Leave a comment

Comments 13

printqueen April 3 2011, 20:51:00 UTC
I was all for voting 'yes' to AV, until I took part in an election where AV was used, at Uni, but still. It all seems quite different when you experience it firsthand. I get the feeling that a lot of people will actually vote 'yes' to AV without fully understanding it, simply because it could help the Lib Dems to get it ( ... )

Reply

aussiedave April 3 2011, 21:39:51 UTC
Interesting.

There is an old saying, "A compromise is where everybody loses."

All of the supporters of each of the Winchester candidates indicated, on their ballots, that they would have preferred the Southampton candidate to the rival Winchester candidate. So in the end, since neither of the Winchester candidates could swing a majority, Southampton's what they got. The system worked.

If, in fact, none of the Winchester supporters wanted the Southampton guy in at all, then they should have said so. They tried to vote tactically, in a system that negates tactical voting, and kind of got what was coming to them.

If the supporters of the two Winch candidates had just exchanged second-pref votes, then one of them would have won. And it's not like the guy getting your second-place vote is somehow denying your first-place guy your vote, because by the time your second-place candidate is counted, your first-place guy has already been knocked out.

Silly, silly students.

Reply

printqueen April 4 2011, 22:03:01 UTC
Perhaps the Winchester candidates should have taken into account the voting system, and tailored their campaigns to make it look a lot less like a battle between the two - then maybe one of them would have won.

Besides, wouldn't the AV process suit a General Election, with around 650 constituencies, better than a 1-"constituency" student election? I'd say the first past the post system works better with the latter, especially if there are only 3 actual candidates but 3 AV votes available.

Reply


rssefuirosu April 3 2011, 22:48:12 UTC
I'm a tory, and have intending to vote yes all along. If the lib dems creep slightly further to the right, I'll happily get myself a card and sign up. Overall, I want to see av come in because I'm in favour of people voting, and not feeling so damned disenfranchised.

Cheers for this, will share.
-Sef

Reply

aussiedave April 4 2011, 07:05:13 UTC
Awesome, Sef! Cheers.

Reply


Good work. anonymous April 4 2011, 21:19:29 UTC
Great summary of the arguments. I shall steal this and use it wherever I can! Thanks a bunch. I was one of those who thought it was a bit of a second-rate system at first, preferring a single transferable vote, but at least it is a step in the right direction - and who knows, if it means there are more constituencies where everyone's vote actually means something then maybe more people will turn out at elections - and the politicians will have to make more effort to actually explain what they think, instead of relying on blind party loyalty (won't they?)

Reply

Re: Good work. aussiedave April 4 2011, 21:40:42 UTC
Here's hoping. Cheers!

Reply


No. 9 anonymous April 5 2011, 17:46:59 UTC
Thanks for this, I'm definitely going to share this around to everyone who might listen and probably loads who won't ( ... )

Reply

Re: No. 9 aussiedave April 6 2011, 15:51:07 UTC
This is all good stuff. I've actually now gone to no2av.org and read it. Rather than add to this, I might just write a follow-up: "No2av.org (And Why It's Full of Shit)"

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

aussiedave April 6 2011, 15:54:52 UTC
I hear ya.

I'm just a little anxious at how little publicity there is, and how few people know or care about the issues. And about the low, petty tactics of the "no" campaign.

I suspect I may do more, between now and the referendum.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up