UK Alternative Vote referendum

[Mark]

We had our leaflet through yesterday. It manages to make FPTP look dead simple and AV the most convoluted system possible, not entirely sure how impartial the wording is. Sadly I suspect many people either won't care, or will vote according to how their newspaper of choice instructs them.

I suspect the consequence will be "I don't understand what this is all about so I won't vote" then come the general election "I don't understand this system so I won't vote"

[Dave B]

I want to vote "yes" to AV, but use a second vote to vote against it

[Brown, Jon Brow]

That may be a consequence, but the sole purpose of them bringing this vote is by the LibDems and for the LibDems so they can gain more power.

I thought many Labour MP's were in favour of AV?

I think Labour will benefit from AV as much as the Lib Dems, because I suspect more Lib Dem voters will prefer Labour as a 2nd choice rather than the Conservatives.

The Tories will be very disadvantaged by AV. In the 1997 election they would have ended up with a measly 70 seats and would have been only the 3rd biggest party.

[Mark]

The Tories will be very disadvantaged by AV. In the 1997 election they would have ended up with a measly 70 seats and would have been only the 3rd biggest party.

I guess that's why they are against it. Tories will be very few peoples second choice, they are a love them or loathe them party, either you want them in government or you want them nowhere near, not ever!

[Daniel]

TBH the big problem is the unelected people in the house of Lords. How this has survived I do not know.

In Australia we have AV, but the upper house (the senate) members are selected based on how many upper house votes the parties got. So if there are 10 seats in one state then if you get 10% of the votes you get a seat. That means whilst it's not impossible for a party to have a majority in both houses, it's unlikely.

[Mark]

That system makes a lot of sense, rather than the current situation where the House of Lords has a majority based on which members have died and the ability of the government of the day to appoint people as Lords etc, it's all stupidly corrupt really.

If we go on a similar system of taking the share of the vote as a whole for the entire country and then appointing members according to that, this would be a decent system, especially since it's unlikely there would be an overall majority from any party. Currently it's possible (for example) for the LibDems to get 30% of the vote but get no MPs whatsoever, but they would at least then get a 30% presence in the House of Lords.

[Daniel]

If we go on a similar system of taking the share of the vote as a whole for the entire country and then appointing members according to that, this would be a decent system, especially since it's unlikely there would be an overall majority from any party. Currently it's possible (for example) for the LibDems to get 30% of the vote but get no MPs whatsoever, but they would at least then get a 30% presence in the House of Lords.

That's the beauty of the system! Labour could in theory have a majority in the house of commons but they'd have to get support from people in the upper house from other parties so you could see the Lib Dems holding the balance of power or independents holding the balance of power. Of course that means that you can have small parties having a large impact..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_First_Party

[Rollo]

That's the beauty of the system! Labour could in theory have a majority in the house of commons but they'd have to get support from people in the upper house from other parties so you could see the Lib Dems holding the balance of power or independents holding the balance of power. Of course that means that you can have small parties having a large impact..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_First_Party

The upper house is only the House of Review. The Executive of a Westminster parliament lies in the lower house and the Cabinet. Family First in Australia can't for instance make or introduce any bills to do with supply, and nor can it really affect what sorts of bills get sent to the Upper House in the first place.
And to merely suggest that only a small number of votes actually hold this mythical thing called "the balance of power" ignores the elephant in the room that the vast bulk of power is held by major parties who almost always invariably vote as blocks.

[markabilly]

just go back to having the royals rule with absolute power....give them something to do, besides sitting on thier butts living off the tax revenue produced from the labor of others

Family had to watch movie, Victoria, on TV the other night.

Her two big crisises was a battle with parliament over picking her servants and maids; and the other was who was she going to marry.....wow tough life for sure

[Daniel]

And to merely suggest that only a small number of votes actually hold this mythical thing called "the balance of power" ignores the elephant in the room that the vast bulk of power is held by major parties who almost always invariably vote as blocks.

If that's true then how have family first been able to get things like internet filtering through? You seem to misunderstand the term "balance of power" which refers not to who holds the bulk of power, but who is able to cast the deciding vote if the major parties don't hold an absolute majority.