AV Referendum

[Cthippo]

That's only true for the presidential elections though. All other elections are direct vote, however typically you only have two choices, republican or democrat.

Also, many states now have laws requiring their electoral college members to vote in the same way the populace of the state voted.

Instant Run-off Voting has started to crop up in some areas at the local and state levels. Here in Washington we've gone to 100% vote by mail which means not everyone has to cram in on election day and that there is always a paper record of how people voted. It's not perfect, but it's getting better.

[adidan]

Originally Posted by Mankz

People didn't spend hundreds of years to get the right of one man one vote simply to have it swapped one day.

Well, there's your flaw right there. We don't have a 'one man, one vote' system when some people's votes are worth more than others, effectively.

The thing is we already have forms of AV, be it for Mayoral elections or elections within parties (including those against AV) for charimen and party leaders.

Ever wonder why when we go around handing out 'democracy' to other countries it's always a PR based system and not a 'first past the post' system?

[Krog_Mod]

Originally Posted by RichCreedy

how does your voting system in the states work, out of interest

Democratic Republic - we vote for representatives to vote for our best interests. It's working great...

[MiNiMaL_FuSS]

I'm for Av.

But it dosn't change the fact that people shouldn't vote for a party at all. You should vote for your local candidate based upon their veiws/opinions/and what they'll actually do for you.

Your local MP will make alot more difference to your day to day life than any particular party, they will be responsible for pursuing the change you want/need in your local area. So find the person suggesting the changes you agree with and if there's more than one pick the most competent to argure your points for you.

Not this gimmicky slogan rubbish and knee-jerk reacations that gave us the current goverment.

[Mankz]

Originally Posted by adidan

Well, there's your flaw right there. We don't have a 'one man, one vote' system when some people's votes are worth more than others, effectively.

Last time I check im pretty sure we did. Every person apart from those who are incarcerated, mentally ill or in the Lords and are of legal age and registered get one vote for a candidate for their chosen party in their constituency.

[VipersGratitude]

Originally Posted by Mankz

Last time I check im pretty sure we did. Every person apart from those who are incarcerated, mentally ill or in the Lords and are of legal age and registered get one vote for a candidate for their chosen party in their constituency.

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

[<A88>]

I've been wanting to get round to replying to some of the responses for a while but have only just got a day off from lectures to actually think about it...

Originally Posted by Mankz

People didn't spend hundreds of years to get the right of one man one vote simply to have it swapped one day. This is one of the few issues I won't be persuaded on.

People spent hundreds of years just fighting to get the vote. Voting reform is hardly going to be high on the agenda or even realised as necessary in times when a whole gender is excluded from having their say in the first place.

People campaigned for everyone's right to participate in the same method of democracy regardless of their status and that will never change, but constitutions have progressed and we're left dragging our feet whilst our modern democractic contemporaries are using much fairer systems; Japan is using proportional representation, Germany uses the additional member system but those campaigning against AV think anything other than FPTP will destroy not only our stable, representative governments but defy the concept of democracy? Please...

Originally Posted by Er-El

I haven't looked into both electoral systems that closely, but Alternative Vote just doesn't strike me as a more 'fair' system and a way to make all votes count. I will vote No.

If you're going to be making the effort to vote then I'd encourage you to make the effort to look into both the system closely; under AV the last election would have been more proportional. Instead of allowing candidates to win with under 30% of the vote, it ensures they must have the support of 50% of their constituency, which legitimises their victory more with the electorate.

Originally Posted by freshsandwiches

Don't be fooled by Ed Miliband jumping on the AV band wagon. Thats the system that put him where he is.

No, the 'discrepancies' in the split of the share between unions, the PLP and party members put Miliband in power. The fact that the unions chose him unanimously whilst he came narrowly second with the other two factions led to the result we have, not AV.


For those who'd prefer a more radical form to PR, I'd urge you to vote in favour of AV as a victory for FPTP would give its proponents an excuse to ignore the concept of electoral reform for as long as possible. If, however, the country shows that it is willing to switch to a fairer system then the cause for further electoral reform in the future will have a firm basis on which to do so.

[Krazeh]

Originally Posted by adidan

Well, there's your flaw right there. We don't have a 'one man, one vote' system when some people's votes are worth more than others, effectively.

