UK Voting System

[Nic]

On May 5th, adults in the UK will be able to vote in a referendum on the future of the voting system that is used to elect MPs.

The current system is called 'First Past the Post'. This is where whoever gets the highest number of votes wins.

The other system is known as the 'Alternative Vote'. This is where you rank candidates in order of preference. If no one gets a majority, then votes of the person who came last are redistributed to the voters' 2nd choice. This carries on until someone gets a majority.

Watch this, it explains it in detail:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPFIpeiq5Uc[/youtube]

As with anything, there's arguments for and against both sides.
This website is arguing to change to the Alternative Vote: http://www.yestofairervotes.org/
This website is arguing to keep First Past the Post: http://www.no2av.org/

So, which system do you favour?

 

[ciallkennett]

I have had many rants on Facebook about this referendum already, but I cannot be bothered to repeat what I've said before. If you're lucky and I feel like it I may repeat what I said on here at some point.

Basically I'm all in favour of FPTP.

I've been waiting about 6 years to vote, and now I finally can <3

 

[tks]

I don't really understand the whole "if you don't put anything else down your vote won't be counted". If it's being recounted for someone else that is.

I honestly haven't heard anything from both sides on this issue, so I don't feel that i'm informed enough to make a decision.

 

[Nic]

^You can choose how many candidates you rank. For example, say there are 5 candidates. You can rank all of them 1-5 if you like, or you could just put a 1 next to your favourite (or anything else inbetween). If you only put a 1, and your favourite comes last, then your vote won't count, no.

Oh, and for what its worth, my main thought on this whole issue: Does a referendum actually count for anything? I mean, are the government (and subsequent ones if its not implemented before a change in power) legally bound to abide by the result, or can they just ignore it and do what they like anyway?

 

[ciallkennett]

Oh, and for what its worth, my main thought on this whole issue: Does a referendum actually count for anything? I mean, are the government (and subsequent ones if its not implemented before a change in power) legally bound to abide by the result, or can they just ignore it and do what they like anyway?

This is quite true. Referendums are not legally binding in the UK, I suppose that's a good thing though as the GP in their masses can be quite stupid and a shock result in any referendum which is legally binding could cock up the whole country.

But most politicians use the results as a reflection of the public's point of view and they are taken massively into account, so my bet is that the result of this referendum will most likely be followed up on.

 

[Nic]

Referendums are not legally binding in the UK, I suppose that's a good thing though as the GP in their masses can be quite stupid and a shock result in any referendum which is legally binding could cock up the whole country.

That's ridiculous. Yes, the GP are stupid, but that's who parliament are there to represent. Afterall, most MPs are only in office because stupid people voted for them. We don't get the chance to overrule that, so why should they get the chance to overrule this? Unless they're legally binding, referendums are a complete waste of time and money.

In this case, its just the Tories paying lip-service to the Lib Dems. As part of the coalition agreement, they promised a referendum, but did they promise to abide by the results? If no, and the public vote yes to AV, then the Tories have still stuck to their promise, even if they then refuse to implement it.

Makes me angry.

 

[Ian]

I'm quite excited about being able to vote in a referendum. It'll probably be the only one I'll get to do in my lifetime. Although Cameron did promise to hold one if there were any major changes to the European constitution.

Anyway, I've heard good arguments on for both sides but I can't make my mind up. I've read loads about it, seen the adverts etc. I get pissed off that the No To AV campaign is trying to make out that it's complicated and workable. It's not.

I'm probably on the "No to AV" side because the Lib D*ms are for it and it's often "better the devil you know."

 

[Ben]

So the alternative vote is basically the same system the Academy uses to decide on Best Picture...

*looks at what films keep winning that award*

I'll vote for the one we have atm tbh... <3

 

[ciallkennett]

So the alternative vote is basically the same system the Academy uses to decide on Best Picture...

*looks at what films keep winning that award*

I'll vote for the one we have atm tbh... <3

Ben <3 <3

 

[kimahri]

Since I have very little clue about politics and never actually voted I'm gunna say the first past the post thingy seems to make the most sense and that other one just looks retarded...

Granted this'll make little difference since knowing me I'll probably be in my own little world again and not vote.

 

[Hixee]

I am kinda tempted by this Alternative Voting system, I can see it's merits, however quite frankly I cannot stand either Cameron or Clegg. They're both worthless ****s as far as I'm concerned and they can go **** each other in a hole and die. I think it is mildly amusing they disagree on this, but like I said, I honestly don't care.

