Brilliantly explained, Dan. It's a shame the AV referendum didn't favour a change. I absolutely must come up with something like this to explain how the electoral system works in Spain, it's supposed to be proportional, but actually is not.
AV is an occult symbol that symbolises the seal of saturn,masonic emblem,..its basically evil that is being used to manipulate minds...w.b.yeats the golden dawn elitist,crowley friend wrote a book AVision...so dont be taken in by this shit..there is more to it than meets the eye...there is a saturn demon called 'AVE'...Hence we get the word 'SAVE'...jesus saves and all that bullshit,..you're being led down the garden path or stairway to heaven[saturn] ;-)................
On an issue that required the public to have some learned knowledge to know where they stood, all the apolitical thick majority were frightened by wild nonsense scare stories on the No side and in the tabloids. The campaign was not resourced with a fair parity for the Yes side. Breaking the precedent from 1975 only the Noes got a mailshot to every home financed. Yes got no chance to refute the Noes factual claims to all who they reached. So was a totally corrupted illegit referendum run on lies.
@maurice Thanks for illustrating a very important point. The self-appointed progressive elites have such a low opinion of the general public. They believe we need the LibDem to be in power permanently to guide us through difficult decisions. The "thick" public respectfully disagree
Many Thanks to Dan Snow and nathankw for all your efforts on this. It may not have been successful on this occasion but you fought for the right side.
Will they publish ALL the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th etc. preferences results of ALL the candidates with AV? When Boris won London I for one never heard how many 1st and 2nd preferences he won with!?!
this analogy is shit, candidates can't be split into two categories like that. also those people could just have a vote on pub or coffee followed by a vote on which pub specifically.
@merlin2k6 Imagine if some of those pubs were clubs instead or something. a lot of the pub voters would put that as their second or third choice as well, and the club voters would put pub as their second or third - one of the two would win meaning the majority will be happy with the end result. you cant split parties into exact categories but there are obviously 'flavours' as comment above says. Irrespective of all this I would vote yes anyway due to the disgusting 'No' propaganda.
Poor, poor analogy on too many levels, but thats besides the point. The point being how the votes are counted doesn't change the corporate interests and control of those being voted for!
this example is based on the premise that everyone has a pretty good knowledge of all the options, which many people when it comes to voting don't have. for many choosing one party is enough, but having to understand all the options is a big ask. if people were to take a greater interest then its a good thing, but i bet most will have their one party to put "1" next to and then will prejudge the other parties, which is not a good way of doing politics! voting NO
If a candidate gets in with some half baked fudge votes, someones 2nd, 3rd choices to top up to 50% that makes it fairer?
You lot are simply fighting for system which makes the LibDems get extra 'compromise' votes as the compromise party between Lab and Con. A PR top up system will now have a decent chance of coming about as more small parties breakup the Lab and Tory vote.
Brilliant. Makes it so clear. With our current system, a party can get into government with less than 50% of the votes, meaning that more than half the country didn't want them. Personally, I'd rather candidate B if candidate A doesn't get in, rather than have candidate C. Surely a nation wants a government that the majority of people PREFER (which is what we're talking about) rather than one which a minority actually WANT.
Brilliant. Makes it so clear. With our current system, a party can get into government with less than 50% of the votes, meaning that more than half the country didn't want them. Personally, I'd rather candidate B if candidate A doesn't get in, rather than have candidate C. Surely a nation wants a government that the majority of people PREFER (which is what we're talking about) rather than one which a minority actually WANT.
I've noticed that the arguments in favour of AV are rational, but all the No Campaign argments are "Vote No or babies will die!", "In AV some votes are counted twice" and such nonsense.
In real life when a group of friends make a decision, even by vote. The natural leader will sway the vote. The best leader will generally get the largest following. The second example(s). Using AV. Show a group in which the group is more important than the individual and there is less room for natural leaders and strong individuals to shine. We should not become a society that oppresses the individual spirit. That is why I shall vote against AV.
Surely in this case you'd find a local brasserie; food, coffee, alcohol, no worries. Yes to AV but it's the beginning of change, not the solution. We need a govt that can work together & represent a broad set of ideas without having to worry about towing party line or being misrepresented by an opposition who disagree out of routine rather than ideology or understanding. MP's should subscribe to a philosophy not a party & be forced to work together for the greater good rather than squabbling.
The problem with this video is that it assumes that all the other party's are the same.
Imagine the coffee shop was the Tory party and the other votes for the pubs were the Lib Dems, Labour and BNP. The video implies that because the other party's votes added together are more than the Tories, the country should have a Lib Dem/Labour/BNP coalition.
I would like to see the Yes to AV campaign use differing examples such as going to the pub, to church, for coffee and bowling.
it is not a good analogy. it would have been netter with:
four want coffee, three want a pub, two want the cinema, one wants to go bowling. so the one that wanted bowling chooses one of the more popular options and so on.
This is all very well but I'm confused about the pubs. The Good Ship, The Black Lion and The North London Tavern locate these people very clearly in Kilburn. However the other pub is The Green Man. There is NO SUCH PLACE called the Green Man anywhere near those other pubs. AV LIES. (Just kidding, I'm probably voting for it).
Thanks for the (mainly) positive comments. In answer to some of the criticisms that this analogy isn't an exact model of our current political you've missed the point this video is making.
What its designed to point out is that AV is common sense and what you'd use for any group decision. It's obvious that only taking into account people's first preferences will lead to bizarre and unpopular decisions. It's true in every other area of life so why not political voting?
If someone puts 1st pref Lib Dems and someone else puts them as 5th, should the 2 votes count the same? I don't think it should... the fifth should count something like a third of the first preference (ex. first pref=1 vote, second pref=0.9 votes, third pref=0.7...). Should your 1st pref = my 5th pref? Is it fair? You really want em and I don't, and it still counts the same? I'd surely vote Yes if you only had a max of 2 preferences. 5 is too much.
Complaining that AV is not perfect is not relevant - in a perfect world we'd be voting on full PR not AV.
The question here is in the most democratic sense which is better when there are more than 2 options: First past the post or AV and that's it.
To me the answer as far as a fair democratic system is concerned is clearly AV. Not only does this video show that as clear as day but AV simply makes tactical voting completely redundant.
@MakinMagicFractals I just wanted to point out that AV isn't perfect and could easily be better (example: you only have max 3 preferences). However in my opinion, Full PR isn't perfect at all and is worse than AV: you get too many parties, you always have a coalition government and you never get a consistent majority (I'm Italian, we sort of tried it and didn't really work out).
@ It appears we have as many preferences as we like up to the number of candidates standing in our own constituency. Also the main problem in the UK is Parliament yoyo-ing from left to rightr far too often with each of the incumbents demolishing a lot of potential good work by the previous *before* giving it a fair chance to work *and* due to likelihood of short terms in Office policies being rushed through without enough forethought. PR and even coalitions would help stop this.
The example here is a rather cheap and poor analogy.
The choice is really about where people want to go to drink something rather than what they want to drink. That sounds like two separate elections to me.
And anyway, most, if not all, of those pubs also serve coffee !
Great presentation (beaten only by the cats one!) If you support AV make sure you share it on Facebook etc. To win the Yes2AV campaign needs the young and intelligent to get out there and vote.
What does Royal Wedding-attendee, Duke of Westminster's daughter-dating, product of BBC-nepotism, Dan Snow REALLY know about the 'normal lives' he mentions in this patronising lecture?
@givemethevalium What do you know... care to actually put up any counter arguments to his points, or are you just happy to attack him personally and ignore the fact that there are no real arguments to keep FPTP?
@Dark0Storm i have no view either way about AV. But this video FAILS in its mission to persuade me to agree with your view- that's thanks to the hectoring tone of its presenter
Well, if you can't counter his point, I'd say the Duke-of-Westminister's daughter-dating Snow seems to know more than you in this matter at least, tone irrelevant.
@Fatalioo my point was about how the YES campaign's various videos are overridingly patronising. This is the worst, in my view. But I'm commenting on the video itself- not whether AV is a good or misguided idea.
Perhaps this time next week you'll be able to similarly objectively assess where the campaign's media strategy went wrong....
"I and many like me, don't want to put a x against a second, third, fourth.. or any other candidate. "
Fine, so don't. Go into the polling booth, put a 1 next to your preferred candidate and then put your ballot in the box because you are *not* obliged to put more than one preference.
It's really not complicated, despite what the No campaign are insisting.
I don't want to vote for my preference. I want to vote for who i want in Government. If they don't win my vote was not wasted, i was just in a minority. On the flipside though the NO campaign argued AV creates more Hung Parliaments... I fail to see how this could happen. I am not voting on May 5th because i cannot trust what the YES or NO campaigns say and therefore i would have to do my own research to figure what is best.... frankly i cannot be bothered lol
@FocalPointPremiere But surely the reason you are voting for who you want in government, unless you are an idiot or a sheep, is based on their policies, and there might be other parties that have similar policies(a) and one party that has very opposing policies (b). There is a risk under FPTP that a majority of people who want (a) policies split their votes amongst several parties and the (b) voters vote for one party and win, even though most people want the (a) policies. AV is more accurate.
@af6373 I understand the bad and good points of both FPTP and AV but I just don't want it changed. I am quite happy voting for one party and i base my decision on more than just who has the better policies. I am not in anyway saying that if you vote YES your an idiot, i just thought i would put my opinion across.
@FocalPointPremiere Of course no-one would stop you putting just your first choice if that was what you wanted. But what possible argument is there for retaining FPTP when it can return a winner where the majority of constituents would prefer anyone else? If the reason to want keep it is partisan, because it benefits the party you would like to vote for... well I don't really know what to say to that except that seems pretty immoral to me (not saying you are, just if it is)
@Dark0Storm This is another myth. If AV was used in 2010, 4 out of 10 MPs would have less than 50% local support. It is because many people will not use up all their preferences. Again more simulation but better supported than just a gut feel. Search for Rallings, Thrashers and LSE for more details
@billywong9 I've read it. 1) It's an estimate, not a fact. 2) 4in 10 is better than over 6 in 10 (which FPTP gave). 3) Only people who have no preference between those remaining have their ballots exhausted, everyone has the chance to have a say. 4) They still have to 'aim' for 50% as they don't know how people will vote. 5) Those MP's with less than 50% would still have gained more support to win under AV than under FPTP, even if it wasn't quite 50% it would be closer to it.
@Dark0Storm 1) It is only done by simulated but still much better than unsupported claims by AV supporters 2) Apples and oranges - a vote in FPTP is equal to the 1st preference in AV. If you then add up the 2nd and 3rd and so on of course you get a higher number 3) Incomplete preferences are common amongst supporters of mainstream parties because they know their 2nd/3rd preferences will almost never count 4) Again, apples and oranges. See point 2
@FocalPointPremiere Maybe I'm being a little idealistic but you rally should vote according to the policies of the candidates. To not do so, as Dark0Storm comments, could be considered immoral. I think the issues differing parties address are too important to just vote on a whim, or because you feel like it, or have a "gut feeling". Though the realist side of me has to recognise the frighteningly pervasive effect of PR and advertising, or just plain selfishness.
@af6373 I didn't at any point say I vote on a whim. Of course i vote according to policies which is the main concern but there are factors after this that are important. Anyway, it's nice to have a debate with someone with it turning into selfless bullying... which is seen all to much on the net nowadays.
@FocalPointPremiere Wasn't refering to you in particular, I guess there's a ton of things that might influence decision, did think about asking if yer mum was an MP :) and yep, would love to see more reasoned debate on here, you just have to try and not get into reading the ridiculous trolling, though sometimes it's difficult not to! Keep up the good work my friend.
@af6373 TBH it's the lessening of the PR and advertising influence that I like about AV. It means that the media and parties can't say "only 'x' can beat 'y' here, vote 'x'". This badly distorts our democracy, and gives pre election media and campaigning far too much focus on who you should vote for, instead of what peoples policies are. It is, in all intents and purposes, a form of fixing the election in favour of two candidates.
So if the Tories are the coffee shop, and everyone else is a pub, also that you can get coffee in a pub but you can't get beer in a coffee shop. I forgot the point I was making.
So let's split the coffee vote too. In round 1, Cafe Nero gets 2 and Starbucks 1 - so Starbucks is eliminated, and that vote goes to 2nd preference (Cafe Nero). Cafe Nero has 3 - but still gets eliminated because overall these people want pub not coffee!
AV lets you vote for your type of candidate (e.g. left/right wing) as well as your specific candidate (UKIP/Tory/Labour/LibDem/Green). It ensures that candidates with minority support don't get elected.
@tomrees8 The scenario in the video is of course completely artificial and designed to illustrate the point the Yes campagin whats to make. But it illustrates a very good point. Under FPTP, the proponents of the different pubs will need to compromise BEFORE polling. You will not get multiple variations of the same theme, but you will know exactly what the choices are. With AV you are at the mercy of the vote transfer rules, or even worse the closed door negotiation AFTER polling
@mwmarketingltd why bother, the end result would be the same. The pub people would all choose a pub, and the three coffee people would probably choose coffee shops and still be outnumbered
Why is everyone comparing it to horse races it's not a horse race its to see who can represent the most people's view and the torries are obviously not with only 30-40 percent that's not majority that's like of Obama won with 30 percent minority doesn't make sense does it
@mrldeary I don't think it was meant to be ''the same''. I think it was a representation of the scenario in an everyday situation to make it more accessible to confused voters, so the topic portaying the method of voting is irrelevant as long as the concept is understood
@MakinMagicFractals Read it again, slowly this time and think very very carefully about what my comment meant before you insult people.
Hmmmm, you called me a "try" moron. Do you not speak proper English? How long have you been in our country and do you, your mother & 4 sisters each claim incapacity & housing benefits at the cost of us taxpayers?
@mrldeary OK, I correct myself make that "true moron". And if I had 10,000 cousins claiming housing benefit I don't see how that's relevant. As it happens I'm English with roots in Wales and England going back to an itinerant miner (I mean about 6 generations back) and a Welsh midwife and my father was a headmaster and my mother a Head of Humanities. Oh - and my brother is in Mensa.
I repeat "seriousness" and "method" are independant so your remark is utterly meaningless.
@CheekyBandit Plenty of people will. At the moment people count from 10pm till 2 or 3am. You could just have t counted by people the next day or more counters that night. You'd be surprised how many people care.
I like the idea of my ONE vote counting to who I want to win an election.. and if my candidate didn't win, it meant that more people wanted someone else to win. What could be more democratic than that? And if FPTP is so bad, how come the Greens took Brighton at the last GE? AV supporters have been fed a line.. they probably also believe the Labour lie that it was the banks, it was Tory friend, it was the big boy that made me do it!!! A bit more self reasoned thought be the British populace.
@wilco148 candidates come in flavours- you know, left wing, right wing, whatever. Quite often you might prefer one specific candidate, but be happy with the general flavour. AV makes sure your vote counts for your flavour of candidate, without penalising you if there are lots of similar-ish candidates. FPTP is great if there are just 2 candidates, but doesn't work if there is a lot of choice - which is how politics is these days. That's why we need to update the system.
@tomrees8 Imagine betting on a horse and it wins, but because it didn't get enough 'to win' bets placed upon it, the winning horse has to go back into the pot to see if it can pick up any bets from 'spreads' or 'each ways'... you see how muddled its all becoming? I don't care that the Tories voted for Camerloon under an AV system, I don't care that there are 3 countries in the world who use it successfully. I am concerned that this meddling is about weakening democracy, 1 man 1 vote!
With FPTP, each man does not get one vote. Only those who back the favourites get a vote that counts; if you prefer a smaller party, then your vote is wasted. You get tactical voting and enormous confusion. AV allows you to try the smaller party first, and if you can't get them in, your vote is transferred to your next choice, so you actually get your vote counted. Vote for who you want, then your next choice, and so on, and your vote will count.
@karlnaylor This is a misunderstanding of democracy. If your favorite candidate loses, your vote is not "wasted". It carries just as much weight as the votes for the winning candidate. There just aren't enough of them
@karlnaylor did you read what you wrote Karl? 'each man does not get one vote'??? 'enormous confusion'... you've been fed a line by the yes propaganderists. There is no confusion in going into a booth on election day and putting a x next to the name/party you want to support. I and many like me, don't want to put a x against a second, third, fourth.. or any other candidate. You know, I am not even a sore loser if my flavour doesn't get in. I would vote to be out of the eu though
@wilco148 The confusion comes in choosing whether to vote for the party you actually want, or for the 'least worst' of the big ones. Under FPTP, even if most people prefer a newer party, they each have to guess whether anybody else will risk switching to the newcomer -- if you defect to the new party and nobody else does, you're wasting your vote and risk letting the opposition in.
AV eliminates this whole issue. You just rank the parties in order of preference. Simple.
@karlnaylor its not about 'guessing' whether anybody else will risk changing to the new the newcome. It's about having the power of choice. I like the greens... I vote for the greens.. that's my choice! It's not everyone else's choice and that is because they lack the power or courage, or dare I say it, the intellect, to make a personal choice... The greens getting in Brighton said it all for me... the majority liked what they had to say, so voted for them! It didn't take a second choice
Whatever you vote in the uk you will always vote capital. this AV suggestion is a clear sign of that. It looks so much like "jobs for the boys" it is quite unreal. Rather than spending vasts sums of money on improving our voting system so that it is "fairer", why dont we instead spend some money on trying to get more people to come out and actually vote in the first place. Its seems pointless to me to spend money on something that people are not using a great deal.
