Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Say No to AV on Thursday
Okay, just think about the maths in our current first past the post voting system as opposed to the Alternative Vote system. It is not difficult to poke holes in the Alternative Vote system.
Does this seem fair to you? An election winner should need the support of a majority of the people. So if no candidate commands 50% support, the last placed candidate drops out and their voters’ second preferences come into play. This continues until one candidate has majority support.
This does not seem fair to me at all. Democracy is one person, one vote. Alternative Voting would water down the votes and make an abortion of an election. Alternative Voting is for people who can't make up their mind. The elected candidate under Alternative Voting could be chosen not because they are popular but because they are a "second choice". You have to vote for one representative and not a team of politicians.
When you buy a meal in a restaurant you choose one meal, that is what adults do, it is the grown-up thing to do. It is not difficult to choose just one dish from the menu. Voting a representative is no different. The first past the post voting system declares the clear winner in the race to parliament. You will always get the representative who polled the most votes rather than a "lesser of the evils" winner.
Now look at the costs involved. The current first past the post voting system costs a basic sum of money. The Alternative Voting system MUST cost more because of the additional cost incurred in counting the second choice votes of each losing candidate.
So, put together the chance of getting a "lesser of the evils" winner and the extra cost of putting on an election. I believe there is only one Adult choice in this Thursday Referendum on Alternative Voting and that is a very loud NO.
Okay, just think about the maths in our current first past the post voting system as opposed to the Alternative Vote system. It is not difficult to poke holes in the Alternative Vote system.
Does this seem fair to you? An election winner should need the support of a majority of the people. So if no candidate commands 50% support, the last placed candidate drops out and their voters’ second preferences come into play. This continues until one candidate has majority support.
This does not seem fair to me at all. Democracy is one person, one vote. Alternative Voting would water down the votes and make an abortion of an election. Alternative Voting is for people who can't make up their mind. The elected candidate under Alternative Voting could be chosen not because they are popular but because they are a "second choice". You have to vote for one representative and not a team of politicians.
When you buy a meal in a restaurant you choose one meal, that is what adults do, it is the grown-up thing to do. It is not difficult to choose just one dish from the menu. Voting a representative is no different. The first past the post voting system declares the clear winner in the race to parliament. You will always get the representative who polled the most votes rather than a "lesser of the evils" winner.
Now look at the costs involved. The current first past the post voting system costs a basic sum of money. The Alternative Voting system MUST cost more because of the additional cost incurred in counting the second choice votes of each losing candidate.
So, put together the chance of getting a "lesser of the evils" winner and the extra cost of putting on an election. I believe there is only one Adult choice in this Thursday Referendum on Alternative Voting and that is a very loud NO.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]