AV then. Yes or No?

tobermory

Having looked at both sides of the argument they both have merit and it came down to what i have always known it's not perfect but it seems in London very little would change at an election with AV

dhope

tobermory wrote:

dhope wrote:

tobermory wrote:

NO
It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected they say what we want to hear then when there in the club all their promises hit the buffers

Yeah, show em! Fight the Man with inaction and apathy!

How the hell do you know what i do make assumptions you can't back up

tobermory wrote:

It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected.

=> it doesn't matter what you do
=> why do anything

If you either care or do something then don't just post whiney clichés, they're lazy and add nothing.

tobermory

dhope wrote:

tobermory wrote:

dhope wrote:

tobermory wrote:

NO
It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected they say what we want to hear then when there in the club all their promises hit the buffers

Yeah, show em! Fight the Man with inaction and apathy!

How the hell do you know what i do make assumptions you can't back up

tobermory wrote:

It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected.

=> it doesn't matter what you do
=> why do anything

If you either care or do something then don't just post whiney clichés, they're lazy and add nothing.

Dont tell me what to post mr perfect and i repeat you nothing of me so you have no idea what i do

wgwarburton

Asprilla wrote:

..., FPTP renders my vote null and void, ...

It is still noted, though: If no-one voted for "minority parties" there would be no pressure for change. It's the clearly articulated support for parties that are constantly under-represented which underpins the case for reform. You can argue that by voting for a party that cannot win you "vote" for electoral reform.

AV isn't what I really want, but it's better than FPTP. Also, voting got me an extra miles for the Sill Commuter Stats.

We should vote to support democracy, even if we don't support the results it currently produces.

Cheers,
W.

notsoblue

tobermory wrote:

Dont tell me what to post mr perfect and i repeat you nothing of me so you have no idea what i do

He was reacting to something you posted. It happens on forums. Not so much in Yates' though, I'll grant you that.

dhope

tobermory wrote:

dhope wrote:

tobermory wrote:

dhope wrote:

tobermory wrote:

NO
It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected they say what we want to hear then when there in the club all their promises hit the buffers

Yeah, show em! Fight the Man with inaction and apathy!

How the hell do you know what i do make assumptions you can't back up

tobermory wrote:

It makes not a jot of difference who gets elected.

=> it doesn't matter what you do
=> why do anything

If you either care or do something then don't just post whiney clichés, they're lazy and add nothing.

Dont tell me what to post mr perfect and i repeat you nothing of me so you have no idea what i do

Sorry, what were you doing posting in this thread again, did you get lost on the way to scrawling thoughts on the cubicle wall?

jamesco

Greg66 wrote:

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.

Not sure what you're getting at, unless it's that your quite happy with FPTP as it ensures over-representation in your interests. That wouldn't make you a winner, it would make you selfish and undemocratic.

georgee

Yes, but I am close to saying No,

I'd rather we get a referendum on whether we can the royal family though

greg66_tri_v2.0

jamesco wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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.

Not sure what you're getting at, unless it's that your quite happy with FPTP as it ensures over-representation in your interests. That wouldn't make you a winner, it would make you selfish and undemocratic.

I am quite happy with FPTP, whether it returns Labour, the Conservatives or a coalition (just).

I *love* the suggestion that in this country we've been living under an unfair and undemocratic voting system for, well, at least a hundred years. It's amazing. Whoever would have known? All that oppression, right under our very noses, for all this time, and no one noticed. I feel so enlightened now. Not.

As for AV being new, modern, democratic, fair, or any other gleaming adjective you care to throw to attract the innate magpie in the general population, I say cobblers. FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle. For me, the arguments for change never get past this fundamental first hurdle.

asprilla

Greg66 wrote:

FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle.

This is where we differ. By fault of geography my vote is worthless; how is that fair?

jamesco

Greg66 wrote:

I am quite happy with FPTP, whether it returns Labour, the Conservatives or a coalition (just).

I *love* the suggestion that in this country we've been living under an unfair and undemocratic voting system for, well, at least a hundred years. It's amazing. Whoever would have known? All that oppression, right under our very noses, for all this time, and no one noticed. I feel so enlightened now. Not.

