Alternative Voting

[tigerbob]

I often lament the fact that, in American politics, elections frequently cause a seismic shift to the left or the right. This in many cases results in the work done by the party that previously had power being picked apart by the incoming party. This wastes months of legislative time, wastes vast amounts of money and results in a new legislative agenda that will quite likely be unpicked the next time there is a lurch to left or right.

Britain's voting system is similar to America's in as much as the person receiving 51% of the vote gets elected, while a person who gets 49% may get nothing. In Britain, this system is called first past the post (the post being 50%). In many central european countries, a system of Proportional Representation is used. While arguably giving a more balanced view of the electorate's wishes, this system does tend to lead to coalition governments.

On May 5, Britain will have a referendum on whether to move to a new system - something that has been discussed and dismissed throughout my lifetime. Called A.V. (Alternative Voting), it's a form of P.R. A brief animated description is available here:

BBC News - What is the alternative vote?

More detail is available here:

BBC News - Alternative vote

Thoughts? Good thing? Bad thing? And how would this approach work in the U.S.? For example, it is unlikely that the current healthcare changes would have been passed, but arguably more likely that healthcare reform of some form or other would have been passed years ago.

One thing is certain. If passed, British politics will be changed out of all recognition.

 

[California Girl]

I listened to a 'mock election' on BBC Radio 5 a few days ago. This AV thing seems quite cumbersome to me. Apparently only three other countries in the world use it and, personally, I think Britain should either go fully to PR or keep its current FPTP system. AV seems a rather cowardly compromise, imo. But, since I don't vote, I'm only a curious outsider.

 

[tigerbob]

I listened to a 'mock election' on BBC Radio 5 a few days ago. This AV thing seems quite cumbersome to me. Apparently only three other countries in the world use it and, personally, I think Britain should either go fully to PR or keep its current FPTP system. AV seems a rather cowardly compromise, imo. But, since I don't vote, I'm only a curious outsider.

As am I, my dear, as am I.

I'm still reading up on AV to try and find out exactly what has been watered down (from PR). Have you seen any good, balanced articles?

 

[tigerbob]

And do you know who the other countries are?

 

[California Girl]

And do you know who the other countries are?

Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

 

[tigerbob]

And do you know who the other countries are?

Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

Oh...my...God, Chandler Bing!

 

[California Girl]

I listened to a 'mock election' on BBC Radio 5 a few days ago. This AV thing seems quite cumbersome to me. Apparently only three other countries in the world use it and, personally, I think Britain should either go fully to PR or keep its current FPTP system. AV seems a rather cowardly compromise, imo. But, since I don't vote, I'm only a curious outsider.

As am I, my dear, as am I.

I'm still reading up on AV to try and find out exactly what has been watered down (from PR). Have you seen any good, balanced articles?

I've only managed to find either 'pro' or 'against' articles, nothing from a balanced view weighing the two alternatives. I suppose I could write one. I have no dog in the hunt in this but it's fascinating to watch. Personally, I'm actually kind of impressed with Britain's coalition government. It seems to me that, at the moment, they have a good plan - even though it is going to hurt the Brits for a few years.... better that than more of the same from labor.

People need to do the math on pensions - the same issue as we have in the US. The overly bloated public sector may have been great to hide umemployment, but OMG, how the hell are the Brits gonna pay the pension bill in future? On that, I did read a really good article the other day... if I was planning to live permanently in the UK, I would be horrified.... and I am horrified by what Americans will face in years to come with our stupidly naive attitude towards the growth of the public sector.

 

[California Girl]

And do you know who the other countries are?

Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

Oh...my...God, Chandler Bing!

I know! That's kind of what I thought when I read it. Britain following Papua New Guinea? That right there - that's some funny shit.

 

[UKcampaigner]

Hi, I'm a Yes campaigner from the UK. That is, I'm in favor of the Alternative vote (AV).

As Google has picked up your disucsion I'd thought I'd nipp up here and give you some facts.

First off, the Uk now hass a wide variety of voting system starting since the 1970s and perhaps before we have added to our orignial first-past-the-post (FPTP) system the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the Multimember system, the Supplementary Vote and the List system of proportional representation.

