| Non-motoring > NOtoAV | Car Deals |
| Thread Author: Mapmaker | Replies: 175 |
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 17:14
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
Such a catchy title. IF FPTP means that Government of the majority is by a minority, AV means that Government is held to ransom by a minimusity (apologies). Sign up to www.notoav.org, get out an campaign. Or have the Lib Dems in Government for the next century. Better Red than Yellow. |
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 18:45
NOtoAV - Tooslow
|
|
and YES to fewer MPs. John |
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 18:59
NOtoAV - CGNorwich
|
|
AV is an inherently fairer system than FPTP. Anyone who is interested in democracy rather than ensuring that their own political views are perpetuated should surely welcome it. Benefits are All MPs would have the support of a majority of their voters. Following the 2010 election 2/3 of MPs lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history. It retains the same constituencies, meaning no need to redraw boundaries, and no overt erosion of the constituency-MP link. It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes. It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote. It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the need for negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad-church policies. (From electoral reform society website) |
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 20:34
NOtoAV - Kevin
|
|
Maybe we should consider the Belgian system ;-) Kevin... |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 11:37
NOtoAV - Tooslow
|
|
"It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes." I don't agree with that, I think it encourages them. It certainly seems to do so in countries where AV is used. After all, if you vote for the "Extreme Wing of The People's Party For Making You All Take The Bus" party, and your candidate doesn't get in then you have a second turn for the nice many/lady from the Conibour party. Make you mind up for goodness sake, make a decision. Choose. It's like being 7 again and having to wait for your Zoom while the other kid agonises over what to have and then goes for an Orange Mivvi, the same as always :-( John |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 11:47
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> in countries where AV is used. Are there any countries where an AV system, as near as dammit identical to the one being proposed in this referendum, is being used? In the spirit of open mindedness, I'd be interested to see what results it throws up elsewhere. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 11:49
NOtoAV - Tooslow
|
|
I think, and I'm not sure, that there may be two. I think Australia is one. No idea of the other. John |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 11:50
NOtoAV - tyro
|
|
"It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes." To argue for a voting system on the grounds that it discriminates against parties that you don't like strikes me as basically anti-democratic. I take it that the Electoral Reform Society doesn't seriously think that this is a point in favour of AV. Last edited by: tyro on Fri 18 Feb 11 at 11:53
|
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 11:51
NOtoAV - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I don't agree with that, I think it encourages them. It certainly seems to do >> so in countries where AV is used. After all, if you vote for the "Extreme >> Wing of The People's Party For Making You All Take The Bus" party, and your >> candidate doesn't get in then you have a second turn for the nice many/lady from >> the Conibour party. Some forms of PR certainly have that effect cf Israel. But then there are other societal factors in that country not least various 'ultra' views in religion. The only other country that uses AV is Australia and it's politics don't look to terrifying (excepting the bearpit of political comment) |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 11:59
NOtoAV - Tooslow
|
|
"The only other country " and then there's the EU when you vote for your Euro MP. I have no idea which countries use AV. You are using that as a particular form of PR? Because I thought PR was more widespread. John |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 12:04
NOtoAV - tyro
|
|
and then there's the EU when you vote for your Euro MP. No. EU elections in the UK use STV. For places that use AV, see Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Vote#Global_use |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 12:04
NOtoAV - Bromptonaut
|
|
There are lots of other forms of PR. I'm not enough of a geek to understand them but if you want to know more Google is your friend. My point was that the AV system, where candidates are ranked by prefernce does not favour minority parties in the way that more sophisiticated systems do |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 19:13
NOtoAV - Boxsterboy
|
|
>> The only other country that uses AV is Australia and it's politics don't look to >> terrifying (excepting the bearpit of political comment) >> Except they've got a Welsh Sheila running the show. Strewth, mate!! |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 19:22
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
So why do they always end up with one of two parties? Just like us who dont have AV. Julia, is from Queensland, you can always tell the slow drawl, queenslanders cant talk and think at the same time, so they have to timeslice brain power. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YJDfW-9YXU&NR=1 |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 12:03
NOtoAV - CGNorwich
|
| I'm sure its me but I didn't understand a word of that Tooslow, Can you clarify for me please. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 15:02
NOtoAV - Tooslow
|
|
"I'm sure its me " oh, I don't know. Let me try. What I'm trying to say is that, if you have a first choice and a second choice (and a third?) then you may be tempted to vote for a minor party as your first choice (let's keep this non contentious!) on the basis that, if they don't get in, your second vote will come into play so you haven't "wasted" your vote (and I know that "wasted" is open to debate). There may even be an element of protest to the vote - "I know (s)he won't win but I'll show what I think". If enough people think along those lines, then the minor party gets in. The bit about the ice cream was just my ramblings along the lines of "why can't you (not personal) make a decision". John |
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 19:10
NOtoAV - Manatee
|
|
>>IF FPTP means that Government of the majority is by a minority, AV means that Government is held to ransom by a minimusity (apologies). Oh I don't know. It would be good to shake the bag a bit. Clearly AV doesn't suit the establishment and its cronies, whose argument amounts to their preferred outcomes being better than a more democratic one. Thank you Mapmaker for rousing me to action. The notoav website is very reticent as to how the proposed av system would work, unless I've overlooked it. www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/what-is-av has an explanation. Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 17 Feb 11 at 19:11
|
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 21:44
NOtoAV - tyro
|
|
No to AV? Well, yes and no. Yes. I don't want the Alternative Vote as our voting system in this country. (I think that the Single Transferable Vote is a much better system.) No. I'll probably vote for the AV in the referendum, on the grounds that I consider it fairer than FPTP. Curiously, I've voted in several constituencies over the decades, and voted for various parties, but I don't think I've ever voted for a winning candidate. I've certainly never voted for a winning candidate in a parliamentary election. |
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 21:51
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
| I think ill vote against. Doesnt appeal to me. |
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 21:51
NOtoAV - R.P.
