AV vs FPTP Ice Cream Man - Safe Seat

[00MrBlob]

Bad scriptwriting

[TheNavigateur]

If people want safe seats, AV will deliver it. Under "FPTP" there's "vote-splitting" among other candidates that causes "safe seats" even if the majority don't want that candidate.

[pperrinuk]

@TheNavigateur Your explanation is correct - but I think you meant to start your comment "if people want an end to safe seats"

[TheNavigateur]

@pperrinuk No I meant, for example, if the majority want a particular candidate, AV will deliver that candidate. So although some critics will say these are still "safe seats", it's only if the majority want it to happen, unlike in FPTP.

[pperrinuk]

@TheNavigateur Ok - I understand what you mean now - and you are correct.

[eddievanhallen5150]

@TheNavigateur exactly, I have no problem with safe seats when the candidate gets 50% of the vote, rather than just ~40%

[youngdegsy]

@TheNavigateur Ah, what I think might be a less confusing way to describe this is, if an incumbent is broadly popular, he or she will still win under AV; but if a candidate is currently in a safe seat but is not broadly popular then AV allows the voters to choose a different winner if they want that instead.

[ajuk1]

Erm, AV is to help make seats less safe, not to get rid of safe seats.