AV referendum

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 169 total)
  • AV referendum
  • uplink
    Member

    Already voted – and it wasn’t Yes

    been discussed umpteen times in the last couple of weeks

    Search – several threads in the last 2 weeks. Some good arguments either way, some bad. I’m a “Yes”.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    I’m a yes
    if only because of the sheer offensiveness of some of the no camps leaflets
    and for me its a step to pr

    mrmo
    Member

    Av is no better or worse than fptp.the level of the adverts is shocking.all about whether you are happy with status quo or not imo

    mrmo,

    I can’t agree that it is no better or worse, because that would mean it was the same? Difference may well be slight, but it will produce some different results, particularly if it encourages people to vote for who they really want first rather than voting tactically.

    uplink
    Member

    particularly if it encourages people to vote for who they really want first rather than voting tactically.

    I suspect that AV would do that in seats where there’s a lot of tactical voting now but it will also create as many new ‘tactical voting’ constituencies where they weren’t before

    So just shifting things from one place to another

    If anyone can show me any evidence that AV would be a step toward full PR and would open discussions on it, I may change my mind on it.
    Failing that, I’m with Clegg [God, did I really type that?] – it’s a miserable little compromise and in no way a step towards full PR

    It is tomorrow you know.

    Is no one interested?

    Or is it so blindingly obvious that we all need to get out and vote “Yes” that it’s not worth discussing?

    j_me
    Member

    it’s a miserable little compromise and in no way a step towards full PR

    Although a NO vote will kill any electoral reform for the next 20 years (including PR).

    uplink
    Member

    Although a NO vote will kill any electoral reform for the next 20 years (including PR).

    Again,

    is there any evidence that a vote either way would lead to further/more electoral reform?

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    copied and pasted from my other entry on the other thread on this page:-

    AV for me.

    Not perfect by any stretch, but imo better that what we currently have. Government is a compromise – and I’d rather be ruled by a party that at least half the populous indicated they are vaguely happy to be governed by rather than one that only a minority voted for as we have had for the last god knows how long.

    As a PR supporter, I’m voting for AV if for no other reason than Cameron vetoed having PR on the referendum form and AV is the one of the two he did sanction that he does not like. That and a vote for change might get us to PR eventually whilst a vote for the status-quo will see me trudging to the polling booth for another 30yrs to put a tick in a box that will have absolutely not effect on the result locally or nationally (safe tory seat secured every time by <38% of the votes but far enough ahead of the rest that it will never change hands).

    My theory is that a vote for AV by the population will indicate that we want a change & we are not happy about how we are currently represented. I can’t believe we will just get a new system – it will start a review and Cameron will drag it out as long as possible. But out of that I hope will come a second vote, even if it’s 10 years away. I’m convinced however that a No vote majority will see me voting in FPTP for the remainder of my days.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    a no vote is essentially saying fptp is fine
    which it is not

    uplink – I wouldn’t put much credence behind anything clegg said in opposition !

    I suspect that AV would do that in seats where there’s a lot of tactical voting now but it will also create as many new ‘tactical voting’ constituencies where they weren’t before

    How?

    Give me an example of what might happen. I can’t see it.

    a no vote is essentially saying fptp is fine

    No, a ‘no’ vote is saying you prefer FPTP to AV, not that it is fine.

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCLs0jv_Efk[/video]

    So, lets get this straight… under AV, the people who put their first priority as an unelectable fringe party, get their second or possibly third votes taken into account – whereas the people who vote for a mainstream party only get one chance to choose.

    So, if you choose to waste your first vote, you get another go?

    So, in reality, the people who settle the election, are the BNP voters and assorted cranks 😯

    argyle
    Member

    i didnt understand it until it was explained with cats…

    j_me
    Member

    is there any evidence that a vote either way would lead to further/more electoral reform?

    As previous posters have said: A NO vote will be interpreted as a vote in favour of the FPTP system.

    From Sunday’s Andrew Marr show with Dave Cameron

    AM – Will a No vote put an end to electoral form for a generation?
    Dave – (some waffley caveat)…Yes

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    It will be interesting to see how the votes pan out across the country. If you live in a safe seat that might change political hands once in a generation or less you probably either feel happy with that (if you are in the minority that always gets it’s way every time) or very anti FPTP and want a change (if you are one of the rest). If you live in a marginal seat that changes hands frequently you probably can’t see a lot wrong with what we have – it actually seems to work.