@wilco148 If you think that's really how people vote under FPTP then your severely mistaken, in many areas voters deliberately vote for their second choice in order to avoid the third option. That's were AV wins since it means we can all be confident in putting our first choice first.
@Monkiimagic: It seems you've fallen for the No Campaign's misinformation.
You still only get *one* vote the only difference being you get to express a preference as to where it is subsequently applied if your first choice is eliminated.
Secondly as Dan Snow points out, we use it for Scottish and Welsh Elections, Local Mayor and even the Tories and Labour use it for their Leadership elections!
If it's good enough for them why does the No Campaign imply that we couldn't understand it?
@rockwell666 You have to wonder if Dan Snow is poorly informed or just lying. For both the scottish parliament and walsh assembly each voter is given 2 votes - one for the candidate and the other one for the party. So it is completely different from AV. The tory leadership elections use Exhaustive Balloting, where after each round all voters can change their votes. Again completely different from AV
Everyone effects the vote at each stage, it's the fairest way to do it rather than disregarding the voters of smaller parties. it stops the effect of diluting and makes sure everyone gets a say in the final decision.
And half of the world is starving. Is that an incentive not to eat? If you're against AV that's fine but that's a terrible argument.
@dvip6 This clearly shows the conceptual error. The "final" decision is the vote at the polling station. All these multiple rounds in AV are just vote counting mechanics, not multiple decision points. Under FPTP If you support a minority party and it loses, your vote is not "disregarded". It carries just as much weight as the votes for the winning candidates. It's just that there are not enough voters who agree with you
The biggest problem with this example is that it still works on the basis that there are only two main groups, those who want to go to the pub and those who want to go for coffee. Those who want to go to the pub probably don't mind which pub they go to, as long as it is a pub, and it was clear from the first round of voting that the majority had voted for the pub without having to take second preferences into account.
I'm not totally convinced with the AV system. From my understanding it means that people who first choice doesn't get through get to effect the vote at the second stage and then if their second choice doesn't make it through they get a third choice etc etc. How is that fair? Also why is it that only 4 other countries in the World use AV and one of those (Australia) wants rid of it?
@Monkiimagic Sorry I know loads of people have already replied to this, but I'd just like to say, while only four countries in the world use AV, almost the entire of Europe (with bigger economies and healthier democracies than us) uses a form of proportional representation in their elections, as well as most countries whose democracies were set up after the 60s. Okay AV is only semi-proportional, it's a damn-sight closer to the systems of the happiest countries in the world than our current one.
'almost the entire of Europe (with bigger economies and healthier democracies than us)'... afraid your argument fell over as soon as you mentioned bigger economies.. do some research, man.
@wilco148 Both Germany and France have larger economies than ours, while (other than countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal) many have already recovered from the recession and some (like Poland) avoided it all together. Not that that is an argument for AV, but that was the reasoning behind the claim!
@Spudus Read the Jenkins report. His commission applied AV to results of previous general elections and found that actually AV is no more proportional than FPTP in general, and can potentially be far MORE disproportional.
@billywong9 How can you apply AV to previous results without any data?
In previous elections; we only voted for one person, and for most of us that was a compromise because of the flaws with FPTP. I wouldn't vote the same way in AV as I have in FPTP.
@duguk You are correct that only simulations could be done to estimate the result. However, the study was done by an independent commission headed by Roy Jenkins, a LibDem peer, so there is no "Pro-FPTP" bias. I can't post a link but do a search of "Roy Jenkins" "Electoral Reform"
@billywong9 Chapter 5, section 81 is what I'm guessing you're referring to:
"There is not the slightest reason to think that AV would reduce the stability of government; it might indeed lead to larger parliamentary majorities." and "it would also virtually ensure that each MP commanded at least majority acquiescence within his constituency"
I don't see anywhere him comparing the relative merits of proportionality of FPTP and AV - but remember; AV isn't designed to be proportional - PR is!
@duguk One paragraph down (82) - "It (AV) offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election (1997) and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional that FPTP. "
@duguk And I agree with you (and Lord Jenkins) that AV is not proportional. My original comment was a reply to someone who claimed that AV is more proportional than FPTP. It isn't
@billywong9 The key phrase here is "results of previous general elections" - that fact in itself completely invalidates the conclusions since FPTP *always* involves tactical voting which is simply redundant under AV so none of the vote counts from old FPTP elections can be used to show what might happen if we had AV because under AV people can be confident in putting who they really want first.
@MakinMagicFractals AV does not eliminate tactical voting. It's another myth that AV supporters keep repeating as if it will make it true. It's just that the tactics will be different
@Monkiimagic Aussies don't want rid of it, there's an article knocking around somewhere that I've seen by ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) political editor that points out this very fact and basically says can their political system be left out of our debate because different voting systems effects different countries in different ways, it should be about whats best for us and not what goes on elsewhere
@InvulnerablePig If we get a NO vote it will be because the NO side attacked coalitions and preferential voting - both things which STV would actually bring in. The NO side are basically campaigning against STV and not AV (as AV doesn't really lead to more coalitions). If they win this referendum, they can easily point to there being no appetite for STV as well. Not a good place to be in.
I think we should all remember that voting is NOT A RACE! A.V. is much fairer. If First Past The Post wins then we will never have the opportunity to change the system again and change politics FOREVER!
@bille1131 There is no such as thing as forever in politics. One change easily argue that if AV wins there will not be further change in the next few elections while changes are being bedded in. This means we will be stuck with this "miserable little compromise" for a couple of decades
@billywong9 however one cannot easily argue that voting NO based on a campaign which directly attacks PR will make it easier to introduce PR later on. It will make it much much more difficult as the arguments for PR will already have been voted down in this referendum. and this miserable little compromise thing needs putting to rest. The whole statement started "AV is a baby step in the right direction" It was Labour offering it as a negotiation which was the miserable compromise.
@Dark0Storm Individuals within the No campagin may be for or against PR (e.g. Douglas Carswell is in the No campaign as he wants full PR). The No campaign itself is focused only on AV. Look at the label on the tin - No2AV. And this is a referendum on AV, not further changes that may or may not come
@kevinward76 it is provably shown (Arrow’s Theorem etc) that no voting system can be fairer "by every measure", however, AV is, in general and as this video explains, fairer than FPTP.
@kevinward76 It isn't two bites of the cherry. In each round of counting under AV every voter gets to place their vote with the person they find most acceptable. In the case of people who's first choice was successful (partly thanks to your vote) they get their vote placed with their first choice again. If your first choice has been knocked out you backed an unpopular candidate and you don't have that option any more and your vote goes to your second choice instead. Where would you rather be?
@Dark0Storm The ability to change your vote is hugely powerful. With AV only supporters of fringe candidates can exercise this power. Supporters of mainstream candidates cannot change their vote based on who are remaining. This is why AV makes some voters more powerful than others. FPTP does not have this problem as it does not allow changing preference. The way the Conservatives elect their leader also does not have this problem as everyone can change at every round
@billywong9 Nobody has the ability to change their vote based on who are remaining. When you cast your vote and rank your preferences you do not know the results. You may make a guess and put a second preference based on which of the candidates you prefer out of who you think is most likely to win, but how is that different to under FPTP, it's not unfair as you can do that whatever system is used. If your vote goes to them you haven't benefited from your first choice, they have been eliminated.
On a lighter note the people in the video all look like types who would only visit the sort of tarted down pub that would have a good coffee machine anyway
The more i hear about AV the less i like it. If two parties are in coalition it becomes absurd. They have cast iron second preference. But it is then in the interest of all parties to set up secondary sub parties to garner the second preference votes.First past the post is bad but the AV proposed is just a joke
@tomcatspaw What do you mean two parties in coalition have cast iron second preference? Whose second preference do they have? Also, what do coalitions have to do with the debate between AV and FPTP? Our current coalition government was elected under FPTP. AV doesn't equal coalitions, the two are unrelated.
Also, if a party split-off and set up a secondary sub party, as you put it, who would they be trying to kid?
@hazymat You have missed the point. The AV system you support does not work if two parties are linked or are in coalition. It might be inconvenient for you but the system you propose does not stand up to scrutiny.
@tomcatspaw "The AV system you support does not work if two parties are linked or are in coalition". A coalition is a compromise of two separate parties. They are not linked, at least not electorially speaking. They will be campaigning separate campaigns come the next election. They will not be joining forces to make one party. There will be separate boxes on the voting form for candidates from the different parties within a coalition.
@hazymat You can try keep shifting but do you admit that you are wrong when you said that Jenkins was "DEFINITELY" not LibDem when he was appointed to lead the commission? Is your statement not a lie?
@hazymat Your own words in verbatim - "And he DEFINITELY wasn't a Lib Dem at the time of the Jenkins Commission. So I don't see your point "Jenkins was a Lib Dem"." ready to admit defeat???
