Mark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 19:57:42 +0100, djc wrote:

On 15/04/11 10:25, Mark wrote:

I disagree. By allowing people to vote for multiple candidates (if
they so wish) it would eliminate tactical voting. It would also mean,
that if you don't vote for the winner, that your vote is not totally
wasted. Hopefully this will encourage more people to to vote make MPs
more accountable.
a. What's wrong with tactical voting.

What's right with tactical voting?

You vote for someone you don't want to elect in an attempt to stop
some other person you don't want to elect.


That's right. :-)

b. Why would a vote under AV be any less 'tactical'

Because you can vote for who you /really/ want to win (if there is
anyone) without losing the chance to block those who you dislike the
most.

You can't vote for who is not on the electoral register or whatever its
called,

It won't make any real difference. The same sort of people will still stand
for election, whoever you vote for the government will get in. Some
constituencies may be a little less 'safe', some marginal constituencies
will become 'safer'

All seats will become less safe. AV is likely to engage more voters
and candidates will need 50% of the vote to win.

It wont make people more likley to vote, since the whole system is about
electing an executive twho then utterly fail to address the issues that
they have the proised to affect, and fiddle with the ones they didnt.,
leaving the country in even more of a mess.


What we have now is where a few voters in a few marginal
constituencies decide the government. The rest of the population get
virtually no say. AV is not perfect but it's a lot better than what
we have now.

The reason those marginals can do that, is because the marketing (spin)
departments of the two major parties are almost as good as each other.