I’ll be voting against. Alternative Voting is too complex and doesn’t give good results. I’d vote for Approval Voting, though.
Yes, that’s the theory. But in reality people don’t.. they vote for a party, and more often than not they vote for that party’s leader.
Individual candidates from the larger parties do not issue individual manifestos, and they would not be in a position to enact them anyway. So the voting is done against party politics.
This is why there’s such a thing as a “safe” Labour or Tory seat. If people genuinely voted for the individual MP there would be a lot less “parachuting” of candidates into certain areas… someone like Luciana Berger, a 28 y/old posh Londoner who now represents inner-city Liverpool with a majority of 7000+. You cannot seriously suggest that she was elected for her personal qalities rather than the party she represented?
It’s also naive to suggest that in UK politics party identity is not inextricably bound up with the personality of the leader. How many average voters could identify more than 2-3 of the current cabinet, or shadow cabinet? But they can all identify Cameron, Clegg and (possibly!) Miliband.
A lot of people rejected the Labour party at the last election specifically because they did not want Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister. Likewise, a lot of people voted for Labour in 1997 specifically because they wanted Tony Blair to be PM.
My sentiments exactly. I am slightly concerned though that people will use this referendum as an opportunity to punish the Lib Dems and we will therefore be stuck with FPTP for another 4 or 5 years at least.
I live in a safe conservative seat, frankly I can’t stand my MP but no vote I ever cast under FPTP will unseat him. With AV there is a chance my vote won’t be wasted.
Personally I’d rather have STV over AV or FPTP but I’ll take AV as the least worst option on the table.
Having just looked up STV I think I agree.
No thanks. Where both AlV and STV fail for me is the issue of complexity. Consider getting stuck behind someone who can’t decide whether they prefer Bloggs to Higgins. Now multiply that up for when there’s a high turnout with a set closing time.
Both FPTP and ApV work on a simple like/dislike basis which is much simpler. Most people use Approval Voting frequently without realising it: “Shall we order an Indian, Thai, Chinese, or pizza?”
Yes, in a parliamentary system, where the MPs choose the PM, the way the voters can influence who the PM is, is to vote for the candidate from the appropriate party. So it makes sense to day that “44% voted for Blair in 1997”, because 44% voted for Labour candidates, and most of them voted that way because they wanted Blair as PM, not because of the qualities of the local Labour candidates.
So a system where 44% of the voters get to elect 63% of the MPs, and the 47% of the voters who went for Tory or Lib-Dem candidates only got 32% of the MPs (as happened in 1997), is clearly unfair in some way. It’s partly because of single-member constituencies, and partly because of the first-past-the-post system.
My first choice would be for PR, but if you can’t get that, then an alternative-vote system is better than FPTP.
You’re assuming a bit here. In a three-party system, yes, AV gives the “middle party” disproportionate influence. However, it also encourages the rise of additional parties. So while the Lib Dems would benefit in the short term from AV, it might ultimately make them simply one of many “third parties”.
Personally, I’d like to see a voting system which isn’t based on party affiliation at all.
Neither the present system, nor the alternative vote system as proposed, is based on party affiliation: you are just voting for individual candidates, who need not belong to a party at all. Party affiliation is only important because it’s the most important reason for people voting for particular candidates.
What you are really saying is that you want people to vote for the best local candidate, and not for the best party to form a government in Westminster. The problem is that, for most people, the major issue is which party is in government. Unless you have some other way of choosing the executive government (like the United States system, where the choice of President is independent of who has a majority in Congress), you aren’t going to change that.
I thought one of the elements of the proposed AV system was one candidate per major party.
That would be odd if true. In fact, an AV system allows a party to nominate two candidates for a single-member seat without the danger of splitting the vote. That’s happened a few times in Australia in widely spread electorates, where there was no sitting member and the local party was divided between candidates – though it doesn’t happen very often, because voters typically view internal party division as a sign of weakness. More often, there will be candidates from each of the partners in the Liberal-National coalition, where the coalition doesn’t have a sitting member. So, in the U.K. situation, having a Tory/Lib-Dem coalition government should not stop both parties in the coalition having a candidate in a Labour-held constituency. Is there any cite for this limitation on candidates in the proposed UK system?
I’m going to vote YES.
I’m not convinced I would like AV but if I vote no then I’ll probably not be asked again in my lifetime and FPTP is manifestly inappropriate to anything other than a two-party system.
What it should not be used for is as a snap judgement on the popularity of the current Government.
It looks like I’ve lost my vote. I applied for a postal vote but didn’t do it correctly. If I were to get to the voting station, I would vote against AV. It’s even worse than FPTP. Give me simple Approval Voting.
I agree, ideally I would like some form of PR that maintained a constituency link but we are unlikely to be given any opportunity to change the voting system again in our lifetimes so I will vote for AV.
I think AV is a far better system than FPTP but we have AV here and it has to be said that a large number of people simply don’t understand it, and throw the benefit away.
I suppose it is better to have a system that you can use well if you know how to do so than a system that is very simple but flawed, but it is frustrating.
This. On the Today programme yesterday, David Cameron got quite upset that John Humphries appeared not to understand AV. Today, on the same programme, the Milliband man said that, actually, it was David Cameron that didn’t understand it. If the party leaders and one of our major political commentators can’t agree on who understands it correctly, there’s not much hope for us plebs.
I got no vote in that ballot, but that is simply not correct.
Clear working majorities and landslides are just as possible under AV as FPTP.
In the last 50 years Australia, with AV, or STV has had the same number of minority governments as the UK, i.e. one. Our last minority government was 1940-43.
PR, by improving the likelihood of minor parties to gain parliamentary representation, means coalition goverments are more often on the radar, but aren’t necessarily going to happen, nor necessarily be a bad thing if they do.
I would like to see a more proportional system, although I don’t think FPTP is as bad as people make out - you still get coalition governments, it’s just that the coalition is usually contained within one “broad church” party. Labour is a coalition of the left, the Tories a coalition of the right. Both have elements who alarm me, but they’re reined in by the other wings of the parties. Under PR, presumably there would be some fragmentation. You’d still have a party called the Conservatives, for example, but it would probably comprise was is now merely one wing of the party.
Nevertheless, I do think PR would be fairer. Really not sure how I should vote. I prefer FPTP to AV, but take the point that a No vote might kick the whole question into the long grass. I’m leaning towards No - voting on the question that I am actually asked. Plus, I’ll be on the winning side!
Well, having read some of the material at the “No to AV, Yes to PR” campaign site, I am persuaded that the argument that AV could be a stepping stone to PR is specious. It could even make future PR less likely. So I’m definitely going to vote No.
Which is the main reason why I voted no. Telling the electorate to vote yes primarily in order to keep one party out or reduce its power because they don’t agree with its electoral stances is just as bad, if I want AV, it should equally hurt all the parties.