The whole AV thing is so complex.....why don't they make it more simple?

I was all for it until I read how it actually works, and now I am wondering if it is a good idea at all

The BBC explain it, if you aren't sure how it would work http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11243595

I think the way that the bottom candidate is removed and then whatever candidate was that voters second choice then gets counted..over and over til someone has 50% vote - its just too random and I really do not think it will work out that the most popular candidate wins somehow


I haven't thought of a good solution, but I can't beleive that these politicians and experts can't come up with a better voting system!


What are your thoughts ladies?!

I havent read that link yet, but from basic knowledge I was going to vote No. Its not very popular worldwide.

In prinicpal I can see how its better to have a winner who at least 50% would be happy on some level with eg you wouldnt vote for a 2nd or 3rd preference if you weren't prepared for them to win.... so people should be happy enough.

But then I can see how its not fair - eliminating the lowest votes and only swapping them to the 2nd choice, eg maybe everyoe who voted for the green party voted labour... whereas everyone else's 2nd choice was conservative but their 2nd choice wasnt considered.

Am I making sense? Im starting to think i dont understand it as well as I thought lol!
Im a bit torn too. I like the idea of more than 50% of people having to be happy, even if it is their 2nd choice, but dont like how its only the bottom candidates votes get transfered. Confused?

I don't like it. If you want a different system why not have proportional representation where at least then the party get the % of seats based on the % of votes. With av the winner could lose if that makes sense

snoopy21 wrote:

I havent read that link yet, but from basic knowledge I was going to vote No. Its not very popular worldwide.

In prinicpal I can see how its better to have a winner who at least 50% would be happy on some level with eg you wouldnt vote for a 2nd or 3rd preference if you weren't prepared for them to win.... so people should be happy enough.

But then I can see how its not fair - eliminating the lowest votes and only swapping them to the 2nd choice, eg maybe everyoe who voted for the green party voted labour... whereas everyone else's 2nd choice was conservative but their 2nd choice wasnt considered.

Am I making sense? Im starting to think i dont understand it as well as I thought lol!
Im a bit torn too. I like the idea of more than 50% of people having to be happy, even if it is their 2nd choice, but dont like how its only the bottom candidates votes get transfered. Confused?

That is the bit I dont like!

I'm voting against it!

I haven't made my mind up yet, it's quite confusing,

They should do a points system, you vote for your top 3, number 1 gets 10 points, number 2 gets 6 number 3, 4 points or something like that then whoever has the most points wins

They get rid of the least popular first because that would be the one who had absolutely no chance of winning anyway, I get that.

I think I would rather my second choice be elected than someone I really didn't want getting in so I'm inclined to vote for rather than against.

What I don't get is how it links to which party wins in parliament. If you did all of the constituencies by AV rather than a basic majority, then that sets who has each seat in the commons. But over-all government is set by a who has the most seats, and if you don't have more than half (like labour last time around) then you can still be undermined by everyone else collectively, so although you have a majority, you don't really have the power.

So what I don't understand is: would they end up reassigning all the minority/independent seats to whoever came second in those constituencies until there was a majority government with over 50% of seats? It doesn't seem right because that means that although someone was properly elected in one area they don't get to be MP anyway.

Can someone explain what happens at a national level with AV cos if it doesn't affect that then I don't get why you would need a greater than 50% majority anyway??

Ahh my head hurts just reading your post Emvar

Emvar thank you for confusing me even more

In saying that, your point doesnt matter here in NI, we vote for local MPs (MLA's) and then seperately for MPs who go over to westminster but we have our own political parties eg Unionist parties, Sinn Fein, Alliance, SDLP etc .

In NI we dont really get a say in who runs the country, which is a bit unfair imo. I get that Stormont (NI parliament) do make some decisions but basically all the major changes re tax credits, housing, taxes, pensions etc we have absolutely no say/vote in. Id love to have the opportunity to vote labour or conservative instead of crappy tribal type local politicians.

Hang on a miniute, we must do AV voting (or something like it ) in NI anyway!

We nearly always vote 1, 2, 3 ,4 etc.

Im so lost now.... I think its maybe to do with us having proportional representation/shared powers, though due to our history of taking the piss out of eachother and some people being extremists.

Right Emvar have just asked my OH who is a bit of a politics geek and it would work in the same way as at the moment, in that it would be a hung parliament if there was no majority and it would be up to the parties to either form a coalition or if none can be made then a revote would have to be done. It's a bit of a headf*** all of this. I'm not sure whether either way is better than the other

Thanks Mandy that bit was really boggling me!

The seats that were all a bit close would have been less close so that could have changed who got each seat and had a difference that way.

My OH just pointed me towards this: http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/politics/would-av-make-difference Seriously don't look unless you want your brain to explode with it all!


Well I think I'm for it but now I need to think about it a bit more now.......