|
Post by Worthingshrew on May 1, 2011 20:47:05 GMT 1
my last chance to post on this subject - so here goes!
if you think politics in this country is OK, vote no, if you're happy with the way they represent you, vote no.
However if you think there has got to be a better way, a fairer way, then vote yes. Sure AV is not perfect but the misrepresentation and lies put about by the No camapign is staggering. David Cameron forget sto mention that he was elected a Tory leader by a form of AV, yet he claims its flawed.
They claim erroneaoeusly that AV gives people more than one vote - rubbish. Instead FPTP effectively disenfranchises me like me who live in safe seats. There is literally no point in me voting as the result is a foregone conclusion, as it is for many people. However with AV everyone's vote has a chance of counting.
Furthermore, very few voters support one party on every policy - I might support Labour on health & education, the Tories on the economy, and Lib Dems on environment for example. FPTP gives me no chance to reflect this but with AV then you can reflect this in your 2nd & 3rd preferences.
People are saying vote no to get at Clegg. This is tempting, but remember that this will affect our policital system long after Clegg is a distant memory.
Typically the Tories and some in Labour are against it simply because they would lose seats as the current system is completely unrepresentative. As usual self-interest is dictating their response rather than fairness.
For a start towards a better political system, vote Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on May 1, 2011 21:00:00 GMT 1
I always intended to vote yes, but am now unsure. The thought of Clegg and his cronies jumping into bed with the Tories in future years is too much to stomach. He should do the decent thing and stand as a Tory, and see if the people of Sheffield will still back him. The problem with that though, is that even if he was elected, he would become a back-bencher rather than a high profile deputy to a muppet.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on May 1, 2011 21:13:00 GMT 1
I think if you like coalitions then vote yes.
|
|
|
Post by saladsaladsalad on May 1, 2011 21:14:18 GMT 1
Has this got the potential to be the lowest turnout for any vote in the UK ever? Personally couldn't give a flying fig.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 1, 2011 22:30:25 GMT 1
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/01/will-hutton-vote-yes-for-avI agree with some of this. Particularly that it makes for a more dynamic environment in that it gives new parties a chance of gaining representation sooner. I like the idea of redistributing votes so that a winning candidate wins majority support. I also agree that one party does not have a monopoly of wisdom. The isms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries will not be of much avail as we go deeper into the twenty-first.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 1, 2011 23:19:50 GMT 1
I'm getting rather depressed about the great British public and their lack of radicalism
Not one decent protest during the Royal knees up on Friday and now given the chance to shake up the electoral system it looks like we are going for the status que as we don't want to upset the rich toffs who are charge
Well be voting for the corn laws to be repealed next
|
|
lewie
Salop Leisure League
Posts: 3
|
Post by lewie on May 1, 2011 23:59:25 GMT 1
I will be voting No as am happy with the current system. It seems perfectly fair that the candidate with the most votes represents us in Parliament
|
|
|
Post by froggy on May 2, 2011 0:12:59 GMT 1
Yes would be such a bad move for this country. Welcome representation of the BNP.
|
|
|
Post by Hatfieldshrew on May 2, 2011 7:36:02 GMT 1
The problem is at the moment it's FPTP V's AV, but after the vote politicians, if the vote is no, will turn it into voting reform, saying the people don't want it and not people don't want AV.
A fact that has not been pointed out about AV. Since the 2nd world war Briton has had more coalition governments than Australia, who use AV. So just because there is a possibility does not mean it will happen.
Just a note, the BNP don't want AV as they will lose out.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 2, 2011 10:27:36 GMT 1
my last chance to post on this subject - so here goes! They claim erroneaoeusly that AV gives people more than one vote - rubbish. Instead FPTP effectively disenfranchises me like me who live in safe seats. There is literally no point in me voting as the result is a foregone conclusion, as it is for many people. However with AV everyone's vote has a chance of counting. surely if you live in an area that is a safe seat for one particular party, then a system that delivers something else must be flawed. If it is that safe a seat, then their candidate will get the votes needed - if not, then it is not a "safe seat" This is not a vote for PR, which is surely the only way a vote can count whatever other people vote in your constituency
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2011 11:40:31 GMT 1
Yes would be such a bad move for this country. Welcome representation of the BNP. For this to happen it would require a lot of people to select BNP as a second or third (etc) preference. I would wager that the vast majority of people who don't vote for the BNP initially wouldn't vote for them at all under AV. So AV wouldn't help radical parties like the BNP at all.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on May 2, 2011 12:06:09 GMT 1
Yes would be such a bad move for this country. Welcome representation of the BNP. For this to happen it would require a lot of people to select BNP as a second or third (etc) preference. I would wager that the vast majority of people who don't vote for the BNP initially wouldn't vote for them at all under AV. So AV wouldn't help radical parties like the BNP at all. Absolutely spot on. If there ever is (under some wierd situation) a chance of BNP getting 30/35% of the vote in a FPTP, there is (IMHO) zero chance of them ever getting 50% under AV. The Greens, on the other hand.......
|
|
|
Post by blue and ambar on May 2, 2011 16:29:50 GMT 1
Trouble is that there is so much publicity about saying no to AV that it doesnt seem like a balanced campaign. Plenty of leaflets, billboards etc fom one side nothing from the other, how it that fair?