Most of these have been introduced by bodies other than the ones affected. And this is vital to the debate as "Turkey's don't vote to Christmas". It is very hard to get MPs (politicians) in our House of Commons to accept reform that might lead to them losing thier jobs Sure you've come across that in your country too.

However, towards the end of the Last government the Labour party decided it might be in its best interest to pledge a referendum on AV (which isn't PR but might benefit the Labour party) in order to steel some votes off the Liberal Democrats (the 3rd party of UK politics).

The result was a hung or balanced parliament in which the Lib Dems were able to use the Labour party's pledge to hold a referendum on AV to get the Conservatives to conceed a referendum on the Alternative Vote. The Conservatives (known as the Tories) were dead aginst proportional representation. The Lib Dems wer stongly in favor and this best that they could get in the circumstances.

Thus the move is not a radical step but a "very British" evolution of the voting system.

FACT: FPTP does NOT mean that the person who gets 50%+1 of the vote wins in either the UK or the US. It is the person who gets the most votes that wins with FPTP. In the UK we have MPs elected with 29% of the vote in their constituency, because we now have 3 major parties in a high proportion of the country and in many places 4.

This causes crazy results.

The Alternative vote asks voters to express numbered preferences. If a candidate gets 50% of the vote on the first count they are elected. If not, the bottom candidate is excluded and the election is "re-run" to see how people would have voted if that candidate had been excluded from the start. Andso it goes on - candiates excluded until someone get 50% of the vote in that round.

It has been used in some elections in the United States since the 1970s or before. In the US it's called Instant Run-off voting.

And one of its backers in the US is President Obama. And also Senator McCain.

Here's a dramatic example of FPTP letting people down: What Was the effect of Ralph Nader's candidatency for the Presidency in 2000? He was left of Gore. He seems to have taken down the vote of Gore and lots of the swing states were very close indeed. ...

That's the spolier effect - where I candidate closer to you than your rival takes down your vote and therefore lets your rival win. Be very clear: the biggest losers in that circumstance is the voters themselves.

And its a danger for both the Democrats and the Republicans across the US. Hence its all party backing....

It can help smaller parties too as it stops people cmaliming that a vote for the Greens, say, is a wasted vote.

In the UK it is projected that it will give more seats to the Lib Dems but only if their vote holds up and still a lot less than their vote would get them under proportional representation.

The Tories fear that a Yes vote will mean they can never again govern on their own again. (They think the divided left advantages them) Labour is torn between the hope of having overall control again and the awreness that the split vote has often harmed them. And they also hate the Lib dems for doing a deal with the Tories and want to destroy their dream.

It would probably lead to less severe swings in government in UK due to our to strong 3rd party (polled 23% of the vote). In the US is less likely to have that effect.

However, it does seem to have another significant affect in the US. It undermines big money! Because a more successful strategy in elections is to be involved in the community picking up 2nd preferences than just throwing money advertising to your natural allies in the hope they will turnout There's a brief mention iof this in Hope that helps.

Imogen

 

[California Girl]

Hi, I'm a Yes campaigner from the UK. That is, I'm in favor of the Alternative vote (AV).

As Google has picked up your disucsion I'd thought I'd nipp up here and give you some facts.

First off, the Uk now hass a wide variety of voting system starting since the 1970s and perhaps before we have added to our orignial first-past-the-post (FPTP) system the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the Multimember system, the Supplementary Vote and the List system of proportional representation.

Most of these have been introduced by bodies other than the ones affected. And this is vital to the debate as "Turkey's don't vote to Christmas". It is very hard to get MPs (politicians) in our House of Commons to accept reform that might lead to them losing thier jobs Sure you've come across that in your country too.

However, towards the end of the Last government the Labour party decided it might be in its best interest to pledge a referendum on AV (which isn't PR but might benefit the Labour party) in order to steel some votes off the Liberal Democrats (the 3rd party of UK politics).

The result was a hung or balanced parliament in which the Lib Dems were able to use the Labour party's pledge to hold a referendum on AV to get the Conservatives to conceed a referendum on the Alternative Vote. The Conservatives (known as the Tories) were dead aginst proportional representation. The Lib Dems wer stongly in favor and this best that they could get in the circumstances.

