(probably only relevant to UK-ers)

What way shall you be voting in May & why?

Seeing as we can't vote for a true PR, I'll be voting for AV. It's still a slight improvement on FPTP, and a step towards a proper voting system.

(you should probably change your thread title, seeings as it's not AV vs PR)

I need to get round to reading up a bit more on this. Are there any decent unbaised sources about the advantages/disadvantages of both methods?

Don't care about FPTP or PR. Either way some knob no one likes will win.

Quote from 91mason91 :

Don't care about FPTP or PR. Either way some knob no one likes will win.

At least with AV 50% of the people like him

Quote from Crashgate3 :

I need to get round to reading up a bit more on this. Are there any decent unbaised sources about the advantages/disadvantages of both methods?

I read through the Wiki pages on both for a while.

It's obvious to me that FPTP isn't a good solution, we had a "winning" government that 2/3 of the people in the country didn't support, and it results in parties that do get a large number of votes countrywide getting no seats.

AV isn't perfect, but it could shift power from two huge parties.

STV would be the ideal though

In Aotearoa we've got MMP, which translates to 50% electorate MP's and 50% party list MP's.

In my opinion it works brilliantly as there actually needs to be agreement between parties on policy rather than the 3 (5) year dictatorship that FPP gives.

At present we have a coalition with National (right wing business) the Maori Party (left wing indigenous) and Act (right wing loonies).

Sound's like it would never work but does surprisingly well.

It's important to remember though that politicians don't like this in general, a dictatorship, especially as both GB parties are identical, is far more to their liking.

Good luck and perhaps you may actually end up with a govt that represents the people, rather than your current fascist dictatorship.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

In Aotearoa we've got MMP, which translates to 50% electorate MP's and 50% party list MP's.

In my opinion it works brilliantly as there actually needs to be agreement between parties on policy rather than the 3 (5) year dictatorship that FPP gives.

At present we have a coalition with National (right wing business) the Maori Party (left wing indigenous) and Act (right wing loonies).

Sound's like it would never work but does surprisingly well.

It's important to remember though that politicians don't like this in general, a dictatorship, especially as both GB parties are identical, is far more to their liking.

Good luck and perhaps you may actually end up with a govt that represents the people, rather than your current fascist dictatorship.

At the risk of starting another argument, explain to me how is it fascist? Or a dictatorship?

I could explain both. I'll just make a short note on dictatorship though.
In a representative democracy, you're pretty much depending on the people you elect to do what the population voted them to do. This is alright in theory, but like communism it fails to work in real life. I don't feel that it's too far fetched to compare several representative democracies around the world with dictatorships.. North Korea is a representative democracy too, there's just 1 party and 1 person to vote for. In the US, they have 2 parties with the exact same policies to vote for. In the UK, I see the point he's making too.

Quote from 91mason91 :

Don't care about FPTP or PR. Either way some knob no one likes will win.

Yup true.

I just think it should be whoever has the highest votes. You shouldn't need to be everyone by a certain %. If Bob has 51% of the votes, Bettie has 30%, Peter has 10% and Alejandro has 9%, then Bob should win.

There shouldn't be "first or second" choices. It should just be "who do you want to win" and whoever has the highest votes....wins.

Simples. Been that way for many years in many areas of life and it's how democracy is supposed to be.

Ideally though I'd like there to be a public vote on every decision, such as whether we are to be in the EU, whether we should spend this money on taxes, whether we should do this, or that, or whatever. Because as a democracy it should be run by rule of the majority of what the people of this country want.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

If Bob has 51% of the votes, Bettie has 30%, Peter has 10% and Alejandro has 9%, then Bob should win.

But what if you support Alejandro? You love all his policies, but realistically he's not going to win. Do you "waste" your vote on him, or you vote tactically and go for Bettie, hoping you can stop Bob from winning? AR lets you vote how you want, safe in the knowledge that it won't be a wasted vote.

There is rarely one party that perfectly represents your needs.

In fact, out of those votes - what if 25% of Bob's votes aren't actually "for" Bob, but they are typically minor-party voters who are against Bettie? In which case, while the voting may show that most people want Bob, in reality only 25% of the people actually want Bob, versus the 30% for Bettie...

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

I just think it should be whoever has the highest votes. You shouldn't need to be everyone by a certain %. If Bob has 51% of the votes, Bettie has 30%, Peter has 10% and Alejandro has 9%, then Bob should win.

Bob wins with both FPTP and AV :rolleyes:

Now if Bob only had 32% and another guy, Jock, had 19% in this election, that means 68% are in theory anti-Bob. But maybe they aren't all anti-Bob. Maybe Peter is the watermelon party candidate, and Alejandro is the BNP candidate, so their supporters put the Labour candidate, Bob, down as their second choice because they'd much rather have Bob get in than that evil 80 year old Tory, Betty. Therefore Bob gets 51% and wins.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Ideally though I'd like there to be a public vote on every decision, such as whether we are to be in the EU, whether we should spend this money on taxes, whether we should do this, or that, or whatever. Because as a democracy it should be run by rule of the majority of what the people of this country want.

The last two governments have promised us this in their manifestos, as you can see the EU referendum has yet to appear.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

At the risk of starting another argument, explain to me how is it fascist? Or a dictatorship?

Suprising how many people don't know what fascist really means.

What I don't understand are these people who are voting against AV just to upset Nick Clegg, AV would exist long after Nick Clegg had been forgotten.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Yup true.