There are genuine arguments about the party that has more votes than any other should win (which is the problem with AV) but also that more voters should vote for a party than against them (which is the problem with FTTP). But lets have the publicity from both sides.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on May 2, 2011 22:10:05 GMT 1
For this to happen it would require a lot of people to select BNP as a second or third (etc) preference. I would wager that the vast majority of people who don't vote for the BNP initially wouldn't vote for them at all under AV. So AV wouldn't help radical parties like the BNP at all. Absolutely spot on. If there ever is (under some wierd situation) a chance of BNP getting 30/35% of the vote in a FPTP, there is (IMHO) zero chance of them ever getting 50% under AV. The Greens, on the other hand....... Totally agree, I really can't understand how anyone with a brain can claim that this could happen, unless they're seriously saying that a lot of tory / labour / liberal voters are a little bit tempted to vote for BNP.
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on May 3, 2011 12:39:55 GMT 1
Totally agree, I really can't understand how anyone with a brain can claim that this could happen, unless they're seriously saying that a lot of tory / labour / liberal voters are a little bit tempted to vote for BNP. Thirded.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 3, 2011 13:27:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 3, 2011 14:24:46 GMT 1
Two thirds of current MPs received a minority of votes cast in their constituencies - so most of their constituents got an MP they didn't want.
MPs in safe seats earn, on average, twice as much from non-parliamentary work as those who have to work harder to keep their seats.
AV would mean MPs had to work with voters outside their own party's core support. They'd have to consider voters' second preferences as well.
The BNP is against AV because it knows it won't win under it.
First past the post suited a 2 party system. We don't have that any more. The share of votes won by other parties has grown steadily for the last few decades, leaving our current voting system out of date and unrepresentative.
Do we really need any more reasons to vote for AV?
|
|
|
Post by creature on May 3, 2011 19:55:29 GMT 1
Just seen a clip on BBC News of "No" campaign broadcast where a teacher is explaining AV. Don't think it could be anymore patronising and insulting to the general public
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2011 11:13:08 GMT 1
if you think politics in this country is OK, vote no, if you're happy with the way they represent you, vote no. That's a bit disingenuous Notts - there's plenty wrong with politics in this country, but that's not the question being addressed by the referendum. We are simply being asked whether AV is better than FPTP. A summary view from both the yes and no camps ------> Yes or No Anyone looking to vote Yes should be clear in their own minds that there is nothing fairer about AV - it is not Proportional Representation. For me the most compelling argument is that only 3 countries in the world currently use AV and none of them like it.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ha Ha on May 4, 2011 12:35:14 GMT 1
Two thirds of current MPs received a minority of votes cast in their constituencies - so most of their constituents got an MP they didn't want. MPs in safe seats earn, on average, twice as much from non-parliamentary work as those who have to work harder to keep their seats. AV would mean MPs had to work with voters outside their own party's core support. They'd have to consider voters' second preferences as well. The BNP is against AV because it knows it won't win under it. First past the post suited a 2 party system. We don't have that any more. The share of votes won by other parties has grown steadily for the last few decades, leaving our current voting system out of date and unrepresentative. Do we really need any more reasons to vote for AV? All very good if you could trust your safe seat MP to consider the second parties policies just because they got voted into second place. As long as he can still rely on his majority 40/50 % share of the vote then he wont give a monkeys about who came second, third or fourth. We're seeing in action now a sort of AV governement and it seems to me that Clegg and the lib dems are their begrudgingly on Camerons part so he could form a government but why should he give way on anything when the libs only won 50 or so seats to the tories 290/300. Same could be said for a party voted in on an AV basis. Even if the winning MP did consider the other parties policies, which parties would he follow. Say in one constituency the libs got 20%, bnp got 10%, independence got 10%, labour 15% Collectively they've all got 55% of the vote which is more than the tory 45% winning vote but how does the winning MP go about representing the remainding 55% voting electortate when they've all voted for four different parties all with very different views. I'm all up for new idea's but i'm not convinced by the 'yes' campaign on this one.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 4, 2011 12:50:38 GMT 1
For me the most compelling argument is that only 3 countries in the world currently use AV and none of them like it. I think it is quite funny that both cameron and milliband were only elected party leader through AV
|
|
bradley
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 188
|
Post by bradley on May 4, 2011 14:18:31 GMT 1
This will explain the alternative vote system
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2011 14:24:59 GMT 1
For me the most compelling argument is that only 3 countries in the world currently use AV and none of them like it. I think it is quite funny that both cameron and milliband were only elected party leader through AV You're right Dave - that in itself is probably the most compelling argument for the "no" vote...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2011 15:03:57 GMT 1
Vodka Vic let me pull you up on the horses**t (last sentence of your post).
Can you direct me towards the clamour and upset AV has caused in Austrailia. AV has been used there since 1918 and they seem perfectly happy with it.