As for AV being new, modern, democratic, fair, or any other gleaming adjective you care to throw to attract the innate magpie in the general population, I say cobblers. FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle. For me, the arguments for change never get past this fundamental first hurdle.

Indeed, it is more likely to be unfair - i.e. give an unrepresentative result - than AV or proportional representation. FPTP generates huge disparities between the number of votes gained by a party and the number of seats it is allocated. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

gtvlusso

bails87 wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Agreed.

All of the above, strategic voting, back room deals

that's enough about FPTP thanks.

and 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?

Hmm - funny thing is I am quite a lefty - probably the only thing I support Cameron on.

The current voting system is fine, screwing with it will cause us more pain and discomfort in the long run - I am expecting to be able to say "told you so" if AV gets the nod, then on the next election the whole thing goes balls up and we end up with another coalition or more queries and investigations regarding voting (a la Solihull or wherever it was in Brimingham area)

Your comments have not inspired any confidence that you have read anything about the system....

rjsterry

This is why FPTP is unfair:
2010 GE results
Tory seats: 307; votes (across country): 10,726,614; percentage: 36.1
Labour seats: 258; votes: 8,609,527; percentage: 29.0
Lib Dem seats: 57; votes: 5,836,824; percentage: 23.0

The disparity between votes and seats doesn't just affect who gets elected, but whether bills get passed into law once a government is formed.

AV will not resolve this on it's own, but it is a step towards solving it.

Agent57

Almost all the arguments and articles I've read that are for AV have appeared to me to be well-reasoned, and offer reasons why AV is better than FPTP as well as why FPTP is a bad fit.

Most of the articles and opinions I've read that are against AV seem to be more laden with lies and half-truths, and tend not to offer reasons why FPTP is better.

http://avlies.com/

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/alumni/knowle ... tive_vote/ - written by a boffin

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 79171.html

http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/?p=2010

I voted Yes.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Asprilla wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle.

This is where we differ. By fault of geography my vote is worthless; how is that fair?

The false premise is that there is only one fair system (which, based on your grievance, might be PR) and that all other systems are ipso facto unfair.

I'm not quite sure why you say your vote is worthless though. Under AV, you might vote BNP, UKIP, Con, and live in (say) Camden where you'll only ever see Lab returned. Your votes are just as worthless there. Under PR, you might vote Green, and with your fellow voters do enough to get one or two Green MPs in. But those MPs cannot hope to represent constituents - their voters are spread across the country. You get lumbered with (say) a Con MP for your area. What value did your vote really have to you there?

gtvlusso

Agent57 wrote:

Almost all the arguments and articles I've read that are for AV have appeared to me to be well-reasoned, and offer reasons why AV is better than FPTP as well as why FPTP is a bad fit.

Most of the articles and opinions I've read that are against AV seem to be more laden with lies and half-truths, and tend not to offer reasons why FPTP is better.

http://avlies.com/

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/alumni/knowle ... tive_vote/ - written by a boffin

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 79171.html

http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/?p=2010

I voted Yes.

Well, yes, I think the "no" campaign has been run very badly, but I will still vote no to AV. It is not about the campaign, it is about the actual affect it will have. I believe the affect will be zero to sweet FA - I see no sense in the complication aside to give the "late arrivals" a little more leeway. We have a very simple voting system, very democratic and perfectly acceptable. It has voted in and out governments for nigh on 100 years and has promoted change. The UK is still a force to be reckoned with, even with the current coalition - lets face it, who really thinks Cameron and Clegg are doing well?!

We all get our say on this one and I will be very interested in the results. If anything I would say that we need to have clearer indications on elections and more ability to "recall" a failing government/PM. Av does not solve this.....

greg66_tri_v2.0

jamesco wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I am quite happy with FPTP, whether it returns Labour, the Conservatives or a coalition (just).

I *love* the suggestion that in this country we've been living under an unfair and undemocratic voting system for, well, at least a hundred years. It's amazing. Whoever would have known? All that oppression, right under our very noses, for all this time, and no one noticed. I feel so enlightened now. Not.

