Pros and cons of AV voting system?

Personally I am 100% against the AV system. I don't see any pros to changing to the AV system, vs alot of cons. People will try to say that "it means that you can vote for you you want rather than tactical voting". Frankly, you can vote for who you want, the only problem these people identify is that they are supporting a minority party. They use this as an argument for AV being fairer, when actually all it says is that AV gives a larger say to the minority. That's the only semi argument in favour of AV that I have seen, otherwise we need to get real; this referendum, the chance of AV is nothing more than something the Tories gave the Lib Dems in return for their seats in Parliament to get a Parliamentary majority. Call me cynical, but that's why we have a referendum on something that Nick Clegg called a "miserable little compromise".

Otherwise, my reasons for voting against AV are:

1. There's nothing wrong with our first past the post system; if you get the most votes, you win. I don't see anything unfair about that.

2. A person's 3rd or 4th choice if a far cry from their 1st. There is a big difference between WANTING somebody in with your #1 choice, and SETTLING for somebody with your 3rd or 4th choice. When you get into round 2, 3, 4 etc a person's 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choice has EXACTLY the same weight as a person's 1st round choice. How is that fair?

3. One person can have more than one say, whereas others may only get one vote. E.g. my #1 choice gets through to a 6th and final round. I've only had 1 vote, whereas a voter who's 1 went out in the 1st round, 2nd went out in the second round etc would have essentially voted 6 times.

4. It's an overly complicated system that will take ALOT more time and expense to deliver a result.

5. We would have different systems to Parliamentary and Local Elections. This would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of spoilt ballot papers.

6. Look at the Labour leadership competition... that was voted on using AV, and the candidate that the majority wanted, David Miliband, lost! DM led the voting through all of the rounds until the last one when Ed pipped him with peoples 5th or 6th round choices. Link that to my #2 point.

I advise people to vote for AV because someone else was saying about how in FPTP, if someone gets a majority, they win. No, because if one party gets 30%, and although 70% voted other parties, just not the same one, they may be unhappy with the candidate who did win. it is AV which truly elects the majority because it is only satisfied once a party gains 50% of the vote.

When the votes are counted, there must be several rounds. In round one, only the the number of times a party is ranked 1st is looked at. Not anything else. If 50% or more all rank labour first, labour will win, job done.

if Labour gets 40%, even if this is the most popular, it is not the majority of the electorate. So round two begins. The party who was ranked 1st the least number of times is eliminated, and are dispersed according to their no2 votes. Then, if still no party has a majority, the next smallest party's votes are re-dispersed according to it's second, or maybe third choices.

Until one party has gained 50% or more, it cannot be elected.

In first past the post, if labour got 40% and no other party did, it would gain the constituency despite a majority who may not like labour. If labour was ranked low amongst the other 60%, the conservatives or another party could still gain the seat, if they are generally more favoured than labour.

So, this system is obviously fairer. Also, within the 40% that voted for labour in FPTP, are a lot of people who wanted to vote a minority party, but because a minority party cannot get in voted labour, because they prefer labour to the conversatives. In the AV system, people gain the opportunity to use their first choice for a minority party, and if a minority party proved to be very popular amongst voters who previously chose labour, libdems or conservatives, could gain the seat. No minority party could get in without being the most accepted.

I use the word most accepted because even though not every vote was a first choice, it was a second, third or fourth or whatever, which means that the voters aren't necessarily against the party in question either.

The only negative I can think of is that it's more expensive and awkward to count the votes, because obviously it could take many rounds before a 50% majority is found.

However I certainly think it's money well spent because it will elect the party that the majority of the public are happy with, unlike first past the post which just looks at the most voted in comparison to other parties. In FPTP, sometimes it doesn't even succeed in electing the most popular prime minister because percentage wise in the country the party with the most seats isn't the party with the highest percentage of votes.

Another valuable point is that with AV, elections would be more competitive, and the main parties would have to work harder to retain their power.

I just want to answer a few points from other people:

Darren m said, "You mean the second choice voting system . well if the BNP is second choice of enough it gets in."

Well, sort of. The thing is, the BNP aren't the second choice of very many people at all. They're a party that you either love (& the BNP are very good at getting their voters to turn out), or you hate (& so you'll put them *last*). The BNP expect to do much worse under AV, and so that's why they're against AV.

You may have seen a claim on the recent NOtoAV leaflet that says "supporters of the BNP and other fringe parties would decide who wins.... this would encourage other candidates to pander to the likes of the BNP" That's a lie. Sadly, honesty doesn't seem to be the NO campaign's strong point.

Even if every single BNP voter put their 2nd preferences behind one party (frankly unlikely anyway), it would not have affected the outcome of a single seat. NOT EVEN ONE.

It would mean that the other candidates would have to reach out to supporters of other parties, but then I don't see that as a bad thing. Why shouldn't green party voters, or socialists, or libertarians have a say? Reaching out to the BNP on the other hand would be political suicide - most people hate the BNP, pandering to them would lose them far more votes than it gained.

As for master Mevans' points:

1. There's a lot wrong with a system that encourages you to vote for somebody you don't really want, just to keep out somebody worse.

