The Av Vote.

[Malcolm Robinson]

Anyone want to discuss the AV vote? Does everyone know what they are asked to vote on and understand it?

[threegee]

The only AV I want is a "none of the above" tick box. So I can say "yes I am interested, but you're not hiding behind my not voting to claim a mandate to do dumb things" .

Whole thing is just to legitimise a status quo where people don't vote because there's nothing worth voting for. There's not enough votes so give SOME people several votes, and call that an improvement and "a fairer system"!

The mantra always was one man/woman, one vote. Seemed fair enough then, and seems fair enough now! If you are going to overhaul the voting system then let's use some imagination, some modern technology, and introduce an electronic one. Can't do that? Why not? Oh, 'cos it removes the cost and convenience excuse to have five years between elections, and in so doing drives a coach and horses through the nonsense that our "representatives" carry out the will of the electorate.

[Pete]

Anyone want to discuss the AV vote? Does everyone know what they are asked to vote on and understand it?

I still do not understand AV Malcolm but what I have seen of it is the least likley candidate can win, therefore I will be voting NO to AV

[Keith Scantlebury]

Anyone want to discuss the AV vote? Does everyone know what they are asked to vote on and understand it?

whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Edited April 9, 2011 by keith

[Merlin]

I still do not understand AV Malcolm but what I have seen of it is the least likley candidate can win, therefore I will be voting NO to AV

So there'll be no change whatever then :dribble:

[Pete]

So there'll be no change whatever then :dribble:

You got that one right Merlin

By the way noow that the summer is here have there been any more sightings on the golf course

[Merlin]

No more sightings Pete but more worryingly Pete, is that monsta seems to have disappeared at the same time! Monsta might have eloped with the Beast and are at this minute creating mini monsta beasties :dribble:

[Pete]

No more sightings Pete but more worryingly Pete, is that monsta seems to have disappeared at the same time! Monsta might have eloped with the Beast and are at this minute creating mini monsta beasties :dribble:

Merlin that would create some excitment in Bedlington, mini Monsta's running around

Ah well we will keep the kettle on the stove just in case he decides to drop in one day and tell us about his adventures.

Merlin I have just herd he is on the Campaign trail for the NO vote

Edited April 10, 2011 by Pete

[Malcolm Robinson]

I still do not understand AV Malcolm but what I have seen of it is the least likley candidate can win, therefore I will be voting NO to AV

May 5th we are being asked to choose............

In the present, first past the post system, any candidate with a majority of votes cast wins.

In the AV system the winner has to have 50%+ of the votes cast. Instead of putting a cross next to one candidate you put a numbered choice next to as many as you want, 1-2-3 etc. according to your preferences. If no candidate gets the required 50%+ on the first count then the candidate with the least votes gets eliminated and their second choice votes are added to whichever preference is marked. If a candidate still doesn't have 50%+ then the next one with fewest votes is eliminated and their second choice votes are added to whichever.

If the electorate is 100 voters the vote might go something like this:

Candidate A gets 40%

Candidate B gets 30%

Candidate C gets 20%

Candidate D gets 10%.

At present candidate 'A' would win because they got the majority of votes cast. Under AV no candidate would win, none got 50%+, and a second count would be needed. In this case candidate 'D' would be eliminated and his second choice would be added to whoever. Let's say his second votes all went to candidate B which would give that candidate 40%, same as 'A', but still short of the 50% needed. Next candidate 'C' gets eliminated, having the next least amount of votes cast, and their second choice is added into the mix. Again let's say they go to candidate 'B' giving them 60% and therefore becoming the winner.

This is just a simplified version before the politicos on here start shouting!

[Pete]

May 5th we are being asked to choose............

In the present, first past the post system, any candidate with a majority of votes cast wins.

In the AV system the winner has to have 50%+ of the votes cast. Instead of putting a cross next to one candidate you put a numbered choice next to as many as you want, 1-2-3 etc. according to your preferences. If no candidate gets the required 50%+ on the first count then the candidate with the least votes gets eliminated and their second choice votes are added to whichever preference is marked. If a candidate still doesn't have 50%+ then the next one with fewest votes is eliminated and their second choice votes are added to whichever.