As for AV being new, modern, democratic, fair, or any other gleaming adjective you care to throw to attract the innate magpie in the general population, I say cobblers. FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle. For me, the arguments for change never get past this fundamental first hurdle.

Indeed, it is more likely to be unfair - i.e. give an unrepresentative result - than AV or proportional representation. FPTP generates huge disparities between the number of votes gained by a party and the number of seats it is allocated. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

Unrepresentative of what? We have constituencies. Voters vote for their local MP. I quite see that in a three party system one party could win all the seats available with 33.5% of the vote in each. But in each constituency, that party won, outright, a three horse race. In the Olympics, they don't let the bronze medallist give his medal to the silver medallist so that the latter can push the winner from the top of the podium.

If you want to get rid of constituencies and go full PR, that's a very different proposition. But nothing like a majority (or even a sizeable minority) want that, and so you have to ask: if no one wants it, how can it be so much fairer?

jamesco

Greg66 wrote:

The false premise is that there is only one fair system (which, based on your grievance, might be PR) and that all other systems are ipso facto unfair.

Greg, you say "FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle". How do you account for the disparity between the proportion of votes each party gets and the proportion of seats in parliament. Please, explain your reasoning as to why this is fair.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle.

You don't think there is something wrong with an electoratol system whereby a party can get 168 thousand votes and have 8 MPs whereas another party gets 6.8 million votes and only has 57 MPs?

gtvlusso

Asprilla wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle.

This is where we differ. By fault of geography my vote is worthless; how is that fair?

I think that is such an awful statement. A vote is never worthless - you still have the right to vote and you have the right to campaign/volunteer if you support a political movement to such a degree, but it is up to you to get out of the armchair and do it.

There are historical differences between labour and tory, a simple anallagy is that the labour voter proabably works for the tory voter.....in days of yore....

We are now in a more mixed and cosmopolitan society where the divisional areas are more jaded - but your vote still counts!!!

bails87

gtvlusso wrote:

bails87 wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Agreed.

All of the above, strategic voting, back room deals

that's enough about FPTP thanks.

and 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?

Hmm - funny thing is I am quite a lefty - probably the only thing I support Cameron on.

The current voting system is fine, screwing with it will cause us more pain and discomfort in the long run - I am expecting to be able to say "told you so" if AV gets the nod, then on the next election the whole thing goes balls up and we end up with another coalition or more queries and investigations regarding voting (a la Solihull or wherever it was in Brimingham area)

Why is a coalition a balls-up? And there weren't any dodgy things going on in Solihull, a couple of recounts because the vote was so close, but no cheating or anything. Possibly somewhere else in B'ham though, I don't know. In any case, how is that the fault of AV, it's happening under FPTP.

Your comments have not inspired any confidence that you have read anything about the system....

Really? In what way?

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

AV will not resolve this on it's own, but it is a step towards solving it.

And therein lies the smoking gun, dear readers. How many yes voters really want AV as a voting system, and how many really want it as a stepping stone to another different voting system in a few years' time?

As you say, AV doesn't solve what you identify as a problem/unfairness. So why on earth vote yes (other than to build momentum towards PR)?

It looks likely from the odds floating around this afternoon that AV won't get in because the public don't want it. And not just part of the public: a sufficient proportion that had the vote been yes, Cameron would have been on both back feet.

Again, therefore, if the current system is unfair, why don't people want to get rid of it?

asprilla

Greg66 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle.

This is where we differ. By fault of geography my vote is worthless; how is that fair?

The false premise is that there is only one fair system (which, based on your grievance, might be PR) and that all other systems are ipso facto unfair.

I'm not quite sure why you say your vote is worthless though. Under AV, you might vote BNP, UKIP, Con, and live in (say) Camden where you'll only ever see Lab returned. Your votes are just as worthless there. Under PR, you might vote Green, and with your fellow voters do enough to get one or two Green MPs in. But those MPs cannot hope to represent constituents - their voters are spread across the country. You get lumbered with (say) a Con MP for your area. What value did your vote really have to you there?

Don't make stuff up now, it just spoils things. I didn't say that AV was the answer nor that all other systems are unfair.

You said that FPTP was not unfair and I stated that it was and gave my reason. I didn't compare it to other voting systems and nor did I state a solution.