|
|
They have this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method For the Welsh Assembly - it's led to a coalition which has worked well enough here. Don't even think of wondering how it works. |
|
Thu 17 Feb 11 23:15
NOtoAV - Londoner
|
|
OK. I'll be the one to say it, and get labeled a cynic. What does it matter what voting system we use - the same self serving career politicians will get elected. I last voted in 1997 after disillusionment set in at the failure of New Labour's Brave New World. They might just as well select the winning candidates by cutting cards for all the good that they do. Red, Blue or Yellow - precious few have ever had a proper job in the real world. Just look at the career biographies of most of them - they have inhabited the Westminster bubble most of their lives. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 07:11
NOtoAV - Manatee
|
|
>> What does it matter what voting system we use - the same self serving career >> politicians will get elected. They won't actually. AV will mean many fewer safe seats. Maybe the fact that a lot of them have safe seats accounts for their apparent lack of attention to what the voters put them there for. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 07:16
NOtoAV - Manatee
|
| There was a funny letter from a vicar in yesterdays Telegraph. He pointed out that under FPTP, if voters were evenly distributed around the constituencies according to their party preference, only one party would be elected. On the other hand, if all constituencies were the same size, and voters were herded together in them according to preference, you would have MPs in proportion to party votes. His conclusion was that the election results have more to do with social cohesion than the preferences of voters. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 09:25
NOtoAV - tyro
|
|
"AV will mean many fewer safe seats." And arguably, STV would mean fewer still, because voters who favour a particular party will be able to choose between the different candidates of that party. FPTP enables party machines to have the major say in choosing MPs. Most list systems, like the d'Hondt method used in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, are even worse in this respect. STV and AV shift the balance somewhat in favour of voters. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 10:20
NOtoAV - Londoner
|
|
I admire your optimism, Gentlemen, but I don't share it I'm afraid. The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons under any system of election will be members of the "career politicians party" (albeit some wear red rosettes, some blue and some yellow). The real problem is getting independent-minded real people into the House in the first place. As long as the party whip is so strong it will always count against independents being elected, apart from the (very) odd rebellions such as Kidderminster and Tatton. I can heartily recommend Peter Oborne's "The Triumph of the Political Class" for a much better explanation of the ideas that I'm clumsily trying to get across in this thread. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 11:14
NOtoAV - tyro
|
|
"I admire your optimism, Gentlemen, but I don't share it I'm afraid." Sorry if I gave the impression of optimism, Londoner. I actually agree with you. While FPTP (and Party List systems) are the most effective means of entrenching career politicans, they are not the main reason that career politicians dominate parliament. The main reason is that - and this is not surprising, seeing as the UK is a democracy - voters actually prefer career politicians, and look upon other candidates as being somewhat "odd." As I say, I have lived in constituencies that have elected Labour, Conservative, LibDem and SNP members, and I have never voted for a winning candidate*. In fact, for the past 20 years, I doubt** that I have voted for any candidate of one of the big parties in a parliamentary election. (*at least, not in a parliamentary election. I once voted for a winning candidate in a Highland Council election. He was an independent, as was his opponent.) (**The one election I'm not sure about was 1997. I probably spoiled my ballot, but can't be certain. The fact that I can't remember shows just how enthusiastic I was about the whole process. I definitely didn't vote Labour, though!) Last edited by: tyro on Fri 18 Feb 11 at 11:15
|
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 21:34
NOtoAV - Leif
|
|
Londoner said: >> Red, Blue or Yellow - precious few have ever had a proper job in the >> real world. Just look at the career biographies of most of them - they have >> inhabited the Westminster bubble most of their lives. Sadly the above is close to the truth. The one party that has perhaps most people with real world experience is the Tories, and they are vilified as the party of the rich. And yet Nu Labour are stuffed full of career politicians and lawyers such as Blair, and Harperson. It seems that for years we preferred spinners to doers. No idea about Liberals. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 10:57
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> IF FPTP means that Government of the majority is by a minority, AV means that >> Government is held to ransom by a minimusity (apologies). Well it hasn't been tried in the UK yet, so where does such certainty come from? >> Or have the Lib Dems in Government for the next century. Because Lab and Tory governments have done such a blinding job, why would anyone want anyone else to have a say? >> Better Red than Yellow. Oh dear. If these are the best arguemtns the no campaign can muster, they're doomed. Fortunately. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 12:02
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
I personally think FPTP is quite effective for booting out unpopular MPs. Doing some telephone canvasing for the Tories I was surprised to discover we were putting effort into Heathcoat-Amory's seat in Wells, traditionally a safe Tory seat. He'd not been very clever with his expenses and was rightly booted out. What it generally gives us, though, is a Government of one party the manifesto of which we have chosen. Nobody voted for a party that wanted a referendum on AV; the LibDems wanted a referendum on something more extreme, neither the Tories or the Labour party wanted one at all. Yet after the horse trading in smoke-filled rooms, here we are with a referendum on AV. Why??? Answer because we ended up with a compromise. Better Red than Blue-Yellow. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 12:11
NOtoAV - tyro
|
|
"Why??? Answer because we ended up with a compromise." In a world of widely differing opinions, compromise is often the most sensible choice. There are, of course, matters of basic principle on which one would not be right to compromise. However, on most matters, failure to compromise is stubborn and silly. I say that as someone who tends to hold minority opinions on many subjects, and who is often seen as inflexible and much too unwilling to compromise. |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 12:07
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
>> >> IF FPTP means that Government of the majority is by a minority, AV meansthat >> >> Government is held to ransom by a minimusity (apologies). >> Well it hasn't been tried in the UK yet, so where does such certainty come >> from? Because AV gives you coalition Governments. Which means the centre party in coalition with either the left or the right. >> >> Or have the Lib Dems in Government for the next century. >> Because Lab and Tory governments have done such a blinding job, why would anyone want >> anyone else to have a say? We get to kick them out in rotation and a jolly good thing too. We'd never get to kick out the Lib Dems as they'd always hold the balance of power. >> >> Better Red than Yellow. >> Oh dear. If these are the best arguemtns the no campaign can muster, they're doomed. >> Fortunately. Not at all, it's an extremely strong argument (better as "better Red than Blue-Yellow"). Strong socialist Government is better for the country than grotty compromise which means we end up with policies that NOBODY WHATSOEVER voted for - like a referendum on AV. Not a single person in the country voted for a referendum on AV, but a coalition government has given it to us. Where's the logic in that? |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 12:17
NOtoAV - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Not a single person in the country voted for a referendum on AV, but a coalition government >> has given it to us. Where's the logic in that? Uhh!!! A referendum on AV, co timed with one on a 'democratic & accountable' second chamber was in the Labour Manifesto; item 9.2. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 18 Feb 11 at 12:17
|
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 12:24
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
| Doh. |
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 17:47
NOtoAV - Duncan
|
|
>> >> A referendum on AV, co timed with one on a 'democratic & accountable' second chamber >> was in the Labour Manifesto; item 9.2. >> And the British electorate did not vote for it! |
|
Fri 18 Feb 11 17:26
NOtoAV - Manatee
|
|
>> Because AV gives you coalition Governments. Which means the centre party in coalition with either >> the left or the right. Apparently not - see Myth 5. www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/av-myths |
|
Mon 21 Feb 11 10:18
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
>>Apparently not - see Myth 5. Myth 5 "proves" its points by stating that the Canadians regularly have hung Parliaments even with FPTP and the Australians don't, even with AV. Therefore it proves nothing. It is certain that in the UK, with AV, the centre party would have more MPs and therefore a hung Parliament, in the UK, in recent years, would have been more likely to have been hung than not. |
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 17:15
NOtoAV - Roger.
|
|
Interesting? tinyurl.com/4t25uqc |
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 17:50
NOtoAV - R.P.
|
| Instinctively I'm against it and I will vote against- The PR thing is in place in Wales already, resulting in a hung "Senedd" - but it actually seems to work...keeps the nationalists in check and stops Labour going off on one... |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 14:56
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> Instinctively I'm against it and I will vote against- The PR thing is in place >> in Wales already, resulting in a hung "Senedd" - but it actually seems to work...keeps >> the nationalists in check and stops Labour going off on one... >> Translation: "It works. But I don't want it". Odd position to take? |
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 17:51
NOtoAV - Duncan
|
|
Supposing; just supposing, I don't want any of this AV/PR nonsense. If I cast my vote for my first preference candidate and cast no other vote/s what happens then? |
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 18:13
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
|
>>If I cast my vote for my first preference candidate and cast no other vote/s what happens then?<< Your part in the process ends. Ofcourse, the problem is simply that there arent that many options in who you can vote for - to come up with 3 parties id be happy voting for would be some task since I can only think of one, maybe two at a push. |
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 21:41
NOtoAV - Leif
|
| AV seems a reasonable system to me and fairer than FPTP. I don't like the idea that a politician could be voted in because (s)he gets the most votes, and yet more people loathe the person than like them. At least AV stops a large minority from dominating, and results in a representative who is favoured by most people. And this coalition is not so bad it seems to me anyway. The Liberals will be toning down the Conservatives, and adding a bit of Liberalism subject to Tory approval. That surely is fairer than a pure Tory agenda. And this lot seem to be taking in a range of voices. The welfare reform is taking serious input from Frank Field (Labour) and pension reform has input from Will Hutton (Labour). Is that so bad. |
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 21:53
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
|
FPTP does work if the population gets off its backside and votes. The government is always decided by a minority of the population because nowhere near enough people bother to vote. Only 65% of people turned out in 2010, so if you assume on a basic level, it takes just over half of those people to get a majority, thats just 33% maybe of people putting a government in power. You cant really say a minority of people voted for someone - those people who dont vote have cast aside their choice to have their voice heard. They are saying they just dont care, so its not that they didnt vote for whoever is in power, its that they didnt vote for anyone. The only people that matter are those who make the choice to engage in the politics of the country - the 35% that dont decided to have no say either way. |
|
Thu 17 Mar 11 21:54
NOtoAV - -
|
|
Wonderful, with AV for the next several generations there will only be lib lab con, and as now it won't make the slightest difference which colour holds the prefect title for the duration, the same set of incompetents will be spouting drivel (and trousering well) whilst the EU master state take over the running of the country, and what laughingly passes for our govenment sell what's left of the family silver. Hasn't the headless chicken rubbish being talked by our PM and the FS over the middle east crisis made anyone realise it's all over, they're about as much use as the last lot, chocolate and teapot anyone? With AV it'll be almost impossible to get rid of the staus quo, if the populace ever wakes from it's brainwashed dumbed down told what to think and who to vote for coma, what other possible reason could there be for them wanting it. PR would be THE democratic system, so not a hope in hell of us getting it, might just get a few in the House who speak the truth as they see it, and might not have vested interests pulling their strings, can't have that. Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 17 Mar 11 at 21:56
|
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 09:34
NOtoAV - tyro
|
|
It is difficult to know what AV would mean in practice for Britain. GB is, I suspect, right in thinking that "with AV for the next several generations there will only be lib lab con." However it is probably also true that with FPTP, Britain can expect much the same over the next few generations. In the end of the day, it largely depends on whether, as GB puts it "the populace ever wakes from it's brainwashed dumbed down told what to think and who to vote for coma." I do wonder whether the "Thatcherite revolution" of the 1980s would have taken place if we had AV back then. I also wonder how different a place Britain would be today without that revolution. I really have no idea about that one. My gut feeling is that it makes little difference to Britain whether we have AV or FPTP. This referendum is not actually that important in terms of the future shape of the country. In fact, I wonder how important the referenda that we have every 5 or so years (known as general elections) actually are. I do believe that the one referendum that we need, and which would have the potential to make a real difference to Britain - but that we are not going to get, is a referendum on EU membership. And for those who say "We already had one in 1975" - my reply is "No we did not. We had a referendum on EEC membership, and what the EU has become (and I think that GB's phrase "master state") is not far wide of the mark, is very different from the EEC of the early 1970s. Furthermore, we only had one referendum. We get a referendum on who forms the Westminster government every 4 or 5 years. Over 70% of the economically active sector of the British population today (roughly those between 20 and 65) were not eligible to vote in the 1975 referendum. The UK has never voted on the EU; most of us never had a chance to vote on the EEC. Last edited by: tyro on Fri 18 Mar 11 at 09:35
|
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 10:01
NOtoAV - Cliff Pope
|
|
Let's run both at the same time and then decide afterwards which we prefer? If lots of BNP candidates get in under one system we can use the other. If one produces a stalemate we could use the AV result, or FPTP as the case may be. Or we could just let the LibDems have total power for 4 years, and then after they have had their chance and messed it up, ban them from future elections and impose a no-whine zone. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 09:58
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> Wonderful, with AV for the next several generations there will only be lib lab con, Name any other party which has ever held power in this country. Go on. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 10:12
NOtoAV - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> >> >> >> Name any other party which has ever held power in this country. Go on. >> Whig, Tory, Peelite (Liberal Conservative), Unionist, Liberal Unionist, National (Baldwin, Chamberlain) , War Coalition (Churchill). Probably many more, not forgetting Yorkist, Lancastrian. :) |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 10:16
NOtoAV - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Whig, Tory, Peelite (Liberal Conservative), Unionist, Liberal Unionist, National (Baldwin, Chamberlain) , War Coalition (Churchill). >> Probably many more, not forgetting Yorkist, Lancastrian. :) But has any Government since Universal Sufferage been anything other than Lib/Lab/Con, either alone or in coalition with one another? |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 10:39
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
| Exactly, Bromptonaut. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 12:16
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
| And theres really very little to choose between the parties anyway, its only the egos which clash, so unless theres any danger from the BNP, does it really matter who gets in. Im not sure it does anymore. Its all centre-ground stuff now, so its like trying to decide between different flavoured water - sure, each tastes a bit different, but essentially its still just versions of water. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:03
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
Why do we need governments from more than three parties? That we've had a two or three party system for years doesn't make the system wrong. Aren't most democracies dominated by two or three parties? From what little I take in of government changes in other countries, it always seems to be one lot then the other, then the first lot take over again. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:11
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> Why do we need governments from more than three parties? Nobody said we do. We just want a fairer representation in Parliament of the parties standing for election than we get from the current system. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:16
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
>> >> Why do we need governments from more than three parties? >> >> Nobody said we do. We just want a fairer representation in Parliament of the parties >> standing for election than we get from the current system. Why? And in what sense is the current system not fair? |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:21
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> Why? Because fairness is better than unfairness. >> And in what sense is the current system not fair? Parties always get numbers of seats disproportionate to the number of votes gained nationally. I, and many others, think this unfair. Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 18 Mar 11 at 13:22
|
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:15
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
Those in favour of lots of parties and PR miss the point of why we have parties... We have parties because it means that a crowd of people who sort of agree can get together in order to come to an agreement as to what they want and then do it because they have a majority. The moment you have lots of poxy parties, what happens? Either they cannot agree on anything and there is no Government. Or... a crowd of people who sort of agree can get together in order to come to an agreement as to what they want and then do it because they have a majority. Aha. So you get an embryonic political party. Why then, if in favour of the anarchy of loads of small parties do you think it is better that the horse trading happens after an election so nobody gets what they voted for - rather than its happening before the election so that a party creates a manifesto so you know what you're voting for? I have no great love of politicians. But I have a great love of a working democracy, and FPTP makes it work better than other options as it gives strong government that can get things done. Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 18 Mar 11 at 13:15
|
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:18
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
MM, you're propounding the same fallacious assumption that the NO campaign seems to be based on. Namely, that AV or PR will always result in coalition government, and that coalition government is always a bad thing. It won't, and it isn't. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:29
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
>>It won't, and it isn't. I'm sure I can agree with you there. However, substitute "more likely to" and then it becomes a risk I do not think we need to take. What I really dislike is not knowing what I'm voting for. How is it fallacious to say that if the negotiations happen post-election then it is the politicians who decide (in a matter of days which cannot be a good thing) which policies go forward, whereas if they happpen pre-election then it is the voters who decide which party's manifesto to vote for? |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:34
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> However, substitute "more likely to" and then it becomes a risk I do not think >> we need to take. By stating that it's a risk to have a coalition government, you're still implying that it's always a bad thing. Otherwise, you'd be calling it an opportunity, not a risk. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 13:24
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> and FPTP makes it work better than other options as it gives strong >> government that can get things done. >> Including the current government, which is a coalition, which the NO campaign want us to believe is always a weak form of government. You may not approve of what the current government is doing, but you can't argue that it's weak. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 15:50
NOtoAV - Bromptonaut
|
|
Not clear that AV will produce a lot of seats for little parties. It achieves in one hit what other countries do with a second ‘run off’ poll. While different voters will use it in different ways I can’t see any obvious reason why second preferences would go to extreme or minority parties in numbers large enough to see them elected. It should however widen the number of swing seats capable of changing hands in an election. Votes are not wasted stacked up against candidates who score well yet fail to overcome the 40% eternally held by the incumbent. While Lib/Lab/Con coalitions seem most likely LAb/Nationalist could not be ruled out. The system that’s consistently given minorities disproportionate weight has been the Single Transferable Vote as used in Israel. But AIUI they have no constituencies, just one national electorate with votes divided proportionately down to very small percentages. The constituency link is a cornerstone of UK’s system and STV implemented here would almost certainly retain them albeit larger and multi member. But in that context the minimum poll required to be elected would be high enough to rule out all but the smallest representation for nutter parties. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 18 Mar 11 at 15:50
|
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 16:25
NOtoAV - tyro
|
|
The system that’s consistently given minorities disproportionate weight has been the Single Transferable Vote as used in Israel. Israel does not use the Single Transferable Vote. It uses a party list system, assigning seats by the D'Hondt method. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 17:52
NOtoAV - Leif
|
|
Mapmaker said: >> We have parties because it means that a crowd of people who sort of agree >> can get together in order to come to an agreement as to what they want >> and then do it because they have a majority. >> >> The moment you have lots of poxy parties, what happens? Either they cannot agree on >> anything and there is no Government. Or... a crowd of people who sort of agree >> can get together in order to come to an agreement as to what they want >> and then do it because they have a majority. I don't see that we will get loads of small parties. AV simply means that in many cases the candidate with the most votes in the first count gets in. In some cases where there are 2 or 3 parties with large numbers of votes, AV will decide which of those 2 or 3 really is the most popular, in order to avoid unfairness. Anyway, I am too cynical to really believe that our politics is representative or democratic. What we have is an elected dictatorship. We give them roughly 5 years to decide for us, and then at the end of that term we hold an election in which we decide who should dictate for the next five years. It is not democratic, as small cliques decide the policies, and when they are in office they have no obligation to carry out the manifesto. What's more, events dear boy, events. When an event occurs, they decide for us. Our system is a form of dictatorship with the bonus that we can kick them out if we so wish after 5 years, and we have a free press that can influence the current regime. I suppose we also have the freedom for mass protests, strikes and insurrection. But that kind of goes against the national motto/ethic of "mustn't grumble". |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 20:11
NOtoAV - Roger.
