Friday Debate - AV Referendum 5th May

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Interesting...

Marko Djurdjevic He was self taught. ...<snip>

Well that first one (Morgan le Fay) illustrates my point quite well: her face looks a bit masculine to me, which I'm guessing isn't quite the intention. The Alex Rose pics do exaggerate the normal proportions, but the arms still look as though they belong. It's quite a subtle thing, and even Old Masters played around with anatomy when picture composition required it. I think it boils down to whether the distortion or exaggeration adds to the compositional balance of the picture or distracts - i.e. something just doesn't look quite right.

tailwindhome

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I asked my best mate to clarify things for me (he is very Politically active.. VP of the CEP now (I think!))

His reply based on a convenient set of numbers to be able to sell his story.

FTFY

notsoblue

Kieran_Burns wrote:

But the extremist candidate D is eliminated first. Knowing this will happen and also his own weak position, C has pandered to the extremist's position and thus gained the second preferences from his voters.

Hmmm, I disagree with this perceived flaw. Shirley all the candidates will have the prescience to "pander to the extremist's position" if it would help them win the election. And if the Extremist's position is really so unpalatable as to leave them with only 4% of the vote, then I doubt Candidate C will gain much from the rest of the electorate by pandering to it.

If anything, I think extremists will have less of a voice because theres incentive to carry out a protest vote which is what they effectively rely on to get any traction in a FPTP system. Additionally, if coalition governments are a more likely outcome with AV, then it would seem to me that parties will be going in for less of the polarising mud slinging than with FPTP simply because its more likely that they may have to form a government with their opponents.

AV isn't perfect, and I agree PR would be much better. But we're not going to have another referendum on this issue until at least well into the next government if at all. And my hope is that AV will encourage a more centrist type of politics than FPTP.

rjsterry

noodles71 wrote:

... Did Lib Dem voters get what they expected or voted for? What makes you think that next time around they won't do a similar thing.

Lib Dem party members (although not Lib Dem voters - how could they? It's a secret ballot) did get to vote on whether to accept the deal that had been negotiated. Unlike the Tory party IIRC. Whether it was a sell-out for power on their part or a pragmatic move to kerb the rightwing side of the Tories is another debate.

Some thought provoking points about the risks though, although I'm not sure these are any worse than the sort of thing you see with FPTP: where there are two clear front-runners, potential voters for the the 'minority' parties are targeted with 'don't waste your vote on X, vote for us instead' with some pretty nasty pandering to extremes.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Interesting...

Marko Djurdjevic He was self taught. ...<snip>

Well that first one (Morgan le Fay)

:shock:

How did you know who it was!? It's not common knowledge?

bails87

TailWindHome wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I asked my best mate to clarify things for me (he is very Politically active.. VP of the CEP now (I think!))

His reply based on a convenient set of numbers to be able to sell his story.

FTFY

Agreed, surely by pandering to a very unpopular extremist party will also mean that you lose 'first preference' votes, from people who were going to vote for you but got put off by your fringe rantings. Say that costs him 4%, they then switch to giving a 1 vote to B. Things might then start to look different.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Interesting...

Marko Djurdjevic He was self taught. ...<snip>

Well that first one (Morgan le Fay)

:shock:

How did you know who it was!? It's not common knowledge?

Aha!
it was in the image link

Anyway, she's a character from Arthurian legend; what's she/he doing in a comic with no clothes on and a rather square jaw?

Paulie W

bails87 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I asked my best mate to clarify things for me (he is very Politically active.. VP of the CEP now (I think!))

His reply based on a convenient set of numbers to be able to sell his story.

FTFY

Agreed, surely by pandering to a very unpopular extremist party will also mean that you lose 'first preference' votes, from people who were going to vote for you but got put off by your fringe rantings. Say that costs him 4%, they then switch to giving a 1 vote to B. Things might then start to look different.

Whatever you think of the numbers in this example, this is one of the main criticisms of the AV system - that the 2nd preference votes of those voting for fringe parties (joke parties as well as extremist parties) will potentially carry more weight that the 2nd preferences of those voting for the main parties and that parties will therefore feel the need to connect with the voters for these fringe parties. Clearly it is a dangerous game to play but it is likely to be one that parties will have to play, leading to more back door deals and more tactical voting than under the current system.

Cuchulainn

Pretty much all voting systems will throw up specific results where you can appear to break them. The main this is whether, on average, they are better or worse than each other. Next problem is defining what you want "better or worse" to be!

