Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The proposed system for the UK is you list as many preferences as you want. Thus, you don't get forced to list a second (or eighth) preference vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party. You can just put your no.1 choice.

The thing about the "complexity" is that AV is used for many university elections, the London Mayor election and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections.

The number of electors who do not have experience of it must be under 50%. "Difficulty" isn't a factor.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The thing about the "complexity" is that AV is used for many university elections, the London Mayor election and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections.

The number of electors who do not have experience of it must be under 50%. "Difficulty" isn't a factor.

Sorry KK, have to disagree here. The number of people who would have had direct exposure to AV and understand how it works is a small fraction of the voting public. Lets be honest here; this is a pretty well educated country and I would like to think that many of us would be able to grasp how it works and the underpinning framework behind AV. But equally enough, there are just as many poorly educated idiots in this country too.

It doesn't help that neither campaign has really made it particularly clear how the AV system works for the layman. Both campaigns have been mired in finger pointing and unfounded scaremongering (we shouldn't be surprised, its par for the course in UK politics)

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The thing about the "complexity" is that AV is used for many university elections, the London Mayor election and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections.

The number of electors who do not have experience of it must be under 50%. "Difficulty" isn't a factor.

Sorry KK, have to disagree here. The number of people who would have had direct exposure to AV and understand how it works is a small fraction of the voting public. Lets be honest here; this is a pretty well educated country and I would like to think that many of us would be able to grasp how it works and the underpinning framework behind AV. But equally enough, there are just as many poorly educated idiots in this country too.

It doesn't help that neither campaign has really made it particularly clear how the AV system works for the layman. Both campaigns have been mired in finger pointing and unfounded scaremongering (we shouldn't be surprised, its par for the course in UK politics)

The question is, how many of those 'poorly educated idiots' vote?

Ketara wrote:

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The thing about the "complexity" is that AV is used for many university elections, the London Mayor election and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections.

The number of electors who do not have experience of it must be under 50%. "Difficulty" isn't a factor.

Sorry KK, have to disagree here. The number of people who would have had direct exposure to AV and understand how it works is a small fraction of the voting public. Lets be honest here; this is a pretty well educated country and I would like to think that many of us would be able to grasp how it works and the underpinning framework behind AV. But equally enough, there are just as many poorly educated idiots in this country too.

It doesn't help that neither campaign has really made it particularly clear how the AV system works for the layman. Both campaigns have been mired in finger pointing and unfounded scaremongering (we shouldn't be surprised, its par for the course in UK politics)

The question is, how many of those 'poorly educated idiots' vote?

Is this the point where someone makes a thinly-veiled jibe about 18 years of Tory or 13 years of Labour??

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The thing about the "complexity" is that AV is used for many university elections, the London Mayor election and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections.

The number of electors who do not have experience of it must be under 50%. "Difficulty" isn't a factor.

Sorry KK, have to disagree here. The number of people who would have had direct exposure to AV and understand how it works is a small fraction of the voting public. Lets be honest here; this is a pretty well educated country and I would like to think that many of us would be able to grasp how it works and the underpinning framework behind AV. But equally enough, there are just as many poorly educated idiots in this country too.

It doesn't help that neither campaign has really made it particularly clear how the AV system works for the layman. Both campaigns have been mired in finger pointing and unfounded scaremongering (we shouldn't be surprised, its par for the course in UK politics)

25% of the entire UK population has run public government elections using the AV system.

Kilkrazy wrote:

25% of the entire UK population has run public government elections using the AV system.

Point conceded but that's still an awful lot of people who haven't had any exposure to it.

I voted yes today mainly because the arguments from the "No" camp have primarily been mis-informed hysteria.

I mean seriously, I've had loads of "vote no" leaflets through my door.. half a dozen of the bloody things mostly with Nick Clegg's face plastered over them with "Do not let this LIAR win!" along with loads of complete lies about how the AV system works.

It's an intelligent voting system.

The last time Labour got elected only 28% of the country actually wanted them in power. 72% didn't.

