks a lot of rubbish.

One drawback of AV is that 2nd / 3rd preference votes are given the same weight as first preference votes. This surely illogical I if I place candidates 1 - 4 in that order, then clearly I value candidate 4 less than I value candidate 1.


If, without weighting, candidate 4 wins I am only partially satisfied with his / her election - say 33%.


Of we have to have a complicated system, let's have a really complicated system that weights secind preference at 50%, 3rd preference at 33% and 4th preference at 25%.


I haven't time to calculate the difference it might make - but if we're talking about fairness this feels fairer than straight AV.

Loz Wrote:

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

> The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV

> meant "the most worthless votes go to the most

> worthless candidates".

>

>

> Can anyone explain this? It doesn't actually seem

> to make any sense.


Certainly, think of your ice cream example - after wasting everybody's time shuffling votes around like a fairground conjurer hiding a marble under cups, everybody ends up with what nobody wanted in the first place.

I'm voting for AV. The reason is that it will only make a difference in constituencies where there are small/ medium sized margins of votes. So if there was say a 15,000 vote majority under FPTP then it might swing less under AV. I also think as a system it will favour the Lib Dems and Lobour more that the Tories, and I hate the Tories. So hardly an impartial reason but it's an honest reason.

silverfox Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The PM cited Winston Churchill's view that AV

> > meant "the most worthless votes go to the most

> > worthless candidates".

> >

> >

> > Can anyone explain this? It doesn't actually

> seem

> > to make any sense.

>

> Certainly, think of your ice cream example - after

> wasting everybody's time shuffling votes around

> like a fairground conjurer hiding a marble under

> cups, everybody ends up with what nobody wanted in

> the first place.


Anyone want to try and explain silverfox's explanation?


And can anyone help explain to silverfox the meaning of the word 'preferences'. He seems to think it's a binary yes/no situation, that 'The icecream I like is chocolate, vanilla and strawberry, in that order' is the same as 'I hate vanilla'.

Just got my Electoral Commission brochure through the door 'Local elections and Referendum'.


Page 4 explains the first past the post system.


Pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 explain what the Alernative Vote is and how it works.


I suppose if AV is introduced it will keep the vote counters in jobs and there'll be plenty of overtime.

Interesting statement on page 8 of the above leaflet:


"Because voters don't have to rank all of the candidates, an election can be won under the 'alternative vote' system with less than half the total votes cast."


However unlikely or rarely this event may occur, it contradicts the whole justification for introducing the AV system in the first place, ie a minimum 50% of the vote is required.


Intellectually flawed or what?

I'm in favour of a change in voting system and AV is a definite improvement.

Shame its only being proposed for parliamentary elections.


Many parts of the country have local elections on 5 May this year.

Many many 100's of local councillor seats have only one candidate standing - they've been delcared the winners without a single vote having to be cast. FPTP is the reason for this.


Under FPTP only a relatively few parliamentary seats change hands. With ever more focus on those few possibly changes without a change to voting system we'll see fewer and fewer seats being truly contested. And our democracry get ever weaker. This is partly why fewer voters are taking part and the turnouts have been declining for a number of decades.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...