AV then. Yes or No?
Comments
-
@CiB Oi! Don't start what you can't finish!
0 -
I don't see anything wrong with parties not being able to push through anything they want. Surely it would be better if each issue was debated rather than just pushed through?Hairybuddha wrote:@notsoblue I'm afraid we have a pretty fundamental disagreement there then. As I said earlier, I think a system that allows single party Government with a stronger majority is hugely desirable once every few parliaments.
Look at the difficulty Obama is having pushing through his reform agenda now that his majority is so weak/non existent (and yes, I know the US uses FPTP)
But then I don't particularly agree with party politics...0 -
Hairybuddha wrote:@CiB Oi! Don't start what you can't finish!
It would appear he's finished somewhat prematurely.0 -
thegibdog wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with parties not being able to push through anything they want. Surely it would be better if each issue was debated rather than just pushed through?Hairybuddha wrote:@notsoblue I'm afraid we have a pretty fundamental disagreement there then. As I said earlier, I think a system that allows single party Government with a stronger majority is hugely desirable once every few parliaments.
Look at the difficulty Obama is having pushing through his reform agenda now that his majority is so weak/non existent (and yes, I know the US uses FPTP)
But then I don't particularly agree with party politics...
Yeah, I don't see the problem in someone struggling to push through legislation that only has minority support. If you're saying we should have things done with minority support then I hope you'll be calling for AV to be introduced despite it failing in the referendum. 0 -
notsoblue wrote:Hairybuddha wrote:It is my opinion however that AV would lead to a succession of coalition Governments which is an inherently weaker state than a Government with a strong single party majority.
This is what I don't understand, why are people so against coalitions? My view is that this would reduce the wild ideological swings from Red/Left to Blue/Right every couple of elections. Surely steady state, slow, centrist progression is better than having to restructure society on a regular basis?
I totally agree.
However, scare examples like the Netherlands and Belgium are often highlighted as disastrous (even though they seem to do better in all the UN - quality of life polls), by opponents to PR.
That many other nations can govern very effectively (see Germany ) with coalitions is often overlooked.0 -
CiB wrote:Surprised we haven't done this. As it's today, I'll kick off.
No. Simple answer.
First Past The Post has served us well enough for donkey's years.
One man one vote is the fairest way of voting. Under this AV nonsense my clarity-of-thought decisive vote for the one fellow whose views chime exactly with mine, is diluted by a bunch of wishy-washy indecisive types who get anything up to 5 votes through not being able to make their mind up; I only get one. Vote for candidates who I don't agree with? Meh.
Voters who oppose unpopular candidates will get 5 votes to use against that unpopular candidate. Supporters of same can only vote for him (or her obviously) once. In what way is that fairer, unless there's some mechanism where we can use all of our other choices for the same candidate to cancel out the multiple votes against?
I don't want MPs to work harder thanks. I want them to get themselves voted in & then sit there and pass only those laws that absolutely need passing. They can spend the other 4 years 11 months sitting on their hands thanks. MPs shouldn't measure their achievements in productivity.
So No, thanks.
Agreed.
All of the above, strategic voting, back room deals and a load of hackable and fallable technology to sort it all out at huge cost.
Happy with current system - although AV would benefit fringe parties, ike the Lib Dems.....funny that.....
I think you should vote for the one person who represents the major percentage of your views - spreading your bets, just seems to be a bit pointless and fussy.
I expected DDD to start this thread.....0 -
UndercoverElephant wrote:Yes for me. It's a much simpler system:
I for one am sick of people saying that they would like to vote in a certain way, but that they still vote for one of the two main parties, because they can't stand the other lot.
Can I be the only person to find this flow chart risibly contrived?
FPTP: (1) select candidate you wish to vote for (2) put X by their name.
AV: (1) place candidates in order of preference (2) write down numbers.
That tactical analysis nonsense is just that; moreover, there's no reason why, if you were minded to feck around like that in the booth, you would do it times n in an AV system. No one think that AV will end tactical voting; the tactics are different, that's all.0 -
that's enough about FPTP thanks.gtvlusso wrote:
Agreed.
All of the above, strategic voting, back room dealsand a load of hackable and fallable technology
The technology that isn't actually used by anyone else who uses AV. So why would we need it?0 -
Greg66 wrote:No.
Once you start pandering to the wishes of people who (a) lose elections and (b) claim that the electoral system is unfair (because they lost, it seems), you'll be fiddling with the voting system until your children die of old age.
Or put another way, "FPTP worked for us: we won. Hence we don't want to change the system to something where we might not win as much".1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Greg66 wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:Yes for me. It's a much simpler system:
I for one am sick of people saying that they would like to vote in a certain way, but that they still vote for one of the two main parties, because they can't stand the other lot.
Can I be the only person to find this flow chart risibly contrived?
FPTP: (1) select candidate you wish to vote for (2) put X by their name.
AV: (1) place candidates in order of preference (2) write down numbers.