Doesn't the same kind of thing happen under AV tho? You're going to end up with people who's vote only counted once and people who's vote counted 2 or more times, depending on the number of candidates standing in your area. I don't see that the fact you live in an area where the majority of people support someone other than you means that your vote is worth less. Or do we only consider a vote to be worth something if it means it creates a change?

Originally Posted by <A88>

For those who'd prefer a more radical form to PR, I'd urge you to vote in favour of AV as a victory for FPTP would give its proponents an excuse to ignore the concept of electoral reform for as long as possible. If, however, the country shows that it is willing to switch to a fairer system then the cause for further electoral reform in the future will have a firm basis on which to do so.

I really wish I could believe that to be true but I just don't see it happening. If the vote for AV succeeds then I can just see us being stuck with AV which is no better a system than FPTP. Given the time and money that will be necessary to implement AV in the first place and the need to actually use it in real elections do you honestly believe it will just be the first step in a series of reforms?

[Ending Credits]

Originally Posted by Krazeh

Doesn't the same kind of thing happen under AV tho? You're going to end up with people who's vote only counted once and people who's vote counted 2 or more times, depending on the number of candidates standing in your area. I don't see that the fact you live in an area where the majority of people support someone other than you means that your vote is worth less. Or do we only consider a vote to be worth something if it means it creates a change?

Under FPTP you can either vote for your MP or against your MP, beyond that your vote doesn't really matter. AV doesn't really fix this but it's a step in the right direction and it ensures that whoever gets elected at least has the true majority of the constituency and elections can't be won on a 40% basis (depending on your definitions but the fact is that 51% of the populace have to vote for a party for it to be elected).

Honestly I agree with most people that the benefit AV brings is minimal but it'd be a shame to waste the opportunity to show that we disagree with the current voting system. AV might be 1% better than FPTP, Proportional Representation is about 20% better.

Edit: After reading http://www.no2av.org/ my views have slightly shifted on the issue (despite the lack of good explanations on the site about why what it claims is true is true) however I would still argue that AV would increase the voting power of the populace.

EDIT: Whatever happens I would urge everyone who believes that PR is a better system to petition for it.

[<A88>]

No2AV have been using dodgy campaigning tactics pretty regularly over the last few weeks. Despite the fact that the budget for the next election is a set amount regardless of the result and thus shifting to AV would cost no more than staying with FPTP, they were claiming that AV would cost us £250m and using pretty disgraceful banners like the one below to appeal on shock value.

[sp4nky]

Originally Posted by Mankz

Last time I check im pretty sure we did. Every person apart from those who are incarcerated, mentally ill or in the Lords and are of legal age and registered get one vote for a candidate for their chosen party in their constituency.

The Lords can vote - that change came in 2006.

[JohnSheridan]

I'm for AV.

The current "first past the post" is in no way democratic - all it does is create "safe seats" where a vast number of people feel there is no point in them voting as it won't make a difference.

Anything to encourage more people that their vote means something must be better.

[adidan]

Originally Posted by Krazeh

I don't see that the fact you live in an area where the majority of people support someone other than you means that your vote is worth less.

If more people want to vote somebody in other than the person you want that'll be democracy.

Seriously, it's not perfect. You can still just vote for one person if you like. Peoples votes won't be worth more than yours, it's just that they'll still count and yours won't if yours is knocked out in the first round.

50%+ is an automatic win anyway, as it should be.

[Er-El]

One thing that I find ironic is how we're all bickering on about what's a fairer and more democratic voting system, but then some, quietly ignore the fact that we haven't had a referendum on the EU membership: an institution which is a bigger threat to democracy.

[specofdust]

Originally Posted by Er-El

One thing that I find ironic is how we're all bickering on about what's a fairer and more democratic voting system, but then some, quietly ignore the fact that we haven't had a referendum on the EU membership: an institution which is a bigger threat to democracy.

Our democratically elected leaders have chosen to partake in EU membership, which is democratic. As to the EU being a threat to democracy, I think you'll need to justify that beyond EU elections and democratically elected MP's choosing EU leaders. How this is undemocratic escapes me entirely if I ignore the typical uneducated stance on the lack of direct election.

[GAVI]

Flip a coin.

If a decision is going to be made it's only fair to put it to a vote which gives rise to the problem of how the voting should be done: first past the post or AV.

