lewie
Salop Leisure League
Posts: 3
|
Post by lewie on May 4, 2011 21:32:34 GMT 1
some seats are safe Conservative or Labour because thats what the constituency want. I dont see why the MP should have to pander to people who claim to be disenfranchised.
|
|
|
Post by swindonred (read your pm) on May 5, 2011 7:36:35 GMT 1
It was a big fat "NO" from me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 7:52:59 GMT 1
I voted Yes this morning
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 9:40:13 GMT 1
Very clever that - and of course completely and deliberately misleading. Let's see how it might work under AV.... Green Man vote is first to be eliminated, and his second vote goes to the Red Lion - not because he wants to go there, he doesn;t really like the place, but it is closer to home. Red Lion now has 3 votes. That leaves the Castle and the Queens Head on 2 votes each - The 2 who wanted to go to the Castle can't stand the Red Liion, the beer there is s**t, so their second vote is the Queens Head. The 2 who wanted to go to the Queens Head don't like the Red Lion either, but can't go back to the Castle because they fell out with the landlord last time they were there, so begrudgingly their second vote goes to the Red Lion. The Red Lion now has 5 votes, coffee shop 3 and QH 2 - the 3rd choice whats now the 2 QH votes is the Red Lion, because the coffee shop is boring. So everyone ends up going to the Red Lion - even though 80% of the voters didn't really want to go there at all. In fact of that 80%, most can't stand the place. AV= better? Fairer? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by dachshund on May 5, 2011 10:50:48 GMT 1
Regardless of the peculiar and misleading scenario you've totally made up, would you genuinely prefer the 30% of voters who want something completely and utterly different to get their way ahead of the majority who are broadly close to agreement in principle?
I agree the illustration isn't the best, but your rebuttal to something " deliberately misleading" takes that theme and runs with it
|
|
|
Post by elmundo on May 5, 2011 11:14:00 GMT 1
No from me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 11:27:42 GMT 1
Regardless of the pec and misleading scenario you've totally made up, would you genuinely prefer the 30% of voters who want something completely and utterly different to get their way ahead of the majority who are broadly close to agreement in principle? I agree the illustration isn't the best, but your rebuttal to something " deliberately misleading" takes that theme and runs with it It is misleading because the tag line differentiates between coffee and beer - so the question should have been " do you want a coffee or a beer", in which case 70% would have voted for beer and under FPtP, that's what they would have got. The key lies in your words "broadly close to agreement in principle" - when's that ever likely to happen in a multi-party election? The only principle in which the 70% (or whatever) agree is that they don't want what the 30% want. So, sound bites around how much fairer it will be to ensure that the 70% get their way are all very well, but the reality will be very different. Continuing the beer/coffee theme, the scenario would be more realistic if 30% wanted coffee, 20% wanted to go to the pub for a pint, 20% wanted to go to a wine bar for a nice Chianti, 10% wanted to go to a different wine bar for a nice Chardonnay, 10% were hungry and wanted to go to Burger King and the other 10% wanted to go to the cinema. It would still be true that 70% didn't want coffee, but how are you going to sort that lot out and make sure the majority are happy? You won't, it will be a messy compromise. And that's my issue with AV - FPtP isn't perfect, but I simply haven't seen a single good argument for AV as a better solution. AV is not being proposed because it's fairer, it's being proposed by, and in the self-interest of, the Lib Dems who believe they will win more seats under AV, and a referendum on it was a condition of the coalition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 11:54:39 GMT 1
No one has still adequately answered this, If AV is so bad why use it in party leadership contests. The Lib Dems were probably railroaded into this instead of referenda on PR or single transferable vote.
My MP (a no campaigner) sent me an Email today with 5 reasons as to why I should vote no. Every reason said nothing really positive about FPTP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 12:01:08 GMT 1
My MP (a no campaigner) sent me an Email today with 5 reasons as to why I should vote no. Every reason said nothing really positive about FPTP. The referendum question isn't about whether FPTP is good or bad, it's about whether AV is better. If you think AV is better vote YES, if you don't, vote NO. A No vote doesn't mean you think FPTP is perfect...or even good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 12:08:37 GMT 1
There are more positives to be gained by AV and that is why I voted for it. I also object to anyone patronising me as the No campaigners have done to each and every one of the electorate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 12:18:00 GMT 1
There are more positives to be gained by AV and that is why I voted for it. I also object to anyone patronising me as the No campaigners have done to each and every one of the electorate. Can't disagree with the patronising bit - and what with the yes brigade deliberately misrepresenting the question I'm not sure that this referendum has generated anything like the quality of debate that the issue has warranted.
|
|
|
Post by theshrews81 on May 5, 2011 12:29:45 GMT 1
This had been the hardest political decision I have ever had to make.
