FPTP or AV?

[GommeInc]

This is something that will confuse a lot of people though and they will probably put preference regardless

Indeed, you should only put other candidates if you are happy with most of the policies or the candidate/party in general. You should never vote for someone you are totally against or feel you should vote for more than one for the sake of it I might number mine, as I do feel a mix of candidates have decent policies, and to see if a fairer result comes of it.

[redtom]

People get blinded by quotes like

The X choice party can get into power with AV

The fact of the matter is that this will rarely happen, much like current coalitions in the UK.
FTP forces wasted votes, and because of this leaves smaller parties ultimately powerless. The AV isn't great but its a step in the right direction, creating a better reflection of public views and making politics more competitive.

[FlyingJesus]

Are you suggesting that it's rare for a party to not gain a 50%+ vote in the first round because unless that's the case then yes, the "X choice" party will be far more likely to win

[Ajthedragon]

I prefer the system we have now because it's less complicated, cheaper, easier to count (we get the result overnight!) and reduces the chances of hung parliaments. It also means extremist parties might be elected into parliament. Plus the system we have now is traditional and doesn't really benefit any of the political partys. With a new system liberal parties would walk away with it, you either love or hate right-wing politics. And if the Labour Party won all the time it wouldn't really be democracy...


No system truly reflects public views.

[alexxxxx]

Unless you can vote one party as your 1st 2nd and 3rd choice then I'd personally feel extremely disenfranchised having only a third of the say of other people just because I had strong views. In reality I don't vote anyway and will live with whatever goes down but I'm sure plenty of people wouldn't want to end up not having had any part of the 2nd/3rd rounds of voting and having their entire vote totally nulled

I don't really understand what you're getting at. If you only liked one party's views then you'd have no need for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice - you don't have only a 3rd of the choice - you have as much of a vote as anyone else.

Indeed, you should only put other candidates if you are happy with most of the policies or the candidate/party in general. You should never vote for someone you are totally against or feel you should vote for more than one for the sake of it I might number mine, as I do feel a mix of candidates have decent policies, and to see if a fairer result comes of it.

This just needs to be made clear so Labour party people don't end up putting conservatives as their 2nd choice.

I prefer the system we have now because it's less complicated, cheaper, easier to count (we get the result overnight!) and reduces the chances of hung parliaments. It also means extremist parties might be elected into parliament. Plus the system we have now is traditional and doesn't really benefit any of the political partys. With a new system liberal parties would walk away with it, you either love or hate right-wing politics. And if the Labour Party won all the time it wouldn't really be democracy...
Hung Parliaments and Coalitions are signs of a functioning democracy. If the labour party with the lib dems were in coalition almost every election because the electorate voted them in, it would be a democracy. The new voting system would not have to expensive, i'm surprised that electronic vote readers are not used.

No system truly reflects public views.

[Mathew]

There's a clear distinction between the two main parties and you're either classed as a Conservative or a Labour voter. There are very few people, if anyone, that would put both of them down on their ballot paper, if we were to change to AV.

Taking that into account, you're left with all the minority parties which simply aren't advertised enough for people to consider putting them down (and by "people" I mean the general public, typically those lacking political knowledge). People don't know enough about UKIP, BNP and the Green Party for them to even consider winning an election.

Now it's all well and good for you to suggest "you can just vote for one party," but in that case... why bother changing the system at all? People don't know enough about the rest, so the majority of people will stick with Lab/Con and the results will be clear (51% or more) at the end. It just seems an expensive and pointless change which is only being brought to public attention because of the Lib Dem's floundering support.

[GommeInc]

There's a clear distinction between the two main parties and you're either classed as a Conservative or a Labour voter. There are very few people, if anyone, that would put both of them down on their ballot paper, if we were to change to AV.

Taking that into account, you're left with all the minority parties which simply aren't advertised enough for people to consider putting them down (and by "people" I mean the general public, typically those lacking political knowledge). People don't know enough about UKIP, BNP and the Green Party for them to even consider winning an election.

Now it's all well and good for you to suggest "you can just vote for one party," but in that case... why bother changing the system at all? People don't know enough about the rest, so the majority of people will stick with Lab/Con and the results will be clear (51% or more) at the end. It just seems an expensive and pointless change which is only being brought to public attention because of the Lib Dem's floundering support.

Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are practically the same. People could vote for both of them on their ballot papers if they wanted (I say both because the Lib Dems are like leeches that stick to whatever party is the strongest), they're not extreme opposites as we would believe. Both dry hump the NHS and are lousy with finances, and usually harp on about creating jobs, boosting education and public services, the only difference is they change the words slightly

[-:Undertaker:-]

Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are practically the same. People could vote for both of them on their ballot papers if they wanted (I say both because the Lib Dems are like leeches that stick to whatever party is the strongest), they're not extreme opposites as we would believe. Both dry hump the NHS and are lousy with finances, and usually harp on about creating jobs, boosting education and public services, the only difference is they change the words slightly

One hundred percent correct, +rep.

Anyone of these parties could be in office and nothing would change (as we've seen right now and I dare anybody to point out actual policy differences between the parties as opposed to differing rhetoric which is used to win elections). The thing that prevents this however is the belief, among the tribal voters of these parties that they are somehow different and that it actually matters which one gains the keys to number 10.

I would love all three of them to campaign on a pledge of what they actually do whilst in office; signing away our sovereignty to a foreign power, promising referendums then denying them, allowing foreign courts to overrule British courts, allowing mass migration, throwing money at the global warming climate change gravytrain, continuing a vast welfare state, throwing money at a health service which is bloated with layers of managerial staff, increasing foreign aid by billions + many more.. and raising taxes to pay for it all of course.

We could then have a proper debate as a country on what where we wanted to go - the above or something different.