AV..... Yes or No
- Thread starter Fronty
- Start date
diver
Well-Known Member
Depends what other system you are running.
I went fully AV about 2004 but I am thinking of upgrading my kit to full HDMI. I run a smaller system in the conservatory, Denon Amp and Wharfedale Diamond speakers.
Ikoda
Well-Known Member
I'm confused...
Was fronty not talking about the alternative vote?
I think it could be a good idea, but may lead to more hung parliaments...
diver
Well-Known Member
basically, the people opposed to changing the voting system is the old cartel of tory and labour mps who have carved up parliament between them over the last 100 years, a very cosy situation for them which means that vast numbers of voters are effectively disenfranchised in safe seats eg the small towns, countryside & suburbs being owned by the tories and the inner cities, the north, wales & scotland effective labour fiefdoms. The AV system is actually the mildest form of PR on offer and doesn't go nearly far enough and is hardly likely to change the landscape that much so the fierce opposition to even this modest constitutional change shows how far we still are from a modern system that actually reflects the people of the country. Both main parties have reached office on barely 30-40% of the national vote for years which means 60-70% of people currently have ZERO voice in government. It's a scandal and sadly, most people are too thick to realise that they are just cannon fodder, pawns, occasionally noticed every 5 years. It is vital we embrace any modernisation, no matter how piecemeal it is. + if you're green, independent, libertarian, somebody who thinks outside the old left-right compass (eg like me) then this could be the only chance you get for some kind of represention. Otherwise, it is business as usual and more of the same old vested interests & corrupt politics. You willl hear loads of scare stories about government paralysis, how we would have elections every 3 months, how we'd become Italy etc. It's bull - the snp minority govt didn't collapse and the tory-lib deal for all its faults has produced functioning govt. Vote YES, because you'll probably never get another chance
Hey guys, sorry to keep things political but i just find peoples views etc very interesting.
I found these reasons of why we should say No to AV and am very keen to find out the arguments against this.
1. AV IS OBSCURE: Only three countries in the world use AV for their national elections: Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea.
2. AV IS UNFAIR: Supporters of fringe parties can end up having their vote counted five or six times – and potentially decide the outcome of the election – while people who backed the mainstream candidates only get one vote.
3. AV IS UNEQUAL: AV treats someone's fifth or sixth choice as having the same importance as someone's else's first preference – but there is a big difference between positively wanting one candidate to win and being able to ‘put up with' another.
4. AV IS ‘EVEN LESS PROPORTIONAL' THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM: So concluded the independent Royal Commission chaired by the senior Liberal Democrat Roy Jenkins in 1998.
5. AV IS ‘DISTURBINGLY UNPREDICTABLE' – another warning from Roy Jenkins. Elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party.
6. AV IS NOT WANTED – EVEN BY THE YES CAMPAIGN: Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as “a miserable little compromise†and the Electoral Reform Society said they did “not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliamentâ€.
7. AV IS NO-ONE'S FIRST CHOICE: AV was not in the manifestos of either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. Many people who want voting reform have spent years campaigning for proportional representation – which AV is not.
8. AV IS COMPLEX: The Government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters how AV works to prevent a fall in turnout at elections. In Australia, the only reason they have high turnout is because they made voting compulsory.
9. AV IS EXPENSIVE: Under AV we won't be able to count ballot papers by hand on election night if we want a quick, decisive election result. Local councils will have to purchase electronic counting machines that are very expensive and prone to malfunction.
10. AV IS NOT THE REFORM WE NEED: There are lots of genuine reforms which would go some way to restoring people's trust in politics – but changing our voting system to AV is not one of them. That's why it's a shame that we're about to spend £90 million and five months debating a system that nobody really wants.
I found these reasons of why we should say No to AV and am very keen to find out the arguments against this.
1. AV IS OBSCURE: Only three countries in the world use AV for their national elections: Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea.
2. AV IS UNFAIR: Supporters of fringe parties can end up having their vote counted five or six times – and potentially decide the outcome of the election – while people who backed the mainstream candidates only get one vote.
3. AV IS UNEQUAL: AV treats someone's fifth or sixth choice as having the same importance as someone's else's first preference – but there is a big difference between positively wanting one candidate to win and being able to ‘put up with' another.
4. AV IS ‘EVEN LESS PROPORTIONAL' THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM: So concluded the independent Royal Commission chaired by the senior Liberal Democrat Roy Jenkins in 1998.
5. AV IS ‘DISTURBINGLY UNPREDICTABLE' – another warning from Roy Jenkins. Elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party.
6. AV IS NOT WANTED – EVEN BY THE YES CAMPAIGN: Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as “a miserable little compromise†and the Electoral Reform Society said they did “not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliamentâ€.
7. AV IS NO-ONE'S FIRST CHOICE: AV was not in the manifestos of either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. Many people who want voting reform have spent years campaigning for proportional representation – which AV is not.
8. AV IS COMPLEX: The Government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters how AV works to prevent a fall in turnout at elections. In Australia, the only reason they have high turnout is because they made voting compulsory.
9. AV IS EXPENSIVE: Under AV we won't be able to count ballot papers by hand on election night if we want a quick, decisive election result. Local councils will have to purchase electronic counting machines that are very expensive and prone to malfunction.
10. AV IS NOT THE REFORM WE NEED: There are lots of genuine reforms which would go some way to restoring people's trust in politics – but changing our voting system to AV is not one of them. That's why it's a shame that we're about to spend £90 million and five months debating a system that nobody really wants.
puppylover
Active Member
x2The parliament and assembly are elected locally. The voter cast a ballot for the person they wish to elect? The party with the most elected is the ruling party? Correct me if I'm wrong? The PM's are basically elected for life? The AV system would put that system at risk correct?
Morbyd
Moderator
We had this kind of voting system for places in the student government at my university.
It was unwieldy and overcomplicated. Deciphering the outcome took an army of people with calculators.
I can't imagine how it would work in a nation the size of Britain. In other words, bonehead idea.
It was unwieldy and overcomplicated. Deciphering the outcome took an army of people with calculators.
I can't imagine how it would work in a nation the size of Britain. In other words, bonehead idea.
NO. AV does not yield effective governments, would totally change our system. True, FPTP has given us a coalition but that's only happened like twice. More often than not it does the job.
+ I want to be able to vote out a government when I get sick of it, that's not how AV works.
+ I want to be able to vote out a government when I get sick of it, that's not how AV works.