Sentences with phrase «under av»

Transferring minor parties» votes under AV would have made no difference to the final result.

Under AV or, particularly, PR the Liberal Democrats would gain MPs and could routinely hold the balance of power.

So strength of preference may be poorly reflected even under first past the post - it's unclear that we lose that much under AV.

Five weeks before referendum day, tonight's Evening Standard has picked up on some academic research which seeks to demonstrate how the political map would have looked different if the last election had been fought under AV.

Under AV the «progressive majority» strategy may have stood a chance in a national election.

«all the people who didn't vote for her because they thought she couldn't win would have put her first under AV.»

Your argument being that 31 % is less than 50 % so she and other small party candidates wouldn't get elected under AV?

Study Australia where the Greens struggle as much under AV as they do here under FPTP.

Furthermore, all the people who didn't vote for her because they thought she couldn't win would have put her first under AV.

You suggest that Caroline Lucas might not have won under AV.

Would she have been «a main contender» under AV, in your opinion?

Not only did tactical voting take place during the Labour leadership election (held under AV) but it was actively encouraged by all campaigns I would presume.

Like hell it will, all three are still possible under AV.

Richard Manns: we've had more hung parliaments in this country in the last century under FPTP than Australia has had under AV.

And since smaller parties do not gain substantially under AV, as it makes getting a representative elected harder, it will not be them either.

I would argue that votes are fairer under AV, as fewer are discarded and thus fewer are left without a voice, and also that the sort of tactical voting popular under FPTP (voting for Labour / the Tories in order to keep the Tories / Labour out, when really you would much rather vote for a minor party) will be vastly diminished upon the adoption of AV.

Under the AV system, voters rank candidates by number.

In 2011, former research secretary Richard Mabey produced a paper with Bernard Jenkin MP on the Alternative Vote system [17] «Death of the Conviction Voter - Fairness and Tactics under AV», which was often cited during the 2011 AV referendum debate and was seen as being an influential contribution to the thinking of the «NOtoAV» campaign.

A candidate who would win under AV (whether or not he would win under FPTP) with a particular set of voter preferences, could actually become a loser if voters changed their preferences so as to make him or her more popular.

In fact careful analysis shows that a parliament elected under AV will not necessarily be any more proportional than one elected under the present First Past the Post (FPTP) system.

And if the last election could be re-run under AV, the LibDems would improve on the 8.8 % of seats they won, while not achieving the full 23.3 % their share of the poll would warrant.

Academics at Essex University have analysed the 2010 general election results together with survey data on voters» second and third preferences, and estimated that the Lib Dems would have gained an extra 32 seats under AV.

Under AV there will be little opportunity for tactical voting and the Lib Dems will suffer as a result.

That means they would be eliminated nearly every time under AV even if all voters ranked them as their second preference.

It seems likely this effect will be a lot weaker under AV.

In order to gain more seats at Westminster under AV the Lib Dems would need to have enough candidates who are the natural first preference of enough voters to benefit from AV.

Those who named the Conservatives as their first choice under AV were more likely to give their second preference to UKIP (42 % of those naming a second party) than to anyone else — but notably, they were more likely to give it to the Lib Dems or Labour (53 % in total) than to UKIP.

As one Cabinet minister said to me yesterday; under AV the losers win.

No FPTP Labour or Conservative voters gave their first choice to UKIP under AV.

More than 19 out of 20 of those who said they would vote Labour or Conservative under FPTP named the same party as their first preference under AV, as did nine out of ten UKIP voters.

At the 1997 election, the contrast would have been even more stark: under the AV system, the Tories would have had 95 fewer seats and the Lib Dems 69 more.

A so you admit tactical voting takes place under AV then?

Under AV, they need to be respected, as votes you may well also need to win.

Under AV, BNP candidates would be eliminated in the first round, and their voters would have expressed no second preference.

It has been estimated by the British election study team at Essex University that under AV the number of Lib Dem MPs would rise from 57 to 89, while the Tories would drop from 307 to 285 and Labour from 258 to 248.

Their objectives under AV would be the same as the Greens, and, though it might take slightly longer, it is surely likely with these figures that they would do better than the Greens.

If Britain votes Yes to the Alternative Vote (AV), the next election will be fought under AV.

Coalitions can occasionally occur under First - Past - The - Post but under AV they'd become the norm in Britain rather than the exception.

The core group, under AV, may well be enhanced from existing Labour and BNP voters and also, perhaps especially once they break through into Westminster, from non-voters.

It is entirely realistic that UKIP could develop into Britain's third party under AV.

So how is it that, under AV, you could end up with the least popular candidate?

Baston says matters have now shifted to make things marginally more onerous for Labour under AV.

Under AV they will mostly transfer to Tories not to Labour.

Under the AV system MPs could not be elected without the backing of at least 50 % of voters in a constituency.

For example under AV in Alberta, Canada, one party obtained 90 % of the seats on 54 % of the vote.

Campaigners for a «yes» vote say that under AV, an MP has to get the backing of 50 per cent of the voters.

Under AV, some votes count more than others.

An analysis by Lord Ashcroft suggests the LibDem position will remain weak, even under AV.

Under FPTP they would have lost their seats; under AV they kept them.

To secure a majority of votes under AV, candidates will need to be more honest about points of agreement.