@hazymat this is incorrect. In many countries (e.g. German, Italy) parties form coalitions before into the polls. The composition of the coalitions may be fine tuned after but the parties are linked in the elections
@billywong9 They are not linked on the ballot though. The way people vote alters the amount of influence and composition within the coalition of each partner... same would happen here were any parties ever to announce their intention to go in to coalition before an election. Of course this is unlikely given AV would still allow majority governments to form, whereas PR based systems don't really offer this.
@tomcatspaw Only if they choose to fight the election as a coalition, in which case, they rightly support each other and advise their voters to put the other party as a second preference. Voters are then free to do whatever they want, they don't HAVE to follow party advice, and if they don't want that coalition they are free not to vote for either of them. How does it 'not work' in this situation? In fact, given hung parliaments are more likely anyway, knowing in advance could be a benefit.
@billywong9 It's not just semantics. The NO2AV campaign has capitalised on people's misunderstandings about what a change to AV would constitute. Their slogan has been "FPTP gives people ONE choice and ONE vote", which implies there is more than one vote with AV and is therefore somehow unfair. This is clearly ridiculous.
If your first choice wasn't that of others in your constituency, then you can still influence the outcome with a second choice.
@hazymat check out the Jenkins report. AV is not better than FPTP in terms of delivering a proportional result, and is capable of delivering far more disproportional results. And Jenkins was a LibDem. Finally don't be so arrogant to assume those who don't agree with you simply do not understand
@billywong9 Bahaha are you kidding me? The Jenkins Commission was hilariously discredited! For one thing, Jenkins was a Labour MP, not a Lib Dem. For another, he was basically commissioned by Blair to conclude that voting reform was a bad thing. Why? So they could hold on to power! I can't believe you just used that as an argument.
@hazymat Jenkins was a Labour MP but a LibDem peers. He was LibDem when he was commissioned. Blair was in favour of voting reform but was blocked by Brown and Prescott. You obviously need more time doing research
@billywong9 No idea what you are talking about. He was given a peerage by the Labour party! He was advisor to Tony Blair! You don't get more Labour than that. (Also, avoid making silly subjective parting shots at the end of each of your comments. They make you look a bit defensive.)
@hazymat Roy Jenkins was an SDP MP. SDP merged with the Liberals to form LibDem. Jenkins was also the leader of LibDem peers. Finally governments do tend to appoint either across party line or non-partisan candidates to head commissions, e.g. John Hutton (Labour) is heading the public service pension reform under the current coalition. Facts. Simples
@billywong9 You've not said anything technically wrong. But boy - the spin! Yes, governments often appoint across party lines, but this doesn't negate the fact that Jenkins was elected to Parliament as a Labour MP in the middle of last century! He wasn't a Lib Dem. And he DEFINITELY wasn't a Lib Dem at the time of the Jenkins Commission. So I don't see your point "Jenkins was a Lib Dem".
@hazymat Do try to give your assertion some evidence to support. It may make them stronger. Roy Jenkins was one of the founders of SDP when it separated from Labour in 1979. He continued to serve as SDP MP until he was unseated in 1987. He entered the house of lords in the same year. SDP and Liberals merged in 1989 to form LibDem. The Jenkins commission was appointed by Blair in 1997. So can you explain how he "wasn't a Lib Demo at the time of the Jenkins Commission"???
@billywong9 I literally have no idea what you are talking about. Jenkins formed the SDP *out of* the Labour party, of which he was a member -- and elected MP. Don't make me cite sources, it's common knowledge.
@billywong9 Do check my sources? There you are with the silly parting shots again! My sources are, for example, BBC Obituary page for the man. He was brought up in working classes a Labour. He fought elections as a Labour leader (deputy), he advised Tony Blair. He was a Labour thinker and writer. How much more Labour can you get?! Yes he formed the SDP, however they only went on to merge with the LD party after this! He is not a Liberal Democrat, which was the central tenet of your argument.
@hazymat good try but interestingly missed the period when he was the leader of the LibDem peers from 1987 to 1997. Please refer to the same obituary that you refer to. At NO point in his life did he rejoin the Labour Party. Do you still insist that (1) he was not LD (2) he was not LD when he was commissioned to study electoral reform?
@billywong9 He may have been a member of the Liberal peers but we are talking about representative democracy here; he was never elected a Lib Dem peer, which was central to your initial assertion. Clearly his views spanned across typical party lines, but then that's only one more reason we should consider changing our voting system to AV which will allow the electorate's views to be more accurately represented when they don't fall into discreet party-political categories.
@hazymat Did I notice a not so subtle change in position aka spin? I never asserted that he was ever elected as LibDem. He couldn't be as he left the house of commons before LibDem was formed. My assertion was that he was a LibDem, which is clearly correct. And you said that he"DEFINITELY" was not a LibDem when he was appointed to lead the commission, which is clearly incorrect.
@hazymat how about Jenkins' own word in the famous report? paragraph 85 - "...apart from anything else, inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government and PRESIDED OVER BY A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT from recommending a solution..."
Brilliantly explained, Dan. It's a shame the AV referendum didn't favour a change. I absolutely must come up with something like this to explain how the electoral system works in Spain, it's supposed to be proportional, but actually is not.
Participativa1 8 months ago
AV is an occult symbol that symbolises the seal of saturn,masonic emblem,..its basically evil that is being used to manipulate minds...w.b.yeats the golden dawn elitist,crowley friend wrote a book AVision...so dont be taken in by this shit..there is more to it than meets the eye...there is a saturn demon called 'AVE'...Hence we get the word 'SAVE'...jesus saves and all that bullshit,..you're being led down the garden path or stairway to heaven[saturn] ;-)................
masonfreeparty 9 months ago
Well, that campaign went well didn't it : D
kcirdrab 10 months ago
On an issue that required the public to have some learned knowledge to know where they stood, all the apolitical thick majority were frightened by wild nonsense scare stories on the No side and in the tabloids. The campaign was not resourced with a fair parity for the Yes side. Breaking the precedent from 1975 only the Noes got a mailshot to every home financed. Yes got no chance to refute the Noes factual claims to all who they reached. So was a totally corrupted illegit referendum run on lies.
maurice 10 months ago
@maurice Didn't the 'No to the EEC' get something like 1/10th the funding of the YESers in the 1975 referendum?
MarkB1ngham 10 months ago
@maurice Thanks for illustrating a very important point. The self-appointed progressive elites have such a low opinion of the general public. They believe we need the LibDem to be in power permanently to guide us through difficult decisions. The "thick" public respectfully disagree
billywong9 10 months ago
Many Thanks to Dan Snow and nathankw for all your efforts on this. It may not have been successful on this occasion but you fought for the right side.
rikwebber 10 months ago
Will they publish ALL the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th etc. preferences results of ALL the candidates with AV? When Boris won London I for one never heard how many 1st and 2nd preferences he won with!?!
MarkB1ngham 10 months ago
@MarkB1ngham wasn't Mr. Johnson elected by the supplementary vote and not preferential
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris Didn't we get a second preference???
MarkB1ngham 9 months ago
@MarkB1ngham not that I'm aware, but I'm not from the UK as you may have guessed so I'm not overly sure
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
who would want to go to a coffee shop for a night out
Supertessybear 10 months ago
The pirate bay.
MuckyGhost 10 months ago
this analogy is shit, candidates can't be split into two categories like that. also those people could just have a vote on pub or coffee followed by a vote on which pub specifically.
merlin2k6 10 months ago
@merlin2k6 Imagine if some of those pubs were clubs instead or something. a lot of the pub voters would put that as their second or third choice as well, and the club voters would put pub as their second or third - one of the two would win meaning the majority will be happy with the end result. you cant split parties into exact categories but there are obviously 'flavours' as comment above says. Irrespective of all this I would vote yes anyway due to the disgusting 'No' propaganda.
Supertessybear 10 months ago
Poor, poor analogy on too many levels, but thats besides the point. The point being how the votes are counted doesn't change the corporate interests and control of those being voted for!
centre1ce 10 months ago
Nonsense. Never heard of buying coffee at a pub? I think as a History presenter he's well-intentioned but PLEASE STAND STILL. Then see how you stand.
rothkowitz 10 months ago
this example is based on the premise that everyone has a pretty good knowledge of all the options, which many people when it comes to voting don't have. for many choosing one party is enough, but having to understand all the options is a big ask. if people were to take a greater interest then its a good thing, but i bet most will have their one party to put "1" next to and then will prejudge the other parties, which is not a good way of doing politics! voting NO
hughshepherd 10 months ago
If a candidate gets in with some half baked fudge votes, someones 2nd, 3rd choices to top up to 50% that makes it fairer?
You lot are simply fighting for system which makes the LibDems get extra 'compromise' votes as the compromise party between Lab and Con. A PR top up system will now have a decent chance of coming about as more small parties breakup the Lab and Tory vote.
thehangbag 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Brilliant. Makes it so clear. With our current system, a party can get into government with less than 50% of the votes, meaning that more than half the country didn't want them. Personally, I'd rather candidate B if candidate A doesn't get in, rather than have candidate C. Surely a nation wants a government that the majority of people PREFER (which is what we're talking about) rather than one which a minority actually WANT.
BushyHeath 10 months ago
Brilliant. Makes it so clear. With our current system, a party can get into government with less than 50% of the votes, meaning that more than half the country didn't want them. Personally, I'd rather candidate B if candidate A doesn't get in, rather than have candidate C. Surely a nation wants a government that the majority of people PREFER (which is what we're talking about) rather than one which a minority actually WANT.
BushyHeath 10 months ago
I've noticed that the arguments in favour of AV are rational, but all the No Campaign argments are "Vote No or babies will die!", "In AV some votes are counted twice" and such nonsense.
dominickearney 10 months ago
In real life when a group of friends make a decision, even by vote. The natural leader will sway the vote. The best leader will generally get the largest following. The second example(s). Using AV. Show a group in which the group is more important than the individual and there is less room for natural leaders and strong individuals to shine. We should not become a society that oppresses the individual spirit. That is why I shall vote against AV.
Wipeout8472 10 months ago
Surely in this case you'd find a local brasserie; food, coffee, alcohol, no worries. Yes to AV but it's the beginning of change, not the solution. We need a govt that can work together & represent a broad set of ideas without having to worry about towing party line or being misrepresented by an opposition who disagree out of routine rather than ideology or understanding. MP's should subscribe to a philosophy not a party & be forced to work together for the greater good rather than squabbling.
gg3rdp 10 months ago
Well, I don't know about AV, but I did learn that the suburban middle class is devoid of emotion.
p3rs0nan0ngrata 10 months ago
Like this a lot, easy to understand and not patronising.
MELANIE2571 10 months ago
The problem with this video is that it assumes that all the other party's are the same.
Imagine the coffee shop was the Tory party and the other votes for the pubs were the Lib Dems, Labour and BNP. The video implies that because the other party's votes added together are more than the Tories, the country should have a Lib Dem/Labour/BNP coalition.
I would like to see the Yes to AV campaign use differing examples such as going to the pub, to church, for coffee and bowling.
PEA29 10 months ago 4
it is not a good analogy. it would have been netter with:
four want coffee, three want a pub, two want the cinema, one wants to go bowling. so the one that wanted bowling chooses one of the more popular options and so on.
I'm still not sure which is best though :(
AndrerwDAzotus 10 months ago
Who the fuck goes on a night out to a coffee shop? Pub please.
ladymuck 10 months ago
..all coffee shops are different-selling differing over the counter cakes/biscuits and the like.,which individual cust. will prefer over another.
Is there ever a singular of anything,.,Dan's analagy doesn't really hold water-attall.
Warren111able 10 months ago
This is all very well but I'm confused about the pubs. The Good Ship, The Black Lion and The North London Tavern locate these people very clearly in Kilburn. However the other pub is The Green Man. There is NO SUCH PLACE called the Green Man anywhere near those other pubs. AV LIES. (Just kidding, I'm probably voting for it).
dananddanfilms 10 months ago 3
Thanks for the (mainly) positive comments. In answer to some of the criticisms that this analogy isn't an exact model of our current political you've missed the point this video is making.
What its designed to point out is that AV is common sense and what you'd use for any group decision. It's obvious that only taking into account people's first preferences will lead to bizarre and unpopular decisions. It's true in every other area of life so why not political voting?
nathankw 10 months ago 6
Even with the poor acting, this video is a brilliant explanation of AV and much less of an attempt to drive the nation to fear AV. Good job!
Lizzieelol 10 months ago 2
David Cameron was elected as Tory leader thanks to AV. For him to say AV is no good is two-faced and hipocritical.
Well, he is a Tory I guess.
LokiMD 10 months ago 3
@LokiMD Well said, his analogy of a sports day race is also a blatent lie. Yes to AV is the way forward.
scraftonthebadger 10 months ago 2
If someone puts 1st pref Lib Dems and someone else puts them as 5th, should the 2 votes count the same? I don't think it should... the fifth should count something like a third of the first preference (ex. first pref=1 vote, second pref=0.9 votes, third pref=0.7...). Should your 1st pref = my 5th pref? Is it fair? You really want em and I don't, and it still counts the same? I'd surely vote Yes if you only had a max of 2 preferences. 5 is too much.
IdiotsForSale 10 months ago
Complaining that AV is not perfect is not relevant - in a perfect world we'd be voting on full PR not AV.
The question here is in the most democratic sense which is better when there are more than 2 options: First past the post or AV and that's it.
To me the answer as far as a fair democratic system is concerned is clearly AV. Not only does this video show that as clear as day but AV simply makes tactical voting completely redundant.
MakinMagicFractals 10 months ago 3
@MakinMagicFractals I just wanted to point out that AV isn't perfect and could easily be better (example: you only have max 3 preferences). However in my opinion, Full PR isn't perfect at all and is worse than AV: you get too many parties, you always have a coalition government and you never get a consistent majority (I'm Italian, we sort of tried it and didn't really work out).
IdiotsForSale 10 months ago
@ It appears we have as many preferences as we like up to the number of candidates standing in our own constituency. Also the main problem in the UK is Parliament yoyo-ing from left to rightr far too often with each of the incumbents demolishing a lot of potential good work by the previous *before* giving it a fair chance to work *and* due to likelihood of short terms in Office policies being rushed through without enough forethought. PR and even coalitions would help stop this.
MakinMagicFractals 10 months ago
For a more statistical and sensible analysis watch "The Dirty Little Secret about the Alternative Vote System ".
Enerjee 10 months ago
The example here is a rather cheap and poor analogy.
The choice is really about where people want to go to drink something rather than what they want to drink. That sounds like two separate elections to me.
And anyway, most, if not all, of those pubs also serve coffee !
Enerjee 10 months ago
I'm definitely voting NO but this is by far the best analogy I've seen yet.
alastairrussell 10 months ago
Don't you hate tactical voting? Then vote Yes.
IdiotsForSale 10 months ago 2
Great presentation (beaten only by the cats one!) If you support AV make sure you share it on Facebook etc. To win the Yes2AV campaign needs the young and intelligent to get out there and vote.
Magnus247 10 months ago 2
What does Royal Wedding-attendee, Duke of Westminster's daughter-dating, product of BBC-nepotism, Dan Snow REALLY know about the 'normal lives' he mentions in this patronising lecture?
givemethevalium 10 months ago
@givemethevalium What do you know... care to actually put up any counter arguments to his points, or are you just happy to attack him personally and ignore the fact that there are no real arguments to keep FPTP?
Dark0Storm 10 months ago 2
@Dark0Storm i have no view either way about AV. But this video FAILS in its mission to persuade me to agree with your view- that's thanks to the hectoring tone of its presenter
givemethevalium 10 months ago
@givemethevalium
Well, if you can't counter his point, I'd say the Duke-of-Westminister's daughter-dating Snow seems to know more than you in this matter at least, tone irrelevant.
Fatalioo 10 months ago
@Fatalioo my point was about how the YES campaign's various videos are overridingly patronising. This is the worst, in my view. But I'm commenting on the video itself- not whether AV is a good or misguided idea.
Perhaps this time next week you'll be able to similarly objectively assess where the campaign's media strategy went wrong....
givemethevalium 10 months ago
Great vid, Dan! Facebooking it on this side of the pond. Best of luck with the campaign.
KirkWestphal 10 months ago
But the Conservatives use 2nd Ballot for their leadership elections?
MikeDingDong10 10 months ago
@MikeDingDong10 so AV but split up in to actual voting rounds, and with a chance to tactically change your preference in between rounds...
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wilco148
"I and many like me, don't want to put a x against a second, third, fourth.. or any other candidate. "
Fine, so don't. Go into the polling booth, put a 1 next to your preferred candidate and then put your ballot in the box because you are *not* obliged to put more than one preference.
It's really not complicated, despite what the No campaign are insisting.
rockwell666 10 months ago
I don't want to vote for my preference. I want to vote for who i want in Government. If they don't win my vote was not wasted, i was just in a minority. On the flipside though the NO campaign argued AV creates more Hung Parliaments... I fail to see how this could happen. I am not voting on May 5th because i cannot trust what the YES or NO campaigns say and therefore i would have to do my own research to figure what is best.... frankly i cannot be bothered lol
FocalPointPremiere 10 months ago
@FocalPointPremiere But surely the reason you are voting for who you want in government, unless you are an idiot or a sheep, is based on their policies, and there might be other parties that have similar policies(a) and one party that has very opposing policies (b). There is a risk under FPTP that a majority of people who want (a) policies split their votes amongst several parties and the (b) voters vote for one party and win, even though most people want the (a) policies. AV is more accurate.
af6373 10 months ago 3
@af6373 I understand the bad and good points of both FPTP and AV but I just don't want it changed. I am quite happy voting for one party and i base my decision on more than just who has the better policies. I am not in anyway saying that if you vote YES your an idiot, i just thought i would put my opinion across.
