|
Post by stockportershrew on Apr 11, 2011 22:45:42 GMT 1
Bit of a dilemma for me as I don't particularly like FPTP but think the AV choice offered is a poor one.
The " debate" so far has been p*ss poor. Series of lame arguments from the no camp and a load of celebrities lined up to promote the yes camp.
It's tempting to spoil the paper and write neither of these choices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2011 1:29:31 GMT 1
It's about a small, yet significant step towards a more proportional voting system.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Apr 12, 2011 10:47:05 GMT 1
I'll be voting for the AV as apart from anything else I can't see how it could be worse than the current mess which basically has bought about a general disinterest in politics and a lot of similar politicans who fail to keep their promises. If this can shake it up a bit got to be a good thing.
One thing that might come out of it is that they have to work a bit harder for your vote as you have to put down a preference.
I think its slightly better in that i'll be able to state very clearly who i definitely DON'T want in power.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Apr 12, 2011 11:10:26 GMT 1
Reading this makes me want to vote for it www.no2av.org/why-vote-no/Basically: 1) You are too thick to work it out 2) so the council will have to educate you, and buy a computer 3) and Nick Clegg is a nasty man you all hate so just think of him and vote against it Tabloid nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Hatfieldshrew on Apr 12, 2011 11:13:53 GMT 1
I haven't heard a good argument for voting no yet.
They say it will cost more, which is a lie. the figures given are for this vote and electronic counters (which aren't going to be used). So it will be the same cost as FPTP.
It's complicated for people to understand ?? So people don't know who they want to vote for, or how to count.
They say that some people will be able to have there vote counted more than once. Just because you haven't voted foe a candidate that got eliminated does not mean that your vote is not used it the next round.
For years I've got fed up with being told that if I vote for so and so it's a wasted vote. Now that we have a chance of AV, I'm told that my vote was not a waste!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2011 12:58:38 GMT 1
It's a yes for me.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 12, 2011 15:29:00 GMT 1
Had links to the no to AV videos emailed to me by my MP. Including the one suggesting we couldn't cope with it intellectually. But hold on mate, we voted you as our MP...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 12:51:45 GMT 1
For someone who I think is quite level headed, just interested as to this, as It is a complete no for me!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 13:06:36 GMT 1
It's a yes vote from me too. Anything that better shows the true split of political support in the UK gets my backing
|
|
|
Post by bananafeet on Apr 13, 2011 13:16:18 GMT 1
The biggest winners in a Yes vote would be the Lib Dems, just the sort of blokes you'd like next to you in the trenches Has anyone seen Charles West since last June? Would anyone for a laugh like to post a link to his manifesto
|
|
|
Post by blue and ambar on Apr 13, 2011 13:17:13 GMT 1
I get the feeling somehow that if it's a NO vote it might be seen as endorsing FPTP rather than being anti-AV and vice versa when there are a variety of voting systems out there each with their own pro's and con's. There is no such thing as a perfect system.
|
|
|
Post by stockportershrew on Apr 13, 2011 13:23:24 GMT 1
It's a yes vote from me too. Anything that better shows the true split of political support in the UK gets my backing It won't necessarily do that though. It may given you a little bit more choice but fundamentally I'm not sure AV will address the problems of FPTP. (Research modelling the 1997 election election results suggest it would have been even more disproportional with Labour landslide even bigger). In the end it boils down to what you are seeking to achieve with your electoral system, proportionality of votes, greater voter choice over candidates, clearly identifiable governments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 13:36:23 GMT 1
The problem with this, is quite simple, the ones who will benifit are the lesser parties, who have very little support in the first instances.
it is quite possible for party 1 to have very few 1st votes, but a high number of second votes, but even though they are quite highly regarded as a second choice, they would be eliminated first due to the number of votes as the main party. if you get my drift.
First past the post is really the only real democratic way, even if occasionally we have to suffer a hung parliment and coilition.
AV is used in such a vast amount of countries (3) for a reason!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 13:37:15 GMT 1
It's a yes vote from me too. Anything that better shows the true split of political support in the UK gets my backing so a simple 1 person 1 vote does not do that??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 15:08:45 GMT 1
It's a yes vote from me too. Anything that better shows the true split of political support in the UK gets my backing so a simple 1 person 1 vote does not do that?? No it doesn't. There are too many constituencies where a person's vote, if not for the strongest party in that region, is "wasted". It's difficult for any voting system to take account of the country's overall vote and I acknowledge AV does not solve all the issues faced. But I just don't see how the FPTP system is fair when you have a party that gets 29% of the vote taking 258 seats in the Commons with another party getting 23% of the votes taking 57 seats.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Apr 13, 2011 15:17:14 GMT 1
I'm more interested in MPs managing to get more than 50% of the voted cast in a constituency. A fully proportional system is only possible with large multi-member constituencies. I'm not really interested in that - I think, for instance, that the Ludlow constituency is more than big enough geographically. What I would like to see in addition to AV is open primaries for parliamentary candidates for the major parties at least.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Apr 13, 2011 19:52:07 GMT 1
I find it odd that people think the beneficiaries of AV will be the LibDems, it's as though they have not noticed that the LibDems are currently in Government following a FPTP election. It also assumes that the LibDems will be anyones preferences after their performance in coalition. I've been voting in General Elections since 1964, that's 13 to date, and 5 of those had inconclusive results with minority parties therefore having a disproportionate influence on the government of the day. So the notion that FPTP gives clear cut results is erroneous. My view is that AV is just slightly preferable to FPTP for 2 reasons. Firstly it will increase the number of voters who actually determine the outcome of elections. Currently they are decided by the results in a few marginal constituencies - I've seen estimates that less than half a million voters are involved. Secondly, and following on from this, is that candidates will have to try harder to win our votes. I live in a very safe constituency and it is obvious that no effort is made by any of the parties as they consider it a waste of time where the result is a foregone conclusion. So we never get any door step calls from candidates and are lucky to get an election leaflet. Before the last election I went to a couple of public meetings attended by the candidates and it was clear that opposing parties had not wasted any of their better people to fight a losing battle. The calibre of the opposing candidates was poor and the sitting MP was far superior to them. So I was tempted to vote for him even though I disagreed with most of his policies A voting system that will actually inject some life into constituencies like the one I live in is worth a try.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2011 19:56:41 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Apr 13, 2011 20:00:58 GMT 1
I think it was more he wished to exercise his right to vote, but was torn on the fact that all but one candidate were complete muppets, and the one who was capable wanted totally different things to what Tenor wished to be done.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Apr 13, 2011 20:05:08 GMT 1
Of course not - 'tempted to' is a clue.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on May 5, 2011 8:18:24 GMT 1
I voted yes in the end.
|
|
|
Post by jonbond on May 5, 2011 8:29:34 GMT 1
The problem with this, is quite simple, the ones who will benifit are the lesser parties, who have very little support in the first instances. Actually that is not true at all. Parties like the BNP, and UKIP, far LESS likely to win a seat under AV than FPTP.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on May 5, 2011 9:17:45 GMT 1
|
|