    So, lets get this straight… under AV, the people who put their first priority as an unelectable fringe party, get their second or possibly third votes taken into account – whereas the people who vote for a mainstream party only get one chance to choose.

    No.

    This is the biggest bit of bull$hit of the whole “No”campaign.

    If there is a second round of counting, the votes of the weakest party are redistributed. But that doesn’t mean they are counted twice.

    Another way of looking at it would be to say that the weakest party is eliminated then all the votes are counted again. Except that the people who weren’t eliminated don’t really need their votes to be PHYSICALLY counted again as its just been done in the previous round. But they still count.

    Everyone’s vote counts in every round of counting until one candidate gets over 50%

    i didnt understand it until it was explained with cats…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk

    It’s not complicated, but this demonstrates why dog voters should say ‘no’. They have no alternative

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    I’ll vote yes to absolutely anything… and I do mean pretty much anything short of removing my own testicles with a pair of house-bricks…. that would ruin Call-Me-Dave’s day.

    I also had the pleasure of listening to the truly delightful Hazel Blears telling me I should vote no. That really decided it for me

    Unless a mouse candidate stepped forward.

    grum
    Member

    So, lets get this straight [proceeds to talk utter bullshit as usual]

    They were talking about the system in Australia on R4 this morning and it actually tends to favour centrist parties, but don’t let evidence stand in the way of your usual nonsensical ranting. I’m surprised you don’t vote BNP tbh.

    This is the biggest bit of bull$hit of the whole “No”campaign.

    And the biggest BS of the Yes, campaign is that your vote always counts. But it’s not your vote, it’s your second choice that counts, not the thing you actually wanted. Everyone gets a goldfish, is not a good voting principle

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    rightplacerighttime – you are right.

    When I first thought this though I did think that maybe if your first vote was for a very distant 3rd party your 2nd vote might not get to count until too late. But when you actually do the maths the chance of one party getting to 50% without the first of secondary vote of the vast majority of the voters being involved in the top 2 shoot out is pretty marginal.

    grum
    Member

    And the biggest BS of the Yes, campaign is that your vote always counts. But it’s not your vote, it’s your second choice that counts, not the thing you actually wanted. Everyone gets a goldfish, is not a good voting principle

    And yet it’s still (marginally) better than the current system.

    And yet it’s still (marginally) better than the current system

    Why?

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    I also object to the whole patronising condescending attitude of the ‘No’ camp. It really is offensive. To summarise:

    Oi! You! Yes you! You horrible little prole. Do you find putting a cross on a piece of paper to be about the limit of your ability? Yes, I thought so. This AV lark is frightfully complicated. Far too much for your tiny little brain to comprehend. You’ll have to count and everything. Not into double figures or anything, but, you know….. just leave this whole thing to the grown ups there’s a good peasant

    AdamW
    Member

    It’s a yes vote from me. It’s just fundamentally unfair that we could (theoretically) get a government of 100% of one colour based upon a vote split less than 1% difference, all less than 50%.

    As for the ‘fringe nutters’ deciding the election – I don’t think it will happen. The fact they are fringe means their votes are few and far between so their second preference votes would budge the tories up by very few points.

    PR is the best policy, even if it allows some nutters in. To be honest though, if, say, the BNP/UKIP got 10% of the vote each they should be entitled to 10% of the seats. I have yet to meet one person (face to face as all web people tend to fib) that actually votes for their MP, only the party.

    And the biggest BS of the Yes, campaign is that your vote always counts. But it’s not your vote, it’s your second choice that counts, not the thing you actually wanted. Everyone gets a goldfish, is not a good voting principle

    You’ll be unsurprised that I don’t agree with that interpretation either.

    It’s true that people may still not be any more likely to get their first choice of candidate, but at least we will know what everyone’s first choice was.

    So there won’t be a load of politicians on the media after every election saying “we would have done better if people hadn’t voted tactically” – because everyone will know exactly how many people in each constituency would really have liked the minority parties over the one that got elected. And it should mena that the likes of the Greens will be able to put candidates forward and actually get a respectable show of support even if they don’t win the seat.

    grum
    Member

    Why?

