Metropol

... and there is the divide, I do not consider a transferred vote as being valid in such comparisons others do.

DVB Cornwall wrote:... and there is the divide, I do not consider a transferred vote as being valid in such comparisons others do.

I consider a transferred vote as at least as valuable as one which is placed on a candidate that the voter doesn't want to win, but does so in the hope to prevent another candidate from winning, as is done across the country in every seat, as has become an accepted electrol practice. When you take this into account, you often end up with a lot of winners not being the most popular, but winning for managing to collect as many votes as possible from people who dislike the leading opponent.

In Sheffield the Lib Dem council is currently running it's entire election publicity based on them being "not Labour". AV has a hope of stamping this practice out.

If the "no" campaign wins on Thursday I look forward to David Davis being installed as leader of the Conservative party. He beat Cameron 62 votes to 56 in the first round of the party leadership election.

Oh and David Milliband beat his brother in the first round of the Labour leadership election.

The Conservative leadership election is completed on an eliminate and re-poll basis within the parliamentary party, before the last two candidates are offered to the membership of the party as a whole.

Any comparison with a Parliamentary election is opportunistic at it's best.

DVB Cornwall wrote:The Conservative leadership election is completed on an eliminate and re-poll basis within the parliamentary party, before the last two candidates are offered to the membership of the party as a whole.

Any comparison with a Parliamentary election is opportunistic at it's best.

Much like the majority of the no campaign then.

marksi wrote:Also, if you vote no, under what circumstances do you believe there will next be a campaign to change the voting system?

Next time the general election returns a hung parliament.

marksi wrote: Surely AV is closer to PR than FPTP? If so how is FPTP the lesser of two evils?

Wikipedia wrote:IRV (AV) is not a proportional voting system.

AV is no more or no less proportional than FPTP, and the results it produces vary little from FPTP. There is no reason to change to AV.

marksi wrote:Also, if you vote no, under what circumstances do you believe there will next be a campaign to change the voting system?

I think that neither decision would affect the length of time before another campaign is launched.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 78231.html

Does this not prove PM has no idea?

I haven't been paying much attention to how AV actually works, I just know that it won't lead to PR in the foreseeable future, so perhaps somebody more knowledgable than me can help to clarify this point. In an AV ballot, some voters will express a preference next to 4 candidates, some 3, some 2 and some will only choose 1. The voter who only chose 1 candidate will be out at the first round if their candidate fails to secure 50%. Whereas the voter who chose 4 will potentially be entered into 4 rounds. Is that correct?

That's the way I understand it, Chie. Of course there's no cause for the voter who only chose one candidate to feel hard done by - it's entirely their choice to only make one selection.

Steve in Pudsey wrote:That's the way I understand it, Chie. Of course there's no cause for the voter who only chose one candidate to feel hard done by - it's entirely their choice to only make one selection.

But if there is only one candidate who represents the voter's views, what are they supposed to do? All they can do if choose one candidate. Whereas other voters, who may feel their views are represented by 4 candidates, effectively get 4 goes, which kind of flies in the face of the yes campaign's argument that AV is fairer than FPTP.