Maybe I'll give it a Google at some point and try to find a website that lists the pros and cons of each system really clearly.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Surely alternative vote is better simply because it suites people who want the old system or the new? Since you can just put 1 down like you would have anyway?

It appeals to me simply because all parties have glaring **** about them and some positive aspects. Ranking them in order from least **** to ****test sounds appealing. And I wonder if it would encourage more people to vote?

 

[Dave]

I sway more towards the Alternative Vote because I see the current system as a hinderence, it's constantly fought between two major parties, where as with the AV vote it may give a chance to lesser known parties (Not the BNP as they oppose AV, unlike what the Tories will tell you).

I was somewhat disgruntled the last election when my vote was 'wasted', so be nice that at least part of it forms a final decision with AV>

 

[Ploddish]

Yeah, I'm more for AV because it's a better representation of what people think. No more tactical voting ftw

I'm also pretty against the absurd demagoguery going on with the no side:

Can't afford it, eh? Best get on top of all those tax avoiders or something.

 

[Snoo]

Alternative voting might be the:

1. Stupidest
2. Biggest waste of money

..I have ever seen. Really? REALLY? Who is the dumb **** who thought that **** up and he needs to be shot.. in the face.. at birth.

 

[Mike]

It might make a bit of a difference in the constituencies where the votes are extremely close to each other, but I can't see it making too much of a difference on the overall election of the prime minister.

My home town (Chelmsford) is also pretty much a Conservative safe-seat as well, and they won by over 5000 votes against the Lib Dems last year. They would only need 1900 votes from a potential 9000 ballots to get to the 50% mark, whereas the Lib Dems would need over 7000 of these to count towards them in the AV system, so I can't really see it making too much of a difference here anyway.

Despite how everyone seems to be going on about it like it'll be one of the most important things we'll ever vote in, ever, I'll probably end up abstaining from this. Whoever wins the election, with whatever voting system in place, will never please everyone anyway, and will more than likely screw this country over whichever party they're in!

 

[STC]

Alternative voting might be the:

1. Stupidest
2. Biggest waste of money

..I have ever seen. Really? REALLY? Who is the dumb <img> who thought that <img> up and he needs to be shot.. in the face.. at birth.

Can you please back up this spammy post with either evidence, or some sort of rational argument or point? Because at the moment, your pointlessly offensive post is just making you look silly.

Please tell me, what about the AV system inspires such towering hatred in you?

I'd argue that a more appropriate response would be: "First Past The Post? Who is the dumb **** who thought that dumb **** up and he needs to be shot.. in the face.. at birth."

 

[jokerman]

No2AV.

All that will happen if we change to AV is that we move from a system which favours two main parties, to a system that favours the third party. Whichever way you look at it, someone gets favoured. Also, if we change the voting system we need to change the ways parties are run as well. Parties can't cope with the huge changes and swings that AV causes in elections. Had AV been used in the 80s, Labour would have won so few seats that it would have collapsed, and that in 1997, the Tories would have been completely demolished to a point that would have destroyed the party.

The way I see it, the people who want AV are not doing so for the sake of democracy, they are completely motivated by party politics. Essentially, it's Lib Dem supporters who want the change.

My other problem is that many of the arguments put across by both sides are rubbish. The AV system is very simple to understand. The idea that people won't understand it is ridiculous. However, so is the notion that AV would have prevented the expenses scandal, or that MPs would really have to "work harder" for votes.

Anyway, before we start reforming the Commons, we should do something about the Lords.

 

[Ploddish]

I'm quite a fan of this particular video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/youtube]

Feel free to follow on with the AV video.

 

[Snoo]

Can you please back up this spammy post with either evidence, or some sort of rational argument or point? Because at the moment, your pointlessly offensive post is just making you look silly.

Please tell me, what about the AV system inspires such towering hatred in you?

Simple is always the answer. How much easier can you get then 'Whoever gets the most votes wins.'

I'd argue that a more appropriate response would be: "First Past The Post? Who is the dumb <img> who thought that dumb <img> up and he needs to be shot.. in the face.. at birth."

Who thought up 'whoever gets the most votes wins'? I dunno.. the people with the most common sense since the beginning of recorded history? I mean.. I don't even see how something as silly as the AV even came into being.. might be one of those joke things like some laws in America which are just stupid in the first place?