The UK alternative vote system......what can our ozy pals tell us about theirs

[Simon]

Right, now I don't want to start a huge row over politics because this is not the place for it. But as some people might be aware in the UK we are about to vote on having the alternative voting system introduced.

Now as i'm not a huge follower of politics as I think they are all crooks irrespective (well UKIP have more on my side maybe) but I've not heard one party tell me it's a good idea and still don't know where it came from. Everyone say's how wrong it could go and no one is pointing out that it might be good.

Now as I'm one of the few that like the idea I'm interested in finding out what our australian counterparts think as apparently they have it but don't like it. I've always liked the idea of having a system like this as I always vote for a party I'm sure won't win and would love to have a second choice, I mean it just makes sense right ?

While everyone is telling us how much it will cost and how much it will make life more crooked in politics I see that people are missing the obvious. With this system if there are 10 candidates and one gets 11% while the rest get 9.9% he will not win as he/she would now. Now no one is going to tell me that anyone wants a person with 1.1% more votes and voted by just over 10% of the population in power. but if everyone has a majority second choice I'm sure they would prefer their second choice person in power instead of risking someone they don't want just because he/she got 1.1% more votes that the desired person.

Am I missing something

This just makes so much sense, ok it means people have to think a little more and work out a 2nd and 3rd choice, well if people don't want to take responsibility for the running of their country in the only way they can, I'd invite them to shoot themselves in the head !

So far all of the propaganda I've received telling me how it can go horribly wrong has not explained  in real terms how it will go wrong and what the problem actually is, how it would be bad that instead of someone with very few votes and fewer more than the next will not win while someone that we do all prefer over what we really don't want getting a proper majority.

This is not a discussion about politics per se but more about the actual system, we could be voting for apples, pears and oranges for all I care

[EEVblog]

Now as I'm one of the few that like the idea I'm interested in finding out what our australian counterparts think as apparently they have it but don't like it. I've always liked the idea of having a system like this as I always vote for a party I'm sure won't win and would love to have a second choice, I mean it just makes sense right ?

While everyone is telling us how much it will cost and how much it will make life more crooked in politics I see that people are missing the obvious. With this system if there are 10 candidates and one gets 11% while the rest get 9.9% he will not win as he/she would now. Now no one is going to tell me that anyone wants a person with 1.1% more votes and voted by just over 10% of the population in power. but if everyone has a majority second choice I'm sure they would prefer their second choice person in power instead of risking someone they don't want just because he/she got 1.1% more votes that the desired person.

Here it often comes down to a rather confusing system of preferences from the candidates who don't get in. And to top it off we have both a "simple" method of voting or laborious method of voting (vote "1" and that's it, or fill in ALL the numbers). Naturally most people don't understand it, and just put down the "1", and in some cases their vote may actually go to someone they don't like without even knowing it!

I never vote for any of the major two parties, as I think it's important to have a powerful third party and/or independents in seats.
And I always numbers ALL the boxes to put the real dickheads last.
Unfortunately I live in a seat that is 100% safe, they could put a monkey on the ballot and he would get voted in, because the people who vote ARE monkey who always vote the same way.

And then of course you get the usual ridiculous situation of voting for candidates based on two or three major policy positions that get all the publicity during the election campaign, and it's simply impossible to vote in a person or party who you agree with completely on every issue.

The whole system is rooted. I recon the parties/politions elected shouldn't make ANY decisions, they should just be paper pushers who enact the policies that are determined by the people by vote. We have the technology available today to do this, so it would be great if we could simply vote on every issue/policy when it comes up, instead of for a person/party who then control every decision.

When was the last time YOUR elected member asked YOU what you think of policy before voting on it in parliament? Never of course.
People of course make the argument, that well, if you don't like them, vote them out on the next election. But that doesn't solve the inherent problem. The system is rooted.

Dave.

[Simon]

hm so you don't think the AV system is such a bad idea ? for your information the bit of propaganda i got yesterday states that 60% (6 in 10) of Australians want to get rid of it. Is that true ?

[TheWelly888]

Thanks Dave for explaining what AV is like Down Under, you still live in a 100% safe seat for whatever dickhead party you would rather not have voted for! Having to give a preference to a complete dickhead politico that you would not even exert a single brain cell in considering, is anathema to me but I understand that the AV system proposed for the UK will allow for just one vote cast on the ballot paper which means that one would not have to give even the last place to the BNP candidate!

