AV then. Yes or No?
Comments
-
CiB wrote:@TailWindHome - no thanks. I've never not voted, and don't intend to not vote today. Thanks though. Feel free not to bother yourself tho.
Jeez. If it's good enough for the MPs it should be good enough for me and you.
I've never voted and have no intention in voting in the next election either
Pointless in a safe seat in NI.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
People should vote. How many people have died fighting for the right to vote around the world. I can see what you mean by it being futile in a safe seat, but if all those that didn't bother made the effort perhaps it wouldn't be so safe.0
-
Veronese68 wrote:People should vote. How many people have died fighting for the right to vote around the world. I can see what you mean by it being futile in a safe seat, but if all those that didn't bother made the effort perhaps it wouldn't be so safe.
The right was to choose whether to vote or not.
Though I agree that if you don't vote then you shouldn't complain about what happens. But then there should be a 'none of the above' option to distinguish the lazy from those that choose not to vote.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:People should vote. How many people have died fighting for the right to vote around the world. I can see what you mean by it being futile in a safe seat, but if all those that didn't bother made the effort perhaps it wouldn't be so safe.
Died for the right to vote not the obligation to vote.0 -
yep would also vote Yes to anti-virus
oh is that the door, i'll be going then :oops:Sorry its not me it's the bike ;o)
Strava Dude link http://www.strava.com/athletes/amander
Commuting, Domestic & Pleasure : Specialized Sectuer Sport Disc
Please Sponsor http://www.justgiving.com/alister-manderfield10 -
So - that'll be a "no" then.....0
-
We get the governance we deserve
As someone on twitter said, if a referendum on modest voting reform was handled this badly, can you imagine how brain destroyingly awful a referendum on the EU would be?!0 -
bails87 wrote:We get the governance we deserve
As someone on twitter said, if a referendum on modest voting reform was handled this badly, can you imagine how brain destroyingly awful a referendum on the EU would be?!
Have to own up. I read that and laughed like a drain. Bile-Spewing Bad Loser Finds New Reserves Of Condescension!0 -
bails87 wrote:We get the governance we deserve
As someone on twitter said, if a referendum on modest voting reform was handled this badly, can you imagine how brain destroyingly awful a referendum on the EU would be?!
Pfft, the UK's had one already.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:bails87 wrote:We get the governance we deserve
As someone on twitter said, if a referendum on modest voting reform was handled this badly, can you imagine how brain destroyingly awful a referendum on the EU would be?!
Pfft, the UK's had one already.
Yeah, but there was talk of another one, due to the Lisbon Treaty. Perhaps the media wasn't so unremittingly sh!t back then....0 -
bails87 wrote:We get the governance we deserve
As someone on twitter said, if a referendum on modest voting reform was handled this badly, can you imagine how brain destroyingly awful a referendum on the EU would be?!
Interesting link.
Maybe voters understood it just fine and maybe they just didn't want AV. You cannot go blaming the voters when the vote was more than 2 to 1 against. That's not just a poorly presented argument on behalf of the yes campaign or dirty tricks by the no. That's a lot of people with the opinion that they didn't want AV. A lot of people who voted would have researched it looked in to and made an informed decision. To assume because they disagree with your opinion they somehow failed to understand the issue is insulting to those who voted.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Greg66 wrote:
Have to own up. I read that and laughed like a drain. Bile-Spewing Bad Loser Finds New Reserves Of Condescension!
While quaffing roast swan and unicorn blood?
Bad Winner Finds New Reserves Of Condescension :twisted:
I do find it depressing though, to be honest, the only people I know who've voted no did so because "it will let the BNP get into power" and "it's too expensive". If those things were true, and someone had a valid reason against it, then that's fine. I just don't like it when people are lied to by a campaign that's practically led by the PM.0 -
bails87 wrote:Greg66 wrote:
Have to own up. I read that and laughed like a drain. Bile-Spewing Bad Loser Finds New Reserves Of Condescension!
While quaffing roast swan and unicorn blood?
Bad Winner Finds New Reserves Of Condescension :twisted:
I do find it depressing though, to be honest, the only people I know who've voted no did so because "it will let the BNP get into power" and "it's too expensive". If those things were true, and someone had a valid reason against it, then that's fine. I just don't like it when people are lied to by a campaign that's practically led by the PM.
some may have been, But lets be honest NO vote didn't just loose it lost by a really healthy margin.
