AV or FPTP?

[SRD]

I know this is usually a politics free site but this referendum cuts across all party lines and has the potential to change the face of our politics, so what do you think?

Personally I'm in favour of AV, mainly because I tend to vote negatively (against a party I dislike rather than for a party I approve of, simply because none of the parties offer a manifesto that I can agree with over half of) and I think AV will give those who are against a party a better say.

Despite the arguments of the pro FPTP side I don't think it will create a bigger gap between the MP and their electorate as MPs virtually always vote with the Whip anyway so what does that matter? Actually I think it will encourage MPs to pay more attention to their electorate as they will have to woo second votes as well. I also think that it will allow a small number of the 'alternative' thinkers a say more in proportion to the electorates actual opinions.

I'm one of those people who think that voting is a hard earned privilege and shouldn't be undertaken lightly so I was dismayed to hear on the radio this morning that David Cameron thinks that voting shouldn't be a mind-bending exercise but a gut feeling thing. Firstly I think that's a non-sequitur anyway, AV is no more mentally taxing than FPTP if one takes one's voting seriously (and shouldn't we all?) and I think the country would be in far less of a mess if the people thought a lot more carefully about the policies, and their consequences, of those who would have power over us.

[Maths girl]

It will be interesting to hear the views of those in countries where AV already exists -- does it work? would they prefer FPTP?

[peterd]

im for Av why should some one represent a constituency that has less than 50% of the vote, as he suppose to represent use, but as usual they vote for what there told to by the party. This hopefully should cut a lot of this out as next time he might be out on his ear, so he works for use and not a party

if someone wants to vote for one person all they have to do is put 1 agianst there choice and no one else thats fptp in Av

[snoopysue]

Quite like the idea of ranking the candidates!

In Denmark, it's FPTP, although slightly different from the UK. You can either vote specifically for the local candidate, or just the party. This means that if everyone voted for the party, they could then chose exactly which of their candidates should get seats. If however you vote for the candidate, and that person gets enough votes to give him/ her the seat, their party cannot change that. The system also means that you don't need a bi-election in the case of somebody dieing (?) etc, and if the party has a specific person they want to bring in, then they can do.
It would also mean that if a party's key person didn't get re-elected in terms of personal votes, then their party can ensure they have a seat anyway.
Oh and we have proportional represenation, so if you have 50% of the total votes, you have 50% of the seats!

[MarkCDodd]

FPTP is a stupid idea. Looking at the last Federal Election in Australia, FPTP would have meant your local representative might have only polled 17% of the popular vote

FPTP has never been used in Australia and the concept is so alien to me I can't really think of a positive aspect of it.

AV is called "preferential voting" in Australia.

The preferences, how your party wants you to number the candidates from 1 to x, has always been a major part of the "politics" leading up to an election in Australia.

You can see what compromises the parties are making and who they are willing to "govern with" before the election.

At the last Federal Election we could see the Labour Party making a deal with The Greens for preferences which indicated that they would probably form a coalition party if needed to beat the Liberals.

That is exactly what happened.

FPTP would have resulted in a surprise formation of the coalition as no visible deals would have been needed before the results were known.

AV is only used in the lower houses of the Federal and State Governments.

In the upper houses the number of seats is based purely on the percetage of votes.

You vote for the party, not the candidate, and it is up to the party to allocate the upper house seats to candidates.

This means that the upper house is often controlled by a number of smaller parties who often have very narrow political aims.

It also means you can have detestable parties, such as the now defunct One Nation Party, with reprensentatives in Parliament because they had enough racists vote for them.

We also get parties such as Family First (radical Christians) with seats in the upper house.

Voting is also compulsory in Australia.

I am amazed when I see the UK and USA form governments when less than 70% of people could be bothered turning up to vote.

[SRD]

One of the reasons people round here don't vote, and we have a pretty high turnout at around 80%, is because the result is a foregone conclusion, the Tory candidate gets in with virtually 50% of the vote anyway, to be forced to vote when one's vote is worthless is a real slap in the face. If we could vote for a national party rather than an individual then our vote would have value and it could be made compulsory but personally I would only approve of that if the ballot included a 'vote withheld' option. Ok, it means a few loonies get in, but we might as well get entertainment from our politicians, they don't do much else.

Again on a personal basis; I always attend the vote because I think it's an important part of our society so to do, but I frequently spoil my vote as I either don't reckon the candidate on offer or the party's policies.

[linell]

I voted NO, I think AV would give us permanent Coalition and weak governments. I seem to be in a minority here, mind you being as I live in England my vote does at least count. Linell.

[SRD]

I voted NO, I think AV would give us permanent Coalition and weak governments. I seem to be in a minority here, mind you being as I live in England my vote does at least count. Linell.

Odd how people think differently, the last thing I want is strong government; they're the ones that go off to war, force the general MOR trend of the nation to left or right and generally create havoc that the following coalitions have to clear up (to the cost of the taxpayer). Anyway, coalitions don't have to be weak, look at Churchill's government in WWII for instance.

I don't like the way that FPTP can gives us government by minority rather than consensus, allowing fortunes (of our money) to be spent redoing what the last lot did in an effort to drag the nation to left or right knowing that in a few years they'll be out of power and able to retire (having been chucked out by a fed up electorate) to the cushy jobs lined up for politicians 'who make their mark'. If there's the likelihood that members of the ongoing government will be the ones having to clear up the mess they caused there's less chance of them making the mess in the first place (I think that the New Labour debacle would have been much mitigated if there was a strong chance of Labour getting back into power, albeit in coalition with the LibDems, and having to clear up the debt left behind rather than retiring to the opposition benches and watching the LibDemCon flounder in backtracking and u-turns).

Actually, that is one of the things that worry me about coalitions, the dominant partner can hang on, making new alliances, even though their time is well past (Israel being a classic example of this), but I think the dangers of that happening with AV are much less than with PR and can happen with FPTP anyway, look at Brown hanging on without going to the nation, and Callaghan before him.

[peterd]

if the liberals wernt in the colalition at the moment and if the con had won outright with fptp then mr cameron would of bulldozed his nhs reforms through trying to create a two tier health system, if you can aford to pay towards your medical expenses when you getting older good luck but the majority carnt, the lib might have made a lot of coprimises decision lets hope they dont on health.
Av will stop any goverment just bulldozing changes through. it going to cost billions to change all our goverment dept to con /lib way of doing thing and in 5 years time if fptp is still in, billions to poss change it back to labour way, this is money we carnt afford ?