Vote NO to keep 'one person one worthless vote'. The vast majority of people now have a worthless vote that doesn't count towards the result.
The latest NO adverts filling the press and internet are making false claims about out present system.
The question is when are the YES campaign going to start spending some of their campaign money on full page press adverts telling people the truth?
Had a slight argument yesterday with a woman handing out anti-AV leaflets. Glad you weren't there. You might have hit her..
ReplyDeleteThe first question is, when are YES2FPTP going to 'fess up to who their funders are.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably true that AV will waste less votes than FPTP. But it will still probably waste more than 50% of the votes.
ReplyDeleteBy definition a wasted vote is a vote that does not go to elect someone, or that goes to elect someone who already has been elected. That means that under AV, in theory, only 50% of votes are ever wasted.
But it is a feature of the type of AV that the coalition have chosen that voters are not REQUIRED to fill their ballots in completely. This means that many votes may well not be transferred. For example one can imagine that many Labour or Tory votes will not get transferred. In that case greater than 50% of votes will be wasted.
This is still better than wasted votes in FPTP elections, that are typically 60-70% of the vote.
But it is FAR short of the numbers of wasted votes in PR elections. In Ireland (STV) about 15% of votes are wasted, in Finland (open list PR) about 5% of votes are wasted.
If the issue is wasted votes, AV is not a good system to use as an example.
I make no secret that AV is not my favoured system, but as you say, it reduces wasted votes and surely that is a good thing?
ReplyDelete