That is some spin to do that ;-) my take is the arguments for AV are weak or simply load of rot.
not that there wasn't plenty of rot to go around, But if your going to change something you need to clearly convince people that it's better and worth doing, well the Yes didn't do that.0 -
roger merriman wrote:That is some spin to do that ;-) my take is the arguments for AV are weak or simply load of rot.
The worst thing that could be said about AV is that it would have been only a modest improvement. The worst thing about FPTP is that it is massively unrepresentative.
AV lost IMHO because of (1) the association with the Liberal Democrats and (2) underhanded lies from the 'No campaign'.0 -
jamesco wrote:roger merriman wrote:That is some spin to do that ;-) my take is the arguments for AV are weak or simply load of rot.
The worst thing that could be said about AV is that it would have been only a modest improvement. The worst thing about FPTP is that it is massively unrepresentative.
AV lost IMHO because of (1) the association with the Liberal Democrats and (2) underhanded lies from the 'No campaign'.
If the vote wasn't 2 to 1 against I might agree with you. Give people the credit, they were asked and gave their response.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sketchley wrote:If the vote wasn't 2 to 1 against I might agree with you. Give people the credit, they were asked and gave their response.
There's no problem accepting that the outcome is clear, but I ain't gonna give credit to anyone for voting based on mis-guided reasoning! Those that voted 'no' for completely selfish* reasons are understandable, if not commendable, but so many voters bothering to find out the facts or even vote is rather dispiriting.
*i.e. FPTP results in over-representation for their party of choice and they want that to continue.0 -
Sketchley wrote:jamesco wrote:roger merriman wrote:That is some spin to do that ;-) my take is the arguments for AV are weak or simply load of rot.
The worst thing that could be said about AV is that it would have been only a modest improvement. The worst thing about FPTP is that it is massively unrepresentative.
AV lost IMHO because of (1) the association with the Liberal Democrats and (2) underhanded lies from the 'No campaign'.
If the vote wasn't 2 to 1 against I might agree with you. Give people the credit, they were asked and gave their response.
quite, just because someone disagrees with ideas doesn't mean they are dumb etc. it frankly smacks of sour grapes.0 -
roger merriman wrote:quite, just because someone disagrees with ideas doesn't mean they are dumb etc. it frankly smacks of sour grapes.
Nope, "sour grapes" would be saying something along the lines of "AV wasn't worth having, anyway". "Sore loser" is what I think you're looking for
FPTP really is on any legitimate comparison an inferior system of representation and the 'no' campaign was based on transparent falsehoods, so it really is dispiriting (to me, anyway, if not 68% of the voters!) that it won the vote. Anyway, this hopefully won't be the final word on reform of the electoral system.0 -
The Yes campaign seemed to consist of
'teacher he smells and tells lies' & 'if you vote No then you're just like Nick Griffin'
both risible and the second genuinely insulting to the type of people needed to be wooed to yvote Yes.
The No campaign 'told lies' really????????? a politician telling you what they want you to hear in an adversarial contest, god forbid, what next? do you think it'll catch on as a tactic?
Can we expect a Woolas-esque judicial review then instigated by the Yes side or are these the wrong type of lies & transparent falsehoods
Also why did the Yes campaigners not actually work harder to publicise these lies and present the truth beside them to expose the claimed wrongs of the No lot and hold a mirror up to their claimed dishonesty All I saw and heard was whinging and pretty futile fingerpointing from the Yes'sers.
as someone skeptical to the merits of AV (it doesn't go nearly far enough to improve and reform and is little more than a coat of paint on FPTP IMO) but eminently biddable for my vote, the Yes campaign was simply woeful, uninspiring and too deeply fact free.0 -
-
jamesco wrote:roger merriman wrote:That is some spin to do that ;-) my take is the arguments for AV are weak or simply load of rot.
The worst thing that could be said about AV is that it would have been only a modest improvement. The worst thing about FPTP is that it is massively unrepresentative.
AV lost IMHO because of (1) the association with the Liberal Democrats and (2) underhanded lies from the 'No campaign'.
I think there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that this was a full and detailed exposition of the two voting schemes. The electorate very plainly digested carefully the rival arguments, weighed their strengths and weaknesses and came to their decision. No one can fail to give the British public credit for being able to see through any verbal sleight of hand advanced by one or other side (was there though? I think not) and getting the truth.
After all that, the votes made their collective minds up and have spoken. FPTP is the way forward - the only way forward, and the only fair system. That's what we, as a people, have said.
The no voters have made a historic decision. But one that has some sound sense behind it: it would be absurd for the bronze and silver medallists to be able to gang together and push the gold medallist - the one and the only true winner - from the top of the podium.