FocalPointPremiere 10 months ago
@FocalPointPremiere Of course no-one would stop you putting just your first choice if that was what you wanted. But what possible argument is there for retaining FPTP when it can return a winner where the majority of constituents would prefer anyone else? If the reason to want keep it is partisan, because it benefits the party you would like to vote for... well I don't really know what to say to that except that seems pretty immoral to me (not saying you are, just if it is)
Dark0Storm 10 months ago 3
@Dark0Storm This is another myth. If AV was used in 2010, 4 out of 10 MPs would have less than 50% local support. It is because many people will not use up all their preferences. Again more simulation but better supported than just a gut feel. Search for Rallings, Thrashers and LSE for more details
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 I've read it. 1) It's an estimate, not a fact. 2) 4in 10 is better than over 6 in 10 (which FPTP gave). 3) Only people who have no preference between those remaining have their ballots exhausted, everyone has the chance to have a say. 4) They still have to 'aim' for 50% as they don't know how people will vote. 5) Those MP's with less than 50% would still have gained more support to win under AV than under FPTP, even if it wasn't quite 50% it would be closer to it.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@Dark0Storm 1) It is only done by simulated but still much better than unsupported claims by AV supporters 2) Apples and oranges - a vote in FPTP is equal to the 1st preference in AV. If you then add up the 2nd and 3rd and so on of course you get a higher number 3) Incomplete preferences are common amongst supporters of mainstream parties because they know their 2nd/3rd preferences will almost never count 4) Again, apples and oranges. See point 2
billywong9 10 months ago
@FocalPointPremiere Maybe I'm being a little idealistic but you rally should vote according to the policies of the candidates. To not do so, as Dark0Storm comments, could be considered immoral. I think the issues differing parties address are too important to just vote on a whim, or because you feel like it, or have a "gut feeling". Though the realist side of me has to recognise the frighteningly pervasive effect of PR and advertising, or just plain selfishness.
af6373 10 months ago
@af6373 I didn't at any point say I vote on a whim. Of course i vote according to policies which is the main concern but there are factors after this that are important. Anyway, it's nice to have a debate with someone with it turning into selfless bullying... which is seen all to much on the net nowadays.
FocalPointPremiere 10 months ago
@FocalPointPremiere Wasn't refering to you in particular, I guess there's a ton of things that might influence decision, did think about asking if yer mum was an MP :) and yep, would love to see more reasoned debate on here, you just have to try and not get into reading the ridiculous trolling, though sometimes it's difficult not to! Keep up the good work my friend.
af6373 10 months ago
@af6373 TBH it's the lessening of the PR and advertising influence that I like about AV. It means that the media and parties can't say "only 'x' can beat 'y' here, vote 'x'". This badly distorts our democracy, and gives pre election media and campaigning far too much focus on who you should vote for, instead of what peoples policies are. It is, in all intents and purposes, a form of fixing the election in favour of two candidates.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
Everyone vote Yes and the government will buy us a beer in the pub.
fishnchimps 10 months ago 2
So if the Tories are the coffee shop, and everyone else is a pub, also that you can get coffee in a pub but you can't get beer in a coffee shop. I forgot the point I was making.
stroudbike 10 months ago 2
So let's split the coffee vote too. In round 1, Cafe Nero gets 2 and Starbucks 1 - so Starbucks is eliminated, and that vote goes to 2nd preference (Cafe Nero). Cafe Nero has 3 - but still gets eliminated because overall these people want pub not coffee!
AV lets you vote for your type of candidate (e.g. left/right wing) as well as your specific candidate (UKIP/Tory/Labour/LibDem/Green). It ensures that candidates with minority support don't get elected.
tomrees8 10 months ago 12
@tomrees8 The scenario in the video is of course completely artificial and designed to illustrate the point the Yes campagin whats to make. But it illustrates a very good point. Under FPTP, the proponents of the different pubs will need to compromise BEFORE polling. You will not get multiple variations of the same theme, but you will know exactly what the choices are. With AV you are at the mercy of the vote transfer rules, or even worse the closed door negotiation AFTER polling
billywong9 10 months ago
Why didn't you break down the coffee shop into choices as well? Starbucks or Costa?
Oversimplified to suit your argument!
mwmarketingltd 10 months ago
@mwmarketingltd That would only hurt the ones you want to go for coffee even more! Think about it.
roddiedigital 10 months ago
@mwmarketingltd why bother, the end result would be the same. The pub people would all choose a pub, and the three coffee people would probably choose coffee shops and still be outnumbered
lonewolf2399 10 months ago
Why is everyone comparing it to horse races it's not a horse race its to see who can represent the most people's view and the torries are obviously not with only 30-40 percent that's not majority that's like of Obama won with 30 percent minority doesn't make sense does it
djamorpheus 10 months ago
Bunkum mate! Absolute bunkum! it's a bit more serious than "choosing to go to the pub or the coffee shop" for starters.
mrldeary 10 months ago
@mrldeary I don't think it was meant to be ''the same''. I think it was a representation of the scenario in an everyday situation to make it more accessible to confused voters, so the topic portaying the method of voting is irrelevant as long as the concept is understood
lonewolf2399 10 months ago
@mrldeary Spoken like a try moron, whether a decision is serious or not is completely independant of the method of choice.
MakinMagicFractals 10 months ago
@MakinMagicFractals Read it again, slowly this time and think very very carefully about what my comment meant before you insult people.
Hmmmm, you called me a "try" moron. Do you not speak proper English? How long have you been in our country and do you, your mother & 4 sisters each claim incapacity & housing benefits at the cost of us taxpayers?
mrldeary 10 months ago
@mrldeary I think your grammar is dreadful.
shahideurope 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shahideurope why thank you :-) *thumbs up*
mrldeary 10 months ago
@mrldeary OK, I correct myself make that "true moron". And if I had 10,000 cousins claiming housing benefit I don't see how that's relevant. As it happens I'm English with roots in Wales and England going back to an itinerant miner (I mean about 6 generations back) and a Welsh midwife and my father was a headmaster and my mother a Head of Humanities. Oh - and my brother is in Mensa.
I repeat "seriousness" and "method" are independant so your remark is utterly meaningless.
MakinMagicFractals 10 months ago
Since when is the scottish and welsh system anything close to Av? More lies from the yes campaign...
ToManyPhones 10 months ago
@CheekyBandit Plenty of people will. At the moment people count from 10pm till 2 or 3am. You could just have t counted by people the next day or more counters that night. You'd be surprised how many people care.
petehall1985 10 months ago
I like the idea of my ONE vote counting to who I want to win an election.. and if my candidate didn't win, it meant that more people wanted someone else to win. What could be more democratic than that? And if FPTP is so bad, how come the Greens took Brighton at the last GE? AV supporters have been fed a line.. they probably also believe the Labour lie that it was the banks, it was Tory friend, it was the big boy that made me do it!!! A bit more self reasoned thought be the British populace.
wilco148 10 months ago
@wilco148 candidates come in flavours- you know, left wing, right wing, whatever. Quite often you might prefer one specific candidate, but be happy with the general flavour. AV makes sure your vote counts for your flavour of candidate, without penalising you if there are lots of similar-ish candidates. FPTP is great if there are just 2 candidates, but doesn't work if there is a lot of choice - which is how politics is these days. That's why we need to update the system.
tomrees8 10 months ago 26
@tomrees8 Imagine betting on a horse and it wins, but because it didn't get enough 'to win' bets placed upon it, the winning horse has to go back into the pot to see if it can pick up any bets from 'spreads' or 'each ways'... you see how muddled its all becoming? I don't care that the Tories voted for Camerloon under an AV system, I don't care that there are 3 countries in the world who use it successfully. I am concerned that this meddling is about weakening democracy, 1 man 1 vote!
wilco148 10 months ago
@wilco148 "1 man 1 vote!"
With FPTP, each man does not get one vote. Only those who back the favourites get a vote that counts; if you prefer a smaller party, then your vote is wasted. You get tactical voting and enormous confusion. AV allows you to try the smaller party first, and if you can't get them in, your vote is transferred to your next choice, so you actually get your vote counted. Vote for who you want, then your next choice, and so on, and your vote will count.
karlnaylor 10 months ago 4
@karlnaylor This is a misunderstanding of democracy. If your favorite candidate loses, your vote is not "wasted". It carries just as much weight as the votes for the winning candidate. There just aren't enough of them
billywong9 10 months ago
@karlnaylor did you read what you wrote Karl? 'each man does not get one vote'??? 'enormous confusion'... you've been fed a line by the yes propaganderists. There is no confusion in going into a booth on election day and putting a x next to the name/party you want to support. I and many like me, don't want to put a x against a second, third, fourth.. or any other candidate. You know, I am not even a sore loser if my flavour doesn't get in. I would vote to be out of the eu though
wilco148 10 months ago
@wilco148 The confusion comes in choosing whether to vote for the party you actually want, or for the 'least worst' of the big ones. Under FPTP, even if most people prefer a newer party, they each have to guess whether anybody else will risk switching to the newcomer -- if you defect to the new party and nobody else does, you're wasting your vote and risk letting the opposition in.