That tactical analysis nonsense is just that; moreover, there's no reason why, if you were minded to feck around like that in the booth, you would do it times n in an AV system. No one think that AV will end tactical voting; the tactics are different, that's all.
That's exactly what I have to do when I vote. If we had AV I'd vote for who I wanted.
Sure, some people might vote tactically, but I think overall it would be reduced.0 -
I'm saying things should be done with majority support but people shouldn't just support things based on party alleigances.bails87 wrote:Yeah, I don't see the problem in someone struggling to push through legislation that only has minority support. If you're saying we should have things done with minority support then I hope you'll be calling for AV to be introduced despite it failing in the referendum.
Interestingly whatever happens with the referendum it will probably be done with less than 20% of the electorate voting for it...0 -
thegibdog wrote:
Interestingly whatever happens with the referendum it will probably be done with less than 20% of the electorate voting for it...
If people cared then they'd turn up to vote, or vote by post. If people don't care and CBA to turn up then you can't really complain that their voices weren't heard.0 -
thegibdog wrote:
I'm saying things should be done with majority support but people shouldn't just support things based on party alleigances.bails87 wrote:Yeah, I don't see the problem in someone struggling to push through legislation that only has minority support. If you're saying we should have things done with minority support then I hope you'll be calling for AV to be introduced despite it failing in the referendum.
Interestingly whatever happens with the referendum it will probably be done with less than 20% of the electorate voting for it...
I thought for a referendum to produce a certified result it had to have at least 40% turnout?0 -
Vote YES.
Because I deeply dislike being told (by the No campaign and the Daily Mail) that having to use numbers to rank candidates is too complicated for the little people, and that we should just do as we're told by those who believe they're naturally entitled to govern.
Because I want my vote to count. I've always voted for the candidate I wanted to win, not strategically.
I agree that the Yes campaign has been poorly represented, but that's no reason to not think for yourself.Misguided Idealist0 -
rjsterry wrote:Greg66 wrote:No.
Once you start pandering to the wishes of people who (a) lose elections and (b) claim that the electoral system is unfair (because they lost, it seems), you'll be fiddling with the voting system until your children die of old age.
Or put another way, "FPTP worked for us: we won. Hence we don't want to change the system to something where we might not win as much".
The *only* reason that the adenoidal senior prefect is on the yes bandwagon is to make political hay at the expense of the coalition. Unless he is majorly retarded (and I do not believe that to be the case) there is no sensible reason for the leader of either of the two major parties to back AV.0 -
Hi,
Yes.
FPTP is broken. It doesn't produce representative government. At best it occcasionally produces a rough simulcrum.
AV isn't much better, but it's a step in the right direction. There seems to be no clear indication of whether a Yes or a No is more likely to result in further change. My feeling is that a No is less likely to result in further change, which supports a Yes.
If it was clear that rejection of AV would result in a new proposal for a better system then I'd vote against it but that doesn't seem likely. It's possible that if AV is adopted there will be no further change but that seems to be a smaller risk.
Coalitions are nothing to be scared of. If people want "strong government" then they vote for it. If only a minority want strong government then they shouldn't get it!
I don't really understand the apparant unpopularity of Nick Clegg & the Liberal Democrats- they are the minority party in a coalition so obviously they can't achieve everything in their manifesto. Why are they being pilloried for it? They haven't betrayed their supporters, they've achieved what they can with the modest power base they've been granted by the electorate. Similarly, they've reined in some of the more radical aspirations of the Conservatives... Which is presumably something close to what the electorate wanted or they'd have given the Tories enough support to win outright, as has happened many times in the past.
It seems to me that a strong unrepresentative government is a bad thing. Similarly, FPTP is capable of producing some silly results. It's far too crude for modern democracy.
Cheers,
W.0 -
]CiB wrote:
Happy with current system - although AV would benefit fringe parties, ike the Lib Dems.....funny that.....
.
It can be equally argued that FPTP discriminates against fringe parties - how can it fair that between 16% - 24% of the country vote for the Lib Dem but they get 5%-8% of the seats available. AV is a "miserable compromise" - but its better than FPTP and if voted yes then shows the establishment we want change and a fairer voting system (preferably PR but thats for another day)
Irrespective of what results a system gives it should reflect the mood of the people - you shouldnt design a voting system to rig in favour of 2 big parties because thats whats "best" for the country/establishment.0 -
Hairybuddha wrote:@notsoblue I'm afraid we have a pretty fundamental disagreement there then. As I said earlier, I think a system that allows single party Government with a stronger majority is hugely desirable once every few parliaments.
Look at the difficulty Obama is having pushing through his reform agenda now that his majority is so weak/non existent (and yes, I know the US uses FPTP)
Disagreement is cool. I'm just intrigued as to why you think a single party government is a inherently more desirable than a coalition? Your party won't always win, so why support a situation that means that for the odd 4 year long stretches you'll feel disenfranchised by the government thats in power? After a new government is formed theres so much waste involved in dismantling the ideological framework of the last.
