![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Yes or no
OK, f'listers, let rip. In 100 words or less, and without reference to the other case, tell me why I should vote either 'yes' or 'no' to the following 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?"
Non-UK perspectives welcome.
"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?"
Non-UK perspectives welcome.
no subject
We use a version of the German system here (two votes per person: local candidate and party. What precipitated the change was a majority vote for Labour but National getting in.
Australia uses a preferential voting system; AV seems to be "single transferable vote", a cut-down version of that.
It beats FPTP because people's votes will count more. You do get more minor parties getting their due votes which can lead to major parties not having a clear majority and having to form coalitions; we’re used to that now.
[Edited down to 90 words after I saw the 100 or fewer stipulation] :-P