No country is especially enamoured with the electoral system they have, but hohum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2011 15:32:09 GMT 1
Vodka Vic let me pull you up on the horses**t (last sentence of your post). Can you direct me towards the clamour and upset AV has caused in Austrailia. AV has been used there since 1918 and they seem perfectly happy with it. No country is especially enamoured with the electoral system they have, but hohum. Well, here's one ------> Horses**t? Here's another ------> Horses**t? Well, OK, that was the Sun so that one might be horses**t.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 4, 2011 16:00:50 GMT 1
Two thirds of current MPs received a minority of votes cast in their constituencies - so most of their constituents got an MP they didn't want. MPs in safe seats earn, on average, twice as much from non-parliamentary work as those who have to work harder to keep their seats. AV would mean MPs had to work with voters outside their own party's core support. They'd have to consider voters' second preferences as well. The BNP is against AV because it knows it won't win under it. First past the post suited a 2 party system. We don't have that any more. The share of votes won by other parties has grown steadily for the last few decades, leaving our current voting system out of date and unrepresentative. Do we really need any more reasons to vote for AV? All very good if you could trust your safe seat MP to consider the second parties policies just because they got voted into second place. As long as he can still rely on his majority 40/50 % share of the vote then he wont give a monkeys about who came second, third or fourth. We're seeing in action now a sort of AV governement and it seems to me that Clegg and the lib dems are their begrudgingly on Camerons part so he could form a government but why should he give way on anything when the libs only won 50 or so seats to the tories 290/300. Same could be said for a party voted in on an AV basis. Even if the winning MP did consider the other parties policies, which parties would he follow. Say in one constituency the libs got 20%, bnp got 10%, independence got 10%, labour 15% Collectively they've all got 55% of the vote which is more than the tory 45% winning vote but how does the winning MP go about representing the remainding 55% voting electortate when they've all voted for four different parties all with very different views. I'm all up for new idea's but i'm not convinced by the 'yes' campaign on this one. I wouldn't say this is an AV government, it's just symptomatic of the decline of the two party system, relative to the smaller parties. I'm not a supporter of this coalition but, to be fair to the Lib Dems, they have managed to get quite a lot of their policies enacted and tempered some of the excesses of a "pure" Cameron government. Your example seems to me exactly the same as for an MP elected under FPTP - he/she is meant to represent all constituents, regardless of how they voted. The advantage of AV to my mind is that all candidates would have to consider the 2nd preference electorate (ie not just their party's voters) to ensure that, if they didn't get over 50% in the first round, they'd have won second choice support from enough people to win the election that way. I'd prefer proportional representation or an AV system that weighted 1st choice votes more heavily than 2nd preference but neither of these is on offer. So, my choice is between a flawed but fundamentally improved and more democratic AV or an outdated and fundamentally anti-democratic continuation of the current system. If the nation decides "no" then I might as well give up voting because Owen Paterson can then continue to be my MP until he decides to hand it over to his anointed Tory successor and there's no chance either would ever lose. AV would at least make change a possibility (as it would for non-Labour voters in inner city seats).
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 4, 2011 17:41:39 GMT 1
Venceremos - Owen Patterson got 51.7% of the vote at the last election, so AV would not be relevant anyway.
Lib Dems + Labour combined only got 38.8%, so whether we like him (or his party) or not, he is a clear winner and should be the MP, whatever system we use
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 4, 2011 18:59:57 GMT 1
Venceremos - Owen Patterson got 51.7% of the vote at the last election, so AV would not be relevant anyway. Lib Dems + Labour combined only got 38.8%, so whether we like him (or his party) or not, he is a clear winner and should be the MP, whatever system we use Accept your point for the 2010 election scooter but, under AV, that 51.7% wouldn't be so comfortable - wouldn't have to drop much to go to 2nd preference votes and the possibility of him being voted out. Not likely I know, but feasible. Under FPTP it's as good as impossible, because Lib Dems or Labour could never make up the extra 30% or so they'd need to overhaul him. Hence my vote under FPTP will always be a waste of time. In fact I might consider not voting at all or spoiling the ballot paper in protest.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on May 4, 2011 19:37:16 GMT 1
Venceremos - Owen Patterson got 51.7% of the vote at the last election, so AV would not be relevant anyway. Lib Dems + Labour combined only got 38.8%, so whether we like him (or his party) or not, he is a clear winner and should be the MP, whatever system we use Accept your point for the 2010 election scooter but, under AV, that 51.7% wouldn't be so comfortable - wouldn't have to drop much to go to 2nd preference votes and the possibility of him being voted out. Not likely I know, but feasible. Under FPTP it's as good as impossible, because Lib Dems or Labour could never make up the extra 30% or so they'd need to overhaul him. Hence my vote under FPTP will always be a waste of time. In fact I might consider not voting at all or spoiling the ballot paper in protest. I'm in a similar position and the sitting MP is so sure of re-election that he doesn't bother to campaign and neither do his opponents. Having to get 50% might make everyone try a little harder.
|
|
|
Post by tvor on May 4, 2011 19:58:21 GMT 1
|
|