On general I will ALWAYS vote labour so dont have to think twice their!
But on this I changed my mind over and over again I went YES eventually
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 12:57:55 GMT 1
On general I will ALWAYS vote labour so dont have to think twice their! But on this I changed my mind over and over again I went YES eventually That's an interesting combination - if the Yes vote wins today, there is unlikely to be a majority Labour government ever again. Is that what you wanted?
|
|
|
Post by theshrews81 on May 5, 2011 13:12:40 GMT 1
On general I will ALWAYS vote labour so dont have to think twice their! But on this I changed my mind over and over again I went YES eventually That's an interesting combination - if the Yes vote wins today, there is unlikely to be a majority Labour government ever again. Is that what you wanted? That is an intersting view when the largest country using AV has had less hung parliaments than us? Whilest I will always vote Labour i am also keen to ensure we get a representation that best suits the people of this countries overall views. In the county where i live we are all tory, where as I am sure with AV this would change considerably to Labour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 13:14:26 GMT 1
On general I will ALWAYS vote labour so dont have to think twice their! But on this I changed my mind over and over again I went YES eventually That's an interesting combination - if the Yes vote wins today, there is unlikely to be a majority Labour government ever again. Is that what you wanted? I disagree with that argument. Choice over AV should be based on if people think the new system is fairer and more appropriate than the current. In addition, I'm not sure how you can make that point - in 1997 using the AV system would have increased Labour's landslide majority
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 13:28:38 GMT 1
In the county where i live we are all tory, where as I am sure with AV this would change considerably to Labour. Only if all the Lib Dem voters had Labour as their second choice. Which is unlikely if the area is a typical safe Tory area at the moment. What's more likely is that you could see it become a Lib Dem seat. Which is where the "it's what the majority want" argument falls down. It would be perfectly feasible for example for a Lib Dem MP to be elected with only 15-20% of first choice votes under AV. Hardly a mandate to govern is it?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 5, 2011 13:29:03 GMT 1
some seats are safe Conservative or Labour because thats what the constituency want. I dont see why the MP should have to pander to people who claim to be disenfranchised. Apart from the basic principle that an MP should represent all his or her constituents equally, regardless of their political leanings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 13:32:47 GMT 1
Choice over AV should be based on if people think the new system is fairer and more appropriate than the current. In addition, I'm not sure how you can make that point - in 1997 using the AV system would have increased Labour's landslide majority I agree with your first point in principle - I was just surprised that a staunch Labour (or Tory) supporter would vote for something which undermined their party's position. On your last point - how could we possibly know what people's second or third choices would have been back in the 1997 election??
|
|
|
Post by theshrews81 on May 5, 2011 13:33:42 GMT 1
In the county where i live we are all tory, where as I am sure with AV this would change considerably to Labour. Only if all the Lib Dem voters had Labour as their second choice. Which is unlikely if the area is a typical safe Tory area at the moment. What's more likely is that you could see it become a Lib Dem seat. Which is where the "it's what the majority want" argument falls down. It would be perfectly feasible for example for a Lib Dem MP to be elected with only 15-20% of first choice votes under AV. Hardly a mandate to govern is it? the seats are not safe tory seats, across the county their was a maximum split of 4% between any two leading candidates (tory/ labour). Whilest the AV may well through up the same results I think that it will allow all the people across the country to have a say on who will be the overall MP whether it is their 1,2 or 3rd choice
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 5, 2011 13:39:49 GMT 1
I think people are increasingly realising the existing system regularly gives power to a party that at best gets 40% of the vote, which even in the case of the conservative landslide in the 80s and the labour one in the 90s gives too much power to a small number of people
I'm voting yes as I hope a change to the voting system would reduce the petty party politics we get every four to five years and get decision making done on a more collective basis which would give us more stability.
