Yes or no

[altariel]

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.

Comments

[bill-leisner.livejournal.com]

American here, so I don't know enough specifics to tell you to vote yes or no. (And what little I know about British party politics is enough to know there's no comparison to the US's Republican/Democrat/Fringe Group of the Moment set-up.) That said, I don't like the idea of an alternate vote system because, in effect, it gives some people one vote, and some people more than one.

[muuranker.livejournal.com]

in effect, it gives some people one vote, and some people more than one.
I am not sure how you work that out.

The way I see it, everyone still gets the same number of votes. For example, with a 3 candidate race and (say) 10 voters, if at the first round, 4 people vote for A and four for B, and two for C, and the two votes for C are then re-allocated to B (hurrah! B wins), then it isn't the case that those who voted for A or B got one vote, and those who voted for C and then B got two votes: everyone got two votes. 4 people said 'keep voting for A, until A stops being a candidatate', and voted A twice as a result, 4 people said 'keep voting for B, until B stops being a candidatate', and voted B twice as a result, and 2 people said 'keep voting for C, until C stops being a candidatate, then vote for B', and voted C once and B once as a result.

(not a comment for fptp or for av).

[bill-leisner.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I don't buy that explanation. Counting the same initial vote for candidate A or B in a second round of counting is not the same as giving those voters a second vote, which the candidate C voters are very plainly given.

[manna]

Suppose it worked this way:

There is an election, featuring candidates A, B, C, D and E. People go to the polls and vote for their favourite candidate. The votes are counted and C gets the least.

There is then a second election, featuring candidates A, B, D and E. People go to the polls and vote for their favourite candidate. The votes are counted and D gets the least.

There is then a third election, featuring candidates A, B and E. People go to the polls and vote for their favourite candidate. The votes are counted, and B gets more than 50% of the vote and is elected.

Would that seem fair, or unfair?