Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 10:19:22 GMT 1
Had a PM from one of our members this morning asking for a poll on the AV vote. So this poll is dedicated to Mike My position is clear, AV = more libdem influence in british politics = a bad thing. if the lib dems want more say, then they should come up with policies of mass appeal (or jump in bed with the tories). And for all those that say i only do political threads..... Big day today...come on you blues!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on Apr 25, 2011 10:21:40 GMT 1
I've already voted. Just the once this time of course.
|
|
|
Post by captainpike on Apr 25, 2011 10:25:01 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 25, 2011 10:25:54 GMT 1
had a first proper read up on this yesterday, and while I am not sure it would make a great deal of difference, I am not persuaded there is any point in changing
Will probably vote No, but still open to persuasion
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Apr 25, 2011 10:26:26 GMT 1
So 'I wont bother to have my say' are in the lead with no votes at the moment it seems to work in Papua New Guinea
|
|
|
Post by captainpike on Apr 25, 2011 10:28:09 GMT 1
My position is clear, AV = more libdem influence in british politics = a bad thing. if the lib dems want more say, then they should come up with policies of mass appeal (or jump in bed with the tories). The Lib Dems seemed to have mass appeal in 1983 when they got nearly as many votes as Labour, yet a tenth of the seats. How is that a fair system? AV would not sort that out entirely but it would put things on a far more even playing field.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Apr 25, 2011 10:29:33 GMT 1
Hang on Matron you haven't got to grips with this have you. We should be asked for our first second and third choices, so that you have to do a humungous piece of arithmatic when the poll closes in reallocating the third place votes
|
|
|
Post by barrynic on Apr 25, 2011 10:35:54 GMT 1
AV means that Stockport County will win the Championship instead of Chesterfield.
AV gets a solid no no from me!!
|
|
|
Post by Rusholme Ruffian on Apr 25, 2011 10:38:58 GMT 1
just don't see why not. it is by no means a wonderful system, and isn't particularly proportional, but it is better than the fptp system.
and the only reasons the No campaign have come up with so far is that it will cost too much (it won't) and its too confusing (frankly that is insulting). still no chance of getting through though
|
|
|
Post by captainpike on Apr 25, 2011 10:42:17 GMT 1
Also the allegation that it will let more extreme parties / candidates in is false as it means that for them to be elected they have to have broad appeal. So AV will seriously harm parties like the BNP.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 25, 2011 10:50:59 GMT 1
just don't see why not. it is by no means a wonderful system, and isn't particularly proportional, but it is better than the fptp system. and the only reasons the No campaign have come up with so far is that it will cost too much (it won't) and its too confusing (frankly that is insulting). still no chance of getting through though I was a bit insulted by the no campaign's advert that said I would not understand it, but I must admit when i read a bit more it didn't work as I thought if I am correct the second preferences of the people who voted for the top one or two candidates are unlikely to be counted because they start from the bottom and work up In Shrewsbury I am pretty sure Danny K would still have got in even though LibDems + Lab together got more votes - I am not convinced this is going to make things any "fairer" than fptp
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on Apr 25, 2011 11:02:18 GMT 1
One aspect of the version of AV on offer is that the votes of the few who voted for the least favoured candidate in a constituency have their second choice counted. That's not democratic. I'm most likely to vote NO at the moment. Have other forms of AV been considered? Were the electorate consulted? The whole event seems to be for the benefit of the LibDems and as I would not vote for them there's another reason to vote NO. I wonder if there is a completely fair and democratic system possible? I vote for the party rather rather than the local candidate so I think in broad terms politically rather than how 'nice' the constituency candidates may be. Interestingly, living in Brighton with the UK's only Green MP, nothing has been heard of my MP since the election! (She won because the trendy Guardian reading middle classes in the city swung their vote from Labour to Green).
|
|
|
Post by captainpike on Apr 25, 2011 11:09:53 GMT 1
One aspect of the version of AV on offer is that the votes of the few who voted for the least favoured candidate in a constituency have their second choice counted. That's not democratic. I'm most likely to vote NO at the moment. Have other forms of AV been considered? Were the electorate consulted? The whole event seems to be for the benefit of the LibDems and as I would not vote for them there's another reason to vote NO. I wonder if there is a completely fair and democratic system possible? I vote for the party rather rather than the local candidate so I think in broad terms politically rather than how 'nice' the constituency candidates may be. Interestingly, living in Brighton with the UK's only Green MP, nothing has been heard of my MP since the election! (She won because the trendy Guardian reading middle classes in the city swung their vote from Labour to Green). If you vote for party not constituency based policies then Party List is completely democratic as it just dishes out seats by percentage of vote garnered. BUT this system means you have no choice in WHO you are voting for and so you end up with MP's chosen by the party so basically a load of careerist, cronies and general brown-noses. So I would be against that as a single voting system. But I would be happy to see it as a voting system for a second chamber.
