I've not got one yet Skylark, but I am sure I will be as confused as you are when I do I will keep my fingers crossed that someone will be able to explain it to us

Yes, it's a sop to Nick Clegg, who originally described AV as a 'miserable little compromise', which it is, but now it's a great leap forward for democracy- apparently.

 

It's a vote on the voting system for general elections.  Either to keep the existing First Past The Post system or adopt the Alternative Vote system.

 

Anyway, it's the alternative vote system, a system where you choose your candidates in order of preference.  If no candidate gets 50% of votes then the second choices of the least popular candidate's voters are distributed among the remaining candidates and the least popular candidate is then eliminated.  If after that, no candidate still has 50%, then the second choices of the least popular candidate remaining (baring in mind, one's already been eliminated) are distributed between the remaining candidates and that candidate is eliminated.  And so on, until one candidate has over 50%.

 

I think it's the same system that Labour used to elect Ed Miliband.

 

Wiki explains it better than I can, apparently it's also called 'Instant runoff voting'

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_vote

Hi Baz x Shall we hold hands together  The Government doesnt like wasting money on leaflets upon leaflets do they  We also have one about the TV change over, which surprise, surprise we are getting in May too !

Thanks Carnelian x  Is Nick Clegg still with us or is he in hiding? Havent seen him for a while ...

I think Clegg wanted the AV vote at the first opportunity, as he felt that Tories would ideally try to delay the vote - possibly into the next Parliament - because they don't really want to  change the voting system.

He's currently spitting the dummy over the NHS, and threatening to quit (as if).  He knows he's sold out on just about everything else, a lot of the country hates him and he has to make some sort of gesture for the grass roots Lib Dems.

I got that wrong,  it's one of Clegg's advisors, Norman Lamb.  I believe he's MP for North Norfolk.

The whole point of AV was that it made LibDem wins more likely! There's nothing wrong with the current system. The major requirement is to make voting fashionable again.

The dog eat the leaflet so I'm glad someone's asked the question on here. However, after having read what it's all about I can guarantee I still haven't got a frig

 

In laymans terms; is the AV system better and fairer than the old one?

In Layman's tairms, AV is turtlely shieght though.

I'm not too keen on the present system.

Yes and no, IMO.

 

It will give the Lib Dems a number of MPs which is more representative of their share of the vote but it still won't give them a lot, and you could say that it's their fault for not concentrating their vote or appealing to the electorate sufficiently to win seats.  Should a party that's most people's second best expect to win a load of seats?

 

Would AV have changed the outcomes of election?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm

Seems not, according to the BBC

 

AV also tends to exaggerate landslide majorities, which many argue is bad for democracy.  The Tory and Labour landslides of 1983 and 1997, respectively, would have been enhanced by AV and that would make the share of MPs even less proportional according to votes cast.

 

 

 

I'm left wondering (after reading the leaflet) if its that darn good why have only three countries in the world adopted it as their form of voting? 

  I will read and inwardly digest the explanations when things are quiet.... and let you now what I think..... then we can *jump into the abyss* together

 

 

Agree's with GJ  I'll be voting against it.

Me neither. Though AV is crap, it's mildly less crap than first past the post, so I shall be voting for it.

Well it is two really as Fiji is a military dictatorship. On top of that Australia is moving to abolish AV but it seems Papua New Guinea are happy with it. It does make you wonder why nick clegg wants it if it isn't because he thinks he would win seats by default

What do you think is wrong with marking a X in the candidates box you want to win. One with most votes wins. AV gives extra votes to some people. instead of One vote, one person

It probably is slightly better than FPTP, but both are rubbish systems.  I'd vote for it under normal circumstances, but I think it will break the coalition if Clegg can't even get this miserable little compromise through.  So I'll probably vote against.

I'm not comfortable with a second place vote counting as one vote.

 

Maybe if a 2nd place vote counted as half a vote, a 3rd place as a third, and so on, it would seem fairer, to me.

Well that answers my question!

I will vote against AV.

I suppose it is less likely to produce minority governments.

And of course it will be more representative.

I believe only 3 countries have adopted this particular basic system, but of course once the principal is established there are many variations of proportional representation that could be used.

I've only just read Saturder's Grauniad. Top prize for Bafflement goes to Peggy Flint, 74, retired teacher ..........."I will vote yes because my husband and I are not happy with the present government and we're not happy with the coalition, so we want the chance to vote for what we want to vote for." You couldn't make it up! Etc etc.

At least she didn't say she'll vote yes because the tea-leaves told her to.

I'm cautious, but then again I'm sick of the "big three". Any system that allows people to register their support for smaller parties (like the Greens) is good for democracy. Although that will also help the BNP scum.

IMO there are only two parties who have sufficient potential decision makers. This isn't a popular theory but TBH if I can't have a Labour government then out of the alternatives I'd rather have a Tory one. At least one knows what they stand for and one can budget for it. We knew as long as three years ago we would get them this time and it gave us chance to batten down the hatches. The rest of the parties couldn't govern my cat.

I bet even you can't govern your cat. Cats are ungovernable.

 

Thanks guys, some good points there

It's a top right expression. Obviously badly thought out!

Brisket it is nothing to do with proportional representation whitch would be a fairer system as long as it was one vote one person. Only problem with PR is it breaks the link with PM and voter. But I am sure there is a way around that.

 

It has been shown that in a landslide the winner with AV would have more seats than under FPTP but in a close election the opersite is true and a coilition is more likely.

 

http://fullfact.org/blog/AV_re...to_fairer_votes-2628

I thought it was proportional representation too...it certainly seemed to be the catchphrase Clegg was firing out during the election campaign.

 

If it's not a PR voting system, or a first past the post, then what way will it work.  I did click the link but it seemed to just cover the pros and cons of the current system and the proposed system.

 

We have PR over here, and whilst it does seem to be the fairest way of doing things, sometimes it can be a bit too fair and counts can take forever!

I will be voting against it mainly because I am not sure it is a fairer system.. why change now

well rather than mark X in the cadidates box you mark 1, 2,3,4 etc in order of preferance. If anyone gets more than 50% they win. If not the person with the least votes is out and those who voted for him  as their 1st choice now get there second choice vote counted. This goes on until someone has more than 50%

 

This means some people have multiple votes counted while others don't depending on who you voted for. The 2nd 3rd 4th etc choices, if counted have equal value to the person who only gets his 1st couice counted.

 

Hopefully people won't think they are voting for PR come may 5th

ooh, that is a bit different, thanks for the explanation Neil.  It seems almost like a mix between the two?  Is there any other country that uses the same system that you could look to to see how well it works?

WE have two votes up here in Scotland.Our parliamentary elections are in May.This is from the last election,but the way it works is still valid.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2840087.stm

We've got two votes in Wales too. Assembly elections and AV referendum.

And we've just had the vote on Assembly law-making powers.

Well there is Australia but they are want to get rid of it, then there is Fiji but that is a military dictatorship and finally Papua New Guinea as far as I know they are happy with it.

 

Nick Clegg said it was a miserable little compromise but apparently he has changed his mind and now it best this since sliced bread

 

Course he is expecting to be both labour and conservative 2nd choice. So would have more chance of getting power.

He might be in for a shock then. Nobody I know would EVER vote LibDem again, even people who would have had them as first choice last time around.

Yep, I'd rather waste a second vote on the foaming mouthed loons of UKIP than the Lib Dems under Clegg (or the Tories, of course).  Ideally, the greens would get my second choice.