In the midst of all this, we have to remember that we are a single population, and we must respect the will of the majority. That said, we must also remember that the yes voters are *such* a bunch of pussies though. Intellectually horsewhipped on the issue, they continue to whine about perceived but non-existent unfairness. What a bunch of gheyers!
Na-nany-na-hah! You-ou lost! Losers! Losers! You're a bunch of losers!
And just so we are clear, the yeses lost because AV is rubbish. Ask the British people.
Oh, hang on, we just did!
0 -
The No vote included some of those that felt AV didn't go far enough. Not saying that would have made the 15% or so difference needed to swing it but given how similar to FPTP is would be in terms of end product the people that wanted no reform didn't like it and the people that wanted sweeping reform didn't like it either. And both campaigns were lousy. The No campaign had a significantly easier job and did seem to resort to spoiling. The Yes campaign didn't manage to make clear that AV isn't complicated in the slightest, and Paddy Ashdown's claims that only 1.5% of votes in FPTP mattered were idiotic.
And why oh why didn't they continually churn out the fact that Tories and Labour use AV to determine their own leadership. 'Good enough for us but too complicated for the public eh?' should have been trotted out a lot more.0 -
Greg66 wrote:FPTP is the way forward - the only way forward, and the only fair system.
C'mon, Greg, when're you going to answer my question? On what basis can you describe a system as unrepresentative as FPTP as 'fair'?shouldbeinbed wrote:The No campaign 'told lies' really????????? a politician telling you what they want you to hear in an adversarial contest, god forbid, what next? do you think it'll catch on as a tactic?
That's deeply cynical, to expect and accept lying. Even if you think that's how politics should be played, you're still arguing about the relative merits of the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and not the actual systems. AV is superior and would have resulted in a modest improvement in - yep - fairness.0 -
jamesco wrote:Greg66 wrote:FPTP is the way forward - the only way forward, and the only fair system.
C'mon, Greg, when're you going to answer my question? On what basis can you describe a system as unrepresentative as FPTP as 'fair'?
I've answered it earlier in this thread. It rewards the party that wins any given constituency. I don't regard rewarding the winner as "unrepresentative". I don't really understand how anyone could. I do regard redistributing the votes of the losers to unseat the winner as unrepresentative though.
Anyway, it's not me you have to worry about. It's the 2/3 majority who crushed AV flat that's your problem...0 -
jamesco wrote:shouldbeinbed wrote:The No campaign 'told lies' really????????? a politician telling you what they want you to hear in an adversarial contest, god forbid, what next? do you think it'll catch on as a tactic?
That's deeply cynical, to expect and accept lying. Even if you think that's how politics should be played, you're still arguing about the relative merits of the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and not the actual systems. AV is superior and would have resulted in a modest improvement in - yep - fairness.
Oh dear, the yes campaign in a microcosm, expurgated, preachy and fact free.
The point I'm making there is not that lying is ok but that politicians present the arguments in a way that suits their viewpoint and you (and the Yes campaign) are stupefyingly naive if you think/expect any different.
I also go on to ask if there will be a judicial review in the precedent of Phil Woolas and ask why the Yes campaign failed to highlight to 'Lies and Transparent Falsehoods' that you allege during the campaign .
So rather than cynically accepting lying as you tell me I am doing. I am actually offering a practical and proven way to test the allegations of dishonesty in a court of law and simply confused WHY they were not proven false when it mattered pre vote.
Also that in debating the realtive merits of the campaign I was responding to you doing exactly the same thing, but hey lets not let a few transparent....... (oh hang on I'm being all cynical again aren't I)
Finally you're passing on your personal feelings and opinions on the matter as if they were immutable fact. WHY is AV superior and fairer? - give me facts and figures showing its popularity and uptake in democracies around the world (ah errr), proof that letting someones ballot paper go through the counting process 3 or 4 times to potentially allow a candidate who was not the (1st) preferred choice of the majority of the votes cast to steal the win from that candidate that was 1st on more ballots is in any way shape or form fair.
lets go for a tray of drinks:
4 people want coffee, 3 people want tea, 2 people want orange juice, 1 person wants ribena and 1 person wants water. but everyone has to have the same drink.
The ribena and water drinkers don't like hot drinks so orange juice gets up to 4 votes, the tea drinkers REALLY don't like coffee so have no other option even if they are allergic to orange juice but to pick it to stop the coffee vote, so everyone suddenly finds themselves being made to drink orange juice despite it being the most favoured option of only 18% of the voters and there being TWO defeated drinks that more people really wanted.
