The AV vote fair or unfair?

You're right. But lots of disinformation has been spread by the No campaign.

Cynical_Student:

1 - A party that wins 30% of the first preferences, but cannot win any second or third preferences does not deserve to win. A party that wins 20% of the first preferences, but 75% of the second preferences has managed to appeal to more of the public and deserves to be elected.

2 - The cost issue is simply false - the same number of people can do it. It will be a little slower, but not by much.

3 - Australians are forced to vote, and are forced to list their preferences, even if they don't have any. That's what they object to about their electoral system, not AV. Campaign on the truth, not disinformation.

AV is used in: Leadership elections for Labour and Liberal Democrats, Elections for UK parliamentary officials including Select Committee Chairs, Elections by Parliament for the Speaker of the House, Australian House of Representatives, millions of people in membership organisations, businesses and trade unions internal elections, most Student Union elections, the Irish Presidential election, numerous American City, Mayoral and district elections.

If your first choose is knocked out your second choice is counted in the next round , therefor you have had two votes counted .

If you vote for the eventual winner as your first choice , then your vote is only counted once .

Edit ; Wow you've swallowed the Yes vote propaganda word for word . You don't sound like you're old enough to vote but just encase you are I'll tell you the truth .

AV is a con , AV is the worst of both systems , AV will change nothing in any way for the better . AV will prevent small parties from getting representation , even if nationally their support is 5 or percent plus . AV will keep the big three in perpetual power . AV will make the Lib Dems king makers after every election . Con , Lab and Lib Dem are all working towards the same agenda , just taking different routes .

What we should be doing is abstaining and demanding a referendum on PR .

If you vote YES you are giving them a written mandate to never give us PR .

That if the person who votes for a party that is eliminated in the first round, their second preference is taken - and that in my mind equals two votes. More parties get eliminated, more preferences are taken and moved and that results in multiable votes, whereas someone who votes for a party that doesn't get eliminated because of the number of votes given gets ONE vote.

And through the AV - a party who is not the first preference choice for the majority nation can actually win the election - and we could be looking at decades of ONE party having power because of how the preference choices lean. The party that actually came third in the first preference votes could win the election.

It'll cost more to run the campaigns and elections, it'll take weeks and more man power to count the votes (because apparently they're not going to buy counting machines because they cost so much). There will be demands for recounts which will take further weeks...

Tories are against, Labour is split - and only because those that wanted Ed Millibland as party leader have to support the electoral system that got him voted into the job (AV). Libs want it because Nick Clegg things it'll benefit the Lib Dems (When actually it probably won't).

I'm voting No when I go down to the polling station.

And can I point out that if the AV system is so wonderful, how come only three countries use it and one of them (Australia) wants to change to the first past the post system.

The previous answer is not quite correct.

If you vote under AV for one of the run-off candidates, your vote for the same candidate is counted at each stage. Only if your preferred candidate is knocked is the one vote transferred and counted for a different candidate at the next stage.