|
| "Nutter" parties - those with whom you disagree? |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 20:18
NOtoAV - Leif
|
|
Roger said: >> "Nutter" parties - those with whom you disagree? No idea what poster meant, but for me nutter parties include BNP, Workers Revolutionary Party and the English Defence League. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 20:31
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
| You forgot UKIP. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 20:35
NOtoAV - -
|
| Or in fact any group or party who doesn't read (worship) from the liblabcon hymnsheet of the day...which may well have changed from the one in use yesterday, do keep up. |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 20:40
NOtoAV - Roger.
|
| THIS is more like it, I think: tinyurl.com/dhg3v2 |
|
Fri 18 Mar 11 21:10
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
| Quite. |
|
Sat 23 Apr 11 11:32
NOtoAV - Duncan
|
|
I saw an opinion poll a couple of days ago which showed that the 'No to AV' has 58% and the 'Yes to AV' has 42%. If the figures stay anything like that, the 'No' camp will walk it. That will put any form of PR out of consideration for the foreseeable future. Apparently the 'Yes' camp are seriously fed up with Clegg. |
|
Sat 23 Apr 11 11:40
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
The trouble with this vote is that its a first past the post vote. It would be fairer if the referendum for AV was AV. we might end up with a maybe yes, or maybe not vote. |
|
Mon 2 May 11 22:49
NOtoAV - R.P.
|
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13144202 This is what we're up against in Wales - simple it isn't. No wonder people won't engage with politics. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 10:47
NOtoAV - SteelSpark
|
|
There is zero chance of the Yes camp winning, I believe. The No campaign have done too much of a good job with their adverts, convincing people that it is massively complicated, and expensive and bound to create unfair results. The polls have completely changed since those adverts, from being neck and neck, to being clearly in favour of No. The ads are, in my opinion, generally a lot of nonsense, but they have certainly worked. Looks like you only need a bunch of teenagers looking confused and an unhappy jockey to convince most people. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 11:50
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
How deeply depressing. Perhaps the No campaingers are right and the British public are too thick to use AV. We're certainly pretty thick if we've bought their tissue of lies and misinformation. Perhaps there are valid reasons to keep the existing system, but the No campaign seems to have been mostly based on "AV is too complicated" (no it isn't) and "Only 3 other countries use it" (so what?). No doubt we'll get what we deserve, the status quo of the Tweedle Dum party having 10 years of free reign only to be replaced by Tweedle Dummer. Happy days for the Tories. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:15
NOtoAV - Number_Cruncher
|
|
>>No doubt we'll get what we deserve Regardless of the result, I'll be interested to see the turnout figures. I don't believe that people en masse are particulalry concerned about FPTP or AV, and I imagine the turnout figures will be miserable. There are other issues where I, and I suspect many others would much rather see a referendum on issues of real national importance; - membership of the EU - troops in Afghanistan - troops in Iraq as examples, but, no, we have to deal with this non-problem purely because it's a bee in the Lib Dem bonnet. Not a good use of our taxes IMO. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:21
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
To characterise it as a non-problem is to completely ignore the facts of the matter and to accept that significant portions of the populace can be ignored at will in national elections. I can think of few better uses of an infinitessimally small amount of money than an attempt to make our electoral system more democratic, and enfranchise those people who live in safe seats but do not support the sitting party MP by making their votes count for the first time ever. But, it appears, the alternative is "too complicated" and "only used in 3 countries". |
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:32
NOtoAV - Number_Cruncher
|
|
>>To characterise it as a non-problem is to completely ignore the facts of the matter ... I don't agree. Sorry. Of the things which trouble me and the people I know and talk with, the voting system just was not among them. Outside of Lib Dem party conferences, it's a non-issue. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:28
NOtoAV - Armel Coussine
|
|
You can't govern by referendum N_C. Unpopular but necessary policies would never be approved. The electorate wouldn't understand all the issues. And there are 'secrets', also sometimes necessary. Finally, the system is too cumbersome for quick decisions which are also sometimes necessary. In Australia, which has I think some form of PR, electors are legally obliged to vote. Is this one of the AV proposals? I doubt it. But it seems to me a good idea. At least then people couldn't moan that the government was elected by a minority (because the majority was glued to reality TV and couldn't be a r sed to waddle own to the local primary and make a cross on a bit of bumf). |
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:34
NOtoAV - Number_Cruncher
|
|
>>You can't govern by referendum N_C. No, I agree, I agree fully, and I didn't say that you could sensibly govern by referendum AC - I was just making the point that if we have a referendum for this Lib Dem driven sideshow, there have been far more important issues which haven't been put to the public. Last edited by: Number_Cruncher on Tue 3 May 11 at 12:35
|
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:41
NOtoAV - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I didn't say that you could sensibly govern by referendum I know you didn't, and I wouldn't expect you to think that. Understood yr point too. But there are people who are greatly attracted by the idea of 'direct democracy' - parliament consisting of public meetings with motions passed by clapometer. Indeed the egregious Gaddafi used to claim that the Jamahiriya was governed by direct democracy and that he wasn't the head of state or government, just the brother leader or some twaddle of that sort. He thinks what he wants is what the people want. Daft as a brush. You ought to look at his Green Book. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:55
NOtoAV - Armel Coussine
|
|
Further to: my own rather utopian dream system is that the entire electorate (screened of course for barminess or total illiteracy to eliminate the barmy and utterly moronic) should regard parliamentary duty as a possible fate at some time in their adult lives, a bit like having to join the forces in time of war. Parliament would be selected by lottery with rolling, rather than periodic, changes of personnel. If the camelot-style computer fingered you you would have to go and be an MP for three or four years. But the system would have to be a rolling one so that most of the house at any given time would have some sort of clue what it was doing. One imagines it takes a few weeks to get into the swing of things there. 'But what would become of the parties? What about the born politicians who never got their chance at the limelight?' I hear people ask. Heh heh. That's one of the many advantages in my system. Pity the parties and born politicians won't even begin to permit any slide in that direction. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 3 May 11 at 12:58
|
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:47
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> there have been far more important issues which >> haven't been put to the public. Which is not, in and of itself, a valid reason for not holding this referendum. Electoral reform has been in the recent general election manifestos of both the Labour and Lib Dem parties, who together command a fair portion of the vote, so it can be clearly seen that there is support for electoral reform. It is, however, not a wholly party aligned issue and therefore an excellent candiate for a referendum. The only pity about it all is that Labour failed to deliver reform whilst in office, the Tories have managed to stymie the real change which we needed, PR, and the Libs have accepted the offer of the AV referendum in its place as a calcualted gamble on a "foot in the door". It's looking like the Tories have played the blinder, and the Libs have self destructed. But that's with (almost) hindsight. I'd imagine N_C will be quite satisified with that, seeing that his main objection seems to be the fact that electoral reform is a Liberal policy. It's hardly fair to criticise a government coalition partner for trying to push one if it's policy objectives whilst it has some grip on power, the term "sideshow" is totally inappropriate in this regard. N_C seems to be implying that we should ignore the question of electoral reform until all other issues are dealt with and we have a perfect world. Whcih will be, of course, sometime never. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 12:28
NOtoAV - SteelSpark
|
|
>> There are other issues where I, and >> I suspect many others would much rather see a referendum on issues of real national >> importance; >> >> - membership of the EU >> - troops in Afghanistan >> - troops in Iraq It seems that large swathes of the population are influenced by an actor pretending to be a jockey, and being sad that he came first but still lost the race. Do you really trust them to understand the complexities surrounding EU membership and deployment of troops, and to make the right decision? I can see the yes and no campaigns now. Militants wearing tea-towels and killing babies from the YES campaign, and teary eyed youngsters asking when their soldier daddy is coming home from the NO campaign. And that is just for the EU membership referendum... |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:05