However, coming back to your final point, if I vote green in Surrey and my vote and the votes of other green voters evenly distributed around the country leads to number of green MPs that reflects the percentage of people who voted for them than how can you possibly argue that this isn't more representative of the voting population and therefore 'fairer'?

gtvlusso

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

AV will not resolve this on it's own, but it is a step towards solving it.

And therein lies the smoking gun, dear readers. How many yes voters really want AV as a voting system, and how many really want it as a stepping stone to another different voting system in a few years' time?

As you say, AV doesn't solve what you identify as a problem/unfairness. So why on earth vote yes (other than to build momentum towards PR)?

It looks likely from the odds floating around this afternoon that AV won't get in because the public don't want it. And not just part of the public: a sufficient proportion that had the vote been yes, Cameron would have been on both back feet.

Again, therefore, if the current system is unfair, why don't people want to get rid of it?

I don't recall anyone aside Nick Clegg saying that it was unfair.....

greg66_tri_v2.0

jamesco wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The false premise is that there is only one fair system (which, based on your grievance, might be PR) and that all other systems are ipso facto unfair.

Greg, you say "FPTP is not inherently unfair in practice or in principle". How do you account for the disparity between the proportion of votes each party gets and the proportion of seats in parliament. Please, explain your reasoning as to why this is fair.

I think our posts crossed. See the post of mine that's above your one quoted above.

jamesco

Greg66 wrote:

As you say, AV doesn't solve what you identify as a problem/unfairness. So why on earth vote yes (other than to build momentum towards PR)?

No smoking gun here - AV would be a worthwhile improvement and is the only option on the ballot. While PR would be ideal, it isn't on the ballot and we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Now, Greg, can you please explain how FPTP is fair if it generates such disproportionate outcomes? You keep repeating yourself, how about explaining yourself! :?:

DonDaddyD

Surely its an ideological issue init?

Gregs post above is right. AV doesn't solve the proportional representation issue. AV isn't proportional repesentation. So debates like the Wimbledon MP got in with 49.1% of the vote and therefore doesn't represent the majority are wasted because under AV a person could have 40% first choice votes and 10% second choice votes.

However, AV is a step forward and its a step I'm willing to take. So I'm voting yes.

greg66_tri_v2.0

gtvlusso wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

AV will not resolve this on it's own, but it is a step towards solving it.

And therein lies the smoking gun, dear readers. How many yes voters really want AV as a voting system, and how many really want it as a stepping stone to another different voting system in a few years' time?

As you say, AV doesn't solve what you identify as a problem/unfairness. So why on earth vote yes (other than to build momentum towards PR)?

It looks likely from the odds floating around this afternoon that AV won't get in because the public don't want it. And not just part of the public: a sufficient proportion that had the vote been yes, Cameron would have been on both back feet.

Again, therefore, if the current system is unfair, why don't people want to get rid of it?

I don't recall anyone aside Nick Clegg saying that it was unfair.....

Hasn't the adenoidal prefect said it? Unlike him not to jump on a passing bandwagon.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

AV will not resolve this on it's own, but it is a step towards solving it.

And therein lies the smoking gun, dear readers. How many yes voters really want AV as a voting system, and how many really want it as a stepping stone to another different voting system in a few years' time?

As you say, AV doesn't solve what you identify as a problem/unfairness. So why on earth vote yes other than to build momentum towards PR?

It looks likely from the odds floating around this afternoon that AV won't get in because the public don't want it. And not just part of the public: a sufficient proportion that had the vote been yes, Cameron would have been on both back feet.

Again, therefore, if the current system is unfair, why don't people want to get rid of it?

Oh noes! You saw through my cunning scheme. You can get me a t-shirt with that on if you like. The constituency link thing needs some work, but I think this aspect gets overplayed; hands up who's actually been to see their MP. If you want a local issue sorted, your local councillor is the one to speak to, not your MP.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

Hasn't the adenoidal prefect said it? Unlike him not to jump on a passing bandwagon.

I now understand why you dress up like a smurf. Flying the flag wot wot.

Does she (Chancery Lane burd) come with the blue vote?