The Alternative Vote System

David Cameron and Nick Clegg will today set out their opposing views on the precise mechanism by which the House of Commons is filled with thieves, cretins and weirdos.

Don't forget Nick Clegg will eventually be forced out and replaced with some f*cking hippy who will condemn Britain to an eternity of Milibands and Harmans where everyone enjoys exactly the same amount of unremitting misery."

What is the alternative vote?
Under the AV system, voters rank candidates in order of height before ranking them again in order of smell.

The candidate with the most points goes through to the next round where he must beat a pair of local schoolchildren in a Blockbusters-style quiz.

If he fails then the second-placed candidate takes on the children and if successful then goes on to wrestle a kangaroo.

The fifth round involves defusing a live feminist before the clock reaches zero and in the sixth and final round they have to sing a song in front of an audience of unimpressed Glaswegians.

Whoever makes it through all six rounds then gets to treat you like a child while stealing your money.

eowyn wrote:Did you just speak English, Allan? Soz, I didn't understand a word.

Basil wrote:Right then - colours to the mast:

I'm in favour of AV - not because it's proportional - it's a long way from that. But it's a step towards PR.

There is but one step from the Academy to the Fad.

Basil wrote:So, permanent coalition s a bad idea?

Dello wrote:Oh, so I'm going to have to decide on a ranking system of people I'm not bothering to vote for?

I'll probably not vote for Labour, the Libs and Conservative, in that order. But it could change. UKIP look an increasingly attractive option to not vote for. I've dallied with not voting BNP from time to time too.

I'll just have to see how things play out, I guess...

Those arguing for AV claim it will make every vote count, end safe seats, encourage smaller parties…

…and that the final result will better reflect the will of the people.

On every measure, that is simply not true.

It won't make every vote count.

The reality is it will make some votes count more than others.

There's an inherent unfairness under AV.

Supporters of unpopular parties end up having their votes counted a number of times…

…potentially deciding the outcome of an election…

…while people who back more popular parties only get one vote.

Why?

Because if you vote for a mainstream candidate who is top of the ballot in the first round, your other preferences will never be counted.

But if you vote for a fringe party who gets knocked out, your other preferences will be counted.

In other words, you get another bite of the cherry.

I don't see why voters of the BNP or Monster Raving Loony Party should get their votes counted more times than supporters of the Conservatives or for that matter Labour or Liberal Democrats.

The idea that everyone has an equal voice and an equal vote is deeply enshrined in our existing electoral system

The principle of one person, one vote is what makes our democracy fair.

AV flies in the face of that.

So AV doesn't make every vote count like its supporters say it will…

…and neither will it end safe seats.

Of course, there is an argument that some MPs having ultra-safe seats can create a 'jobs-for-life' mentality and reduce accountability, though they can also be incredibly hard-working.

But AV is not the answer.

At the last election, 225 MPs - one in three - were elected with more than fifty percent outright.

AV would not have made a difference in these places.

And if you look at Australia, where they have AV, nearly half of all seats are considered 'safe'.

What's more, AV will not increase the chances of smaller parties winning a seat.

On the contrary, it could harm them.

Caroline Lucas, the country's first Green Party MP, only got thirty-one percent of the vote in her constituency.

It's the same with the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists.

None of their current MPs got over fifty percent of the votes in their constituencies.

Would these parties be able to hold on to their seats if the threshold was put up to fifty percent?

The evidence from Australia suggests no, where smaller parties have been all but obliterated.

I don't see why voters of the BNP or Monster Raving Loony Party should get their votes counted more times than supporters of the Conservatives or for that matter Labour or Liberal Democrats.

The evidence from Australia suggests no, where smaller parties have been all but obliterated.

Well David Cameron (who ever he is) is an idiot

Caroline Lucas, the country's first Green Party MP, only got thirty-one percent of the vote in her constituency.

It's the same with the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists.

None of their current MPs got over fifty percent of the votes in their constituencies.

Would these parties be able to hold on to their seats if the threshold was put up to fifty percent?

The evidence from Australia suggests no, where smaller parties have been all but obliterated.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

JGK wrote:

Caroline Lucas, the country's first Green Party MP, only got thirty-one percent of the vote in her constituency.

It's the same with the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists.

None of their current MPs got over fifty percent of the votes in their constituencies.

Would these parties be able to hold on to their seats if the threshold was put up to fifty percent?

The evidence from Australia suggests no, where smaller parties have been all but obliterated.

If the British PM really wrote this let's hope for our Pommy mates that he spends more time researching important matters than this self serving rant:

In the 2010 election...

Adam Bandt won Melbourne with 36% of the vote even though the ALP got 38%

Andrew Wilkie won Denison with 21% of the vote which was less than either of the major parties.

Tony Crook won O'Connor with 28% even though Tuckey got 38%

Invader Zim wrote:How many parties are represented in Westminster?