Making sure that at least half of the country is happy with the government in place is a good idea.

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

25% of the entire UK population has run public government elections using the AV system.

Point conceded but that's still an awful lot of people who haven't had any exposure to it.

That's ignoring people who have used it at university for non-government elections. We send nearly 50% of our population to university.

Not to mention that 80% of democratic countries use some form of AV or PR. It really can't be that hard for people to understand.

Anyway, I think it is irrelevant now. I voted this morning. The polling station was not busy. I think the turnout is going to be low, due to voter apathy, and the No vote will win.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Anyway, I think it is irrelevant now. I voted this morning. The polling station was not busy. I think the turnout is going to be low, due to voter apathy, and the No vote will win.

I agree but that's a point I was trying to make earlier; if we were really serious about changing the political system in this country then we should really be looking at trying to combat some of the crippling apathy and apolitical feeling that has crept into British society. If we could get voter turnout up then I think there would be less people worried about whether FPTP was the correct voting system to use. The real danger to our political system is people not voting - that's how the nutjobs and loonies get elected.

I vote No because if its good enough for Superdave, its good enough for Matty.

Curse those pinko scoundrels! Bring back flogging! etc etc etc etc

It seems that there are reports from ( at least) one area in the UK that voters are not automatically being given referendum ballots along with local election papers.

If this is widespread there will be merry hell to pay tomorrow.

Oh dear.


Still, you've gotta laugh eh ?

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Anyway, I think it is irrelevant now. I voted this morning. The polling station was not busy. I think the turnout is going to be low, due to voter apathy, and the No vote will win.

I agree but that's a point I was trying to make earlier; if we were really serious about changing the political system in this country then we should really be looking at trying to combat some of the crippling apathy and apolitical feeling that has crept into British society. If we could get voter turnout up then I think there would be less people worried about whether FPTP was the correct voting system to use. The real danger to our political system is people not voting - that's how the nutjobs and loonies get elected.

Forcing people with the threat of fines will not make them stop being apathetic. A system which makes people believe they have some effect on the results of elections will do it.

In other words the voting system needs to change in order for people's behaviour to change.

The two main parties have been bemoaning voter apathy for decades while contributing to it by the way they behave. The Liberals have been racking up about 20 to 25% of the vote each time, with the reward of under 10% of the seats.

Against, and i voted two hours ago.

If radio 4 presenters cant get the way it works what chance do the rest of us mere mortals have? Plus more terms of inneffectual coalition govenments who can't do what needs to be done, where half of the members whine cos they are in power and have to make compromises instead of bitching in minority opposition? count me out of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Anyway, I think it is irrelevant now. I voted this morning. The polling station was not busy. I think the turnout is going to be low, due to voter apathy, and the No vote will win.

I agree but that's a point I was trying to make earlier; if we were really serious about changing the political system in this country then we should really be looking at trying to combat some of the crippling apathy and apolitical feeling that has crept into British society. If we could get voter turnout up then I think there would be less people worried about whether FPTP was the correct voting system to use. The real danger to our political system is people not voting - that's how the nutjobs and loonies get elected.

The thing is its british nature! we would rather bitch and moan anout how things suck than actually get up and do anything about it, cos we are trained to be meek and non confrontational from a very early age.

That and most chavs are more interested in the next x factor/britains got talent vote than who will rule the country for the next term and affect their everyday lives. Add in the fact that there is very little difference between the two main parties atm, and its hardly surprising that people dont bother to vote!

Was so tempted for my alternative vote form to rank one 1 and one 2!

So the current system is gak but you don't want to change it.

The problem with the current system is that we bounce between two unattractive alternatives, but you don't want a system that would give a third party a chance.

The problem with AV is that thickos couldn't understand it. You wouldn't want a system that favoured intelligent people, so you want to stick with the current system that produces results you don't like.

I admire the powerful cogency of your ratiocinations.

I voted yes...
It's faired IMO and i doubt Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will get much more votes because sooo many people hate them for lying about Student Fees... mainly students.

