Talk:Alternative vote plus

Could someone include this article in the Electoral System category? That would be smart.

Could someone also elaborate on the so-called "advantages and disavantages" please?


 * I have done so Fig 13:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph could be made much more clear. For example, 'single member constituency' is not defined, nor is the resulting disproportionate representation explained. Also, 'MP' is used several times later on, but never defined. (Major party?) Uunter (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added some wiki-linking to address those issues - cheers! Fig (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

System vs proposed application
The problem with this article is that I still do not know what the system is, how it works or what its impact is on outcomes compared with other systems. Ankank (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)ankank

Whilst this system hasn't had much if any use, I'm not sure we can say for definite things like:


 * However, unlike most versions of AMS, AV+ is not designed to deliver a high level of proportional representation. Rather, under AV+ the number of candidates elected from regional lists is kept to a relatively small "top up" in order to grant an in-built electoral advantage to larger parties.

As I understand it, the only features of AV+ itself are using the alternative vote to elect constituency members and having top-up lists. Things like the ratio of constituency to list members (or for that matter whether the top-up lists are regional or national) aren't really part of AV+ itself, any more than the Welsh and London Assemblies have different voting systems because one has a single top-up area and the regions, but are rather the detail of how it was proposed for the UK. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's probably a fair point. Jenkins certainly intended that AV+ as applied in the UK would have small top-up zreas (the counties) specifically to tame the proportionality. You could argue that this was an innate feature of AV+ as he (and the committee) invented it. Or you could argue that they invented AV+ generally and then modified it to be implemented in the UK. Fig (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing the name
Since it is known by the media as AV+, I was just wondering what people's views are to changing the title to "Alternative Vote +" (or something similar)? Stephennarmstrong (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never actually heard anyone ever call it "Alternative vote top-up"... so yes, sounds like a good idea to me. Fig (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What happens if I still vote for just one party?
I assume that I would be given a long ballot paper under this system and I then select a first, second and third preference. Is my vote counted if I just vote for one party, and what happens is that since I expressed no second or third preference, the party totals for those preferences are lower than they would otherwise be?

Or does it basically amount to the fact that I have to express a vote for the BNP as second or third in order to prevent Gordon Brown being PM until he is age 85 because he has been propped up by the LibDems?! --90.218.44.39 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, this is an encyclopaedia, not a blog... Fig (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Safe seats
User:Wereon has deleted the line "because it removes all safe seats". This removal needs some discussion, as an MP in a seat with even 90% of the vote is not safe under STV because he has the possibility of losing to other candidates from his own party. Fig (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Excluding fringe parties completely an advantage?
Stating that excluding fringe parties is an advantageous to an electoral system is a judgement call, and is not an objective of describing the system. This should be changed. Thoughts? --B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.120.158 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Green Party was once considered a fringe party, but they have now managed to gain an MP even in the FPTP system, and many of their concerns about environmental issues have been proven to be way ahead of their time. Hatfinch (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Should perhaps be re-worded to say "extremist" parties. You are correct though that excluding parties that are extreme, while a positive to many, is also undemocratic and therefore not supported by all. Fig (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Democracy. No party should be deliberately excluded: if they get votes, they get elected.  Just because you disagree with their policies doesn't give you the right to try to "keep them out".  A party you consider extremist may also be considered moderate by other people's standards. 92.23.187.15 (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

my idea for AV+ (Clemence-Switzer AV+ method)
My idea is to have voters vote in the same way as Alternative Vote. The winner of the single seat riding, division, consituancy, etc is the one that gets more than 50%, as it is so under AV. However, instead of voting in two lists (one for the canadate via AV, and one for a party list), my idea is to have the second part be detremined by the % of votes from the voter's frist choice instead, and the party's threw a predetermined list (closed) or a list of defeated canadates in order of their frist preference vote totals (open, and for the recond, I prefer this), to determine the seats that are set aside for the overall %s, thus saving paper and being less confusing for the voter.

My question is this what AV+ voting does, and if not, has anyone else though or proposed this before? I know this is not a forum or blog, but I needed to expain my idea out to see if it is the case.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The first option is similar to Total Representation with AV and regional lists, inasmuch as candidates can be elected to be, in effect, Party MPs by performing well in their constituencies. The second option is in essence the Best Near Winner method of MMP used in Baden-Wurttemberg where list seats for the under represented party or parties are allocated to candidates on the basis of which candidates performed best in their constituency. The issue with using First Preferences rather than a seperate list vote comes in when you consider potential tactical voting in constituencies, in terms of a voter giving his or her first preference to a party more likely to win the seat. This is less of a problem than under FPTP but it could still result in parties not receiving the full proportion of seats they would have got if a list vote determined the overall proportion of seats awarded in the assembly concerned as it would have one had it's voters voted honestly in the constituency section. 95.147.211.82 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM applies here I think. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 21:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Advantages
"Top up systems using first-past-the-post system (FPTP) are already in use in Scotland and Wales[3] and AV is in use in elections around the world.[4]"

This isn't actually an advantage, is it? Ride the Hurricane (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

With no responses to to this so far, I'm simply going to delete the point. If there are strong legitimate reasons against this, please feel free to revert. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alternative Vote Plus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140131031506/http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/4090.htm to http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/4090.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)