AV eliminates this whole issue. You just rank the parties in order of preference. Simple.
karlnaylor 10 months ago 3
@karlnaylor its not about 'guessing' whether anybody else will risk changing to the new the newcome. It's about having the power of choice. I like the greens... I vote for the greens.. that's my choice! It's not everyone else's choice and that is because they lack the power or courage, or dare I say it, the intellect, to make a personal choice... The greens getting in Brighton said it all for me... the majority liked what they had to say, so voted for them! It didn't take a second choice
wilco148 10 months ago
Whatever you vote in the uk you will always vote capital. this AV suggestion is a clear sign of that. It looks so much like "jobs for the boys" it is quite unreal. Rather than spending vasts sums of money on improving our voting system so that it is "fairer", why dont we instead spend some money on trying to get more people to come out and actually vote in the first place. Its seems pointless to me to spend money on something that people are not using a great deal.
captainmurphy96 10 months ago
@wilco148 If you think that's really how people vote under FPTP then your severely mistaken, in many areas voters deliberately vote for their second choice in order to avoid the third option. That's were AV wins since it means we can all be confident in putting our first choice first.
MakinMagicFractals 10 months ago 2
@Monkiimagic: It seems you've fallen for the No Campaign's misinformation.
You still only get *one* vote the only difference being you get to express a preference as to where it is subsequently applied if your first choice is eliminated.
Secondly as Dan Snow points out, we use it for Scottish and Welsh Elections, Local Mayor and even the Tories and Labour use it for their Leadership elections!
If it's good enough for them why does the No Campaign imply that we couldn't understand it?
rockwell666 10 months ago
@rockwell666 You have to wonder if Dan Snow is poorly informed or just lying. For both the scottish parliament and walsh assembly each voter is given 2 votes - one for the candidate and the other one for the party. So it is completely different from AV. The tory leadership elections use Exhaustive Balloting, where after each round all voters can change their votes. Again completely different from AV
billywong9 10 months ago
@monkiimagic
Everyone effects the vote at each stage, it's the fairest way to do it rather than disregarding the voters of smaller parties. it stops the effect of diluting and makes sure everyone gets a say in the final decision.
And half of the world is starving. Is that an incentive not to eat? If you're against AV that's fine but that's a terrible argument.
dvip6 10 months ago
@dvip6 This clearly shows the conceptual error. The "final" decision is the vote at the polling station. All these multiple rounds in AV are just vote counting mechanics, not multiple decision points. Under FPTP If you support a minority party and it loses, your vote is not "disregarded". It carries just as much weight as the votes for the winning candidates. It's just that there are not enough voters who agree with you
billywong9 10 months ago
The biggest problem with this example is that it still works on the basis that there are only two main groups, those who want to go to the pub and those who want to go for coffee. Those who want to go to the pub probably don't mind which pub they go to, as long as it is a pub, and it was clear from the first round of voting that the majority had voted for the pub without having to take second preferences into account.
seandingley 10 months ago
I'm not totally convinced with the AV system. From my understanding it means that people who first choice doesn't get through get to effect the vote at the second stage and then if their second choice doesn't make it through they get a third choice etc etc. How is that fair? Also why is it that only 4 other countries in the World use AV and one of those (Australia) wants rid of it?
Monkiimagic 10 months ago
@Monkiimagic Sorry I know loads of people have already replied to this, but I'd just like to say, while only four countries in the world use AV, almost the entire of Europe (with bigger economies and healthier democracies than us) uses a form of proportional representation in their elections, as well as most countries whose democracies were set up after the 60s. Okay AV is only semi-proportional, it's a damn-sight closer to the systems of the happiest countries in the world than our current one.
Spudus 10 months ago
'almost the entire of Europe (with bigger economies and healthier democracies than us)'... afraid your argument fell over as soon as you mentioned bigger economies.. do some research, man.
wilco148 10 months ago
@wilco148 Both Germany and France have larger economies than ours, while (other than countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal) many have already recovered from the recession and some (like Poland) avoided it all together. Not that that is an argument for AV, but that was the reasoning behind the claim!
Spudus 10 months ago
@Spudus Read the Jenkins report. His commission applied AV to results of previous general elections and found that actually AV is no more proportional than FPTP in general, and can potentially be far MORE disproportional.
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 How can you apply AV to previous results without any data?
In previous elections; we only voted for one person, and for most of us that was a compromise because of the flaws with FPTP. I wouldn't vote the same way in AV as I have in FPTP.
duguk 10 months ago
@duguk You are correct that only simulations could be done to estimate the result. However, the study was done by an independent commission headed by Roy Jenkins, a LibDem peer, so there is no "Pro-FPTP" bias. I can't post a link but do a search of "Roy Jenkins" "Electoral Reform"
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 Chapter 5, section 81 is what I'm guessing you're referring to:
"There is not the slightest reason to think that AV would reduce the stability of government; it might indeed lead to larger parliamentary majorities." and "it would also virtually ensure that each MP commanded at least majority acquiescence within his constituency"
I don't see anywhere him comparing the relative merits of proportionality of FPTP and AV - but remember; AV isn't designed to be proportional - PR is!
duguk 10 months ago
@duguk One paragraph down (82) - "It (AV) offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election (1997) and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional that FPTP. "
billywong9 10 months ago
@duguk And I agree with you (and Lord Jenkins) that AV is not proportional. My original comment was a reply to someone who claimed that AV is more proportional than FPTP. It isn't
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 The key phrase here is "results of previous general elections" - that fact in itself completely invalidates the conclusions since FPTP *always* involves tactical voting which is simply redundant under AV so none of the vote counts from old FPTP elections can be used to show what might happen if we had AV because under AV people can be confident in putting who they really want first.
MakinMagicFractals 10 months ago 2
@MakinMagicFractals AV does not eliminate tactical voting. It's another myth that AV supporters keep repeating as if it will make it true. It's just that the tactics will be different
billywong9 10 months ago
@Spudus AV isn't semi-proportional. It's not proportional whatsoever!
ToManyPhones 10 months ago
@Monkiimagic Aussies don't want rid of it, there's an article knocking around somewhere that I've seen by ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) political editor that points out this very fact and basically says can their political system be left out of our debate because different voting systems effects different countries in different ways, it should be about whats best for us and not what goes on elsewhere
Baggy563478 10 months ago 3
AV is a small change in the right direction. A small peace offering to stem the tide of total reform.
ceilingcatiswatching 10 months ago 2
PR-STV or nothing.
InvulnerablePig 10 months ago
@InvulnerablePig If we get a NO vote it will be because the NO side attacked coalitions and preferential voting - both things which STV would actually bring in. The NO side are basically campaigning against STV and not AV (as AV doesn't really lead to more coalitions). If they win this referendum, they can easily point to there being no appetite for STV as well. Not a good place to be in.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago 16
@Dark0Storm To be fair, I'm in the north of Ireland, where everything bar Westminster elections is STV already.
And I've consistently voted for abstentionist MPs. But you would be better off with STV, or a list system.
InvulnerablePig 10 months ago
It’s simple…really simple. It's got to be #yes2av as #FPTP just isn’t suited to multi-candidate constituencies
DJAlbertFreeman 10 months ago
I think we should all remember that voting is NOT A RACE! A.V. is much fairer. If First Past The Post wins then we will never have the opportunity to change the system again and change politics FOREVER!
bille1131 10 months ago
@bille1131 There is no such as thing as forever in politics. One change easily argue that if AV wins there will not be further change in the next few elections while changes are being bedded in. This means we will be stuck with this "miserable little compromise" for a couple of decades
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 however one cannot easily argue that voting NO based on a campaign which directly attacks PR will make it easier to introduce PR later on. It will make it much much more difficult as the arguments for PR will already have been voted down in this referendum. and this miserable little compromise thing needs putting to rest. The whole statement started "AV is a baby step in the right direction" It was Labour offering it as a negotiation which was the miserable compromise.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@Dark0Storm Individuals within the No campagin may be for or against PR (e.g. Douglas Carswell is in the No campaign as he wants full PR). The No campaign itself is focused only on AV. Look at the label on the tin - No2AV. And this is a referendum on AV, not further changes that may or may not come
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 Don't be such a short-sighted idiot - if we don't get AV through the chances of a referendum on full PR in the next 100 years is zero !
MakinMagicFractals 10 months ago
@MakinMagicFractals Well supported argument. You contribute greatly to the debate
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 Ok Billy (like your name)! Replace forever with the next 150 years like the current system. You know how slow we Brits do anything.
bille1131 10 months ago
Still not convinced that AV is fairer "by every measure"…
Don't think it's fair to have two bites a the same cherry. In a way, the people wanting to go to the pub in the video have had two votes.