Thus the move is not a radical step but a "very British" evolution of the voting system.

FACT: FPTP does NOT mean that the person who gets 50%+1 of the vote wins in either the UK or the US. It is the person who gets the most votes that wins with FPTP. In the UK we have MPs elected with 29% of the vote in their constituency, because we now have 3 major parties in a high proportion of the country and in many places 4.

This causes crazy results.

The Alternative vote asks voters to express numbered preferences. If a candidate gets 50% of the vote on the first count they are elected. If not, the bottom candidate is excluded and the election is "re-run" to see how people would have voted if that candidate had been excluded from the start. Andso it goes on - candiates excluded until someone get 50% of the vote in that round.

It has been used in some elections in the United States since the 1970s or before. In the US it's called Instant Run-off voting.

And one of its backers in the US is President Obama. And also Senator McCain.

Here's a dramatic example of FPTP letting people down: What Was the effect of Ralph Nader's candidatency for the Presidency in 2000? He was left of Gore. He seems to have taken down the vote of Gore and lots of the swing states were very close indeed. ...

That's the spolier effect - where I candidate closer to you than your rival takes down your vote and therefore lets your rival win. Be very clear: the biggest losers in that circumstance is the voters themselves.

And its a danger for both the Democrats and the Republicans across the US. Hence its all party backing....

It can help smaller parties too as it stops people cmaliming that a vote for the Greens, say, is a wasted vote.

In the UK it is projected that it will give more seats to the Lib Dems but only if their vote holds up and still a lot less than their vote would get them under proportional representation.

The Tories fear that a Yes vote will mean they can never again govern on their own again. (They think the divided left advantages them) Labour is torn between the hope of having overall control again and the awreness that the split vote has often harmed them. And they also hate the Lib dems for doing a deal with the Tories and want to destroy their dream.

It would probably lead to less severe swings in government in UK due to our to strong 3rd party (polled 23% of the vote). In the US is less likely to have that effect.

However, it does seem to have another significant affect in the US. It undermines big money! Because a more successful strategy in elections is to be involved in the community picking up 2nd preferences than just throwing money advertising to your natural allies in the hope they will turnout There's a brief mention iof this in Hope that helps.

Imogen

We weren't looking for a lecture from one of the dogs in the hunt. We were, as interested outsiders, looking for some non biased information about it.

Personally, any country that wants to follow a system used by Papua New Guinea and Fiji is a laughing stock as far as I am concerned.

 

[Colin]

Hi, I'm a Yes campaigner from the UK. That is, I'm in favor of the Alternative vote (AV).

As Google has picked up your disucsion I'd thought I'd nipp up here and give you some facts.

First off, the Uk now hass a wide variety of voting system starting since the 1970s and perhaps before we have added to our orignial first-past-the-post (FPTP) system the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the Multimember system, the Supplementary Vote and the List system of proportional representation.

Most of these have been introduced by bodies other than the ones affected. And this is vital to the debate as "Turkey's don't vote to Christmas". It is very hard to get MPs (politicians) in our House of Commons to accept reform that might lead to them losing thier jobs Sure you've come across that in your country too.

However, towards the end of the Last government the Labour party decided it might be in its best interest to pledge a referendum on AV (which isn't PR but might benefit the Labour party) in order to steel some votes off the Liberal Democrats (the 3rd party of UK politics).

The result was a hung or balanced parliament in which the Lib Dems were able to use the Labour party's pledge to hold a referendum on AV to get the Conservatives to conceed a referendum on the Alternative Vote. The Conservatives (known as the Tories) were dead aginst proportional representation. The Lib Dems wer stongly in favor and this best that they could get in the circumstances.

Thus the move is not a radical step but a "very British" evolution of the voting system.

FACT: FPTP does NOT mean that the person who gets 50%+1 of the vote wins in either the UK or the US. It is the person who gets the most votes that wins with FPTP. In the UK we have MPs elected with 29% of the vote in their constituency, because we now have 3 major parties in a high proportion of the country and in many places 4.

This causes crazy results.

