Why I want AV
Feb. 18th, 2011 08:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueSo, if you've been following the news, you will be aware that on May the 5th, there is due to be a referendum on changing our voting system.
Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12498624
The choices will be 'Yes' to switch to Alternative Vote, and 'No' to keep the current 'first past the post' system.
I intend to be voting in that referendum, because I'm hungry for electoral reform.
AV is described on Wikipedia - but basically, you don't vote for a single candidate, you rank them - put a '1' by your first choice, a 2 by your second, and so on.
When the votes are counted, if none of the 'first choices' got more than 50%, then the candidate who got least is removed from the running, and all the ballot papers with them as 'first' get redistributed.
This repeats until one candidate _does_ get 50%. (Which may mean eliminating all but two from the running, but probably will be quicker than that).
Why do I want it? Well, because right now, the vast majority of seats in the UK are a two horse race - mostly Conservative vs. Labour. This in turn means that in effect - a vote for ANYONE ELSE - is a wasted vote.
I think that's bad. I want to be able to vote for the person I actually want in power - even if they are an independent or minority - without 'giving away' a seat to someone I really don't want to win.
I think that you'll hear the big objection to AV is that it will lead to more hung parliaments and coalition governments. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - just look, if you will at what's happened in the last two governments - first the Tories, then Labour - they've both made a mess, and I honestly think that's because there was no one who could apply the brakes, because they had a parliamentary majority.
So yes. It means - if it passes - that you'll be able to express a preference for the person you want to win, AS WELL as being able to express a preference against someone you really don't want.
I think it will mean more support for minority parties, as people don't think it'll be a 'waste'. I also think that ranked voting will also work against the ... less desirable minorities - I can see many people effectively voting against the BNP for example, by ranking 'everyone else' above them.
It's not a perfect system - no system of voting ever is - but I think it's a massive step forward in our electoral system, and one that will lead to better, more democratic governments for the future.
Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12498624
The choices will be 'Yes' to switch to Alternative Vote, and 'No' to keep the current 'first past the post' system.
I intend to be voting in that referendum, because I'm hungry for electoral reform.
AV is described on Wikipedia - but basically, you don't vote for a single candidate, you rank them - put a '1' by your first choice, a 2 by your second, and so on.
When the votes are counted, if none of the 'first choices' got more than 50%, then the candidate who got least is removed from the running, and all the ballot papers with them as 'first' get redistributed.
This repeats until one candidate _does_ get 50%. (Which may mean eliminating all but two from the running, but probably will be quicker than that).
Why do I want it? Well, because right now, the vast majority of seats in the UK are a two horse race - mostly Conservative vs. Labour. This in turn means that in effect - a vote for ANYONE ELSE - is a wasted vote.
I think that's bad. I want to be able to vote for the person I actually want in power - even if they are an independent or minority - without 'giving away' a seat to someone I really don't want to win.
I think that you'll hear the big objection to AV is that it will lead to more hung parliaments and coalition governments. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - just look, if you will at what's happened in the last two governments - first the Tories, then Labour - they've both made a mess, and I honestly think that's because there was no one who could apply the brakes, because they had a parliamentary majority.
So yes. It means - if it passes - that you'll be able to express a preference for the person you want to win, AS WELL as being able to express a preference against someone you really don't want.
I think it will mean more support for minority parties, as people don't think it'll be a 'waste'. I also think that ranked voting will also work against the ... less desirable minorities - I can see many people effectively voting against the BNP for example, by ranking 'everyone else' above them.
It's not a perfect system - no system of voting ever is - but I think it's a massive step forward in our electoral system, and one that will lead to better, more democratic governments for the future.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 07:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-18 10:16 pm (UTC)If at University, or indeed elsewhere, you voted under a system of preferential (1, 2, 3...) votes, where votes were reassigned, which they called STV but which only had one post open (say, Student Union president)... then that was AV.
A lot of student unions seem to call their AV elections STV, possibly because their NUS delegate elections are done by STV, and/or because STV sounds so much better.