just after the expenses scandal there wouldve been a huge turnout for the av vote and a resounding yes
Do you reckon? I think people would realise either way of voting would result in 95% of the current MPs being voted in thus would make no difference to their dodgy claims.
They'll still vote tactically with AV.
Oh good, a reasoned and well thought out argument regarding a change to the entire voting system in the UK.
Glad I've already voted or your comprehensive and intelligent argument may have persuaded me I must have read the arguments for and against the wrong way. Obviously I should have realised one side of the argument was bullshit and complete misinformation and the other side was, well, bullshit and complete misinformation. But bullshit and complete misinformation as espoused by the greatest intellectual minds the UK can produce, comedians.
Why on EARTH would we listen to a celebrity of any kind in connection with ANY subject whatsoever? I would not regard a Professor of Economics as a person qualified to debate frame design with Brant et al, even if I respected his intelligence generally. Why would I listen to an actor - mark that - an actor, who is inherently unlikely to be able to contribute to an intelligent discussion, and is inherently a practiced liar. That is, after all, what an actor does well.
In fact, I would be more likely to vote opposite to a celebrity, if for no other reason than it shows the paucity of merit in the arguments of that campaign if they have to wheel out actors for the lack of anyone more qualified. Bah.
Ah but you always get that. If you disagree with "my" opinion then you obviously just got brainwashed by the meedja but I formed my own opinion based on a detailed study going right back to first princpiples and raw data.
I voted no by the way. I want change but not to AV as I think it has as many negatives as the current system all be it they are slightly different. I've been very frustrated though by the crap arguements on both sides. Things like making it a party political issue, the one person one vote thing and the fact that AV is supposedly complicated.
I voted yes, but I think that the sensible camp lost.
Shame really, as that means we are stuck with the crappy system we have for the rest of my life, as the tories have already indicated that they will intepret a No vote as meaning that you are happy with the system as it is.
AV was the first step to PR, however we have wasted that chance of getting what we actually wanted now.
I have to admit Cameron played the Liberals very well though, as he has made the look even stupider than they have been acting over the last year.
Can't you just press the AV button on your TV remote?
Awesome idea. In fact, everyone should get a great big banner in front of cornoation street so they have to vote if they want to watch any more telly.
100% turnout. Bribery wins again.
sat in a big hall at the Ricoh arena watching lots of people counting, reckon i can guess the result for Coventry from the size of the piles?
orkney and scilly isles votes in
60% yes
40% no
kimbers - Member
orkney and scilly isles votes in
60% yes
Wrong way round.. its 60% no 
60/40 sounds a bit neat
did only 10 people vote?
60.7% no, 39.2% yes
ooops typo there!!
5371 no
3475 yes
Awesome idea. In fact, everyone should get a great big banner in front of cornoation street so they have to vote if they want to watch any more telly.
I spit on coronation street and never watch it....does that mean I'm disenfranchised? 
sat in a big hall at the Ricoh arena watching lots of people counting, reckon i can guess the result for Coventry from the size of the piles?
I reckon as part of the AV change they should have included RON as an option on the ballot papers - people would surely have voted in favour of that?
"AV massive defeat".
Rock on!
Now David, about that referendum on Europe... 
I'm finding the voting patern so far a little ironic...
By seat:
For 6, against 278
By vote:
3,262,930, against 7,088,332
Which is a nice numerical case against FPTP, 30% of votes getting 2% of the results. But what's getting reported? Not the 30% but the 2%.
orkney and scilly isles votes in
Geographically, that's a fair sized constituency 
Which is a nice numerical case against FPTP
aracer - MemberOn the contrary - it shows there's no advantage to proportional representation, given No wins either way.
You think the difference between 30/70 and 2/98 is irrelevant?
In a vote for or against something, the difference between those two proportions is completely irrelevant. I appreciate how ridiculous it must seem to you that the 30% who voted for AV don't get that option on their personal ballot papers.
aracer - MemberIn a vote for or against something, the difference between those two proportions is completely irrelevant.
Not at all. It's irrelevant to the referendum result but that's not the end of the story. In 10 years time...
"Should we consider some sort of electoral reform?"
"No, remember we had that referendum in 2011 and it went 98% against, it's obviously a total nonstarter"
vs
"Maybe- remember we had that referendum and 30% of people voted yes, that's a strong interest in reform"
This shouldn't be the end- but if it's spun as a whitewash that'll effect future votes. On the next No campaign newsletter they can add "98% of the country voted against it last time" to all the other misleading "facts" for example.
it just goes to prove what I've always thought all along. No one gives a shit what I thnk!