The Alternative vote asks voters to express numbered preferences. If a candidate gets 50% of the vote on the first count they are elected. If not, the bottom candidate is excluded and the election is "re-run" to see how people would have voted if that candidate had been excluded from the start. Andso it goes on - candiates excluded until someone get 50% of the vote in that round.

It has been used in some elections in the United States since the 1970s or before. In the US it's called Instant Run-off voting.

And one of its backers in the US is President Obama. And also Senator McCain.

Here's a dramatic example of FPTP letting people down: What Was the effect of Ralph Nader's candidatency for the Presidency in 2000? He was left of Gore. He seems to have taken down the vote of Gore and lots of the swing states were very close indeed. ...

That's the spolier effect - where I candidate closer to you than your rival takes down your vote and therefore lets your rival win. Be very clear: the biggest losers in that circumstance is the voters themselves.

And its a danger for both the Democrats and the Republicans across the US. Hence its all party backing....

It can help smaller parties too as it stops people cmaliming that a vote for the Greens, say, is a wasted vote.

In the UK it is projected that it will give more seats to the Lib Dems but only if their vote holds up and still a lot less than their vote would get them under proportional representation.

The Tories fear that a Yes vote will mean they can never again govern on their own again. (They think the divided left advantages them) Labour is torn between the hope of having overall control again and the awreness that the split vote has often harmed them. And they also hate the Lib dems for doing a deal with the Tories and want to destroy their dream.

It would probably lead to less severe swings in government in UK due to our to strong 3rd party (polled 23% of the vote). In the US is less likely to have that effect.

However, it does seem to have another significant affect in the US. It undermines big money! Because a more successful strategy in elections is to be involved in the community picking up 2nd preferences than just throwing money advertising to your natural allies in the hope they will turnout There's a brief mention iof this in Hope that helps.

Imogen

Knock it off Imogen! There is no longer anything to vote for in the UK. There are only things to vote AGAINST! Politicians, whatever their politics, are a bunch of self-serving liars, cheats and crooks. This isn't about bringing in election reforms for the benefit of the nation. This is about one thing only. A battle between politicians to finagle a system that will keep them employed so they can continue to fill their pockets and feather their nests!

 

[California Girl]

Hi, I'm a Yes campaigner from the UK. That is, I'm in favor of the Alternative vote (AV).

As Google has picked up your disucsion I'd thought I'd nipp up here and give you some facts.

Snipped for length

Knock it off Imogen! There is no longer anything to vote for in the UK. There are only things to vote AGAINST! Politicians, whatever their politics, are a bunch of self-serving liars, cheats and crooks. This isn't about bringing in election reforms for the benefit of the nation. This is about one thing only. A battle between politicians to finagle a system that will keep them employed so they can continue to fill their pockets and feather their nests!

So will you be voting in the referendum?

Personally, I'm quite amused by Imogen informing us that the AV system is backed by Obama. WTF does that have to do with it? Are you Brits supposed to be so in awe of the Messiah that you'll vote for it because Obama thinks it's a good idea? How pathetic.

 

[mudwhistle]

I often lament the fact that, in American politics, elections frequently cause a seismic shift to the left or the right. This in many cases results in the work done by the party that previously had power being picked apart by the incoming party. This wastes months of legislative time, wastes vast amounts of money and results in a new legislative agenda that will quite likely be unpicked the next time there is a lurch to left or right.

Britain's voting system is similar to America's in as much as the person receiving 51% of the vote gets elected, while a person who gets 49% may get nothing. In Britain, this system is called first past the post (the post being 50%). In many central european countries, a system of Proportional Representation is used. While arguably giving a more balanced view of the electorate's wishes, this system does tend to lead to coalition governments.

On May 5, Britain will have a referendum on whether to move to a new system - something that has been discussed and dismissed throughout my lifetime. Called A.V. (Alternative Voting), it's a form of P.R. A brief animated description is available here:

BBC News - What is the alternative vote?

More detail is available here:

BBC News - Alternative vote

Thoughts? Good thing? Bad thing? And how would this approach work in the U.S.? For example, it is unlikely that the current healthcare changes would have been passed, but arguably more likely that healthcare reform of some form or other would have been passed years ago.

One thing is certain. If passed, British politics will be changed out of all recognition.

How do you think the Dems go elected? How do you think they destroyed a strong yet still fragile economy in just two years?

 

[hipeter924]

A better idea: I don't like any of the above vote.

With that we would have never have had a lot of bad administrations coming to power.

PS: The British electoral system is more of a mess than where I am sitting, if you want a working electoral system try Germany, otherwise cope with what you have, AV is a waste of time.

FPP sucks in comparison to MMP, which is simple and allows small parties (electorate vote, party vote):

Introduction of MMP

The first election using MMP was held in 1996.
As a result, National and Labour lost their complete dominance in the House. Neither has yet been able to hold a majority within the House under MMP. Instead, electoral results have required them to form coalitions to govern. Indeed, since 1998 there have been minority coalition governments relying on supply and confidence from parties outside of government.
Prior to the switch to MMP, New Zealand largely had a two party system, with government interchanging between Labour and National since 1935. With the introduction of MMP, particularly with New Zealand's unique provision for parties to win list seats despite getting less than the 5% threshold if they win one local seat, there has been a widening of political parties represented within the House. After the 1996 election, there were six political parties. The Greens separated from the Alliance for the 1999 election, and with the creation of the Māori Party in 2004, there became eight parties. The number of political parties was expected to fall[citation needed] (as happened in Germany after their adoption of MMP), but has in fact increased.
The transition to MMP has caused disproportionality to fall.[3]
Election Disproportionality Number of Parties in Parliament 1946-1993 average 11.10% 2 1996 4.36% 6 1999 3.01% 7 2002 2.53% 7 2005 1.11% 8 2008 5.21% 7 The current National led government has promised a second referendum to decide whether or not to retain MMP. The referendum will contain one question on whether or not New Zealand should retain the MMP system, and a second question on possible alternative elector

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

 

[hipeter924]

Hi, I'm a Yes campaigner from the UK. That is, I'm in favor of the Alternative vote (AV).

As Google has picked up your disucsion I'd thought I'd nipp up here and give you some facts.

Snipped for length

Knock it off Imogen! There is no longer anything to vote for in the UK. There are only things to vote AGAINST! Politicians, whatever their politics, are a bunch of self-serving liars, cheats and crooks. This isn't about bringing in election reforms for the benefit of the nation. This is about one thing only. A battle between politicians to finagle a system that will keep them employed so they can continue to fill their pockets and feather their nests!

So will you be voting in the referendum?

Personally, I'm quite amused by Imogen informing us that the AV system is backed by Obama. WTF does that have to do with it? Are you Brits supposed to be so in awe of the Messiah that you'll vote for it because Obama thinks it's a good idea? How pathetic.

AV won't go anywhere towards solving the problem (two major parties in control that can do whatever they want with no minor parties to block them).

 

[Colin]

Hi, I'm a Yes campaigner from the UK. That is, I'm in favor of the Alternative vote (AV).

As Google has picked up your disucsion I'd thought I'd nipp up here and give you some facts.

Snipped for length

Knock it off Imogen! There is no longer anything to vote for in the UK. There are only things to vote AGAINST! Politicians, whatever their politics, are a bunch of self-serving liars, cheats and crooks. This isn't about bringing in election reforms for the benefit of the nation. This is about one thing only. A battle between politicians to finagle a system that will keep them employed so they can continue to fill their pockets and feather their nests!

So will you be voting in the referendum?

Personally, I'm quite amused by Imogen informing us that the AV system is backed by Obama. WTF does that have to do with it? Are you Brits supposed to be so in awe of the Messiah that you'll vote for it because Obama thinks it's a good idea? How pathetic.

I think I'll be in hospital so no, I probably won't be able to vote. If I am able to vote, I will vote against. Let's keep the Lib Dems where they belong...no hopers!

Brits in awe of Obama! Don't make me laugh. I think most of us recognise his dislike for Britain. He doesn't hold much respect here.

 

[California Girl]

Knock it off Imogen! There is no longer anything to vote for in the UK. There are only things to vote AGAINST! Politicians, whatever their politics, are a bunch of self-serving liars, cheats and crooks. This isn't about bringing in election reforms for the benefit of the nation. This is about one thing only. A battle between politicians to finagle a system that will keep them employed so they can continue to fill their pockets and feather their nests!