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on Apr 25, 2011 11:20:42 GMT 1
"...a load of careerist, cronies and general brown-noses." is a bit cynical! But possibly true. I have always assumed that the local candidate is broadly in tune with their respective national party.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Apr 25, 2011 11:58:40 GMT 1
Think the first past the post system works ok when you have just 2 main parties but when you get more than that it starts to fall down as the winning candidate can get less than 35% of the vote
AV has it's faults but am voting for it as I feel it will lead to parties working together more closely between elections on key policies rather than be forced together as the current coalition have been
Am possibly being too optimistic but think key issues like defence, education and economy are too important to be left upto one party to decide if they only get 35% of the vote, or subject to change every 5 years
I'd also like to see more power given to local mps to decide spending priorities in their area as think this would get people more engaged in politics. At the moment local mps seem fairly powerless even if they are part of the ruling party
|
|
|
Post by Carter on Apr 25, 2011 13:10:07 GMT 1
So under the current system, if a candidate only has potentially only 30% support and 70% do not support their policies of that party they could still get in!!
That should not be the case... I'll be voting YES...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 13:33:02 GMT 1
A point to remember is that ,even if you have multi alternatives, you do not have to place a vote against EACH in order of preference. You can place a vote against as many or as few as you wish. It also seems, under this new reform, that constituances will be made bigger, with an amalgamation of some smaller ones into an overall larger constituancey, with the result that the number of sitting M.P.'s will be reduced. Like it or not, at least it gives people a say in this country's political make up. Would like to have a bigger say in the way the second chamber is elected, but doubt that will happen.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 25, 2011 16:46:34 GMT 1
My position is clear, AV = more libdem influence in british politics = a bad thing. So you prefer more Conservative influence then? Interesting. AV allows people to say "OK, I really want A to be my representative in Parliament, but if the rest of the constituency doesn't agree, I'd rather be represented by C than B, as at least they have some common ground with my ideals". 1)A, 2)C. FPTP MAKES you say "OK, I really want A to be my representative in Parliament, but because 85% of the constituency is die-hard for B and C, I'll have to vote for C to keep B out and let the rest of the constituency think that A has no support whatsoever, otherwise I'm going to end up with B for sure. But I'll probably never get my true choice reflected again, as A won't bother standing again if our support can't be seen at the ballot box, so HOW DO I VOTE? Screw it, I'll stay at home." FPTP may have the simpler final counting system, but it has the more complicated decision system for the 3rd/4th/5th-party voter at the ballot box itself - Your ideals can lose precedence over tactical voting. AV allows you to simplify your actual voting decision(s), and makes sure it's taken into full account in the final count. You vote for who you want to win, then you pop down your each/way choice. Not rocket surgery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 19:06:29 GMT 1
It is quite laughable that both Tory and Labour "No" campaigners are quite happy with AV when it comes to electing their party leader. When questioned about this, they say it is not as important or words to that effect. So, it is unimportant that our present Prime Minister is possibly only in that position as a result of AV.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 25, 2011 19:19:44 GMT 1
Thanks Matron for starting the poll.
I was interested to see how the masses on here might vote. Seems it will be a very close vote.
Although I consider myself a traditional tory, I will deffo be voting AV. I think it is fundamentally fairer than FPTP. I also think the scaremongering over AV has been a bit pathethic. The cost and it's too complicated arguments just don't wash with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2011 19:30:03 GMT 1
Thanks Matron for starting the poll. Although I consider myself a traditional tory, . ah you didnt put that in your pm did you
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 25, 2011 19:59:40 GMT 1
I believe the person who has voted not to vote put AV down as their second choice
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Apr 25, 2011 20:05:37 GMT 1
No to AV, although I shall be spoiling my vote as I do think the system needs reform. Speaking to an aussie mate of mine, I never knew in their country you get a $200 fine for not voting. Maybe we should do the same, if only to kick our electorate up the arse!
