UK: AV Referendum, your vote?

refugee wrote: If I was British, and if the new system was implemented, I would probably have voted: 1. Green 2. Labour 3. The beautiful woman who hates war and wants everybody to be happy.

Snow Dog wrote: Under the new system your Green vote would be counted and if they were bottom you're next vote would count. If I voted 1 Labour 2 Green I would get only one vote.

*headdesk* Why is it so hard for people to get that AV doesn't give some people more votes than others? The elimination process is just like having multiple rounds of voting, but without the need for separate ballots/polling days. In this example Refugee votes Green and you vote Labour, Green comes last and gets eliminated. End of round one. Now, imagine round two takes place on a separate day with a fresh ballot paper, only the Green candidate has been eliminated because they failed to garner enough support. Refugee can't vote Green so he votes Labour (not his first choice, but seeing as Green's unavailable he'll settle for them), and again you vote Labour. Nobody's getting more votes than anyone else in this scenario.

Snow Dog wrote: The Hemulen wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Under the new system your Green vote would be counted and if they were bottom you're next vote would count. If I voted 1 Labour 2 Green I would get only one vote. *headdesk* Why is it so hard for people to get that AV doesn't give some people more votes than others? The elimination process is just like having multiple rounds of voting, but without the need for separate ballots/polling days. In this example Refugee votes Green and you vote Labour, Green comes last and gets eliminated. End of round one. Now, imagine round two takes place on a separate day with a fresh ballot paper, only the Green candidate has been eliminated because they failed to garner enough support. Refugee can't vote Green so he votes Labour (not his first choice, but seeing as Green's unavailable he'll settle for them), and again you vote Labour. Nobody's getting more votes than anyone else in this scenario. Look!!! I don't f**king like it so I f**king voted "No" ALRIGHT? And your above post just PROVES my point!!!!!!!

Woah... is there really any need for seven exclamation marks? You are more than welcome to dislike AV for whatever reasons you see fit, just as I am entitled to point out any irritating inconsistencies and factual errors I encounter. I really wasn't trying to single you out or goad you because you voted no, it's just I've encountered that argument so many times now and it's just plain WRONG. My post doesn't prove your point at all. It merely demonstrates that the "one person one vote" concept isn't undermined as long as you take into account what AV actually is (i.e. a multiple round elimination system rather than a single ballot). Every vote is counted in every round, so one person one vote still stands.

I really don't want this to escalate into a full-blown argument, especially not where I'm just repeating the same things ad infinitum so this will be my last post on the matter. No hard feelings, I hope.

But no hard feelings.

^ The point is if I put Labour last and they win and I voted marginals before it that were eliminated. I get four votes. Only one that actually counts, but four nevertheless. Putting Labour first gives me one vote.

Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ The point is if I put Labour last and they win and I voted marginals before it that were eliminated. I get four votes. Only one that actually counts, but four nevertheless. Putting Labour first gives me one vote.   Everyone gets four votes. Putting Labour first means you vote for Labour four times. What you mean is the other guy gets four choices - and for some reason you think that's a bad thing. It isn't.

Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ The point is if I put Labour last and they win and I voted marginals before it that were eliminated. I get four votes. Only one that actually counts, but four nevertheless. Putting Labour first gives me one vote.   Everyone gets four votes. Putting Labour first means you vote for Labour four times. What you mean is the other guy gets four choices - and for some reason you think that's a bad thing. It isn't.     Well obviously I disagree. Well obviously  But why do you think it's a bad thing?

Edited by Snow Dog - May 06 2011 at 06:24

Snow Dog wrote: I have a feeling "yes" might win so you will have your day.

I'd be very surprised if it did; I don't want to be condescending, but I doubt the average man in the street has strong feelings either way; usually when that's the case, it's safer & more usual to vote for no change

We'll see, though...

Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ The point is if I put Labour last and they win and I voted marginals before it that were eliminated. I get four votes. Only one that actually counts, but four nevertheless. Putting Labour first gives me one vote.   Everyone gets four votes. Putting Labour first means you vote for Labour four times. What you mean is the other guy gets four choices - and for some reason you think that's a bad thing. It isn't.     Well obviously I disagree. Well obviously  But why do you think it's a bad thing? I just don't see the point. I think people should have the conviction to vote for the one party that they want to see in power. It seems so wishy washy to have a top 4. I don't like PR either so maybe I see this as a slippery slope towards that too. I have a feeling "yes" might win so you will have your day. nLabour are doing awfully well in Wales and Plaid Cymru are suffering losses!! Good!

You need to move down here to rural Hampshire and try being a socialist. Here a Labour vote is not even a marginal vote, it's a completely wasted vote - with AV that vote could oust the Tory incumbent from his meal-ticket seat, and in 2005 probably would have done.

Snow Dog wrote: I would never vote for those Plaid fascists.