What makes it complicated will be where the 2nd and 3rd choice votes go to if no candidate gets 50% of the 1st choice votes cast.

I don't want AV because it is just too bloody complicated!

[Zero999]

I'm not sure. I agree with Simon that having a second and third choice is good but it does complicate matters.

There's actually a democracy index. Out of 167 countries surveyed in 2010,  North Korea is last with a score of 1.08  (o surprise) and Norway came top at 9.8. The UK is ranked at 19th with 8.18 and is way behind Australia which came sixth from top with 9.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index#2010_rankings

The reality is, there's no such thing as a perfect democracy, no real way of measuring it  - it's subjective.

So perhaps introducing a more Australian-like voting system here would be a good thing but democracy is more than just a voting system: civil rights and free press are more important.

[Sionyn]

cool simon cheers dave and hero999 i guess its also a matter how one defines a democracy.
agree with dave and political monopolies.
we need more independents.


personally i think Sweden has the best (fair) system 

[EEVblog]

Like it or loath it it can make for interesting times. The biggest drawback in my view is we still always elect polititions.

Yup.
I've actually contemplated running myself, just so I can vote for myself 
If I got a few percent of the vote (probably not hard being the only independent in a seat) the government (via my tax dollars of course) would pay me something like $5000 for the next election.

Dave.

[Sionyn]

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

[ziq8tsi]

the bit of propaganda i got yesterday

I was all set to raise several issues about the NO2AV leaflet with the Advertising Standards Authority.  But it turns out they have no jurisdiction over political advertising, making it the only kind of direct mail that is not held up to any standards of honesty.

The no campaign really is a cynical masterpiece of weak, scaremongering arguments, funded by Conservatives but masquerading as representing everyone except Nick Clegg.  And the irony is that their real problem with voting reform -- the way it might change election results -- could actually be a good argument.  If you believe that giving one party a big majority in the House of Commons leads to more effective decision making.

[Simon]

to be honest I think I'm liking hung parliaments and coalitions. I've seen many more U turns on policy due to either public outcry (if you in the UK get signed up to 38degrees) or because having a parliment made up of two parties means that they have to haggle with each other and we end up with a slightly better policy.

The scaremongering about the alternative vote causing hung parliaments is bollocks, it's the system we have now that does or at least it will be no worse and perhaps get some smaller more local thinking people into government that otherwise won't make it.

Yes I'd love to see all the propaganda being spewed out taken to task because most of the statement are baseless, starting with 60% of Australians not liking it, apparently that is not quite the case. The thing about cost ? bla my pc could work out the voting outcome in seconds, we don't need machinery costing millions

I'm voting yes for it, I encourage other brits to do the same

[Uncle Vernon]

Those interested in AV and comparisons between Australia and the UK could well be interested in the articles by Antony Green. http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/

Green is a strangle little inner city leftie gnome who is a veritable encyclopedia of unbiased factual election information. He has done quite a bit of work on recent movements in the UK.

In a nutshell the purpose of AV is to make as many votes count as possible, preferences can push candidate that scored the second or even third placed primary vote candidate across the line.

By example consider a dubious nutjob Tasmanian independent holding a seat in the current parliament, he was voted in from a position of third highest primary vote. On the surface that is insane, but consider for a moment that roughly 25% of the vote also went towards another nutjob who considered the elected nutjob as their 2nd preference. Clearly there was a substantial nutjob vote coming from that Tasmanian seat and that's the outcome that occurred. To elect the candidate with the highest primary vote would have seen the wishes of the majority unrepresented.

What dismays me with all these debates is the amount of ignorance and apathy shown by so many voters. Numbskull opinions like "don't vote for them they are all corrupt", or blindly following centuries old ideologies is why we (as a community) end up with the governments we deserve.

Look beyond the Logos and the slogans and vote on issues that affect you and we may just end up with a better and accountable government.

 

[Uncle Vernon]

When was the last time YOUR elected member asked YOU what you think of policy before voting on it in parliament? Never of course.

When was the last time you made the effort to contact or lobby your MLA?  All the nutjobs groups do it on a regular basis! If middle Australia cannot be assed to put pressure on their various governments then they deserve the government that they end up with, governments that pander to noisy lunatics like Harold and his (ahem) Pedestrian council. Politics is like everything else in life, you get out of it, what you put into it.

Our parliamentary system is fine, the governments negotiating to the top of that system are those taking best advantage of the apathy and general ignorance of the electorate. It doesn't too much effort to keep the bastards honest if few more percent of the population made that effort we'd have much more responsive and representative government.