What an advance in fairnessand representative voting: The 3rd choice candidate with less than 20% of the electorate gets the nod as opposed to FPTP where the favoured candidate of usually not less than 35% (often more) of the electorate would get in. With either way, those voting for water, ribena and tea (45%) still fail to see their vote result in their choice getting a hint of representation. AV shows here 82% of the electorate don't get what they want, FPTP would at least minimise that to at worst 65%.
this e.g. fairer? really? or is it more truthful to say they're both a load of cr@p if we want a majority mandate for our politicians or a truly national represetation of peoples political sensibilities from one end of the spectrum to the other.
So prove me wrong, don't just wring your hands and tell me how wrong I am for not seeing the world through your eyes.0 -
While I accept all the comments put forward as regards the merit, or lack, of the no campaign, I remain of the opinion that to assume this and this alone accounted for such large defeat of the yes campaign is seriously flawed reasoning. Furthermore to assert as some have that the reason why so many people voted no is that they were so intellectually challenged they fell for the lies or the no campaign is insulting in the extreme. Why can't intelligent people weigh up the pros and cons and decide on the outcome. I'm not stupid and having looked at both arguments I decided to abstain as neither system convinced me, however I suspect I'm to be bundled in with the too stupid to vote brigade as I choose not to vote! If the vote was PR, which is wasn't, then I may of changed my mind and voted.
Finally what the electoral reform supporters should be concentrating on now is that the vote was most definitely a no to AV and not a yes to FPTP or indeed a no to reform. Which are all different questions to the one the people were asked.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Greg66 wrote:I think there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that this was a full and detailed exposition of the two voting schemes. The electorate very plainly digested carefully the rival arguments, weighed their strengths and weaknesses and came to their decision. No one can fail to give the British public credit for being able to see through any verbal sleight of hand advanced by one or other side (was there though? I think not) and getting the truth.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
Oh man, I think thats the best trolling I've seen in months
I'm obviously disappointed by the result, but not surprised. Loads of grass roots tory support for the No campaign. The Yes campaign was too nuanced, and supported by the lib dems and half of the labour party. Its no wonder people weren't engaged...0 -
@NSB
That may of been excellent trolling but we did several pages on here discussing the merits of the two systems. Similar threads can be found on just about every forum you care to visit. Similar conversations were had in pubs, coffee shops and work places up and down the country. Why is it so hard to believe that ordinary people cannot discuss a subject and come to their own opinion on it?
At the end of the day we are all individuals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sketchley wrote:@NSB
That may of been excellent trolling but we did several pages on here discussing the merits of the two systems. Similar threads can be found on just about every forum you care to visit. Similar conversations were had in pubs, coffee shops and work places up and down the country. Why is it so hard to believe that ordinary people cannot discuss a subject and come to their own opinion on it?
Well they did arrive at their own opinion, and voted accordingly. Its not hard to believe at all. Personally I just think that people voted No for the wrong reasons. I could go into detail about why I think that but it would be pointless. Its pretty self evident.Sketchley wrote:
We are indeed. And the irony is that AV could have represented this plurality better than FPTP ever will.0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:
lets go for a tray of drinks:
4 people want coffee, 3 people want tea, 2 people want orange juice, 1 person wants ribena and 1 person wants water. but everyone has to have the same drink.
......
AV shows here 82% of the electorate don't get what they want, FPTP would at least minimise that to at worst 65%
I have heard this argument from the No campaign a lot these past few weeks. I have no great favourite between the two systems, and would prefer full PR. Although I admit I don't know how you'd square full PR with constituency representation. Perhaps the boundaries need to be more realistic - clearly I don't have the answers here...
But I think the frailty with this No argument (quoted) is that there is only importance placed on a voters 1st choice i.e. it gives no leeway to what the electorate could live with. Is it such a bad thing to have Orange Juice where 2 people get their perfect choice, and the others get a compromise that they can cope with? I would have thought this is reasonable democracy.
In theory you could play around with a points system and weighting e.g. inverse square where the 2nd choices receive a quarter the importance.
I don't have an axe to grind particularly, but I think AV was spuriously shot down on the grounds of fairness, simplicity, and some rather jingoistic "one vote for one person... aren't Australian's stupid... this is our constituion" stuff in the tabloids e.g. the Sun.
Shame on Clegg et al for agreeing to a referendum at a time when their credibility is/was low, and the there was precious little campaign time when you factor in the local elections as well.0