The current coalition was forced together in a matter of days so isn't really a true example of what a 2 party government would look like under AV
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 5, 2011 13:45:14 GMT 1
In the county where i live we are all tory, where as I am sure with AV this would change considerably to Labour. Only if all the Lib Dem voters had Labour as their second choice. Which is unlikely if the area is a typical safe Tory area at the moment. What's more likely is that you could see it become a Lib Dem seat. Which is where the "it's what the majority want" argument falls down. It would be perfectly feasible for example for a Lib Dem MP to be elected with only 15-20% of first choice votes under AV. Hardly a mandate to govern is it? I don't think anyone would ever get above 50% from a first vote position of only 15-20%. That's at least as unrealistic as assuming that Lib Dem voters would have Labour as second choice. Is there really a mandate to govern under FPTP when so many MPs are elected with a minority of the votes cast (and that's ignoring the many who don't vote at all)? AV isn't perfect and I agree it doesn't translate into a "what the majority wants" argument much more than FPTP does. Crucially however, there's a strong "it's what the majority DON'T want" argument that favours AV over FPTP. It says, "OK, nobody's popular enough to win a majority first time, so we won't elect an MP based only on what the biggest minority of voters wanted. Given that problem, which candidate would an absolute majority of voters prefer?" Might be a somewhat negative approach but it's still much less imperfect than FPTP.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on May 5, 2011 13:57:15 GMT 1
That's the way I see it too
It gives me a chance to categorically state who I definitely do not want elected, and rank them in that way.
Sometimes I'm unsure under FPTP which one between 1 or 2 or even 3 candidates i would vote for, but i categorically know 2 that I wouldn't vote for. At least under this system i can reflect that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 13:59:26 GMT 1
I don't think anyone would ever get above 50% from a first vote position of only 15-20%. That's at least as unrealistic as assuming that Lib Dem voters would have Labour as second choice. It's perfectly feasible, and works both ways round. If on 1st choices Labour had 40% of the vote, Lib Dems 20%, Conservatives 19% and various others totalling 21%. Under FPTP that would be a very safe Labour seat. If we assume that once the minority parties are eliminated their 2nd/3rd choice votes are evenly distributed across the 3 remaining parties, giving Labour 47%, Lib Dems 27% and Tories 26%. The Tory voters really dont want a Labour MP, so all their 2nd choice votes go to the Lib Dems. That means the Lib Dems would have 53% of the vote and Labour 47%. Therefore the Lib Dem candidate would be elected despite only polling 20% of 1st choice votes. This is exactly why Clegg and co are pushing AV. Is there really a mandate to govern under FPTP when so many MPs are elected with a minority of the votes cast (and that's ignoring the many who don't vote at all)? No, I agree there isn't - but for me AV isn't an improvement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 15:12:07 GMT 1
I cannot understand why Labour have not factored in the redrawing of constituencies which when it is done will give them a much more difficult task in getting elected as a government. If I remember correctly the future constituencies will result in an increase of 20 basically Conservative seats.
The redrawing is understandable because it takes fewer on average to elect a Labour than Conservative MP. I would have thought Labour would have clutched at the AV straw.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 5, 2011 15:26:43 GMT 1
It's perfectly feasible, and works both ways round. If on 1st choices Labour had 40% of the vote, Lib Dems 20%, Conservatives 19% and various others totalling 21%. Under FPTP that would be a very safe Labour seat. If we assume that once the minority parties are eliminated their 2nd/3rd choice votes are evenly distributed across the 3 remaining parties, giving Labour 47%, Lib Dems 27% and Tories 26%. The Tory voters really dont want a Labour MP, so all their 2nd choice votes go to the Lib Dems. That means the Lib Dems would have 53% of the vote and Labour 47%. Therefore the Lib Dem candidate would be elected despite only polling 20% of 1st choice votes. This is exactly why Clegg and co are pushing AV. If, as you thought, it's unlikely all Lib Dem voters would have Labour as 2nd choice, why should it be assumed all Tory voters would have Lib Dem as theirs? There are plenty of people who veer between the two main parties, not to mention the likelihood of 2nd choice votes for UKIP and others. Just can't see your example playing out in reality. And Clegg & co are pushing AV now because it's the nearest thing to PR they can get. It's not exactly what they wanted but that's down to the coalition compromise. I criticise Clegg for a lot but not for that. Besides which, for "Clegg and co" read every major party except the Tories, the BNP and some Labour boneheads who think scraping an occasional FPTP election win between regular Tory triumphs is acceptable to political progressives - it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on May 5, 2011 17:45:55 GMT 1
Polls and word on the street are for a "No" vote win
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on May 5, 2011 18:10:24 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by barrynic on May 5, 2011 18:19:42 GMT 1
Myself and my wife just voted ..............firm No's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2011 22:29:46 GMT 1
Yes for me but think No will win fairly comfortably.
|
|
|
Post by swindonred (read your pm) on May 5, 2011 22:40:36 GMT 1
Voted at 7am this morning, 6 candidates on the ballot paper, 3 Conservatives, 1 Labour, 1 Liberal and 1 Independent. Can someone please explain to me why there were 3 Tories? It also said "You may vote for no more than 3 candidates". What was all that about? I always thought you just assigned one X.
|
|