NOtoAV - Zero
|
| We have the mother of parliaments, we have had a modern democracy for longer than most other countries, I really don't think changing it rates highly on the list of important matters to decide. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:12
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
Zero, its age surely undermines your claim to modernism? The system is unfair and was built in a time when about 5% of the population had the vote, so it was never intended to be fair in an unfair world. AV would be better, we are being asked to decide between the old way and an improvement. Sitting around and arguing that we should bother adderssing the question is a poor stand to be taking. It is on the list of important matters to decide, and if not now, when? It's as vaild a thing to be discussing as just about anything else. It goes to the heart of our so called freedoms and rights. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:18
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
>Sitting around and arguing that we should bother adderssing the question is a poor stand to be >taking. Most of the country does not agree with you. In a democracy you have to accept that. > It is on the list of important matters to decide, and if not now, when? Never is a good time. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:22
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> Most of the country does not agree with you. In a democracy you have to >> accept that. In the only way of measuring this statement that counts, you are wrong. In the General Election, more people voted for the two parties who proposed electoral reform as part of their manifesto combined, than for any other party which did not. All else is at best opinion polls and at worst speculation. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:30
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
If this country wanted some form of PR they would have voted for the Liberals years ago, its been their primary policy for 40 years. Its been universally rejected for the same period of time The public apathy is a clear sign, much as it may upset you, that the populous don't care and its ok the way it is. As I say, in a democracy you have to accept that. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:36
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
No Zero, what you have to accept in a democracy is that sometimes you may be asked your opinion about something which you don't care, and sometimes political parties with policies with which you disagree may come in to government and try to apply them. The time has arrived for this issue to be discussed. It may well turn out that my side will lose. And that's what I'll have to accept. I, and everyone else who has ever voted, will be used to this concept. What I don't have to accept are unsubstantiated dronings from Surrey. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:40
NOtoAV - Zero
|
| And yours is not droning? The turn out I suspect will prove you to be a lone droner. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:43
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
Maybe so, but at least my dronings are, so far, substantiated. Yours won't be until Thursday. ;-) |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:45
NOtoAV - Zero
|
| What substantiation? you haven't shown any. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:50
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
My post, 13:22, today. General Election results. Your pontifications - speculative. Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 3 May 11 at 13:50
|
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:02
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
>> My post, 13:22, today. General Election results. >> >> Your pontifications - speculative. Good lord, and you call me speculative! Now listen you may actually learn something here. For the past 60 years neither the Tories or the Labour party have had AV or PR as part of an election manifesto. For 60 years the various versions of the Liberals have. Now to make this interactive and to make sure you do actually learn something, tell me how many times the "Liberals" have been elected on the premise of bringing in AV or PR? Now please, don't insult us by claiming that two DEFEATED parties, one of whom had PR on its manifesto, and one who reluctantly mentioned it a long way down the list of theirs, is in some way recognition that the country wants AV or PR. Now to be realistic, The only party to have pushed any form of PR got 22% of the vote. Now that is not speculation, they are facts. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:48
NOtoAV - John H
|
|
>> Maybe so, but at least my dronings are, so far, substantiated. >> In your dreams. ;-) |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:31
NOtoAV - John H
|
|
>> How deeply depressing. >> Sorry you are so depressed. The majority (as the vote on Thursday will prove) don't agree with your views and are quite happy to leave the system as it is. If it depresses you so much, perhaps you should - either go and live in a democracy which meets your needs. Britain has been and is doing quite well as things are - or take some happy pills (they may help with your anger management and road rage incidents too). ;-) >> No doubt we'll get what we deserve, the status quo of the Tweedle Dum party >> having 10 years of free reign only to be replaced by Tweedle Dummer. Happy days >> for the Tories. >> Good. I am very happy with that. Long may the Tories reign. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:42
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
John H, is it really constructive to invite people with whom you disagree to leave the country? Should the Yes campagin prevail on Thursday, I should not think it appropriate to invite you to move to Canada where they also have FPTP. You sound very much like a spolit child who has nabbed all the Easter eggs. Bully for you. >> Britain has been and is doing quite well as things are Not really a common take on things from right wingers, I have to say. Usually hear we're going to the dogs, rack and ruin, immigrants have ruined the country, etc etc. I often wonder why it is that those of this kind of opinion don't voluntarily seek greener pastures, however I wouldn't be so rude nor stupid to brazenly suggest that course of action to a fellow subject of the Crown. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:55
NOtoAV - John H
|
|
>> to invite you to move to Canada where they also have FPTP. >> I am quite happy with my lot in Britain. I am not campaigning to get the voting system changed, am I? As it happens, I would be quite happy to live in Canada too. >> You sound very much like a spolit child who has nabbed all the Easter eggs. >> Bully for you. >> Thank you. >> Not really a common take on things from right wingers, I have to say. Usually >> hear we're going to the dogs, rack and ruin, immigrants have ruined the country, etc >> etc. I often wonder why it is that those of this kind of opinion don't >> voluntarily seek greener pastures, however I wouldn't be so rude nor stupid to brazenly suggest >> that course of action to a fellow subject of the Crown. >> No need to seek pastures elsewhere. The Tories with the convenient help of Liberals are sorting out the problems you mention that we have inherited from the electorate's blinded brief affair with Tony Blair's NuLabour (blinded because Blair pulled the wool over their eyes with his slick spinning). |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:00
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> The Tories with the convenient help of Liberals are >> sorting out the problems you mention that we have inherited from the electorate's blinded brief >> affair with Tony Blair's NuLabour (blinded because Blair pulled the wool over their eyes with >> his slick spinning). >> Now that I do agree with. See? There was really no need to be rude. I've long thought a coalition of Tory and Liberal would provide an excellent government. And I'm quite pleased we got it. In fact, as the evidence of General Election history in this country and (AV) Australia shows, we get more coalition governments/hung parliaments with FPTP. They are a rarer beast under AV, which is one slight downside of the system. Despite what the disingenuous and mendacious NotoAV campaign will have you think. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:08
NOtoAV - John H
|
|
>> See? There was really no need to be rude. I've long thought a coalition of >> Tory and Liberal would provide an excellent government. And I'm quite pleased we got it. >> I think you may have misunderstood. I'm quite pleased we got the coalition because it gives the Tories the opportunity to get difficult "same old Tory" legislation through Parliament without the risk of being labelled the "same old Tories". The Liberals provide good cover for that. Duplicity and complicity combined. Two for the price of one. Last edited by: John H on Tue 3 May 11 at 14:10
|
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:47
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
...Long may the Tories reign... Quite so, it's just a shame we don't have a proper Tory government. Hopefully that will be put right at the next first past the post election. I'm calling on all those MPs who are on the wrong side of the result on Thursday to resign. Alanovic thinks the British public are too thick to understand AV. I think he will find we are too savvy to allow it. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:52
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> Alanovic thinks the British public are too thick to understand AV. That is Mr Cameron's dreadful assertion, not mine. Nice try at spinning me, Iffy. Nice try. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 13:57
