Saw some yes to av arguments at at http://longlivelabour.tumblr.com/post/2498411325/no2av by twitter user @KerriiPrince, no comments allowed there, so debunked it here..
I like First Past The Post. I believe that the most votes should win. In most competitions around the world, the most votes wins. It’s surely common sense. It means you have the greatest support. If someone has put you second place, they clearly don’t want you to win that strongly.
It is quite possible that the winner under FPTP would lose a head to head with the 2nd or even 3rd placed candidate... This particularly benefits extremest who don't have much support, but do have very specific support. i.e. The BNP could win an election where 35% of voters are racist, but 65% are anti-racist. All it takes is the anti-racist vote to be split between two or three other parties.
(see my earlier blog really-simple-one-of-ways-av-is-better)
If we vote No2AV, we can say that it wasn’t enough. Okay, to some it will look like pro-FPTP, but those people are idiots. You can’t just assume that. In AV did pass, one would naturally assume we want AV. You can’t ASSUME that we voted yes in demand for further change. That isn’t on the ballot paper.
An idiot? Only in your opinion, I can live with that. The choice offered is FPTP or AV - yes to one is de-facto no to the other... How you interpret that is up to you.
It is a strict decision between FPTP and AV. FPTP means most votes win. Okay, someone can win with 35% of the vote, but they have the most strongest support, rather than with AV when a candidate can win on 4th preference votes. Not exactly strong support, is it?
This was your first point which I have already answered. There is no sense or logic in a particular candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote *just* because the other votes were split between a number of preferable candidates... All of whom lose...
Look at how much it would cost to change the voting system. Why would they then change it AGAIN? They wouldn’t.
'They'? its our money - the government have no money other then ours, if 'they' don't spend it as we want then it just shows that our democracy is not working as it should.
But in any case, voting under AV need be no different to voting under AV+ (a form of PR) - the only difference is the way the votes are counted - so none of the money spent on switching to AV would be wasted, it would be the 'first instalment' towards PR (if that is what people subsequently wanted).
Forget assumptions and biased views, but actually read the question. “Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the ‘alternative vote’ system instead of the current ‘first past the post’ system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?” You have a choice between AV and FPTP. Nothing else. AV is, as NICK CLEGG described, “a miserable little compromise” - it isn’t fair. And most of you know that deep down, but you feel that you should vote yes as it is your only hope of getting further reform. It isn’t, it really isn’t. And the Yes2AV campaign should stop using scare tactics to win in May.
Like most politicians, Nick Clegg has said a lot of rubbish - but that doesn't mean every thing he says is automatically wrong (or right). Don't let a politicians support (or not) influence you - the choice is simple and both systems are simple enough for anyone to understand (if they want to) so everyone can make their own choice based on the facts/arguments.
No need to 'look deep down' and 'see what you feel' - just read the facts, compare the systems and make your choice.
I will be voting ‘No’ to changing the voting system in May. I hope you will too.
Its your choice - but a No vote will be bad for the country and a disservice to future voters.