The student fees gak is mainly why I almost considered spoiling my local election paper; labour never wins around here, it's always been Lib Dems vs Tories, but there are a lot of schools and colleges around here, and the loss of EMA and clegg's lie about student fees is going to hurt lib dem support badly, nobody I know has voted for them.

Since Lib Dems are out, and this is a labour-less constituency, it's clear that we're gunna get a tory as our local MP.

reds8n wrote: It seems that there are reports from ( at least) one area in the UK that voters are not automatically being given referendum ballots along with local election papers.

If this is widespread there will be merry hell to pay tomorrow.

I was asked if I wanted one, I assume this was standard policy across Sheffield's constituencies.

I was just given both.


It was VERY quiet in the Polling Station, by the way...

I was also just given both. It was also pretty quiet, but then I did go at like 9pm.

I went around half 7 and I was the only person there; also given both.

I would have thought it'd be busier then, post-work crowd and such...

Same, but the place was like a ghost town manned by 4 old women and a youngish bloke you could tell was dying for the polls to close so he could piss off down to the pub.

Mind you, a lot of people might've opted for the postal vote instead.

Same at my local polling station. The wife and I walked down at around half five ish and we were the only voters there.

Low turnout where I am too (Norwich).

Trying to get the greens in locally, they've headed some very good regeneration projects in the city over the last 10 years, and the place now looks incredible compared to the the miserable traffic-choked grey concrete style it had 10 years ago. 30 years of massive labour majority didn't do the place any good at all. Stuff got built back in the 70's. Then everything stopped. *everything*

Unfortunately, there wasn't any big change this time around... all the people that voted lib dem last time went back to voting for labour. Too many public sector workers in this place, most of which hold the opinion of "vote labour because the tories will make you redundant".

All this backlash to the cuts is really annoying.. as usual the masses start caring only when cuts actually start happening, and not when they should have done 3 years ago back when Labour was giving the banks hundreds of billions of free cash that it didn't have.

The results are pretty huge for Labour nationally, considering they got a 2% lead over the cons. I don't think the coalition is going to be around for more than a single government. Just enough time to let the smart nerds in to put a bit of sticky tape over the economy so we can all get back to cramming ourselves with credit cards and 100% mortgages (on houses that rise in price at least 10% each year, with no exceptions) . It's the British way.

This election is also a massive triumph for the Tories. Not in terms of actually gaining seats, but in terms of it showing how politically skilled they are. They have managed to get almost all of the public backlash against the cuts funneled straight into the Lib Dems rather than themselves by playing their cards very carefully. They've been eyeing up the Lib Dems as a whipping boy ever since the idea of a coalition was first suggested.

Kilkrazy wrote:So the current system is gak but you don't want to change it.

The problem with the current system is that we bounce between two unattractive alternatives, but you don't want a system that would give a third party a chance.

The problem with AV is that thickos couldn't understand it. You wouldn't want a system that favoured intelligent people, so you want to stick with the current system that produces results you don't like.

I admire the powerful cogency of your ratiocinations.

Lol! Actually radio 4 is probably the highbrow end of radio in the uk, and they are certainly not thickos, and the presenter wednesday morning when interviewing the primeminister couldnt explain the way it worked correctly. Hells the two different camps voting for it explained it differently. Now im not thick (at least i hope not!) but having read up on it i found it needlessly confusing and complicated. I dont particularly like first past the post, but it does most of the time provide a clear winner of elections, AV might well do the same, but i really dont think its better than FPP.

Also something else to bear in mind is this isn't even the voting system the liberal democrats wanted, so why should we vote on the system that none of the parties wants? Partly because i think the lib dems realised PR would be even more unpopular than av, partly because we are in a coalition, where such dilution of aims can often end in nothing really being achieved.