NOtoAV - John H
|
|
>> That is Mr Cameron's dreadful assertion, not mine. Nice try at spinning me, Iffy. Nice >> try. >> So the British public are clever enough to understand AV and on Thursday will resoundingly blow away the deluded "yes to AV" campaigners. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:02
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
John, the No vote may well carry the day. There is, however, no shame in being on a losing side. As you will no doubt understand being a committed Conservative voter. They've lost often enough too. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:10
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
...nice try at spinning me, Iffy... It was fairly easy. Alanovic posted at 11.50am today: "Perhaps the No campaingers are right and the British public are too thick to use AV. We're certainly pretty thick if we've bought their tissue of lies and misinformation." OK, so Alanovic thinks the British public is only 'perhaps' too thick to understand AV. It's hair-splitting, and a microcosm of the AV/first past the post argument. The public - I believe - will vote for the broad brush simplicity and certainty of first past the post. Not the overly-complex AV. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:01
NOtoAV - Dulwich Estate
|
|
To adapt a reader's letter in the newspaper a day or two ago: In the last referendum I made the mistake of voting yes to joining what was then called the Common Market. Look just what that has been turned into without further reference to the voter. So in this referendum, I won't make the mistake of voting yes again. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:04
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
Amusing, but poor logic. And also what is often known as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Silly letter writer. Far better to decied to allocate one's vote on the balance of the arguements, surely. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:10
NOtoAV - Dulwich Estate
|
|
Alanovic, I am so sorry to have posted a merely amusing post without considering the deeper meaning of my so simple and innocent addition to this thread. Clearly I am of insufficient intellect to participate - I'll go back to reading my copy of The Sun - I bought it an hour ago and have just managed to read Page 1 - you know, the one with big print. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:12
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
>> Clearly I am of insufficient intellect to participate - I'll go back to reading my >> copy of The Sun - I bought it an hour ago and have just managed >> to read Page 1 - you know, the one with big print. You have done well, most sun readers start at page 3 |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:17
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
DE, I was absolutely and in no way implying anything about you, and in fact appreciated and enjoyed the addition to the thread. Apologies if it came across otherwise. I intended no offence to you and I certainly am not implying that you are in any way intellectually insufficient. I'm slightly mortified that you thought so, so apologies again. I think I may have to reconsider my style of writing, I seem to be coming across as far more confrontational than I intend. In reality I'm very much a live and let live character. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:20
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
>> In reality I'm very much a live and let live character. No room for a third party then, or is that a coalition? |
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:06
NOtoAV - Dulwich Estate
|
|
OK -thanks Alanovic. Can I call you AV for short ? The typed word can often be misinterpreted. Done it myself. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 10:19
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
>> The typed word can often be misinterpreted. Done it myself. >> OK -thanks Alanovic. Can I call you AV for short ? Given the debate, that would be entirely appropriate. :-) |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:12
NOtoAV - John H
|
|
>> Amusing, but poor logic. >> Silly letter writer. >> Now, now, for a clever person like you, no need to resort to being rude. (Or are you losing your cool and/or the argument?) Leave that to silly and stupid people like me. Last edited by: John H on Tue 3 May 11 at 14:14
|
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:21
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
| John H, I'll stand by my opinion that it's pretty unpleasant to be told to leave the country over a matter such as this. It's a pretty rude and stupid thing to say. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:40
NOtoAV - John H
|
|
>> John H, I'll stand by my opinion that it's pretty unpleasant to be told to >> leave the country over a matter such as this. >> Deeply depression. I suggested that was one way to cure your depression, which might get even deeper, when the NO to AV lobby win. Get a grip, nothing to be depressed about, stay in Britain and accept that Britain has voted in this way for yonks; and this side issue has come up simply as a cheap way to help Clegg continue participating in the coalition to prop up the Tories to carry out their agenda. Signing off for a day. Last edited by: John H on Tue 3 May 11 at 14:43
|
|
Tue 3 May 11 14:45
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
JH, I used the term "Depressing" as a figure of speech, rather than a literal description of the state of my mental health. I see the AV vote as a next stage in the evolution of our democracy, after all the current system could be said to have been changed and inproved many times already with the expansion of the vote to the peasant classes and, eventually, women. Just because something has been so for yonks, doesn't mean it's in our best interests for it to stay so. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:07
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
Alanović >>>> You sound very much like a spolit child who has nabbed all the Easter eggs. >> Bully for you. Actually, you sound very much like a spoilt child who for once has been unable to nab all the Easter eggs. I am amazed (actually I'm not) at your copmlete lack of intellectual integrity in this statement: "In the only way of measuring this statement that counts, you are wrong. In the General Election, more people voted for the two parties who proposed electoral reform as part of their manifesto combined, than for any other party which did not." Fortunately you ARE planning on leaving the country (see lawnmower thread), so as it doesn't concern you why not leave the British voting system (which has stood us well for alone. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:33
NOtoAV - Armel Coussine
|
|
People are sniping, pretty damn offensively in some cases, at the bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, emotionally left-of-centre Alanovic, apparently because he isn't a visceral British Tory and likes the idea of proportional representation. I don't always agree with him myself (or anyone else here actually), but I know who sounds more rational and intellectually mature in this particular spat. Don't take it to heart comrade. Most of them are probably pussycats too when you actually meet them. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:42
NOtoAV - Zero
|
| Possibly because he is rabidly pushing his idealism with the fervour of of a political commissar at Stalingrad. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:48
NOtoAV - Armel Coussine
|
|
Nah, he's just a bit of an enthusiast. It's an age thing mostly. You ought to hear some of my nearest and dearest Zeddo (not to mention the odd employer and associate over the years). That'd learn you. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 3 May 11 at 17:49
|
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:52
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
...with the fervour of of a political commissar at Stalingrad... Yes, I'm a bit concerned about the cabal of republicans with whom he apparently watched the wedding. They're sure to be commies as well. And all this in a royal county. Shocking, it shouldn't be allowed. A pogrom is what's needed - give 'em a taste of their own medicine. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:55
NOtoAV - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> give 'em a taste of their own medicine. :o} ... but a bit risky there Iffsky you old comintern sleeper you. Not everyone will get it... |
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:52
NOtoAV - Pat
|
|
Errr...just like you when you feel strongly about something? Pat |
|
Tue 3 May 11 17:54
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
Ooooo No, nothing like that, at all. No way, never. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 18:32
NOtoAV - Duncan
|
|
>>>> In the last referendum I made the mistake of voting yes to joining what was >> then called the Common Market. No you didn't! You made the mistake of voting yes to REMAIN in what was then called the Common Market. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 18:40
NOtoAV - CGNorwich
|
|
To be precise the question put in 1975 was: "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" |
|
Tue 3 May 11 18:41
NOtoAV - Duncan
|
|
Stay in Remain in Close enough, I feel. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 18:44
NOtoAV - CGNorwich
|
| I think so but someone will argue the toss . ;-0 |
|
Tue 3 May 11 18:48
NOtoAV - Dulwich Estate
|
| Well that's settled it now. First Alanovic then you two poke fun. I'm off to sit in the sun with a beer. It'll be a British beer brewed in Kent - Shepherd Neame Spitfire 4.5% - only £1 for 500ml in Sainsbury. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 18:57
NOtoAV - R.P.