[Simon]

I think we can say the same for the UK, we all moan but few do anything. Then again when you have a day job going to see your MP probably aint that easy, that;'s why I like to have as much say as possible in who goes so that I can cut him or her a bit more slack. I voted for a conservative on the county council because she took the trouble to come round and ask for the vote which was more than the rest did. Of course being a conservative she did nothing of what she promised and left us all behind

[Ed.Kloonk]

Exactly. The sooner you realize they don't care about you, the better off you will be about deciding what to write on the ballot form.

The problem with hung parliaments Simon is, whilst it's good that it puts the brakes on stupid policy, the reining power that be does a deal with some ratbag with one single out-there agenda. And that is even more ridiculous.

I'll never understand why such a thing known as a "safe seat" even exists. If only everyone, on polling day, remembered just one thing: "They work for me"

In South Australian state elections they have an extra option on the ballot form "None of the above". Turns out that the number of voters who tick this box has a correlation with others state's voters who vote informal. (Informal means you turned up but your vote cannot be used for any number of reasons.)

personally i think Sweden has the best (fair) system

Yep it probably is. It's also the place where, I'm told, if you are pulled over by the police, the cop knows your income and fines you accordingly.  

[Zero999]

The one thing I disagree with the Australian system is compulsory voting which I see as both illiberal and a waste of money.

[TheWelly888]

^^^
When our Aussie mates have to choose between the likes of Rudd, Hanson, Conroy etc, they need to be compelled to do so! 

[Uncle Vernon]

^^^
When our Aussie mates have to choose between the likes of Rudd, Hanson, Conroy etc, they need to be compelled to do so! 

Hopefully Senator "fibre is infinitely expandable and future proof" Conroy can be returned back to from where he came on some manner of immigration default. Public nuisance coming immediately to mind. 2ND thought we don't need any valid reason the whole exercise could just be stamped "commercial in confidence".

[Simon]

personally i think Sweden has the best (fair) system

Yep it probably is. It's also the place where, I'm told, if you are pulled over by the police, the cop knows your income and fines you accordingly.  

The true essence of democracy ! I wish they did that here. I remember in Italy people broke road laws not caring and accepted fines as a tax on bad driving. That was until the points system came in that gets you banned. I'm sure the same applies to the UK some can afford a £60 fine, but to me it is crippling. There should be democracy in fines as well as taxes.

[GeoffS]

Reading all this makes me glad I don't vote 

[I know, the right to vote is one that many would die for but given the wallys that run for office, can you blame me?]

[Simon]

Yea I see your point too geoff, I hate voting too as i know they are mostly the same, but how else can we try and shape our government and show the scumbags that they are not wanted.

People also vote with their feet, I mean the conservatives in the UK only got more votes than labour because labour screwed up so bad and it was an animalistic reaction. But really are the conservatives any better ? no! infact they are worse as they are notorious for looking after No1 and their own mates who are already very rich. when we blame the banks for the crisis why did the majority vote for a party that is funded by bankers , our health minister is a real champ, while declaring he wants to give us the best national health service he is funded by private health companies..... that's the conservatives, labour may have screwed up but the conservatives are so two faced i can't see they have a legal right to govern due to massive conflicts on interest

[Ed.Kloonk]

personally i think Sweden has the best (fair) system

Yep it probably is. It's also the place where, I'm told, if you are pulled over by the police, the cop knows your income and fines you accordingly.  

The true essence of democracy ! I wish they did that here. I remember in Italy people broke road laws not caring and accepted fines as a tax on bad driving. That was until the points system came in that gets you banned. I'm sure the same applies to the UK some can afford a £60 fine, but to me it is crippling. There should be democracy in fines as well as taxes.

U sure about that? Do you really want to annoy a cop enough to pull you over and put him over the edge when he finds out you earn much more than him and have better working hours than him. 

[Simon]

I'm sure they know they are not top of the earning scale. If i was a cop i'd be doing it out of a sense of social justice.

[Zero999]

The true essence of democracy ! I wish they did that here. I remember in Italy people broke road laws not caring and accepted fines as a tax on bad driving. That was until the points system came in that gets you banned. I'm sure the same applies to the UK some can afford a £60 fine, but to me it is crippling. There should be democracy in fines as well as taxes.

Yes, the fine should depend on the income of the offender.

Italy is classed as a flawed democracy but even that's probably optimistic given the government ownership of all the TV channels.