[Closed] av vote timesaver

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 - Member

On 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 - Member

In 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):

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8495493/AV-Referendum-results-map.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8495493/AV-Referendum-results-map.html[/url]

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 [b]you[/b] 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.

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]I[/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 - Member

I'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.

You're welcome- my tiping skills are at your disposl.

Ah no I didn't say that Northwind - both campaigns were full of shit, that's what campaigns are - aimed squarely at those who are too thick or lazy to research the subject at hand themselves. I found the Yes campaign to be particularly abhorrent though.

Alfabus - you're assuming people [i]want[/i] electoral reform - some might, but most don't. Christ most people are too apathetic to vote at all!

Edit: "Whoreshit", brilliant, I will definitely use that 🙂

the yes campaign abhorrent really?
dull, innefective and poorly thought-out etc etc

if you want abbhorrent i give you........
[img] [/img]

or even

[img] [/img]