UK AV Referendum Poll

[Хahar 🤔]

Is this fake IRV like the kind in London mayoral elections, or real Australian IRV?

No. It's not my preferred alternative to FPTP (which is actually the Scottish system) and I really, really don't like a system that would risk the Lib Dems holding the balance of power on a permanent basis.

There really isn't any evidence at all that this system would do that.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's not been a brilliant success in Wales (to risk understatement) and there are potential problems looming in Scotland.

Now you must elaborate.

[Хahar 🤔]

the leader of the smallest of the parties had forgotten the rules and procedures of his own party

This is the one thing that I'm unfamiliar with. It sounds hilarious.

[Хahar 🤔]

People understand how the London mayoral election works, right? How is the AV system really any more "confusing" than that?

It's less confusing!

[Хahar 🤔]

I disagree with your latter assessment; pretty much anything is better than FPTP.

From the point of view you have, PR with two seat districts would be worse (actually that's dreadful from almost all points of view), as would FPTP with multi-seat districts (which we have in local elections in some places, notably London).

Well, yeah. But no one is thinking of introducing these things anywhere. It is only a matter of not enough people understanding that they need to go where they exist (the Chilene parliament and UK and some US local elections, respectively. Don't think they exist anywhere else in the world.)

I find it amusing but also sad that Chile still uses Pinochet's ridiculous electoral law. It may be the worst system in the world that isn't actively antidemocratic.

[Хahar 🤔]

OT: but why do people insist on changing their names so often? If it weren't for the locations and signatures I'd assume this forum had an ever-revolving door of members.

Users' actual usernames are displayed right below their display names.

[Хahar 🤔]

AV is neither more or less proportional than FPP. It, however, avoids vote splitting, which is the second most hideous flaws of FPP (the first being absence of clear links between vote count and seat results, and which indeed only PR can solve).

You're assuming that votes are always for a particular political party, but in reality voting for a particular candidate can have several reasons completely independent of party.

We've discussed about this several times. Voters shouldn't vote for candidates, but for parties (and, inside the party, for one candidate, why not). One of the deepest flaws of constitutency voting is precisely that it encourage silly votes based on personality instead of policies. Parliamentary elections are about parties, period.

Why should that be? If you are to take that view, why even have members of parliament? Instead of having 255 Labour members, why not just give Ed Miliband 255 votes that he can cast by himself?

[Хahar 🤔]

@Antonio, I for one don't like FPTP, yet I have discovered that I like AV even less. It is (or has the potential to be) less proportional, even when people base their . Under AV the BNP hypothetically could poll 25% nationwide, but still win only 1 or 2 seats, because they'd be poisonous in terms of preferences. I can see a similar situation with the Greens or some more likable party. Australia seems to be the best case study.

A good example would be the Scottish Conservatives; the Conservatives could make a comeback but still be without seats under AV. Had the Holyrood election been under AV in 2007 (in the constituencies) the Tories are unlikely to have won any seats (they won 4) Playing around with the figures, the Tories could poll 30% in Scotland at Holyrood (I wish!) and still walk away 1 seat out of 73.

AV discourages a broad set of ideas and policies, bringing less choice for voters, in comparison to FPTP. It's awful.

It may even be worse than that. Let's says there's a seat where the 'big 3' stand and the BNP. BNP finish last, which is great, but their second preferences are counted (and perhaps only theirs) putting a candidate over the line. Whose vote is the elected MP going to try and court throughout the parliament and at the next campaign? 

I don't recall that happening with One Nation in Australia.

[Хahar 🤔]

But One Nation wasn't very relevant during a prolonged amount of time, no?

Far more relevant than the BNP has ever been, certainly.