It looks like the referendum on the alternative vote system will be going ahead.
tinyurl.com/6224v6l
I would need to look at it in far more detail before deciding to support or not, but I think that I am more inclined to support whichever system delivers strong government, rather than more representative government.
I wonder if you guys have any thoughts.
|
|
If you really want strong government, the Egyptian system works best...
|
|
That remains to be seen, when the dust has settled... They could end up with worse than they have now...Though it would be 'strong'!
|
>> If you really want strong government, the Egyptian system works best...
A really strong government would have used VX gas on those protesters by now.
|
>> VX gas
No relation of mine, before anyone asks.
|
>> >> VX gas
>>
>> No relation of mine, before anyone asks.
Although after a Madras, it has been known. Your area doesn't have a warning siren for nothing.
|
>> Although after a Madras,
Parp parp.
|
|
They just dont make Despots or Dictators like they used to.
|
|
It seems to me that this change has been proposed by vested interests. I can't see any real value in the change at all. Previous re-hashing of our systems (e.g. changes to the House of Lords) have produced no, or even negative, benefits.
|
FT you are just plain wrong.
The new AV system makes it more complex thus ensuring fewer people vote thus ensuring MPs can be elected by a minority of electors.
Simple...
|
e.g the EU. And if anyone can explain that voting system to me, dont bother. I'll be fast asleep before you get to the end.
John
|
The proposed system of AV is simple. Vote for who you really want, then if they don't get elected, who out of the remainder you want.
I don't think it'll lead to a reduction in votes, indeed, it may increase turnouts. After all if you would really prefer "The Peoples Revolutionary Free Chocolate Party" you may have considered voting a waste of time. Now you can express your opinion and say which other parties you'd prefer and your vote may yet be the one that counts.
|
But I am an uncompromising swine and if I can't have what I want then I'll throw my toys out of the pram and I don't want my vote given to Mr(s) Second Best. How does that work with AV?
John
|
Easy, you only give a first preference and leave the rest blank. If someone gets more than 50% of votes on first choice - they're elected, if not second preferences apply.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Tue 1 Feb 11 at 15:58
|
All votes are wasted apart from the one that counts. The snag with all systems is that you can't see the effect your vote might have until it is too late.
There ought to be a running tally displayed outside the polling station.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Tue 1 Feb 11 at 15:51
|
Sorry Cliff, that's the "winning goal" arguement which is ... nonsense. Without the one(s) before it would just be a goal. With the ones before it is still just a goal. Put them all together, then you have a winner.
John
|
If candidate A gets 100 votes and candidate B gets 105, then all of the A supporters and 4 of the Bs have wasted their votes. By wasted, I mean the result would have been no different if they had not bothered.
But if the votes clocked up on a board one by one, then you could see immediately the effect your vote was having. Even if in the end it was not needed, it would have played its part, albeit possibly only in encouraging the other side to drum up more support.
|
Look, If I vote for someone, I dont want someone else to get in just because my vote isnt needed.
I want my favourite football team to win the League, the FA cup and the European cup. I dont want anyone else to get anything, I want my team to rub their noses in the dirt..
(its not gonna happen mind, not with the team I support)
|
>> There ought to be a running tally displayed outside the polling station.
Yeah, I hate picking the losing side on election day.
|
...Yeah, I hate picking the losing side on election day...
So do national newspapers.
|
>> The proposed system of AV is simple. Vote for who you really want, then if
>> they don't get elected, who out of the remainder you want.
>>
But when I vote, it's more a case of 'least worst option', rather than a possitive vote for someone I actually want. There's no way I would have a 'second' choise. So presumably that would mean my vote would be spoiled?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks like that.
|
...t's more a case of 'least worst option'...
The option you will never see on any ballot paper is: "none of the above".
Those in power know "none of the above" would win every time, and the gravy train they so enjoy riding would hit the buffers.
|
Its like asking for coffee without sugar. You get it anyway :-(
John
|
>> ...t's more a case of 'least worst option'...
>>
>> The option you will never see on any ballot paper is: "none of the above".
>>
>> Those in power know "none of the above" would win every time, and the gravy
>> train they so enjoy riding would hit the buffers.
What system would you suggest we had if NOTA won a majority? I know there are various approaches used. I suspect the best one that fits with what you say about gravy train hitting the buffers would be to re-open nominations but bar the previous nominees. Not sure if that would be workable in practice, but might sharpen a few minds.
|
...What system would you suggest we had if NOTA won a majority?...
I reckon 'none of the above' would win, so you couldn't risk it because, as you say, it leaves you with nowhere to go.
If we get this referendum, I shall be voting to keep the existing system.
All forms of proportional representation inevitably lead to hung parliaments and yet more elections.
The current coalition appears to be working insofar as it has not fallen apart.
This might encourage some people to vote for a pr system.
But not me.
|
I'll take coalition every time over the tedious Lab/Con yahboo cycle of failure.
My vote goes to AV, hoping for full PR eventually.
|
...My vote goes to AV, hoping for full PR eventually...
And three elections a year.
Give me a government of whatever hue that can run its term.
|
"The current coalition appears to be working insofar as it has not fallen apart."
We're just not used to it in this country, and some people are mistrustful. But this is not Italy.
|
To be fair Iffy coalitions work in most countrie, including Scotland and Wales since devolution. In mainland Europe Germany has has pretty much permanent coalition and I'm prety sure it's worked in Scandinavia as well.
The problem children in the EU have been Italy and latterly Belgium. I suspect the former's troubles owe something history, its constitution and, dare I say it, national character. Belgium's troubles are recent and centre wholly on the Felmish/Wallon difrences.
|
I listen to criticism of the Coalition. Apart from the Official Opposition - who obviously oppose- the main critics are:
Conservatives who think it's too left wing and pursues avenues which they dislike - but are typical of a strand of thinking that at present has no chance of winning - see Heffer (I know he's UKIP)
and LDs who think it's too right wing but have not a hope of ever getting power on their own...
As far as the AV voting system is concerned , will it make a bit of difference to constituencies who have voted Labour or Conservative for the past 50 odd years? Nope.
So why bother?
|
>> As far as the AV voting system is concerned , will it make a bit
>> of difference to constituencies who have voted Labour or Conservative for the past 50 odd
>> years? Nope.
>>
>> So why bother?
Not sure that's true, because they often don't win with a pure majority, with much of the rest being split between the next two parties. There are a few completely safe seats of course, but I reckon they are a small minority.
|
AV referendum - madf