So will you be voting in the referendum?

Personally, I'm quite amused by Imogen informing us that the AV system is backed by Obama. WTF does that have to do with it? Are you Brits supposed to be so in awe of the Messiah that you'll vote for it because Obama thinks it's a good idea? How pathetic.

I think I'll be in hospital so no, I probably won't be able to vote. If I am able to vote, I will vote against. Let's keep the Lib Dems where they belong...no hopers!

Brits in awe of Obama! Don't make me laugh. I think most of us recognise his dislike for Britain. He doesn't hold much respect here.

What? Y'all have cottoned on to his total disdain for your country? Damn, we thought we'd slipped that past without you noticing. So, is that why he hasn't been invited to the wedding?

This whole AV thing is, in my view, something the Conservatives and Labor cooked up to placate the LibDems. What a ridiculous way to run a country.

 

[tigerbob]

So will you be voting in the referendum?

Personally, I'm quite amused by Imogen informing us that the AV system is backed by Obama. WTF does that have to do with it? Are you Brits supposed to be so in awe of the Messiah that you'll vote for it because Obama thinks it's a good idea? How pathetic.

I think I'll be in hospital so no, I probably won't be able to vote. If I am able to vote, I will vote against. Let's keep the Lib Dems where they belong...no hopers!

Brits in awe of Obama! Don't make me laugh. I think most of us recognise his dislike for Britain. He doesn't hold much respect here.

What? Y'all have cottoned on to his total disdain for your country? Damn, we thought we'd slipped that past without you noticing. So, is that why he hasn't been invited to the wedding?

This whole AV thing is, in my view, something the Conservatives and Labor cooked up to placate the LibDems. What a ridiculous way to run a country.

That was always gonna be the way. The Tories and Labour are quite happy with the status quo, but the Lib Dems have always wanted voting system reform. Look back at when they agreed the coalition with the Tories and I'd be almost certain that was one of their key demands.

 

[Colin]

So will you be voting in the referendum?

Personally, I'm quite amused by Imogen informing us that the AV system is backed by Obama. WTF does that have to do with it? Are you Brits supposed to be so in awe of the Messiah that you'll vote for it because Obama thinks it's a good idea? How pathetic.

I think I'll be in hospital so no, I probably won't be able to vote. If I am able to vote, I will vote against. Let's keep the Lib Dems where they belong...no hopers!

Brits in awe of Obama! Don't make me laugh. I think most of us recognise his dislike for Britain. He doesn't hold much respect here.

What? Y'all have cottoned on to his total disdain for your country? Damn, we thought we'd slipped that past without you noticing. So, is that why he hasn't been invited to the wedding?

This whole AV thing is, in my view, something the Conservatives and Labor cooked up to placate the LibDems. What a ridiculous way to run a country.

Yeh, strange he hasn't been invited to the wedding. Every other poser and self-important twat has!

There was never going to be a coalition with the Lib Dems without some form of proportional voting system being a condition. Rather comical to see one half of the coalition electioneering for a yes vote whilst Cameron and the Tories campaign for a no vote.

 

[Colin]

I think I'll be in hospital so no, I probably won't be able to vote. If I am able to vote, I will vote against. Let's keep the Lib Dems where they belong...no hopers!

Brits in awe of Obama! Don't make me laugh. I think most of us recognise his dislike for Britain. He doesn't hold much respect here.

What? Y'all have cottoned on to his total disdain for your country? Damn, we thought we'd slipped that past without you noticing. So, is that why he hasn't been invited to the wedding?

This whole AV thing is, in my view, something the Conservatives and Labor cooked up to placate the LibDems. What a ridiculous way to run a country.

That was always gonna be the way. The Tories and Labour are quite happy with the status quo, but the Lib Dems have always wanted voting system reform. Look back at when they agreed the coalition with the Tories and I'd be almost certain that was one of their key demands.

Yes, it was a condition and the Libs wanted the full blown version of proportionate representation, but Cameron was only prepared to offer this watered down version with the understanding that the Tories would vote against change in any referendum.