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Apr 25, 2011 20:14:22 GMT 1
Maybe we should do the same, if only to kick our electorate up to arse! Hell of a task there Ben, you should see the size of Pabs arris....we would be inundated with claims for "repetative kicking syndrome" by th epoor buggers taking on the atlantic size blub.
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Apr 25, 2011 20:30:39 GMT 1
Said earlier I wasn't sure which way to vote but have decided to vote YES. If the AV is good enough to select the leader of to labour party and the conservative party surely it should be the system we use to select our Government
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Apr 25, 2011 21:06:17 GMT 1
Maybe we should do the same, if only to kick our electorate up to arse! Hell of a task there Ben, you should see the size of Pabs arris....we would be inundated with claims for "repetative kicking syndrome" by th epoor buggers taking on the atlantic size blub.
|
|
|
Post by creature on Apr 25, 2011 23:08:13 GMT 1
Speaking to an aussie mate of mine, I never knew in their country you get a $200 fine for not voting. Maybe we should do the same, if only to kick our electorate up the arse! not a bad idea! Same for those who didn't fill in the census too. Was indifferent on this to start with but have found that the relentless negativity of the No campaign has sent me to AV. No one has come with a genuine advantage for FPTP. Asked my Tory candidate about it and he was the same, depressingly he also said I was the only person to have asked him about it and that it was rare for anyone under the age of 50 to show even the slightest interest in politics liked this in the Indie - "How it works: One alternative vote and a packet of crisps The problem with a street party – or any buffet-based bash – is that you are taking risks with the snacks. Being able to tell the flavour of crisps by sight alone is not easy. To be sure you are not landed with, urgh, roast chicken, far better to send someone to the shops to get a packet just for you. And so the metaphor begins... Scenario one You hand over £1 for a bag of crisps and tell your pal you want salt and vinegar – a popular flavour. But it seems the shelves were bereft of green packets, and so you must make do with someone else's choice. Scenario two You hand over £1 for a bag of crisps and tell your pal you want salt and vinegar. If not, your second preference would be cheese and onion; failing that, ready salted. Helpful friend/butler toddles off to the shops and returns with cheese and onion. You have still paid £1 only once but got something closer to your ideal outcome. As in nibbles, so in electoral reform. First past the post gives you one shot at deciding the outcome. You name your one and only choice of who should be your MP and that's your lot. The alternative vote allows you to express a preference, but does not give multiple votes. Under AV, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If, after all the first preferences are counted, no candidate has received 50 per cent of the vote to be declared the winner, the bottom candidate is eliminated and all their second preferences are redistributed. All the votes are counted again. If still no one has 50 per cent, the process is repeated. No metaphor works perfectly, obviously, but the crisp run shows how people express preferences every day – suggesting it is not as complicated as opponents claim. On 5 May, there is a chance to embed this straightforward thinking into our electoral system. Just don't eat the ballot paper"
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 26, 2011 1:15:25 GMT 1
So I want a very popular plain with salt and vinegar as second choice
then a few idiots who wanted something obscure and horrible like prawn cocktail flavour gets their second choice counted before mine, because not many others agreed with them, but that may be enough to swing it without my second choice being counted
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Apr 26, 2011 10:04:49 GMT 1
Like some other posters, I have been swayed towards 'yes' by the patronising and dishonest literature from the 'no' campaign.
(in the interests of balance I should say I have not had any literature from the yes people)
One statement that particularly annoys me is the claim that only 3 other countries use AV. This may be true, but it assumes that we are so thick that we will think everyone else uses FPTP.
They don't, the majority of countries use some for of PR system - there are surprisingly many - the d'Hondt system anyone?
FPTP is mainly used by our former colonies and, worryingly, by members of the former Soviet Union.
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on Apr 26, 2011 10:57:19 GMT 1
So I want a very popular plain with salt and vinegar as second choice then a few idiots who wanted something obscure and horrible like prawn cocktail flavour gets their second choice counted before mine, because not many others agreed with them, but that may be enough to swing it without my second choice being counted Only if Plain didn't get the clear majority. Which it wouldn't, as everyone knows Salt and Vinegar is far superior.
|
|