Can anyone else see that the alternative vote system is NOT proportional representation?

The alternative vote system is the one that the Liberal-Democrats want in place as part of their electral rearrange. BUT it is not PR but it IS a voting system which is biased towards central parties. It is simply a "first past the post" system where the post is nearer the Lib-Dems!
I think that most ancestors who understand Alternative Vote/Preferential Vote/Instant Run-off understand that it is not proportional representation.

However, it does allow voters to vote for their first coice competitor and also to have their vote count as far as who actually win the seat. That should help most of the party (with the exception of Labour and the Conservatives) increase their total vote.

It also keeps the advantage of first long-gone the post of usually creating a clear winner, something that does not normally come to pass in proportional representation systems.
As opposed to the current one that's designed to keep them out, not that I'm bothered. Personally I ponder that until we get rid of political parties and allow MP's to vote the approach their constituents want them to, we'll keep getting the same aged same old.
The Liberal Democrats don't want AV. They want the Single Transferable Vote, STV have been one of their policies for many years, and they insisted on some move towards it individual made as part of the coalition agreement. No doubt after a lot of haggle, the Conservatives agreed to a referendum on AV as a compromise that both could go along with. But neither side really requests it. This is the worst example of a compromise in the coalition agreement and I hope it gets voted down.

STV is proportional representation as person based on multi-member constituencies, it delivers a more proportional result. AV is simply STV as applied to single-member constituencies and because of that it isn't PR. It is used for the Australian House of Representatives and at hand you sometimes get exactly what its critics say, that someone who is elected who the majority don't really want but get a lot of second preference votes because they are widely thought to be the "tiniest worst of the rest" by voters for the very small parties who capture eliminated in the first rounds of counting... and they slip surrounded by over the 50% barrier in a after that round.

The Lib Dems want proportional representation as the result will be a hung Parliament every time with them holding the balance of power. Whether a coalition every time is a worthy thing is a matter of inference - many European countries have lived beside it since WWII and the voters have got used to it - but as we hold seen, it results in us not slightly getting what anybody actually voted for. I couldn't help thinking of Forrest Gump... 'My momma other said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna grasp." '
Your 100% correct but don't worry I get the impression for a variety of reasons the Lib Dem's will lose this referendum.In bit because Nick Clegg is a busted flush with much of the public and Cleggmania was a one stale event that cant be repeated.His advocacy would damage an already poor case.
Its noteworthy to understand that single member Alternative Vote (AV) is NOT Proportional Representation.
In AV the candidate of the leading two parties are one-sidedly favoured and also undue influence is given to the voters who originally voted for the Least popular candidate: In the event of a single challenger not winning over 50% of votes cast consequently the candidate with the least possible votes is eliminated and that persons votes are redistribute according to their voters second preference, a process that is repeated until one challenger has over 50% of the ballot.

Related Questions: