AV Referendum

[Azog 150]

So the first results have come in for the AV referendum.

The results from two of the 440 Referendum Districts have been announced, and both have voted 'No'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...sults-district

Things aren't looking good for the 'Yes' campaign, as recent polls have shown, and the Lib Dems have already as good as admitted defeat. As a strong supporter of voting reform this is devastating news to me, as I know any chance of further reform will be gone for a good few decades at least. I feel a 'No' victory also spells the end of any hopes of getting PR.

But there is still a chance (However slim) that the 'Yes' vote could still win. We will find out by 20:00.

As for the campaign itself, the whole thing has been a joke full of stupid mudslinging by both sides with the actual issue having been dodged for the most part. A massive shame.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Not british but curious what is this about? What changes if you get a Yes Vote?

[Menelik_I]

Not british but curious what is this about? What changes if you get a Yes Vote?

Free candies

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seriously it is some sort of instant runners up election system

[MathiasOfAthens]

Still not sure what you mean?

[Menelik_I]

Still not sure what you mean?

For example in countries with Presidential elections, lets pick France (parcqu'il on l'odeur de Fromage ), if you have 5 candidates for president, the winner must have more than 50% of the vote to win.

So there is a first round and the two winners have a second election between the two of them.

The AV is somewhat similar, you vote in a piece of paper your preferred candidates in order and if your first choice is the last candidate your vote is transferred to the second option, then to the third option, and it continues until only two candidates are left and the one with high numbers win.

It is like if the runners up election is held instantaneously.

[Sir Pignans]

I thought it was AV + 1? So you could only transfer your vote once.

[Menelik_I]

I thought it was AV + 1? So you could only transfer your vote once.

Lots of paper work ... why not just runners up.

Oh and I am sure you meant parce qu'il on l'odeur de Fromage otherwise you said Park smells like cheese, instead of because it smells like cheese.

Bien sur, sa fait longtemp que j'ai etudier em Fransais

Long time since i wrote in French.

Problem is that the Brits don't do runners up ... I don't know why.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Lots of paper work ... why not just runners up.



Bien sur, sa fait longtemp que j'ai etudier em Fransais

Long time since i wrote in French.

Problem is that the Brits don't do runners up ... I don't know why.

Brits like to do things hard, dont know why. Prob where the Americans got their "lets do things the hardest way" motto.

Oh and I dont write in french often either... but I can read it easily. Same with you apparently.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Ohhh... ok seems like a lot of paper work but better system prob saves money on running a follow up election.

Oh and I am sure you meant parce qu'il on l'odeur de Fromage otherwise you said Park smells like cheese, instead of because it smells like cheese.

[Azog 150]

Its not AV+1. The vote in transferred as many times as needed to declare a winner.


14 district results have now been declared. All voted 'No'

[Sir Pignans]

Its not AV+1. The vote in transferred as many times as needed to declare a winner.


14 district results have now been declared. All voted 'No'

Are you sure that's all we're doing? I could've sworn they only had two rounds, which surely means, only two votes.

[Musthavename]

Are you sure that's all we're doing? I could've sworn they only had two rounds, which surely means, only two votes.

They'll keep eliminating the lowest candidate until someone gets 50%. That means theoretically someone could have N-1 effective votes if there was N candidates standing.

Voting 'No' to punish Clegg is downright stupid

Why? This isn't a proposal anyone wants. Infact the only reason i'd ever vote Yes is in the hope it leads to PR. It barely benefits anyone except the Lib Dems. Voters who really are angry at the Lib Dems are supposed to just ignore the whole reason they went into coalition?

[CamilleBonparte]

They'll keep eliminating the lowest candidate until someone gets 50%.

Sounds like a reality TV series to me.

I'd watch that show.

[Azog 150]

Are you sure that's all we're doing? I could've sworn they only had two rounds, which surely means, only two votes.

Votes are counted until a winner is declared with over 50%, whether that means going to the 2nd preference votes or the 6th preference votes.

Why? This isn't a proposal anyone wants. It barely benefits anyone except the Lib Dems. Voters who really are angry at the Lib Dems are supposed to just ignore the whole reason they went into coalition?

In what way does it 'benefit' the Lib Dems?

[Juvenal]

It seemed like a good idea to me:

• It make things fairer by preventing split-vote victories that feature in First-past-the-post.
• It retains constituencies (so you still have an MP).
• It doesn't introduce party lists (where parties can create MPs out of spare votes).

Both Yes and No campaigns exaggerated the potential impact enormously, though I must say the No campaign was particularly apocalyptic.

I can't see how AV would help the BNP... you really need to be one of the top two in first preference votes to have any chance of victory.

I also don't see the need for voting machines. Many seats would be won on the first count, most others after a couple of thousand losing votes are redistributed.

AV doesn't guarantee coalitions. It simply better reflects people's preferences. Why would we want a voting system that manufactures a majority where one doesn't exist in reality? It just encourages secret internal coalitions within the ruling party, rather than public ones between parties that we can all see.

Still, it would appear I am in a minority. Such is life.

[Knight_Of_Ne]

I think there are two major reasons why the AV vote is failing, the first is the fact that the 'yes' campaign really failed at explaining how AV works. I don't know a single person who can tell me how AV actually works, its not that hard to explain and yet the 'yes' campaign seems to have completely failed to explain this. And the other major issue is the fact that AV is not proportional representation, everyone i know would like the idea of having some form of proportional representation but don't think AV is close enough to 'PR' to make the any change in the voting system worth it.

On a plus side, the Lib Dems really have had a bad day

Ne

[Sir Pignans]

What do you mean, just do runnes up?

We only get one MP per constituency.

[Menelik_I]

What do you mean, just do runnes up?

We only get one MP per constituency.

Runners up means that the vote is 51% percent is minimum to win, so if you have 5 candidates, the two with the highest % go for a second round and the winners gets the seat.

[Musthavename]

I voted No yesterday.

As much as i'd like to see Proportional Representation some day, i'm not prepared to risk getting stuck with this system in hope of seeing it. To my mind this system is pretty unfair, even more-so than what we've got. The only reason we're being asked to vote on it is because it was the only concession the Libs could get.

Since the Libs decided to betray their promise on tuition fees, I also don't see why I should vote for a system that really only benefits them. Though if the Lib Dems hadn't broken that promise i'd still have voted No; but that hasn't stopped a lot of people voting No simply as anti-Clegg.

[Azog 150]

Since the Libs decided to betray their promise on tuition fees, I also don't see why I should vote for a system that really only benefits them. Though if the Lib Dems hadn't broken that promise i'd still have voted No; but that hasn't stopped a lot of people voting No simply as anti-Clegg.

And this is what really infuriates me. This is the sort of debate that should transcend party loyalties, and yet both campaigns resorted to pathetic mud slinging.

Voting 'No' to punish Clegg is downright stupid