it's the only way to go.

It's been that way in Oz always..you get governments that are more reflective of what people really want and at the same time governments are far more beholden to the electorate.

discuss.

It's an awful idea. The less sophisticated and well-informed the electorate, the simpler the system should be. First past the post at least concentrates the mind, and it's not actually any less effective than AV or any other system. To make AV superior you'd need a majority of very politically aware voters who make reasoned choices that take into account several variables and probable eventualities. If you think that's how most people vote in this country you're absolutely potty.

veritas wrote:
it's the only way to go.

I've made an appointment at the Doctor's veritas ... this is TWICE today that I've agreed with you. A check-up is obv needed.

Prunella Minge wrote:
First past the post at least concentrates the mind.

... and almost always produces a "winner" who the majority didn't want !
Some democracy !

In The Know wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
First past the post at least concentrates the mind.

... and almost always produces a "winner" who the majority didn't want !
Some democracy !

As happens with AV.

I must admit - I have no feelings about this; I was going to vote YES because it would help the Lib Dems but since they have been in power they have betrayed every single principle and culminated in backing our slaughter of innocent Libyans so I shall never vote for them again. I loathe Cameron with his tiny anal hole of a mouth and spoon face. I can't stand Miliband or any other politicians. I have decided Democracy does not work; the more the majority opinion, the more the morons dominate. "Bring back capital punishment" they howl, brain dead. I intend to spoil my ballot.

Prunella Minge wrote:
As happens with AV.

Not exactly ... If you have 3 candidates and cant stand one of them you can make that point on your ballot form. At least you have some influence ?

JK2006 wrote:
I must admit - I have no feelings about this; I was going to vote YES because it would help the Lib Dems

But it wouldn't. The empirical error always made is that the potential impact of the new system is assessed via an anaysis of how people behave in the old system. What would actually happen is that the tactics would change, and the party machines would work hard to anticipate the second, third choices, etc, and dissuade supporters from favouring the rivals.

Prunella Minge wrote:
It's an awful idea. The less sophisticated and well-informed the electorate, the simpler the system should be. First past the post at least concentrates the mind, and it's not actually any less effective than AV or any other system. To make AV superior you'd need a majority of very politically aware voters who make reasoned choices that take into account several variables and probable eventualities. If you think that's how most people vote in this country you're absolutely potty.

but it isn't complicated.

you just list your candidates in order of preference from No1 and so on.

Or as usually happens-you vote 1 for you party of choice and allow them to distribute the preferences.


It isn't the best system but I believe it's the most democratic.


The alternative would be to have a benign dictator like me who would be really wonderful to everyone. And ITK would have a friend in high palces to ensure he wasn't bundled off in the middle of the night as I'd like to to do to a lot of others.

veritas wrote:

but it isn't complicated.

you just list your candidates in order of preference from No1 and so on.



I'm well aware of how it works, thank you very much. And I didn't say it was complicated - but if you do it properly and responsibly it SHOULD seem quite complicated. Anyone can just list candidates - but research shows that many voters actually have very poor knowledge of the one candidate (and Party, and manifesto) they currently vote for - so God knows how rationally they'd order several others.

I keep saying: if you want democracy rather than mere populism, you need extremely well-informed and virtuous voters. In the meantime: take it one step at a time, and improve the way people deliberate within the first past the post system before moving on to more sophisticated systems. Systems are far less important than mature voters.

Prunella Minge wrote:
Systems are far less important than mature voters.

Well, thats the end of that discussion then !!!
I always thought that giving everyone a vote was a very big mistake !!!

I'm rapidly becoming convinced that democracy doesn't work; even when the most intelligent, informed people only are the "demos".

Think, then vote. Repeat that several times until it sinks in. Think, then vote. Giving a vote to a bigot, a racist, a woman-hater, a homophobe, whatever, and calculating how many MORE votes to give them...jesus christ. Wake up.

Prunella Minge wrote:
veritas wrote:

but it isn't complicated.

you just list your candidates in order of preference from No1 and so on.



I'm well aware of how it works, thank you very much. And I didn't say it was complicated - but if you do it properly and responsibly it SHOULD seem quite complicated. Anyone can just list candidates - but research shows that many voters actually have very poor knowledge of the one candidate (and Party, and manifesto) they currently vote for - so God knows how rationally they'd order several others.

I keep saying: if you want democracy rather than mere populism, you need extremely well-informed and virtuous voters. In the meantime: take it one step at a time, and improve the way people deliberate within the first past the post system before moving on to more sophisticated systems. Systems are far less important than mature voters.

yes you are quite correct but I say that you have uneducated voters because of the current system.

Voters in Australia are no more or less educated than Brits but reallly take their elections seriously and it's because of AV voting.

There is a sort of comfort feeling when you place NO I in your candidates box and then list the others in preference down to the bastard you put last.

This is bascially what the proponents of AV system say and they are telling the truth.

Being now eligible to vote in both places I find voting in the UK is exactly as AV supporters say- you can get a winning MP who has minority support whereas in OZ every MP basically has a large majority of support of their electorate and they do have to work a lot harder at wooing voters than 'first past the post'. They have to woo those who will not vote for them but may preference them ie-the entire electorate.

There is one great advantage that AV voting would have in Britain-there are three major political parties. I reckon you would see a remarkable different government in the UK and one far more representative of the masses than the past decades.

veritas wrote:

Voters in Australia are no more or less educated than Brits but reallly take their elections seriously and it's because of AV voting.


Voters in Australia take their elections more seriously because the law encourages them to do so. For the last time: systems don't make voters good voters: education and information do that. Get education to a good level and you have the basis for democracy. You don't get democracy by foisting different systems on people who don't understand practical wisdom.

I agree with you Pru; sadly, the reality is that the vast majority are not, and never will be, sufficiently educated or interested to make an intelligent, informed decision. I'm guilty of that myself - my vote has gone either to people I like personally (Ken Livingstone to start with; Tony Blair to start with) or for superficial reasons (Lib Dems because they dared stand up against violence, force and killing with our money and in our name - to start with).

My limited current knowledge says - I cannot vote for anyone any longer.

Democracy doesn't work. Neither does anything else.

Prunella Minge wrote:
veritas wrote:

Voters in Australia are no more or less educated than Brits but reallly take their elections seriously and it's because of AV voting.


Voters in Australia take their elections more seriously because the law encourages them to do so. For the last time: systems don't make voters good voters: education and information do that. Get education to a good level and you have the basis for democracy. You don't get democracy by foisting different systems on people who don't understand practical wisdom.

yes that is one aspect I forget Ms Minge-voting is compulsorary in Oz and the right wingers bang on about like it's some dreadful imposition on freedom..although you have the freedom to disobey the law and it's rare for someone to be fined..and over the years it has encouraged everyone to think about their vote.

It;s the other aspect that is bad for democracy in the USA & UK..non-compulsorary voting .