Doesn't really matter anyway,… whoever gets voted in will only become corrupt in pursuing their own agenda(s) :)
kevinward76 10 months ago
@kevinward76 it is provably shown (Arrow’s Theorem etc) that no voting system can be fairer "by every measure", however, AV is, in general and as this video explains, fairer than FPTP.
DanJcrook54 10 months ago
@kevinward76 It isn't two bites of the cherry. In each round of counting under AV every voter gets to place their vote with the person they find most acceptable. In the case of people who's first choice was successful (partly thanks to your vote) they get their vote placed with their first choice again. If your first choice has been knocked out you backed an unpopular candidate and you don't have that option any more and your vote goes to your second choice instead. Where would you rather be?
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@Dark0Storm The ability to change your vote is hugely powerful. With AV only supporters of fringe candidates can exercise this power. Supporters of mainstream candidates cannot change their vote based on who are remaining. This is why AV makes some voters more powerful than others. FPTP does not have this problem as it does not allow changing preference. The way the Conservatives elect their leader also does not have this problem as everyone can change at every round
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 Nobody has the ability to change their vote based on who are remaining. When you cast your vote and rank your preferences you do not know the results. You may make a guess and put a second preference based on which of the candidates you prefer out of who you think is most likely to win, but how is that different to under FPTP, it's not unfair as you can do that whatever system is used. If your vote goes to them you haven't benefited from your first choice, they have been eliminated.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
Don't give a stuff about voting or AV! However, Dan Snow... I so would! Sophisticated bit of fitness mmmmm
nilliw 10 months ago
@nilliw Don't care how our country is run or how we decide who runs it? Why on earth not?
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
On a lighter note the people in the video all look like types who would only visit the sort of tarted down pub that would have a good coffee machine anyway
tomcatspaw 10 months ago
The more i hear about AV the less i like it. If two parties are in coalition it becomes absurd. They have cast iron second preference. But it is then in the interest of all parties to set up secondary sub parties to garner the second preference votes.First past the post is bad but the AV proposed is just a joke
tomcatspaw 10 months ago
@tomcatspaw What do you mean two parties in coalition have cast iron second preference? Whose second preference do they have? Also, what do coalitions have to do with the debate between AV and FPTP? Our current coalition government was elected under FPTP. AV doesn't equal coalitions, the two are unrelated.
Also, if a party split-off and set up a secondary sub party, as you put it, who would they be trying to kid?
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat You have missed the point. The AV system you support does not work if two parties are linked or are in coalition. It might be inconvenient for you but the system you propose does not stand up to scrutiny.
tomcatspaw 10 months ago
@tomcatspaw "The AV system you support does not work if two parties are linked or are in coalition". A coalition is a compromise of two separate parties. They are not linked, at least not electorially speaking. They will be campaigning separate campaigns come the next election. They will not be joining forces to make one party. There will be separate boxes on the voting form for candidates from the different parties within a coalition.
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat spreading these half truths and then failing to admit your error does not make the yes campaign more credible
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 I see you are one of those people who lies, then accuses others of doing so :P
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat You can try keep shifting but do you admit that you are wrong when you said that Jenkins was "DEFINITELY" not LibDem when he was appointed to lead the commission? Is your statement not a lie?
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 I've no idea what party Jenkins belonged to, but the commission was a cross party one.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
Comment removed
billywong9 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hazymat Your own words in verbatim - "And he DEFINITELY wasn't a Lib Dem at the time of the Jenkins Commission. So I don't see your point "Jenkins was a Lib Dem"." ready to admit defeat???
billywong9 10 months ago
@hazymat this is incorrect. In many countries (e.g. German, Italy) parties form coalitions before into the polls. The composition of the coalitions may be fine tuned after but the parties are linked in the elections
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 They are not linked on the ballot though. The way people vote alters the amount of influence and composition within the coalition of each partner... same would happen here were any parties ever to announce their intention to go in to coalition before an election. Of course this is unlikely given AV would still allow majority governments to form, whereas PR based systems don't really offer this.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@tomcatspaw Only if they choose to fight the election as a coalition, in which case, they rightly support each other and advise their voters to put the other party as a second preference. Voters are then free to do whatever they want, they don't HAVE to follow party advice, and if they don't want that coalition they are free not to vote for either of them. How does it 'not work' in this situation? In fact, given hung parliaments are more likely anyway, knowing in advance could be a benefit.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@billywong9
No. Not multiple choices.
One choice. Multiple options.
Simples.
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat word game. not clever
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 It's not just semantics. The NO2AV campaign has capitalised on people's misunderstandings about what a change to AV would constitute. Their slogan has been "FPTP gives people ONE choice and ONE vote", which implies there is more than one vote with AV and is therefore somehow unfair. This is clearly ridiculous.
If your first choice wasn't that of others in your constituency, then you can still influence the outcome with a second choice.
That's why AV is a fairer system.
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat check out the Jenkins report. AV is not better than FPTP in terms of delivering a proportional result, and is capable of delivering far more disproportional results. And Jenkins was a LibDem. Finally don't be so arrogant to assume those who don't agree with you simply do not understand
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 Bahaha are you kidding me? The Jenkins Commission was hilariously discredited! For one thing, Jenkins was a Labour MP, not a Lib Dem. For another, he was basically commissioned by Blair to conclude that voting reform was a bad thing. Why? So they could hold on to power! I can't believe you just used that as an argument.
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat Jenkins was a Labour MP but a LibDem peers. He was LibDem when he was commissioned. Blair was in favour of voting reform but was blocked by Brown and Prescott. You obviously need more time doing research
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 No idea what you are talking about. He was given a peerage by the Labour party! He was advisor to Tony Blair! You don't get more Labour than that. (Also, avoid making silly subjective parting shots at the end of each of your comments. They make you look a bit defensive.)
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat Roy Jenkins was an SDP MP. SDP merged with the Liberals to form LibDem. Jenkins was also the leader of LibDem peers. Finally governments do tend to appoint either across party line or non-partisan candidates to head commissions, e.g. John Hutton (Labour) is heading the public service pension reform under the current coalition. Facts. Simples
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 You've not said anything technically wrong. But boy - the spin! Yes, governments often appoint across party lines, but this doesn't negate the fact that Jenkins was elected to Parliament as a Labour MP in the middle of last century! He wasn't a Lib Dem. And he DEFINITELY wasn't a Lib Dem at the time of the Jenkins Commission. So I don't see your point "Jenkins was a Lib Dem".
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat Do try to give your assertion some evidence to support. It may make them stronger. Roy Jenkins was one of the founders of SDP when it separated from Labour in 1979. He continued to serve as SDP MP until he was unseated in 1987. He entered the house of lords in the same year. SDP and Liberals merged in 1989 to form LibDem. The Jenkins commission was appointed by Blair in 1997. So can you explain how he "wasn't a Lib Demo at the time of the Jenkins Commission"???
billywong9 10 months ago
@hazymat the easier and less humiliating option is of course to admit that you were wrong
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 I literally have no idea what you are talking about. Jenkins formed the SDP *out of* the Labour party, of which he was a member -- and elected MP. Don't make me cite sources, it's common knowledge.
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat Labour party do not accept dual membership. Once the SDP was formed he was no longer part of Labour Party. Do check your sources
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 Do check my sources? There you are with the silly parting shots again! My sources are, for example, BBC Obituary page for the man. He was brought up in working classes a Labour. He fought elections as a Labour leader (deputy), he advised Tony Blair. He was a Labour thinker and writer. How much more Labour can you get?! Yes he formed the SDP, however they only went on to merge with the LD party after this! He is not a Liberal Democrat, which was the central tenet of your argument.
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat good try but interestingly missed the period when he was the leader of the LibDem peers from 1987 to 1997. Please refer to the same obituary that you refer to. At NO point in his life did he rejoin the Labour Party. Do you still insist that (1) he was not LD (2) he was not LD when he was commissioned to study electoral reform?
billywong9 10 months ago
@billywong9 He may have been a member of the Liberal peers but we are talking about representative democracy here; he was never elected a Lib Dem peer, which was central to your initial assertion. Clearly his views spanned across typical party lines, but then that's only one more reason we should consider changing our voting system to AV which will allow the electorate's views to be more accurately represented when they don't fall into discreet party-political categories.
hazymat 10 months ago
@hazymat Did I notice a not so subtle change in position aka spin? I never asserted that he was ever elected as LibDem. He couldn't be as he left the house of commons before LibDem was formed. My assertion was that he was a LibDem, which is clearly correct. And you said that he"DEFINITELY" was not a LibDem when he was appointed to lead the commission, which is clearly incorrect.
billywong9 10 months ago
@hazymat how about Jenkins' own word in the famous report? paragraph 85 - "...apart from anything else, inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government and PRESIDED OVER BY A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT from recommending a solution..."
billywong9 10 months ago