I just think it should be whoever has the highest votes. You shouldn't need to be everyone by a certain %. If Bob has 51% of the votes, Bettie has 30%, Peter has 10% and Alejandro has 9%, then Bob should win.

There shouldn't be "first or second" choices. It should just be "who do you want to win" and whoever has the highest votes....wins.

Simples. Been that way for many years in many areas of life and it's how democracy is supposed to be.

Ideally though I'd like there to be a public vote on every decision, such as whether we are to be in the EU, whether we should spend this money on taxes, whether we should do this, or that, or whatever. Because as a democracy it should be run by rule of the majority of what the people of this country want.

It hasn't been that way for many years, because FPTP isn't like that. There's no proportionality, look at the percentage of seats each party has compared to the number of votes received.

AV and FPTP are both bad systems, but if we don't get a change now, then most people will consider the issue closed, and we'll never get the chance to change to a more suitable system such as STV.

Quote from Jakg :

But what if you support Alejandro? You love all his policies, but realistically he's not going to win. Do you "waste" your vote on him, or you vote tactically and go for Bettie, hoping you can stop Bob from winning? AR lets you vote how you want, safe in the knowledge that it won't be a wasted vote.

There is rarely one party that perfectly represents your needs.

In fact, out of those votes - what if 25% of Bob's votes aren't actually "for" Bob, but they are typically minor-party voters who are against Bettie? In which case, while the voting may show that most people want Bob, in reality only 25% of the people actually want Bob, versus the 30% for Bettie...

Oh true when you say that there's not ever one party that represents the needs of the people at large, but the only way for that to happen would be for all parties to share an equal number of seats, and then for each party to put forward a solution to problem A. Then the members of the public can vote for whether they want Bobs solution, or Alejandro's solution.

It's all very well saying that in my example, Alejandro would never win - but let's take Boothy's example of my exampe, say Alejandro is the BNP party. There is a good reason why the BNP don't win, because, in this instance, they're a bunch of racist twats. Another party, say the green party, would never win because they're a bunch of tree hugging, dolphin humping, home made knitted sweater wearing pansies. The people who vote for these stupid parties don't deserve to vote because more often then not they're poorly educated (not saying I am, but at least I can string a sentance together) knitwits, many of whom either have criminal records, the desire to have a criminal record, or hate anyone with a car, motorcycle or private jet.

So then these people who believe wes should try and kill everyone who isn't 100% British, or all walk the 20 mile commute to work because the lesser spotted honey-badger is dying out, are forced to bring their policies more into line of what the people of this country want.

"Regular" parties, Tory, Lib Dems and Labour (who are they nowadays anyway hehe) always have a fair share of campaign advertisements and television air because, while they often fail to deliver on their promises, their mission statements are somewhat reasonable. Where as that of the, for example, BNP and Green Party are completely moronic.

So your point is that small parties don't deserve votes because often their loonies?

Democracy = giving people the choice to vote for who they want. Even if it's a loony.

Quote from 5haz :

Suprising how many people don't know what fascist really means.

What I don't understand are these people who are voting against AV just to upset Nick Clegg, AV would exist long after Nick Clegg had been forgotten.

Sorry who? That the guy who follows Cameron about?

Quote from Jakg :

So your point is that small parties don't deserve votes because often their loonies?

Democracy = giving people the choice to vote for who they want. Even if it's a loony.

Noo, my point is that democracy is about rule of the majority. And if the majority of people DON'T vote for the loony parties then the loony parties won't win.

Where as if everyone suddenly did vote for the BNP, and they won, then that would be democracy because they would come to power (and I'd emmigrate)

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Noo, my point is that democracy is about rule of the majority.

It's about the majority getting what they want - not voting for what they dont want, which is what we have now.

Do you *have* to put down other choices?

I read one of the most convincing anti-Av arguments today, which was that if I voted 'yes' for AV, then my second choice would be 'no'. It highlights the fact that you may not want to vote for a second (or third, or 4th choice).

It strikes me as a little like being asked to vote between being dipped in shit for an hour, and being dipped in shit for an hour and a half. When people complain that actually, they don't like being dipped in shit, they get told 'well, you had the chance to vote for it'.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

It strikes me as a little like being asked to vote between being dipped in shit for an hour, and being dipped in shit for an hour and a half. When people complain that actually, they don't like being dipped in shit, they get told 'well, you had the chance to vote for it'.

But thats exactly the same for both - either you rank them, or you just select one. Either way your getting dipped in shit for an hour (or 4 years )



To my knowledge though, you don't have to rank your choices. You can just select one candidate as your first & only choice. But it just means that if you candidate loses, your "lost" your vote.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

Do you *have* to put down other choices?

I read one of the most convincing anti-Av arguments today, which was that if I voted 'yes' for AV, then my second choice would be 'no'. It highlights the fact that you may not want to vote for a second (or third, or 4th choice).

It strikes me as a little like being asked to vote between being dipped in shit for an hour, and being dipped in shit for an hour and a half. When people complain that actually, they don't like being dipped in shit, they get told 'well, you had the chance to vote for it'.

Don't worry, you don't have to

Excellent, that's almost certainly a 'yes' for AV from me then :-)

Quote from Jakg :

There is rarely one party that perfectly represents your needs.

I dunno... the NSDAP seems to fit my viewpoints pretty good!

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

I dunno... the NSDAP seems to fit my viewpoints pretty good!

<insert a lazy observation about them using Macs>