UKers - Alternative Voting, yes or no?

[Toshiya]

(couldn't find a thread on this, apologies if there already is one)

So, in the UK, there's the referendum on whether or not we want AV to come in and replace the first past the post system.
I was talking about it with my friends earlier, and with my parents just now, and I wanted to hear your thoughts on it.

So, AV is similar to first past the post, in the sense that you still vote for the person of your constituency, but instead of voting for one person, you rank your preferences in the order that you would most like in power.

In my opinion, whilst the Lib Dems say it will make voting fairer in the sense that all MPs will have had a majority vote (whereas before people got in despite only having, say, 40% of their constituencies votes) I don't think it'll help us at all. They say it'll stop 'extremist' parties getting the vote - but lets face it, very few seats in parliament right now are help by small parties. The BNP and UKIP have NONE and the green party has ONE - so it's hardly a problem, is it?
I think it's just a ploy by the Lib Dems to try and get more seats. They can't do it currently and the closest Clegg will ever get to being top dog is where he is right now. They just aren't popular enough to win as many seats as they'd like under the current system. I'm all for the voting systems being fair, but this way we'll end up with more coalition governments than we have under the first past the post system. I think, since the current system's been in place we've only had something like 2 coalitions, and that's the way it should stay. I'm a firm believer than coalitions just don't get things done as efficiently as they would if it was just one party in control, and I'd much rather have just the Tories in power right now than a mixture of Tories and Lib Dems.

So yeah, I'm not yet old enough to vote, so you might think my opinion's a bit invalid. But I'd like to hear your views. Discuss.

 

[Linnaete]

I'm all in favour of electoral reform. Our current system has grossly exaggerated election victories in the past, be it Blair's victories or Thatcher's later victories culminating in an executive with far too much power with their tremendous parliamentary majorities. FPTP while it has served us well for all these centuries, is still a very unfair system that promotes safe-seats for many Labour and Conservative politicians as well as being severely disadvantageous to other parties. But a change to AV is hardly better at all and in fact, it may even serve to destabilise the current structure we have now.

It's very rarely that I side with the Tories with anything, but it will cost a lot to explain and implement this system which while should still be straightforward to understand, it's still more complicated in comparison to FPTP. It will apparently cost £250 million and that may or may not cover the cost of this referendum itself. I don't condone the No Campaign's shameful politicisation of things like the baby needing desperate surgery in their leaflets, but they have a point in the cost. With the economy barely recovering and Osborne doing his best to cut public services under the guise of 100% deficit-slashing, this money really should not be used on a politician's tool.

I am not convinced either that AV will really inspire politicians to work harder and be less complacent and corrupted. Yes, FPTP allowed things like the expenses scandal and the loans for peerages scandal to occur by inviting this complacency with life jobs due to safe seats, but will AV be any better at all? The only main beneficiaries of this would be Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats can constantly be the kingmakers, bargaining with other parties behind closed doors for coalition agreements. Yes, politicians break promises all the time. The promises you get in election campaigns almost never translate into fully implemented policies. But with Clegg and his bargaining behind closed doors, you can forget about promises being kept and the formation of a government with no real mandate by the people (like our coalition now).

With how AV works, the ranking of candidates can mean the candidate who technically should win doesn't because other preferences are counted up instead. And in an occasion where an MP is elected but is done so largely on second or third preference votes for parties such as the BNP or UKIP, you may see the party of the elected MP respond to this by lurching further to the right to try and accommodate the voting base who had UKIP or BNP as their primary preferences.

I know coalition governments could be a frequent occurence under systems such as full Proportional Representation but I would seriously prefer that over AV any day and likewise I'm just not certain about AV. It's not a popular system even to the Lib Dems (when they prefer STV) and while people like Miliband argue that it would be a step in the right direction, I'm not too sure. I'm happy with the current system and if anything, if you want to improve trust in politics, this will not simply be done by switching electoral systems. Most people don't give a rat's arse how MPs are elected anyway. I'm not conservative and I would value some change, but I don't think AV is the change we need or can really afford now.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I'm voting for Yes on AV, mainly 'cause I think it'll lead to a fairer voting system in which MP's have to actually get a majority vote to win. But this little part of me just wants to see that dirtbag David Cameron taken down a few notches. Maybe next general election these horrible Tuition fees would be taken back down and the NHS would be saved.
Didn't the UK learn from Margaret Thatcher? The Conservatives are useless.

 

[Davey Gaga]

I've been debating all day about this and the following sums it pretty well:

Basically meaning the majority DON'T want coffee, but because the majority aren't unanimous on the alternatives, the coffee wins...which the minority want.

I suppose it's good because it means, like we just witnessed, we can't have a hung parliament. It's bad because some get more than 1 vote at a time but purely for elimination purposes.