Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by gargoyle770, May 5, 2011.
That's what they do in Australia
There really needs to to be a third option.
3)Not sure really, it's complicated, the current system seems unfair but I'm not sure about this one.
I agree that a yes vote seems the only way to get ANY electoral reform - presumably a no vote would be interpreted as 'the public are happy with what they have got' whereas at least a yes vote opens up the possibility of a change.
Absolutely spot on Go and vote - last chance you'll get anyway to make a change.
If you vote "yes" then you are probably increasing the chance of Lib Dem victories.
We have 2 larger parties with the Lib Dems being a halfway house and therefore likely to be a popular second choice.
YES (with your second choice as NO)
That is wrong. No-ones vote is counted 3 times.
If you vote for the least popular candidate as No 1, he/she is eliminated (as is your vote). Your 2nd choice is then counted (so you have a vote again). If it just so happens that your second choice is now bottom your vote gets cancelled and that candigates 2nd choices get redistributed and so on.
One thing I am not sure of is if you do choose the second loser with your second vote do they then count your 3rd choice or only the 2nd choices of the original voters for that candidate?
Anyway most commentators I have listened to seem to think that the actual reslt at an election will be only slightly diferent under each system. AV will not make any large scale changes to who gets in.
I vated yes because too many big MPs wanted us to vote No. Given that any politician will act in their own self interest before the electorates' they must be scared of AV, that is a good thing.
Your vote may be physically checked up to three times. It only "counts" once.
At least we'd know that the person elected would have the approval of more than 50% of the voters in the constituency - unlike now.
At least, under AV, voters who selected just one candidate would be making a deliberate choice to do that, so they can hardly complain that their 'vote doesn't count'. Lots of people feel almost disenfranchised by the FPTP system because their vote never seems to have any value (e.g. Labour voters in Tory heartlands and vice versa).
No-one's vote is going to count more than once. The second choice will only come into play when the first choice has been eliminated and the third choice will not be counted unless the second choice has been eliminated.
It's got to be an improvement.
Oops - posted before reading last page. Sorry for duplication.
I voted yes because I think it will help get rid of situations where Boris Johnson 'accidentally' ended up as London Mayor and the majority of people weren't happy. He only got 18% of the votes but still ended up winning because he was 'first past the post'. The other candidates got 15% each for example. If the AV system had been in place it could have been quite different and I think would have been a fairer representation (thats not to say Boris still wouldn't have won btw).
Really? I am unlikey to ever vote for more than one so my second best will be no-one.
Also, I don't think that being second or third choice counts as 'the approval of more than 50% of the voters'
I can't help but think that as it's almost only Lib Dem voters who want this, they will come last again, as always.
Why not? Are there never two candidates you would approve of or is it that you don't like the system.
I often struggle to find just one I approve of!
Well, that would be your choice.
Why not? Like you, they wouldn't have to list alternative choices if they didn't want to. Surely, they would only include candidates they would be comfortable with if they were elected?
Well, I'm not a Lib Dem voter and I voted for it.
I thought maybe I'd vote no, but in the booth and with pencil in hand, I let my gut instinct take over.
After forty years of voting, almost always to see the wrong party get in, I figured a change could only be for the better.
Actually, that should have read "after more than 30 years of voting" - it just seems like 40...