If the electorate is 100 voters the vote might go something like this:

Candidate A gets 40%

Candidate B gets 30%

Candidate C gets 20%

Candidate D gets 10%.

At present candidate 'A' would win because they got the majority of votes cast. Under AV no candidate would win, none got 50%+, and a second count would be needed. In this case candidate 'D' would be eliminated and his second choice would be added to whoever. Let's say his second votes all went to candidate B which would give that candidate 40%, same as 'A', but still short of the 50% needed. Next candidate 'C' gets eliminated, having the next least amount of votes cast, and their second choice is added into the mix. Again let's say they go to candidate 'B' giving them 60% and therefore becoming the winner.

This is just a simplified version before the politicos on here start shouting!

I am still voting NO Malcolm

[threegee]

What it boils down to is the LEAST disliked candidate gets elected. That's a sad comment on modern politics. It also the same warped logic that the Tory Party used to select the biggest wash-out elected Prime Minister of all time - Ted Heath. The man that did what Adolph Hitler failed to do: brought the UK to a total halt!

Notice my use of the word elected in there. Any sort of election is preferable to absolutely none at all, Mr Brown!

[Malcolm Robinson]

I am still voting NO Malcolm

Pete,

I am not advocating for AV just putting the info out there so people can have some understanding and choice.

Personally I think its a pile of steaming horse sxxt! The current system needs change being more fitting to the 19th century than anything resembling a decent system for the 21st but what is being proposed is a very poor option and probably the very least Dave could appease Nick with.

[Merlin]

Look it doesn't matter what WE want, THEY'LL have elected WHO they want elected. After all we are just the underlings, in their eyes what do we know?

[Keith Scantlebury]

Look it doesn't matter what WE want, THEY'LL have elected WHO they want elected. After all we are just the underlings, in their eyes what do we know?

Exactly Merlin, you are spot on, we know nothing and we just get swept under the carpet.

Malcolm, a pile of steaming horse sxxt has its uses, the clowns that dreamed this sxxt up do not

[Mr Darn]

would a "Yes" / "No" system work better?

Whereby you simply put a tick next to a candidate you WOULD like in, but a corss next to someone you really do not want to get in, if you do not have a preference.

I.E:

i may like candidate A and candidate B as a second. I may have no preference either way for Candidate C, but definatly DO NOT want candidate D in power, so i would put a 1 and 2 for A and B but cross candidate D.

(this is in no way a polished idea, but an idea all the same)

Would that work better?

Also, DEFINATLY a "None of the above" box.

I'd like the oppertunity to let those in charge know i do respect the vote, but simply do not want any of the above in power.

What would happen if 80% of the voters voted "None of the Above" and is this why its not in place?

[Malcolm Robinson]

Merlin,

This is exactly why everyone should use their vote, it's the ONLY time we can exercise any control whatsoever over our political class. Plus there is a certain amount of Schadenfreude when big names become victims to what is really their own cavalier attitudes towards their electorates.

Keith,

I am pleased they have had a go I just cannot believe what they are proposing should be taken seriously.

[Malcolm Robinson]

would a "Yes" / "No" system work better?

Whereby you simply put a tick next to a candidate you WOULD like in, but a corss next to someone you really do not want to get in, if you do not have a preference.

I.E:

i may like candidate A and candidate B as a second. I may have no preference either way for Candidate C, but definatly DO NOT want candidate D in power, so i would put a 1 and 2 for A and B but cross candidate D.

(this is in no way a polished idea, but an idea all the same)

Would that work better?

Also, DEFINATLY a "None of the above" box.

I'd like the oppertunity to let those in charge know i do respect the vote, but simply do not want any of the above in power.

What would happen if 80% of the voters voted "None of the Above" and is this why its not in place?

Think you have answered your own question there Mr D!

Of course there should be a ''none of the above'' box, it would finally prove or disprove the much used excuse of voter apathy. If there was a resounding count as you describe it would show voters were unhappy with the choices on offer and something more representative needed to be included.

Hang on a minute, isn't that democracy?

