People fought for many years to ensure "one man, one vote". Then in 1918 women were allowed finally to vote, though on much stricter terms than men. Only 10 years later were women allowed to vote on the same terms. Even with AV, it will remain one person, one vote. It will be a matter of ranking candidates in order of preference but every person will have the same voting rights. Extremist parties, such as the BNP, will be even less likely to win seats. The only way they can win in a constituency is for large numbers voters of the three main parties (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem) to rank the BNP as second preference. That's never going to happen so I wouldn't worry about it. Finally, "first past the post"? There is no post. The winner for each seat only has to get more votes than the other candidates. It doesn't matter whether they have 26% or 98% of the vote, if they have more votes than any other party, they win. How can it be right for a candidate that has 26% of votes cast to win a seat?? That's how BNP can win, not with AV.
I really don't like AV as a voting system as it's hardly any different to FPTP and gives similar results. I'd prefer the single transferrable vote with list seats that we have in Scotland. I'll still vote for AV but only to show that i want reform to the voting system. I fear a no vote would kill off any hope of reform.
Whichever system we adopt, in the end what difference will it make anyway? Democracy is just a farce. It will always mean that 51% of the people have a right to dictate what's best for the other 49% of the people as well as themselves; even with issues that invade personal choice and don't concern them. It's a necessity that we have to put up with. Just saying... The only change we need is one that rectifies the fact that not all votes count equally. I don't see how AV will do that.
With the most votes, but not the most support. If you live in London you already use this system for electing the expensive waste of space known as a Mayor.
thats the point though, if you have more votes than any other candidate, then you have the majority support, all parties have the same chance at getting the votes they need. if they aren't getting the votes, they haven't sold themselves or their policies well enough. i think the last election proved there is no such thing as a safe seat.
But when you have more people voting against you than for you, you shouldn't be declared "winner" of anything.
alternative vote would only benefit the three big parties, then we would have as we do know coalition government, with infighting about what policies should be applied. and it would mainly be the libdems overall winners because they would just sign up with anyone to get power.
Don't be fooled by Ed Miliband jumping on the AV band wagon. Thats the system that put him where he is.
I've voted Lib Dem every election as they tend to most represent my views (didn't know they were conservatives in disguise). I live in a strongly conservative area (same MP for 32+ years) which will likely never change unless the demographics of the area changes, which isn't likely. Tends to be a lot of White middle upperclass elderly people living around here. As such my vote is worthless, unless we get reform. I personally will be voting yes, we do need change and a more representative parliament. AV isn't perfect but it's better than FPTP. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
First Past The Post. Basically says that the option with the most votes wins, irrespective of what percentile voted for that particular option.
I will be voting for, although I prefer the sytem we have here in scotland ( a mix of first past the post and proportional representation). The best would be a full proportional representation system. That iis that a party gets a percentage of seats based on their percentage of votes. But then democracy always has the downside that it is basically people voting for candidates they don't know, to do jobs they know nothing about.
This is a really interesting system. It's more like a system that tries to pick the best candidate for the job. I wish you all luck as I'm from the U.S. I'll also refrain from voting in this poll cause my opinion doesn't matter too much here lol. Either way, good luck to you all in this.
Terribly Electoral colleges and a strong two party duopoly doesn't really give a representative result. And the rich business lobbyists are incredibly powerful due to the expense of it all. The US does a lot well, democracy isn't one of them, ironically. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We have indirect elections. Basically, we all go out and cast our votes for President. Each state tallies its votes, and the state's electors in turn cast their votes for the majority winner in their respective states. In theory this was done to make the elections more representative, and to allow rural areas to have as much importance as large cities. On the other hand, it's made it entirely possible to win an election without winning the popular vote. In fact, it is possible to win the Presidential election with only 11 states.