|
| 500 ml - That's about a pint innit ? |
|
Tue 3 May 11 19:55
NOtoAV - Zero
|
| A pound a Pint! that's outrageous, I blame the common market. |
|
Tue 3 May 11 20:08
NOtoAV - Dulwich Estate
|
|
Pugugly - Yeah - about right. It's a shame they can't sell it in shops by the pint. EU rules or something ! Last edited by: Dulwich Estate on Tue 3 May 11 at 20:09
|
|
Tue 3 May 11 20:19
NOtoAV - CGNorwich
|
|
This will take a litre of Spitfire; www.cafepress.com.au/+focke_wulf_fw_190_stein,306215674 |
|
Wed 4 May 11 03:50
NOtoAV - Statistical Outlier
|
|
I've come to this very late, but I must say I'm surprised that in well over 100 posts nobody has clearly outlined what the reality of the two systems would be. Instead we have childish camps, simplistic arguments, and name calling. I don't think I can do better than Martin Lewis in describing the two systems: - First Past the Post gives the LARGEST MINORITY of people their FAVOURITE candidate - Alternative Vote gives the MAJORITY of people their LEAST WORST candidate Add in the fact that a vote for various parties offered dramatically differing influence depending on the party chosen, and my personal feeling is that AV would be a fairer compromise than FPTP. Last edited by: Statistical Outlier on Wed 4 May 11 at 03:50
|
|
Wed 4 May 11 09:02
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
And what have you done? Provided two simplistic arguments. Your first argument should read, With First Past the Post, electing the LARGEST MINORITY of people their FAVOURITE candidate is possible Alternative Vote may give the MAJORITY of people their LEAST WORST candidate You missed the third With FPTP its possible the country may elect a popular majority government I don't want my least worse candidate to win. If I did I would have voted for him. Last edited by: Zero on Wed 4 May 11 at 09:03
|
|
Wed 4 May 11 09:08
NOtoAV - Perky Penguin
|
|
Any individual voter who does not like the AV system does not have to use it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12892836 Quote from this link states:- Can people still vote for just one candidate? If someone votes for just one one candidate under AV, their vote will be counted once in each round that takes place. But any further preferences they could have stated will not be taken into account. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 09:18
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
At the end of the day, this referendum is just a sop, lip service to the liberals, as a payment for obedience in coalition. As such It deserves little attention because of its origins. IF there was a real press, desire or need for PR then there would have been a lot more debate over the type of PR that could be used. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 09:49
NOtoAV - L'escargot
|
| What's the difference between Alternative Vote and Proportional Representation? |
|
Wed 4 May 11 09:59
NOtoAV - John H
|
|
>> What's the difference between Alternative Vote and Proportional Representation? >> Under AV, Ed Milliband got elected a leader of Labour. Under PR, Labour would be led by a coalition of in % terms as follows MILIBAND, David 37.78 MILIBAND, Ed 34.33 BALLS, Ed 11.79 BURNHAM, Andy 8.68 ABBOTT, Diane 7.42 to understand full effect of AV, see www.labour.org.uk/votes-by-round www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/25/labour-leadership-result-ed-miliband Last edited by: John H on Wed 4 May 11 at 10:00
|
|
Wed 4 May 11 10:25
NOtoAV - Boxsterboy
|
|
What I dislike about AV is that for my vote to be worth the same as everyone else, I would have to state a preference for someone I may well hate with a vengence. Why should I be forced to do that? One person, one vote. Simple. If the candidates don't like the electorates decision, perhaps they should look at their policies, rather than trying to fix the voting system to give them the result they want? Last edited by: Boxsterboy on Wed 4 May 11 at 10:25
|
|
Wed 4 May 11 13:32
NOtoAV - CGNorwich
|
|
"I would have to state a preference for someone I may well hate with a vengence. Why should I be forced to do that?' Simple; answer you don't. You can select just one candidate if you wish and leave the remaining boxes blank |
|
Wed 4 May 11 13:36
NOtoAV - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> "I would have to state a preference for someone I may well hate with a vengence. Why should I be forced to do that? Count yourself lucky CGN. A French friend, raised as a communist, was forced to vote for Chirac in some recent election for fear that the red-faced racist tooth-gnasher Le Pen might sidle in. And it begins to look as if she will now have to vote for Sarko for similar reasons. I am looking forward to teasing her about it. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 13:56
NOtoAV - apm
|
|
The Daily Mail, the BNP and John Prescott are all against AV. That would be enough for me to vote for it, even if I didn't think it was much fairer. Besides, I'd much rather annoy Cameron than Clegg and Milliband. Alex. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 14:16
NOtoAV - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> What I dislike about AV is that for my vote to be worth the same >> as everyone elseI would have to state a preference for someone I may well >> hate with a vengence. Why should I be forced to do that? Quite worrying that this 'value of votes' thing has caught in so many minds. Effectively AV is an instant & more sophisticated version of the run off elections used in some countries (French Presidents are an example) where the top two candidates in the first round go head to head in a second. You don't need to express a full range of preferences for your vote to have value. Quite reasonable to express a preference for your first and second choices and, if they're eliminated to abstain in further rounds. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 4 May 11 at 14:17
|
|
Wed 4 May 11 14:20
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
I don't understand AV, despite some fairly straightforward sounding explanations on here. I don't want or need to understand AV. I understand first past the post. I want to see it continue. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 14:27
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
One day, Iffy, you'll work out how comes the world is round(ish). ;-) |
|
Wed 4 May 11 14:33
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
...One day, Iffy, you'll work out how comes the world is round(ish)... You'll not get me going too far into the distance - might fall off the edge. Could be dangerous, that. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 14:50
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
|
Im not sure there is a proper answer to electoral fairness, AV is just different, I dont know its any better. Miliband is only on the bandwagon to hoover up Lib Dems, that much is crystal clear such is his opportunist bent ( he is more Tory than he knows ). I do see that with three main parties, its unlikely that one will get more than half the vote but still win, however Im not sure the Lib Dems will survive anyway so with them wiped out as predicted by many, FPTP would then become more relevant again. Anyone who does anything because the BNP does or doesnt do it needs their head reading. If the BNP said dont beat all old people round the head, thats not a sign that you should, its childish logic to look at anything other than the principle of each arguement rather than vote to hurt Clegg/BNP/whoever you dont like - plenty of countries around the world never get the chance to vote on such issues, show a little respect for those people and vote on merit. Last edited by: FoR on Wed 4 May 11 at 14:51
|
|
Wed 4 May 11 16:36
NOtoAV - WillDeBeest
|
|
Good point, Stu. I'll be voting for AV because it does have merit as a way to elect an MP who represents the generality of opinion in a constituency. It will greatly reduce the number of safe seats - i.e. those where people are put off voting by the knowledge that their vote doesn't really matter - and encourage people to think hard about the merits of all the candidates rather than just one or two. In turn, that should force our politicians to spread their campaigns wider, with less of the cynical targeting of marginal constituencies (like the one I used to live in) that we've seen in recent close elections. More coalitions? Not a bad thing in my view. The Lib Dems' poor showing in this one may be due to a feeling that it could be their only shot at it and they don't want it to end yet. AV would make them more confident to be themselves - perhaps Cameron's strongest motive for opposing it. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 17:24
NOtoAV - SteelSpark
|
|
>> What's the difference between Alternative Vote and Proportional Representation? I've never understood how it works with local representation under PR. Right now, if the good folks of Trumpton-Upon-Thames vote for the Tories, then the local Tory candidate gets a seat in the Commons and, in theory, works for the interests of those good folk of TUT. Under PR, the Tories just get 40% of the seats in the Commons, but there is no necessarily a Tory MP for TUT. How does that work? Would there still be constituencies? Would they keep the same constituencies and just randomly assign MPs? Or, perhaps, would they give the Tory MPs to the top 40% of constituencies who had the highest proportion of Tory votes? |
|
Wed 4 May 11 19:30
NOtoAV - Bromptonaut
|
|
PR plus local representation can be done with multi-member constiuencies or a list system where constiuency memebers are suplemented by members appointed to even up the numbers.. The latter might be thought to give too much power to party managers who tend to prefer craven lickspittles over people prepared to exercise thought.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 4 May 11 at 19:32
|
|
Wed 4 May 11 22:07
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
...PR plus local representation can be done with multi-member constiuencies or a list system where constiuency memebers are suplemented by members appointed to even up the numbers.. . Does anyone understand that sentence? All it says to me is: No to AV. Which is what I will be saying tomorrow. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 22:40
NOtoAV - Bromptonaut
|
|
Iffy, I'm quite happy to accept that my wording could be clearer but I was trying to answer a query about PR and local/constituency representatives. AV is about tweaking the current system so that the elected candidate must have the borad support of 50.1% of those voting. It's not PR. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 22:49
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
...I'm quite happy to accept that my wording could be clearer... Bromp, Without being obsequious, part of my point is that if an educated man such as yourself cannot explain AV simply, it really is too complex for the majority of the populace. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 22:56