Personally, I wouldn't choose AV as a first choice of voting system, but given the chance between it or voting reform being a dead topic for another generation, I'll be voting yes.

EKE_38BPM

I just watched the NO campaign broadcast on TV. Clear as mud.

If that is your only source of info, voting 'No' is a no brainer, but maybe for the wrong reasons.

Sanderville

Regardless of how you want to vote, if you have requested a postal vote and not yet received the application form then you must download one, fill it in and email it today.

I requested an application form from my council over a week ago and have not yet received it. I rang them today to ask how much longer it will be and they told me that I must email a completed form to them today after downloading the form from http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk otherwise it will be too late.

bails87

Conclusive proof that AV hinders the BNP.

On April 1st, the right-wing blogger published an article which claimed:

“Research out today from the No to AV campaign suggests that in the region of 35 constituencies could have their outcomes determined by the second preferences of BNP voters. This is the unwelcome empowerment that the AV system brings to democracy.”

The analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research from a forthcoming report examining the case for AV looks at each of the 35 constituencies in turn. Using analysis from a British Election Study survey of voting intentions of 13,356 people, it found that in 25 of these seats the outcome of the 2010 general election would have been the same under AV.

In the remaining ten seats, which would have changed hands under AV, the BNP vote was not decisive.

I think calling it 'conclusive proof' is a bit strong, but it's certainly interesting.

shouldbeinbed

Cuchulainn wrote:

Pretty much all voting systems will throw up specific results where you can appear to break them. The main this is whether, on average, they are better or worse than each other. Next problem is defining what you want "better or worse" to be!

Personally, I wouldn't choose AV as a first choice of voting system, but given the chance between it or voting reform being a dead topic for another generation, I'll be voting yes.

What makes you think voting reform won't be a dead topic for longer than a generation after 5th May whichever way it goes?

A yes vote will mean that AV has to be given time to establish and dis/prove itself which will take a while.

A no vote will give politicos a chance to say We offered but you said no, heres to the status quo until next blue moon when we need a clown party to prop us up for a bit.

A no vote is more likely to keep it bubbling away IMO as no change will inevitably lead to increased pressure & calls for a referendum on full PR rather than this crappy compromise that no one really wants but is being sold as the panacea for all ills

prj45

Asprilla wrote:

Not having PR means that my vote may be rendered pointless by geography. There is no point in turning up to vote in Surrey unless you are voting Tory and vice versa in Tyne & Wear.

You don't think winners take account of how many votes the losers got and adjust their policies based on this?

Compare the following two scenarios:

politico A from party X get's 1100 votes and wins; politico B of party Y gets 900 votes

politico A from party X get's 1999 votes and wins politico B of party Y gets 1 vote

Do you think in scenario A the winner is going to think their policies are rock solid, or that they might need moving toward party Y's policies a bit so they win next time, whereas in scenario B clearly the winners polices are far far more popular than the losers.

It's very important to vote for who YOU want to win, not who you think is going to win so you might as well vote for them anyway.

If people actually vote for who they wanted to win, rather than throw away their vote by not voting or voting for the candidate they think will win I reckon FPTP would work far better than it does today.

Cuchulainn

shouldbeinbed wrote:

What makes you think voting reform won't be a dead topic for longer than a generation after 5th May whichever way it goes?

That was exactly my point - this is most likely the only chance we'll get to vote on any form of voting change in the next 20 or 30 years. The people throwing their toys out of the pram because it's not full PR are just being idiots.

And just because it's not being said enough, Cameron is being a hypocritical twunt by supporting the no campaign. He is only PM because of the AV system - if the conservatives used first past the post for their leadership elections then he would not have been head of the conservatives. AV - "good enough for all of the political parties, not good enough for you plebs"

bails87

Quite. The "it's too complicated" argument being made by certain Tories is essentially saying "we're clever enough to understand it, but you idiots wouldn't get it, don't worry your empty little heads about it".

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Quite. The "it's too complicated" argument being made by certain Tories is essentially saying "we're clever enough to understand it, but you idiots wouldn't get it, don't worry your empty little heads about it".

People love that sh!t.

Defferentialism is a corner stone of old skool Tory, or right wing politics.

Kieran_Burns

Cuchulainn wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

What makes you think voting reform won't be a dead topic for longer than a generation after 5th May whichever way it goes?

That was exactly my point - this is most likely the only chance we'll get to vote on any form of voting change in the next 20 or 30 years. The people throwing their toys out of the pram because it's not full PR are just being idiots.