I'm still struggling to work out what you wanted done different to prevent this electoral travesty. You do realise that if only 25% of the "constituencies" had voted in favour, but with 51% of the popular vote it would have passed? So what's actually bothering you is that they're reporting results on a "constituency" by "constituency" basis - you think censorship of this information would be preferable?
Though I do also wonder where you get your information - maybe you should choose better news sources. The only figures I've come across have been overall ones - the only reason I have any idea about the 98% figure is your posting. Maybe you're actually part of the "problem"?
aracer - Member
"Though I do also wonder where you get your information - maybe you should choose better news sources"
Numbers from the BBC, straight from the official counts, but you can find the same from any source you choose.
"So what's actually bothering you is that they're reporting results on a "constituency" by "constituency" basis - you think censorship of this information would be preferable?"
It's hardly censorship to report a referendum fairly and accurately. I've explained the problem but here's some more:
David Cameron calls result "resounding answer that settles the question"- now he should be the last person in the world to claim that 30% is an irrelevant amount of support.
Telegraph runs with this (which also backs up my numbers btw- as if they were ever in any doubt. Slightly different due to results that have come in since but very close):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8495493/AV-Referendum-results-map.html
Is that map an accurate representation of the result? Of course not. But it's what people are seeing- "nobody wants AV, just look at the map".
When people are deciding how to vote (or whether to vote) one of the things that you consider is "Is this winnable"- and 30% is a loss but a solid base, 2% is why even bother voting.
ISTM it's actually your bias and paranoia which means you're reading far too much into it. Most people will only get as far as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/ where the only figures are the headline %s at the top - in fact those figures jump out at you right at the top of the map page you linked to. Similarly on the BBC, the main report on the AV vote only gives the overall numbers and %s. It's only people like you who have an excessive interest in all the detail who'll ever get as far as that stuff.
It's hardly censorship to report an election accurately.
Though it seems you would only be satisfied with the censorship of them not reporting that information.
Can I just check (if there is anybody else still following this thread) am I the only one seeing figures of 70/30 when I look up results for this?
Though I probably should have just stopped at pointing out
It's irrelevant to the referendum result
So now it's paranoia to read the news? Interesting. I'm not having to dig for detail here, this is all what you hit straight from front pages and google news searches, that's how I saw it in the first place. And all night the news reporting has been "yet another seat votes no". But lets look at the papers tomorrow and see how many run a graphic that looks like that, it could be I'm overreacting but I predict you'll be seeing a lot of it.
Bottom line is, 30% gets you into the PM's seat but apparently it's a "total rejection" of electoral change, "settles the question", "settles the debate over changing our electoral system for another generation.", "the alternative vote is not a runner". If 30% of the votes is total destruction, then the Tories should have closed shop in 1997.
Ah, but anyway, got myself all digressed there- the original point I was making is that it's a textbook example of what can happen to voting results with different voting systems- just apply those same numbers to a 2-horse parliamentary race and you see a 70/30 split become a total annihilation.
Course, it's not really neccesary to use this example since previous elections should prove the case against FPTP well enough. Sadly at the end of the day we've still got the unfair system we had before all this.
Thank god it's all over, the nation has spoken, we don't want AV. Perhaps Dan Snow will **** off with his beer and coffee bollocks now. I'm amused by the responses of the "yes" evangelists; "oh the plebs obviously don't understand AV" and other such condescending horseshit. You lost, go cry into your hummus.
Don't take it out on us, that you were too stupid to understand the implications of a No vote.
result was never in doubt, i dont expect the whinging to stop any time soon but......
the people have spoken.
richc please explain the implications. Do you mean the implications of everything staying the same as it was before, which I am happy with? Whoa, big implications. It's a pity you're too stupid to understand the futility of a Yes vote. It's a good job ~70% of the population weren't that stupid.
It's a good job ~70% of the population weren't that stupid
I think you mean 70% of 40% of the population.
I'd argue that some of the no voters who were doing it because it "wasn't PR" were at best naive and at worst stupid, since Cameron stated that a no vote would mean an end to any talk of electoral reform for a generation.
Dave
randomjeremy - MemberI'm amused by the responses of the "yes" evangelists; "oh the plebs obviously don't understand AV" and other such condescending horseshit.
So when the No campaign says AV is too complicated that's a good argument but when the Yes campaign says people voted against it because they didn't understand it, that's condescending horeshit?
that's condescending horeshit?
I realise that it was unintended, but I find "horeshit" a hugely appealing suggestion, as a vulgar term to express disgust. I aim to remember it, with the intention of possibly using it the future........one can never have too many vulgar and rude terms at one's disposal. Thank you.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
