(October 7, 2012 at 8:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: To really see how unfair this is, take this example further and suppose there are 20 parties in the race. Party A gets 6% of the vote, and the other 94% is divided up amongst the 19 other parties equally (so each party gets 4.95% of the vote). Party A is still the winner...with only 6% of the vote. That isn't democracy...that's absurd.
To continue with your example though it doesn't matter how you tally up the votes. There's no escaping the fact that at least 94% of people are not going to get their first choice. AV doesn't change that.
Tiberius Wrote:Also, for the sake of openess, I voted Conservative in the last election, and I voted for AV, despite my party voting against it.
I also voted Conservative. I voted against AV though. Not because the party were against it but because I don't agree with it.
Tiberius Wrote:I think AV would force the two main parties to actually address issues rather than depending on "safe" seats to get elected.
I think that practically everyone who votes Conservative and Labour would put the Lib Dems as their second choice to try and prevent the other party getting in. The Lib Dems would become far more involved, not because they themselves are popular, but because they are simply less disliked.
You could quite conceivably end up with a situation where Labour get 49% of the vote. Lib Dems 26% and Conservatives 25%. And the Lib Dems get elected. That seems absurd to me.
'Always you have to contend with the stupidity of men' - Henry David Thoreau