So it's a crap choice, but at least it IS a choice, so choose it? Is that what you're saying?

bails87

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So it's a crap choice, but at least it IS a choice, so choose it? Is that what you're saying?

There's two points of view on this:

View One wrote:

-A "yes" vote will mean we start the momentum of change, we show we aren't happy with FPTP. Could lead to a 'better' system than AV.

-A "no" vote will be taken as an acceptance of FPTP. If we weren't happy with it we'd have voted against it, after all. So we'll keep it forever because the majority is obviously happy with it.

View B wrote:

-A "yes" vote means that we'll get AV. There will be no more referendums and we will be stuck with the compromise because the majority chose AV. Therefore the majority wants AV and nothing else.

-A "no" vote will say we don't want AV. But it won't say we don#t want a different system, PR/STV/HGV/STD/RLJ etc. So we will say no to AV but then be offered referendums on all of the different systems

But no-one can definitively say what will happen after the referendum.

I'm somewhere in the middle. I think we'll be stuck with whatever the result of this one referendum is. The Tories were reluctant to give a referendum at all, and they only allowed one on the 'compromise' of AV. Why would they give any more? With that in mind, I'm going to vote for the better, in my mind, of the two choices.

It might not be perfect, but if someone's got a £20 note and a £50 note in their pocket and they say you can have the £20 or nothing. Would you take the 'nothing' in the hope of being offered £50 later on?

sketchley

I still have no idea which way to vote.

The 2nd preference of minor parties comment is an intresting one. But my thought is that will lead to less extreem views as currently a Tory candidate my feel the need to pander to a UKIP policy in order to stop people voting for UKIP. With AV you don't need to do this as the 2nd preference would go to tory candidate once UKIP were kicked out.

I'd much rather they got on with sorting the country out rather than waste money on this referendum that I think will have a very low turnout.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

I still have no idea which way to vote.

The 2nd preference of minor parties comment is an intresting one. But my thought is that will lead to less extreem views as currently a Tory candidate my feel the need to pander to a UKIP policy in order to stop people voting for UKIP. With AV you don't need to do this as the 2nd preference would go to tory candidate once UKIP were kicked out.

I'd much rather they got on with sorting the country out rather than waste money on this referendum that I think will have a very low turnout.

As I've said before, how elections are run are absolutely fundamental to how the goverment goes about forming policy and governing. It's massively important, and it's only through Labour-Tory self interest that electoral reform has not been on the agenda.

sketchley

I agree with that.

But the argument Old = Bad therefore change must be good is not enough to convince me to vote yes to AV. A big concern I have is that if yes wins then that's electorial reform done. I'm leaning towards voting no in the hope it will make them think again in after the next general election.

bails87

Sketchley wrote:

I agree with that.

But the argument Old = Bad therefore change must be good is not enough to convince me to vote yes to AV. A big concern I have is that if yes wins then that's electorial reform done. I'm leaning towards voting no in the hope it will make them think again in after the next general election.

I just don't see it happening. Before or after the next election

That is, of course, partly down to my own personal opinion that politicians behave like politicians and all Tories are ba5tards.

Ginjafro

AV is just a sop to the Lib Dems who really wanted another Proportianal Representation (PR) voting system. The AV system will probably return very similar results as under the current system. In other words, no change.....

I would rather hold out for a fairer PR system rather than vote for AV just for the sake of it, even it is years before the next opportunity.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

I agree with that.

But the argument Old = Bad therefore change must be good is not enough to convince me to vote yes to AV. A big concern I have is that if yes wins then that's electorial reform done. I'm leaning towards voting no in the hope it will make them think again in after the next general election.

Why would it be 'done'?

It gives parties who have more of an interest in more representatitive forms of governance (say, the Lib dems) an easier opportunity to get this moved forward.

Get a no right now and the two main parties, who have an interest in the status quo, will decide, probably rightly, that the country has rejected even the most basic change to the current system, and, with the current system, who would argue with them?

rick_chasey

Gargh, all these people splitting the "yes - to electoral reform" vote. No wonder nothing changes.

sketchley

A no vote is not a yes for FPTP, it's just a no to AV. Unfortunatly it won't be seen that way.

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

A no vote is not a yes for FPTP, it's just a no to AV. Unfortunatly it won't be seen that way.

Exactly - so why say no?

AV gives a pro electoral reform parties a slightly bigger chance to affect change.

sketchley

Why vote yes to AV when what you really want to vote is no to FPTP?

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Why vote yes to AV when what you really want to vote is no to FPTP?

AV gives pro electoral reform parties a slightly bigger chance to affect change.