What is the difference with the newly proposed voting system?

The Alternative Vote system would mean that we still have constituencies with one MP for each, but they would be elected differently. Instead of just voting for one candidate with an X, voters would number the candidates in order of preference, 1, 2, 3 etc. To work out the results, firstly all the ballot papers are counted on the basis of the 1s. If one candidate has over 50% of the votes at this stage, they are elected - in which case that is no different from the current system. If that doesn't happen, the candidate with least votes is eliminated and their pile of votes is redistributed to the second preferences. Then all the papers are counted again. If someone has 50% now, they are elected. If not, once again the candidate with least votes is eliminated and their pile of votes is redistributed to whoever is the next highest preference on them who is still in the race. Then there is another count... you get the idea... it may be several rounds of counting before a winner is declared, so it would make the count on election night a lot longer except in very safe seats.

The one place I can think of where they actually use this is Australia, where it has been the voting system for the House of Representatives (their Commons) for many years. It has the potential to produce strange results, as if many voters across parties all agree on who is the "least worst of the rest", they could win on a lot of second and third preference votes even though nobody much really wanted them, so I'm not a supporter of it and this is why the Conservatives are against it.

An interesting aspect of how it works in Australia is that a) voting is compulsory and you can be fined if you don't vote without good reason, and b) voters must number every single candidate on the ballot paper or it is disqualified as an invalid vote. To help voters, party workers stand outside polling stations giving out "How to Vote" leaflets showing "if you want to vote for our party, number your paper this way". Results show that Australian voters mostly do exactly that.

The weird thing is that the Liberal Democrats don't want this system either. What they have wanted for many years is the Single Transferable Vote. This involves much larger multi-member constituencies (they use this in Ireland and every constituency there has 3, 4 or 5 MPs) and a similar method of counting in several rounds. If I actually explained it here you'd be bored stiff and I'd run out of space - I'd probably do better trying to explain Einstein's special theory of relativity - so I just refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_v... if you want to know how it works. STV is much closer to true proportional representation than AV. In fact AV is what you get if you reduce STV to just electing one person. The difference with STV is that if there is a genuine minority degree of support for another party, that party might get an MP. In AV, they'd just be the last to be eliminated.

The Alternative Vote is only being proposed because it is a halfway house between the current system and STV and the Liberal Democrats demanded at least some move towards a change to the voting system as the price of being part of the coalition government. Of course the real reason they want a change is that it would give them more MPs, more representative of the number of people that vote for them. What is being said is that it would mean every MP has the support over over half the people that voted, which isn't saying much if most of the votes that elected them weren't first preferences.

Who knows if it will get through? I have no doubt it will depend entirely on the effectiveness of the campaigning and propaganda from each side in the run-up to the referendum next May. I vaguely remember the only other referendum the UK has ever had, the one in 1975 on whether we should stay in the EEC, and that was true then.

It is explained here: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=...

The Electoral Reform Society concludes "The Society regards the introduction of preference voting as a step in the right direction, although under AV only a very minor one."

The proposed referendum on AV is a cynical attempt to get the electorate believe that the Conservatives have listened to the Lib Dems about electoral reform, and that the Lib Dems have got something out of their desperate dive into bed with the Tories.

To spend public money on this tacky attempt to convince us that this shabby coalition is any sort of consensus, while the school building budget has just been slashed is bordering on the obscene.

The IRONY of it is, we will get to VOTE on voting reform. WTF? No, I can't follow it.

If you are ordering food in a diner, and you want a Ham Salad, you ask for one. Not a ham salad, or a cheese sandwich if you are out of ham, and salad. Or sardines on toast, if I can't have ham salad or a cheese sandwich. What I really don't want, is a bowl of porridge.

See what I mean? You will be voting for your fave party, and then your back-up party, and then your third choice. With maybe a NO! vote, for the party you want to just go **** themselves.

Look at what we have now - Conservatives, trying to "work" with Lib-Dems. Like the Aristocracy trying to work with Fox-Hunt Saboteurs!

Boundary changes will result in more seats for conservative and liberal candidates, as the last round of boundary changes resulted in more seats for labour !. How I wish for a government that wasn't corrupt and self serving instead of serving the electorate !

extremely appropriate. i'm quite in touch approximately international warming, the atmosphere, merchandising technology training, and investment examine interior the aspects of gasoline independence and sustainability.

No idea really ,, No doubt full explanations . pros and cons Will be aired before referendum next spring , Don't bother now ,,, give you a headache