And no, im not in favour of a system favouring the more intelligent over the less intelligent, that is discrimination, and so-called benevolent dictatorships, or rule by such and such class over others seldom ends well. Just because someone else is smarter than i am, it doesn't make their voice anymore valid, im a citizen, pay my taxes and id like to think do everything in my power to be a good person. just because someone has a higher IQ than me, doesnt make their voice more valid. You might as well discriminate on race, or skin colour or birthplace.

Kilkrazy wrote:So the current system is gak but you don't want to change it.

The problem with the current system is that we bounce between two unattractive alternatives, but you don't want a system that would give a third party a chance.

The problem with AV is that thickos couldn't understand it. You wouldn't want a system that favoured intelligent people, so you want to stick with the current system that produces results you don't like.

I admire the powerful cogency of your ratiocinations.

Just out of curiosity, how is AV necessarily better than FPTP? There are advantages to both, but I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:So the current system is gak but you don't want to change it.

The problem with the current system is that we bounce between two unattractive alternatives, but you don't want a system that would give a third party a chance.

The problem with AV is that thickos couldn't understand it. You wouldn't want a system that favoured intelligent people, so you want to stick with the current system that produces results you don't like.

I admire the powerful cogency of your ratiocinations.

Just out of curiosity, how is AV necessarily better than FPTP? There are advantages to both, but I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other.

Personally speaking, I don't think it is necessarily better. As you say, every voting system has its pros and cons. I think they key point to note is the voting system is only as good as the political system that it exists in and the culture of the country in which it operates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the Yes vote lost. Interesting article in the Guardian about the whys and wherefores:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/06/reasons-av-referendum-lost

I find it amusing that 2 of the 10 areas who gave a yes result were Oxford and Cambridge. Never under estimate the student vote.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:So the current system is gak but you don't want to change it.

The problem with the current system is that we bounce between two unattractive alternatives, but you don't want a system that would give a third party a chance.

The problem with AV is that thickos couldn't understand it. You wouldn't want a system that favoured intelligent people, so you want to stick with the current system that produces results you don't like.

I admire the powerful cogency of your ratiocinations.

Just out of curiosity, how is AV necessarily better than FPTP? There are advantages to both, but I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other.

The problem with the current system is that it can produce "elected dictatorships" when the vote split is like 37 / 32 / 23 / others, and the 23 and others get so few seats that they can't form an effective opposition with the 32.

Britain had a series of very strong governments during the past 30 who used their power to make some unstoppable mistakes.

That said, AV often produces results similar to FPTP, which neither the Yes nor the No sides made much mention of.

I don't see AV as a particularly good system, though, I see it as a stepping stone to some form of Proportional Representation.

I don't think there is any perfect voting system. The US system which uses FPTP, disperses power by holding lots of staggered elections, of course.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:So the current system is gak but you don't want to change it.

The problem with the current system is that we bounce between two unattractive alternatives, but you don't want a system that would give a third party a chance.

The problem with AV is that thickos couldn't understand it. You wouldn't want a system that favoured intelligent people, so you want to stick with the current system that produces results you don't like.

I admire the powerful cogency of your ratiocinations.

Just out of curiosity, how is AV necessarily better than FPTP? There are advantages to both, but I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other.

The problem with the current system is that it can produce "elected dictatorships" when the vote split is like 37 / 32 / 23 / others, and the 23 and others get so few seats that they can't form an effective opposition with the 32.

Britain had a series of very strong governments during the past 30 who used their power to make some unstoppable mistakes.

That said, AV often produces results similar to FPTP, which neither the Yes nor the No sides made much mention of.

I don't see AV as a particularly good system, though, I see it as a stepping stone to some form of Proportional Representation.

I don't think there is any perfect voting system. The US system which uses FPTP, disperses power by holding lots of staggered elections, of course.

There is an argument to suggest that the UK would suit PR or similar if we were a little more Federal in the manner of Germany or something. It has to be said the British people are pretty distrustful of coalition government, I guess dating back to the National Governments. Maybe the current coalition might persuade people that government by consensus is a better option? Who knows. I'm afraid with the Yes vote being defeated, the topic will probably be shelved for some time now.