The difficulty Obama is having has more to do with corporate influence on US politics and the fact that they have a two party system. I don't think you can really compare...0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:thegibdog wrote:
I'm saying things should be done with majority support but people shouldn't just support things based on party alleigances.bails87 wrote:Yeah, I don't see the problem in someone struggling to push through legislation that only has minority support. If you're saying we should have things done with minority support then I hope you'll be calling for AV to be introduced despite it failing in the referendum.
Interestingly whatever happens with the referendum it will probably be done with less than 20% of the electorate voting for it...
I thought for a refurendum to produce a certified result it had to have 40% turnout?
No, I think there's a clause in the legislation about a 40% turnout, but it's not complusory. Or it was in there and it was removed.
It also depends on the boundary redesign stuff being passed by (I think) the House of Lords. If they reject that then the AV referendum result is thrown out too.0 -
I think that was proposed but wasn't passed, there's no minimum turnout as far as I'm aware.Rick Chasey wrote:I thought for a refurendum to produce a certified result it had to have 40% turnout?
True, I wasn't compaining I just thought I'd mention it.bails87 wrote:IIf people cared then they'd turn up to vote, or vote by post. If people don't care and CBA to turn up then you can't really complain that their voices weren't heard.
I'll be voting Yes by the way.0 -
Greg66 wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:Yes for me. It's a much simpler system:
I for one am sick of people saying that they would like to vote in a certain way, but that they still vote for one of the two main parties, because they can't stand the other lot.
Can I be the only person to find this flow chart risibly contrived?
FPTP: (1) select candidate you wish to vote for (2) put X by their name.
AV: (1) place candidates in order of preference (2) write down numbers.
That tactical analysis nonsense is just that; moreover, there's no reason why, if you were minded to feck around like that in the booth, you would do it times n in an AV system. No one think that AV will end tactical voting; the tactics are different, that's all.
Not in the least, Mr. 66, I find it to be quite accurate. It may not be the case for someone who ideologically fits with one of the two major parties, but I don't particularly. I would say that AV would end the current form of tactical voting, as in "I would really like to vote for X, but Y is better than Z and as we all know, round here only Y and Z have any chance, so I'll vote for Y.
I quite like a system where even though the results will most likely be the same, as Y would be my second choice, at least people will be able to look and see the support for other ideas. We are starting to vote much more for "Others" as a country, FPTP only really works with two main parties, in my opinion.0 -
No I didn't. You've messed up your quoting there young fellah-me-lad.mr_poll wrote:]CiB wrote:
Happy with current system - although AV would benefit fringe parties, ike the Lib Dems.....funny that.....
.
Interesting points being made. It's not a completely closed-mind up here but I've seen nothing to convince me to vote the wrong way, not yet anyway.0 -
jamesco wrote:Greg66 wrote:there is no sensible reason for the leader of either of the two major parties to back AV.
There's at least one: it's fairer. They're supposed to govern in our interests, y'know, not theirs.
First bold: the rallying cry of the losers.
Second bold: next time take the red pill.0 -
Voted Yes.
If I enter a race I know where the finish post is, at the end, it's fixed and dosn't move. The current system is not 'first past the post', it's 'who can get furthest'. Stick the post in the ground at 50% and see who can get past it.
If a politician can't get 50% of the votes from his constituancy then he needs to alter his policies. If each Member of parliment was supported by over half of the people who voted for him then obviously this makes sense.0 -
CiB wrote:
No I didn't. You've messed up your quoting there young fellah-me-lad.mr_poll wrote:]CiB wrote:
Happy with current system - although AV would benefit fringe parties, ike the Lib Dems.....funny that.....
.
Interesting points being made. It's not a completely closed-mind up here but I've seen nothing to convince me to vote the wrong way, not yet anyway.
Ah sorry - your right I tried to be clever and cut the quote down - FAIL :roll:0 -
Yes or No really won't make that much difference.
I'd like to see a really low turnout to show Clegg what a muppet he's being.
0 -
Having thought this through I lot, I simply don't care. It doesn't matter what system we have providing it allows the people to kick the incumbents out when necessary (corruption etc). I really don't care which of the two systems we use to pick the replacements as they all look and sound the same anyway, so I'll let others decide and go for a bike ride instead.
That being said, I think a no vote may well lead to a no confidence vote in Nick Clegg from his party and a collapse in the coalition. It is debatable if this is a good thing or bad thing.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
-
Greg66 wrote:The *only* reason that the adenoidal senior prefect is on the yes bandwagon is to make political hay at the expense of the coalition. Unless he is majorly retarded (and I do not believe that to be the case) there is no sensible reason for the leader of either of the two major parties to back AV.
Well much of the Yes campaign seems to be implying that the left wing vote gets split by FPTP. I would have thought that those who vote Labour would tend to put Lib Dem as second preference, and vice versa. So I think AV would benefit those two parties far more than the tories. Its no wonder that the Conservative Party is backing the No campaign so heavily.0