    On the most basic level – the current system disproportionately favours the two main parties, and particularly the Tory party. Any attempt to redress that, however small – is a good thing.

    Premier Icon lunge
    Subscriber

    On the most basic level – the current system disproportionately favours the two main parties, and particularly the Tory party. Any attempt to redress that, however small – is a good thing.

    How does FPTP favour anyone, Tory or otherwise?

    soobalias
    Member

    its a real shame that the politicians are so worked up about something that nobody else cares about

    but we dont get a referendum on things that we want to…

    Premier Icon convert
    Subscriber

    Charlie – but the point is everyone gets a chance to vote for a party that they are prepared to be governed by in the top 2 or 3 shoot out if they choose. I might love the monster raving loonies and wish they won. I can vote for them. I can also make a grown up decision and indicate if MRL can’t govern me who is the best of the rest that I would compromise and live with.

    No campaigners like to focus on the running race analogy – too simplistic for me- I’d like to think about it as 10 mates going for a night out.

    3 want Indian
    2 Mexican
    2 Chinese
    2 Thai
    1 fish and chips

    FFTP would mean you would all go Indian. It could well be the other 7 would rather cut off their left nad than get a curry but all 7 of them love Mexican*, it just so happens 2 like Chinese, 2 Thai and 1 F&C even more. In reality that group of mates would talk it through, compromise and go mexican – it’s the meal most of them would be happy to live with. Of the systems on offer AV gets closer to that result than FPTP.

    * equally likely that enough of them like Indian enough for that to be the meal of choice too.

    its a real shame that the politicians are so worked up about something that nobody else cares about

    I think the recent discussions on here show that people do care about it

    How does FPTP favour anyone, Tory or otherwise?

    FPTP favours the status quo.

    It’s psychological.

    Because in most seats people believe that only the Tories or Labour can win then they will vote for one of those 2 parties.

    WIth AV they get to vote for who they really want without the fear that they are wasting their vote, because they know that once their party is knocked out that they still have a say in each succeeding round until they are finally left with a choice between just 2 parties.

    Then they choose the least worst. 😀

    grum
    Member

    Not just that though

    lunge – read this:

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/first_past_the_post.htm

    In the example above, 22,000 voted for the candidate that won that election but 30,000 voted against the winner. In recent years, national or by-elections have frequently thrown up the instance of the winner having more people vote against him/her. Therefore, that victor cannot claim to have the majority support of the people within the whole constituency concerned. Therefore, the total popular mandate for the winner does not exist.

    It has traditionally benefitted the Tories more, but I think Labour redrew some boundaries so it would benefit them – either way, its not a very democratic system.

    j_me
    Member

    How does FPTP favour anyone

    It doesn’t favour any one particular party but it encourages a two party political system.

    Would it not be better to have bigger constituencies and say (depending on the population of the constituencies) five or six MPs per constituency? That way, you get a good mix of MPs per const. broadly representing the views of that const.

    Hmmm…akshilly, that’s proper PR isn’t it?

    In the meantime, it’s a yes from me anyway. Small steps and all that.

    Premier Icon Bez
    Subscriber

    The idea that AV gives power to BNP etc voters is preposterous. What happens is that they vote BNP, and then all the BNP votes go in the bin when the candidate is eliminated, and we tell those voters to have another go at voting for a party that more than 50% of voters find acceptable. They have the choice of doing so or ducking out of the vote. Their votes never count twice, and their votes won’t elect a candidate unless over 50% of the voters put the BNP somewhere on their list. This means that even if the non-BNP vote is split (which it will be) the BNP will not get in. The AV system is MORE LIKELY TO KEEP THEM OUT. It ensures that MPs have broad support. The idea that AV is a win for racists is one of the biggest and most cynical pieces of the bullshit No propaganda.

    grum
    Member

    The idea that AV is a win for racists is one of the biggest and most cynical pieces of the bullshit No propaganda.

    And particularly ridiculous given that the BNP are against AV.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 169 total)

The topic ‘AV referendum’ is closed to new replies.