Voting reform or not?

[Fester]

Its nonsense to suggest that AV gives a stable government.

Italy have had a similar system to AV since WWII,  they have had something like 65 governments in 60 years... ie, totally unstable, and reliant on the support of exteme nutcase parties to get any laws passed.

It brings corrupt 'horse-traders' like Berlusconi to power,  wasting time building petty and worthless alliances, when Governments should be focussing on the big economic challenges of the day.

[DaveR]

How dare you...Berlusconi is a great man. Just ask Ruby the Heart Stealer...  Z**

[Ian]

Italy have had a similar system to AV since WWII,  they have had something like 65 governments in 60 years... ie, totally unstable, and reliant on the support of exteme nutcase parties to get any laws passed.

I suspect that's more to do with Italy and the culture, rather than AV itself.  The fact is that almost every European country has a form of AV, and most of those are working at least as well as our country.  To win an election with AV, remember, it's the first candidate that gets more than 50% of the votes.  That - at least - provides a much better representation of democracy than our current system. Virtually every government in the UK in the last 50 years has been elected by a minority. 

[Fester]

The first candidate passing 50% of the vote is a laudable theory, but that very rarely happens in the UK.
Therefore AV, and all systems like it will throw up coalition after coalition governments.

Therefore all manifestos will be worthless, as all parties will enter into a series of compromises, leaving the electorate disatisfied.

What would be wrong with making all Manifestos LEGALLY binding after election?  That might focus a few of these parties in future.

[Ian]

The first candidate passing 50% of the vote is a laudable theory, but that very rarely happens in the UK.

Which, of itself, presupposes that something's not working properly, surely?

Therefore AV, and all systems like it will throw up coalition after coalition governments.

No;  AV will ensure that those elected represent more of the population than the current system. That actually strengthens the hands of those elected, ensures a much more equitable representation and forces politicians of all parties to compromise, thus preventing the sort of extremism which can easily damage the country.  And let's not forget countries such as Denmark, who haven't had a majority government in living memory, yet enjoy a higher standard of living than we do.  And they're not the only ones.

Therefore all manifestos will be worthless, as all parties will enter into a series of compromises, leaving the electorate disatisfied.

But as your subsequent comment implies, they already are... 

What would be wrong with making all Manifestos LEGALLY binding after election?  That might focus a few of these parties in future.

Because the only way to do that is through...Parliament, who could easily revoke it once elected.

[Yorkie]

Must agree with Ian.  It is important that all the population are represented and by selecting candidates in order of preference it indicates agreement to each of them and their principles.  If you only favour ONE party then all you have to do is just vote for ONE individual.  It is that simple.

I know that if my selected choice does not win my second or third might which means that I will at least be represented by someone to whom I do not object.   

[Ian]

For an incredibly simple explanation of why the current system is just wrong, I copied this:

"FPTP is unfair because the winner only has to have the most votes, not a majority. To take an extreme, let's say there are one hundred candidates and one hundred voters. If just two voters vote for candidate number 1, and the remaining ninety-eight each vote for a different (i.e. unique) candidate, the results would be as follows:-

candidate 1        2 votes
candidates 2-99  1 vote each
candidate 100     0 votes

Candidate 1 is elected even though 98% of the electorate didn't want him/her."

AV - whilst being far from an ideal form of voting system - at least means that the eventual winner will achieve more than 50% of the vote in any election.

[SDQ]

What happens if everyone decides not to pick a second or third choice & just votes for their first choice?
(which is what I would do)

[Yorkie]

You finish up with the same as usual - first past the post!   Just as per Ian's comment above.    L0L