NOtoAV - Statistical Outlier
|
|
Iffy, I would maintain that there is nothing complex about it in the slightest. There may be many other objections, but none I have seen make much sense, other than the perfectly valid 'I prefer winner takes all', a view which many here seem to take. - First Past the Post gives the LARGEST MINORITY of people their FAVOURITE candidate - Alternative Vote gives the MAJORITY of people their LEAST WORST candidate Simple. And probably a fairly minor change for most, other than in a marginal it would help de-polarise things a little. Consensus is a helpful thing, generally. Checks and balances make a goo government and avoid the tyranny of the majority. |
|
Wed 4 May 11 23:04
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
Part of my problem, and I suspect many others, is I'm not prepared to study this very closely. I expect most people could grasp the ins and outs if their lives depended on it, but they don't. We are all naturally comfortable with something that's been around a long time, and naturally suspicious of anything new. All this points to AV - rightly or wrongly - being booted into the long grass tomorrow. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 10:26
NOtoAV - Alanovich
|
|
Well Iffy, if you think the way a result is calculated under AV is complex, then perhaps that's not asking the right question. The real but people need to understnad is what would happen in the voting booth. Which would be almost the same as under FPTP, except you're allowed to indicated 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc preferences if you wish. Or you can just choose 1 candidate and write "1" next to his/her/its name instead of "X". That's the basic bit which would need to be understood, and, if you can't cope with that, then I would say you have much bigger problems to deal with than voting. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 08:50
NOtoAV - Zero
|
| SO, your doing it again, what you state is simply untrue, but merely two (of many) possible outcomes, and you have missed out many others. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 16:35
NOtoAV - Statistical Outlier
|
|
Zero, I presume you mean 'you're', and I don't really see what options I am leaving out? The voting continues until more than 50% of people polled have indicated a preference for that candidate. Many of them might have indicated the winner a second or third preference, but still a preference. Those that don't wish to support anyone but their preferred candidate still have that option as now. In FPTP then it's winner takes all, and admittedly in a safe seat then that might be a majority, but it normally isn't. Of course my explanation is a bit of a simplification, but I think it's accurate. What exactly are you disagreeing with? What are these other options? |
|
Thu 5 May 11 16:43
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
You have split FPTP into providing only one single possible election outcome, and AV into only one single possible election outcome. There are many possible outcomes to elections using either method. For example its possible for First Past the Post to provide the LARGEST MAJORITY of people their FAVOURITE candidate. An outcome you convenient forgot to mention. And yes i meant you. Last edited by: Zero on Thu 5 May 11 at 16:45
|
|
Thu 5 May 11 17:17
NOtoAV - Statistical Outlier
|
|
Zero, you're absolutely right on that example, but in your example AV as proposed today would provide exactly the same outcome. Here's another way of looking at the argument in cartoon form: i.imgur.com/Zb9tJ.png Completely safe for work, and makes the point against FPTP nicely. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 17:29
NOtoAV - Iffy
|
|
...Here's another way of looking at the argument in cartoon form:... I'd rather share a skinny latte with my chums than be Billy-No-Mates in The Green Man. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 17:32
NOtoAV - Statistical Outlier
|
|
Iffy, I really, really don't understand your argument. The choices would continue to be narrowed down until more than half had agreed on a pub for the evening. How is that complicated?? I give up, like the US healthcare debate (albeit there's nothing immoral about either side of the AV debate), I simply can't see why a system that is better for the majority of people (and that is without any significant downside for the rest) would not be the default choice. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 17:42
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
>> Completely safe for work, and makes the point against FPTP nicely. But it's a statistical anomoly, a statistical outlier if you like. It's just ONE constituency. If we chose the governing party on the basis of everybody voting in one big poll, then yes it would make perfect sense. But if AV puts us in the Green Man (which had one vote only in the first round) as it perfectly possibly could then it gives us a silly answer. And if it puts us in the Green Man in a majority of constituencies then it gives us a Government that nobody really wanted. Moreover we do not have a situation in the UK with four beer parties and one coffee party. We have Left, Centre and Right plus some minority interest parties. How many people would put 1. Left, 2. Right or vice versa? Far more likely to put 2. Centre. Now, if you're a Lib Dem and believe that a centrist party is a good thing then AV is a good idea. If you're not... |
|
Thu 5 May 11 17:34
NOtoAV - WillDeBeest
|
|
For example it's possible for First Past the Post to provide the LARGEST MAJORITY of people their FAVOURITE candidate. In that situation AV would produce exactly the same result - 50% +1 of votes cast place a candidate first = first-time winner, no further action. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 17:32
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
|
PR in all its forms gives too much power to politicians and too little to the electorate. 1. Party lists. That means the electorate has no opportunity to kick out somebody like David Heathcoat Amory en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Heathcoat-Amory who rightly was not re-elected in Bath & Wells (expenses). Likewise the porn video woman who was Labour MP in Birmingham. Both of these would have been well up the party list and so re-elected. 2. AV. The expectation of AV is that it would give more votes to the Lib Dems. (If it would change nothing then we wouldn't be discussing it.) Ergo, more hung parliaments. In a hung parliament, a manifesto for which we have voted is torn up in horse trading in smoke-filled rooms. Remind me what the Lib Dem promise on tuition fees in their manifesto was? 3. In 2010 the Labour party would probably have been virtually completely wiped out despite gaining 29% of the vote with the Lib Dems gaining 23%. As it was they gained 40% of the seats, the Lib Dems 9%. Now that might not look fair, but in marginal constituencies if everybody who hated Gordon Brown had voted against an incumbent Labour MP then few would have been re-elected. I hope we can agree that if the Lib Dems had gained say 30% of seats and Labour 19% of seats that would have been an even more unfair result. The same analysis applies to 1997 and the Tories. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 17:39
NOtoAV - WillDeBeest
|
| Can we leave PR out of this? AV is not PR and it's merely adding confusion to keep mentioning it. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 18:09
NOtoAV - Mapmaker
|
| AV is a form of PR and the thin end of the wedge towards PR. If you don't want PR you should vote "No" as if AV gets through the clamour for voting reform will not cease until PR happens. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 17:45
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
|
>>The expectation of AV is that it would give more votes to the Lib Dems<< Ironic really that the Lib Dems have gone and seriously annoyed their party and supporters before they get a chance to reap the rewards if they get AV. >> Labour party would probably have been virtually completely wiped out << I suspect that by playing both sides as Labour currently are in this ref, it will be the Lib Dems who are eventually wiped out rather than Labour at the next GE. It will certainly be interesting. |
|
Thu 5 May 11 18:07
NOtoAV - Duncan
|
|
I will bet a virtual pint that that NO wins and the voting is something like 60% NO - 40% YES. Anyone care to take me up on it? |
|
Thu 5 May 11 18:12
NOtoAV - CGNorwich
|
| Betfred, the only bookie currently even prepared to quote odds are showing 3/100 for No and 25:1 for Yes |
|
Thu 5 May 11 18:14
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
|
Even the Lib Dems think they are gonna loose hence they are getting stroppy. What they forget is that compartively few people voted for them in the first place so they arent exactly going to be able to lean on core support like Labour can. My wife, a normal working woman who has almost zero interest in politics aside from reading the leaflets that come through the door took one read of the AV one and said ' pink fluffy dice, I have a hard enough time working out who I want to vote for, let alone ranking them '. I suspect she wont be the only one who has that thought. Last edited by: Webmaster on Fri 6 May 11 at 22:27
|
|
Thu 5 May 11 18:19
NOtoAV - Zero
|
|
Is the referendum a first past the post system? Is the winner 50.1% of the electorate, or 50.1% of the votes cast? If there is a small turnout is it possible for a small % of the electorate to win? IE could we end up with AV if a minority of people voted for it? |
|
Thu 5 May 11 18:35
NOtoAV - Londoner
|
|
>> IE could we end up with AV if a minority of people voted for it? >> Yes. From wikipedia (usual caveats apply) "An amendment proposed by Lord Rooker (Independent) to require a minimum turn-out of 40% for the referendum to be valid was supported by Labour, a majority of cross-benchers and ten rebel Conservatives and passed in the House of Lords by one vote.[30] Labour's 2010 AV referendum proposal had not included such a threshold and they were criticised for seeking to impose one for this referendum, while the 2011 Welsh referendum, held under a Bill passed by Labour, also had no threshold,[31] (and would have failed if it had had one, as turnout in that referendum was only 35%). In the latter hours of debate, a "game" of parliamentary ping-pong saw the Commons overturning the threshold amendment before being reimposed by the Lords, and being removed again.[1] After some compromises between the two Houses on amendments, the Bill was passed into law by 16 February 2011.[1]" |
|
Thu 5 May 11 18:36
NOtoAV - Stuu
|
| I make that very roughly 65/35 isn on the yes/no thread which seems inline with the polls. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