2.A person's 3rd or 4th choice IS a far cry from their 1st. However, if somebody can't have their first choice, isn't it at least a little fairer to let them have their 2nd choice? Suppose you and a friend go to a restaurant, and they don't have what you order. Your friend gets their first choice meal, you have to have the meal you settled for. Your friend still got a better deal, because they got the meal (MP) they really wanted, but would it be fairer if the restaurant refused to serve you just because you couldn't have what you really wanted?

There is a big difference between WANTING somebody in with your #1 choice, and SETTLING for somebody with your 3rd or 4th choice. However, if your 1st choice is unavailable, why shouldn't you have a say?

3. That one is a lie. Every person's vote counts ONCE. Whether that's for their 1st choice, or their 5th choice.

4. How the hell is it complicated to rank your preferences in order? It probably will take a little longer to deliver a result, but a few hours extra waiting time to find out who your MP is a price worth paying to have more say in how you're governed isn't it?

5. I doubt it would have much effect to be honest. Instructions are printed at the top of each ballot paper, telling you how to register your preference. If you accidentally spoil your paper then instead of posting it anyway, you can request another. On the other hand - giving the people more of a say might encourage more people to turn out to vote, so I'd expect a higher turnout.

6. Isn't it strange how *all 3* major political parties use a form of AV to elect their leaders? If it's good enough for the politicians, why not the electorate? As for the claim that "the candidate that the majority wanted, David Miliband, lost", it's not true. If most people wanted David Miliband, he would be leader. Instead, most people wanted somebody else and when it came down to a straight choice between the two Miliband brothers, more people preferred Ed.

For those who would like change as does Terrier UK; why not demand a box on the ballot paper that can be given a tick as a spoilt vote.

This way you can turn up at the polling station as all decent citizens should; then rub the noses of the politicians who do not earn your vote, because, powerful you could vote for them and then, IF YOU CHOOSE TOO, spoil your paper by ticking the DELIBERATE SPOIL BOX it will then not count for the poor disappointed candidate... Aah what a shame watch his/her miserable face as the wasted votes amass counting to decide their future good or bad, but, it would certainly make them work to get your vote!

And it would be a great healing fun on the night, well worth the turnout and a far more democratic system than AV...it stinks...and remember it is your choice that is the one that has to work hard or fail against his/ her peers.

I'll be voting YES to AV because I want our MPs to be more accountable to voters.

* It will mean that you can vote for your REAL preferences, rather than having to choose between your real favourite (that might have no chance of winning), or the less awful of the 2 front-runners.

As an example, in the lead-up to the 2010 election, some senior labour party members were urging their party's supporters to vote tactically for the LibDems if they lived in a LibDem/Tory marginal - just to keep out the tories. Under AV, they would be able to rank their real preference for labour first, and as long as they ranked the LibDems above the Tories, their vote would have worked to keep the tories out - should they wish to do so.

* It will mean that your MP will need the backing of more than 50% of the voters where you live. They will have to reach out to those people who would normally vote for another party, in order to win their 2nd preferences.

As an example, Joe has a conservative MP. The 2nd largest party where Joe lives is the labour party. Joe however, feels that neither party represents his interests and prefers another candidate. Under AV, labour and the tories would have to take Joe's view into account, because his preference between the 2 front-runners would become important. Under the current system, Joe's voice wouldn't be heard.

Under the current system, most people in the UK have an MP that they voted *against*. In Norwich South, their MP was elected despite being voted against by over 70% of the people who live there. I live in what's known as a "safe seat". In other words, there's no realistic chance of our constituency changing hands. Even so, most people voted against him at the last election.

AV is not perfect by any means, but it's much, much better than the system we have at the moment. The current system makes it very difficult to get rid of a bad MP. Your MP could fiddle their expenses, lie, cheat, do what the hell they like - and all they have to do to keep their job is to convince enough people that their closest rival is even worse.

You might be told: "If you don't vote for me, <party X> will sneak in through the back door". Sadly, under the current system - they have a point. A vote for your REAL favourite probably will lead to somebody even worse getting in - so it looks like your bad MP has the support of their constituents - even if they don't. Our current system shuts out smaller parties and independent candidates because people fear that a vote for them will be a wasted vote.

Our current system encourages people to vote against their real favourite, or worse, to not even *look* beyond the policies of the big parties.

I've done it myself - in 3 of the 4 general elections I have voted in, my vote has been based upon voting against the party I *didn't* want. I voted for the lesser of 2 evils, and more to the point - voted *against* much better candidates.

You mean the second choice voting system . well if the BNP is second choice of enough it gets in. advantages is you could say vote for green party first a labour second .or socialist-green party first .

sy that is formed the party directs by right of citizenship revenue agency to create public cooperatives and then citizens own their factories and technology.should anyway constitution says so.

The pro is - if it goes through Dave will be cheesed off and another pro is if it doesn't go through Cleggo will be cheesed off. Its a win win!

I think it's pathetic and has been a complete waste of money.

nobody knows - that's the problem, on the one hand it could reduce the power of the existing parties on the other the continuation of coalitions will lead to deals behind closed doors and more corruption