[Merlin]

Democracy, in this country? Ya havin a laugh, aren't you? We do as we are told, the people in this country don't have the dogs danglies to stand up and be counted and tell the whole lot of them to get stuffed We are sick and tired of all the lies, the laws for us and the laws for them. I've known the time when a penny a gallon increase in petrol could fetch a government to it's knees never mind 2p 3p or even 4p a LITRE. We can't smoke in our work places, why is it then that they can smoke in their offices at their place of work? Why can prisoners in jail smoke, that is a work place for the warders, surely? Laws need to be across the board or not at all. Why when we cheat the system we are punished but, when they do it nothing happens and don't even go there about the one or two scapegoats they put up to take the can. This 'Government' should be up on a fraud charge for the lies they spouted to get into office.For Gods Sake people lets get some back bone and make a stand! I'm stopping now because I am plucking boiling!!

Edited April 12, 2011 by Merlin

[Keith Scantlebury]

Democracy, in this country? Ya havin a laugh, aren't you? We do as we are told, the people in this country don't have the dogs danglies to stand up and be counted and tell the whole lot of them to get stuffed We are sick and tired of all the lies, the laws for us and the laws for them. I've known the time when a penny a gallon increase in petrol could fetch a government to it's knees never mind 2p 3p or even 4p a LITRE. We can't smoke in our work places, why is it then that they can smoke in their offices at their place of work? Why can prisoners in jail smoke, that is a work place for the warders, surely? Laws need to be across the board or not at all. Why when we cheat the system we are punished but, when they do it nothing happens and don't even go there about the one or two scapegoats they put up to take the can. This 'Government' should be up on a fraud charge for the lies they spouted to get into office.For Gods Sake people lets get some back bone and make a stand! I'm stopping now because I am plucking boiling!!

FFS twice in one day I have agreed with you Merlin, one of us is slipping. One of the guys that work at the Tyne Tunnel told me that they were not allowed to smoke in the tunnel, yet they can breathe in exhaust fumes [even with the fans on they still get lungfulls of exhaust smoke]. I've said it before and I will say it again, I will not be surprised if this government brings the country to it's knees in the same way the Heath government did in the early 70's. Enjoy the upcoming short weeks/ long weekends because they might well become the norm.

[Keith Scantlebury]

The wife and I were getting ready to go out the other night. She said that she wanted to go somewhere expensive so I took her to the spa garage for some diesel.

[Merlin]

You and the good lady don't drive a white van by any chance :dribble:

[Keith Scantlebury]

You and the good lady don't drive a white van by any chance :dribble:

No, but the nice men that drive us about wear white coats and all cash withdrawn recently has been done legally

[Stephen]

What would happen if 80% of the voters voted "None of the Above" and is this why its not in place?

If it was just a way of registering disapproval, then probably very little. I've always preferred the idea of Re-Open Nominations (something I've seen in student elections) where if 'RON' wins, there has to be another election with new candidates.

[Stephen]

Pete,

I am not advocating for AV just putting the info out there so people can have some understanding and choice.

Personally I think its a pile of steaming horse sxxt! The current system needs change being more fitting to the 19th century than anything resembling a decent system for the 21st but what is being proposed is a very poor option and probably the very least Dave could appease Nick with.

I think its a very small improvement so I'll be voting for it. I know there are some like David Owen who think that by voting this down they'll be offered something better next time, but there were people who thought the same about the Regional Assembly referendum and I don't see any prospect of an improved version of that being offered again. (Yes, I know there will be people who think AV is worse than our current system as there were many who didn't want any form of regional government)

The reasons I think it is a small improvement - it reduces wasted votes and tactical voting, and it means MPs should have to pass a winning post of 50% to get elected. That doesn't happen now, I remember a Lib Dem MP being elected in Inverness on 26% of the vote!

[Mr Darn]

Its all about education...

many people i have spoken too have noted the 3rd past the post thing, but when asked if they want this 3rd party in power, they say no.

when asked why they would put them as their second choice, if they don't want them in power, their argument falters.

Many don't realise you can still have a single vote with this new way, they thing you HAVE to rate ALL parties in your vote.

Is this correct? can you still vote for only one if this AV is voted in?