Solution: Flip a coin

[Er-El]

Originally Posted by specofdust

Our democratically elected leaders have chosen to partake in EU membership, which is democratic. As to the EU being a threat to democracy, I think you'll need to justify that beyond EU elections and democratically elected MP's choosing EU leaders. How this is undemocratic escapes me entirely if I ignore the typical uneducated stance on the lack of direct election.

And was it in their manifesto to join it?
Also, what is the point in UK MPs making pledges anymore if they're powerless to do anything about some of them (especially when they don't mention the fact). We're essentially voting for phony politicians.

[specofdust]

Originally Posted by Er-El

And was it in their manifesto to join it?
Also, what is the point in UK MPs making pledges anymore if they're powerless to do anything about some of them (especially when they don't mention the fact). We're essentially voting for phony politicians.

That's a specious extrapolation. We joined the EU in 1993, if you want to get angry get angry at John Major. UK MP's have, over the years, voted to vest certain specific powers in EU institutions in order to gradually close the gaps between EU countries. The UK can still vote to leave this organisation (although it'd be suicidal to do so).

As for UK MP's being powerless to do anything, unless you have massive desires for unequal pay between men and women or routine torture of prisoners then I don't think there's a massive problem.

We're not voting for "phony" politicians, that's just rubbish and you know it or you shouldn't be writing in this thread. We vote for politicians who have, over the years, chosen to unify aspects of our legal, economic, and political systems with other countries in Europe. Just as over the years they've chosen to devolve power in Scotland, NI, and Wales, and try to do so in England. Referendums are not an essential part of the political process, and in the above cases although referendums were held the MP's can still say Yay or Nay, that's what they're supposed to do, they're our representatives.

edit: Just to add to the small heap, god I hate No2AV, spewing utterly retarded stuff like "one man one vote". They better not screw up our one chance for vote reform...

[Krazeh]

Originally Posted by specofdust

edit: Just to add to the small heap, god I hate No2AV, spewing utterly retarded stuff like "one man one vote". They better not screw up our one chance for vote reform...

Maybe it's just me but I don't find the idea of scrapping our current system to replace it with a system that really isn't any better to be something worthy of being called reform.

[Er-El]

Originally Posted by specofdust

That's a specious extrapolation. We joined the EU in 1993, if you want to get angry get angry at John Major. UK MP's have, over the years, voted to vest certain specific powers in EU institutions in order to gradually close the gaps between EU countries. The UK can still vote to leave this organisation (although it'd be suicidal to do so).

As for UK MP's being powerless to do anything, unless you have massive desires for unequal pay between men and women or routine torture of prisoners then I don't think there's a massive problem.

We're not voting for "phony" politicians, that's just rubbish and you know it or you shouldn't be writing in this thread. We vote for politicians who have, over the years, chosen to unify aspects of our legal, economic, and political systems with other countries in Europe. Just as over the years they've chosen to devolve power in Scotland, NI, and Wales, and try to do so in England. Referendums are not an essential part of the political process, and in the above cases although referendums were held the MP's can still say Yay or Nay, that's what they're supposed to do, they're our representatives.

edit: Just to add to the small heap, god I hate No2AV, spewing utterly retarded stuff like "one man one vote". They better not screw up our one chance for vote reform...

You can bet I'm angry at John Major as well as recently Westminster MPs voting against a referendum (because of course they know what's best and the people don't). Something like this should be left to a referendum but the self-serving political class know what the result would be so why bother right? This is just so reflective of the whole project. In Westminster and the devolved UK parliaments/assemblies the MPs and a cabinet that we the people elected propose laws, whereas in the EU it's the council and commission that we didn't vote for who propose laws and the MEPs vote for them (the complete opposite of how most people agree a parliamentary system should work).
We have a 2-tiered political system with the EU and UK, but at least with the UK you know where those powers are devolved to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and hopefully soon to England. I also support a referendum for the UK union too.

And how exactly would it be suicidal to leave the EU? If anything it stifles economic growth with the amount of ridiculous regulations that are imposed.
We can still have free trade agreements (with the free movement of people and goods) with EU countries by joining the EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) which is far better. It works for Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland just fine. We could still have laws for equal pay between men and women, net neutrality, and banning prisoner torture, etc.

The aim of the project is unify the whole region with a one-size-fits-all policy. Europe is an incredibly diverse continent with lots of different languages, and rich in unique cultures, and it's a real travesty to have a few people in a room, to have any conflict with that through coercive measures. But, it's not even for nationalistic reasons why the EU is so flawed.