snowychap Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Well I have long been a believer in the fact that my vote should hold just as much importance as a Lord... In regard to a general election, perhaps not the best example to pick (unless things have changed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Well I have long been a believer in the fact that my vote should hold just as much importance as a Lord... In regard to a general election, perhaps not the best example to pick (unless things have changed). :-) - good point Interesting - and it may well have been posted before - but both Lab and the Cons elect their own leader using the AV system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I agree with you entirely about FPTP. I do disagree with you regarding the hypocrisy, though. I'm no fan of Cameron, and I agree that under FPTP, there's a real problem of some people's votes just not counting. I'm in a Labour safe seat, and regardless of who I'd vote for, there's just no point in me actually going to vote. However, there's still a distinction between this state of affairs, and AV, in which in some circumstances, voters may as well be told "tough luck, try again, have another vote". Is it enough of a reason to reject the entire voting system? Not in my opinion, but I can certainly see why Cameron thinks it.Cameron is a massive hypocrite on this though, from his views on AV when it suits - how he got his job, through to the changes in voting rules for the number of constituencies and fixed term parliaments etc. I now live in a safe Lab seat but when I lived in the West Mids I lived in a safe Con seat - Aldridge / Brownhills. You could argue that my vote would be meaningless in both constituencies and that can never be right in what the NO camp are claiming to be a democratic process. AV is not perfect, but as said I find it somewhat irksome that political leaders who owe their own positions of power in their party to AV, think that the UK public should not have more flexible voting options. The fact that its either AV or FPTP as the only two options shows a lot of flawed thinking by those in Westminster IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 If that is PR then so be it. The current system of FPTP is wrong in so many ways. The one crucial thing FPTP provides that PR doesn't is the constituency link between an MP and the voters. IMO PR makes politicians even more remote and unaccountable - I realise AV retains this link. AV is likely to result in coalitions becomng the norm and what I dislike about that is the horse trading that goes on after the vote between the parties. That process pretty much guarantees that whatever platform of policies a given party has campaigned on (and people have voted for) is very unlikely to reflect the eventual programme of government. The last election result was an aberration rather than the norm for FPTP. Given the hate and scorn poured onto the lib dems here I can't see similar arrangements being much more popular in the future - unless it's a lib/lab coalition of course because that is the 'right' result :winkold: Open Primaries at the constituency level is the way forward and would break the power of patronage currently held by the leaders over potential candidates. EDIT: Ironically it's AV that has lumped Labour with the whining nasal Miliband, rather than the moderately capable big bro' that the MP's wanted. AV FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I would be in favour of AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 EDIT: Ironically it's AV that has lumped Labour with the whining nasal Miliband, rather than the moderately capable big bro' that the MP's wanted. AV FTW. How did Cameron get his job again? :-) I read some more stuff about all of this, refusing to look at it through party allegiances because it is so important and realised or should I say confirmed that it is being run on party political grounds. The fact that the choice is either A or B rather than any other options is wrong - it is not a two answer debate. The fact that some big money backers are starting to creep out of the woodwork. The fact that seemingly some of the leaders are actively discouraging dissent from fellow members of their own party. Obviously there was never going to be a simple solution, but again the electorate are being fed BS. In an ideal world a PR based system where everyone's vote counted at the same weighting is best. Also removal of unelected bodies that make and stop legislation, this Gvmt use that argument re Quango's but seem more than happy to continue with the HOL. Get rid of the HOL also. Why can't we have a HOL (or whatever they wanted to call it - the House of liked?) based on PR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I would be in favour of AV. Would be? Or am? Can you not vote in this referendum matey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 How did Cameron get his job again? :-) Precisely, AV has a 100% record of producing idiot leaders so far.. Why can't we have a HOL (or whatever they wanted to call it - the House of liked?) based on PR? Might work but I'd prefer local elections with candidates nominated by local people and based on their contribution to whatever field (except politics) they've worked in. Maintain the current role of scrutinsing legislation from the Lower House only to keep the supremacy of the Commons and fix terms at 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Might work but I'd prefer local elections with candidates nominated by local people and based on their contribution to whatever field (except politics) they've worked in. Maintain the current role of scrutinsing legislation from the Lower House only to keep the supremacy of the Commons and fix terms at 10 years. The HOL is the perfect forum for PR if we are to retain it. Rather than the friends and favours approach and who your great grandfather shagged system we have at the moment. So compromise situation is AV for HOP and PR for HOL. Get rid of any party allegiance at council levels - make it an offence to be associated with any party and get rid of Tory party. Job done, next problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 next problem? Socialism.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Not a problem Jon, as soon as you "fascists" are sorted :-) As a side point, would people change the voting age and rules for eligibility (non resident in the UK having voting rights) as we are looking ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 As a side point, would people change the voting age and rules for eligibility (non resident in the UK having voting rights) as we are looking ? No to both. I can't vote in the referendum - I don't think - but can vote in GE's. Just because someone's workplace happens to be overseas for a time doesn't mean they should lose their right to vote, imo, unless they renounce their citizenship for some dodgy foreign passport. I'm yet to be invited to vote in a middle east election though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I would be in favour of AV. Would be? Or am? Can you not vote in this referendum matey? Am. Just my funny wording. It would be interesting to see whether the likes of the Greens/UKIP would gain more seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 It would be interesting to see whether the likes of the Greens/UKIP would gain more seats. I'd love to see the Green vote increase. I'm not averse to sticking one in their box, so to speak .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 No to both. I can't vote in the referendum - I don't think - but can vote in GE's. Just because someone's workplace happens to be overseas for a time doesn't mean they should lose their right to vote, imo, unless they renounce their citizenship for some dodgy foreign passport. I'm yet to be invited to vote in a middle east election though.. Thing is Jon as we know there are people who are abroad who are permanent residents of countries abroad that still have a vote I the UK. How can that be right and how can they be allocated against a local MP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 No to both. I can't vote in the referendum - I don't think - but can vote in GE's. Just because someone's workplace happens to be overseas for a time doesn't mean they should lose their right to vote, imo, unless they renounce their citizenship for some dodgy foreign passport. I'm yet to be invited to vote in a middle east election though.. Thing is Jon as we know there are people who are abroad who are permanent residents of countries abroad that still have a vote I the UK. How can that be right and how can they be allocated against a local MP? If you are a British citizen it is entirely proper that you retain the right to vote. That vote is allocated to the last constituency you lived in, so last May my vote was allocated to Sutton Coldfield. I'm not keen on people trying to limit the right to vote except for those serving custodial sentences at the time of the election - although the EU is forcing that on the UK anyway. AFAIK all western democracies allow their citizens abroad to vote in domestic general elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Might work but I'd prefer local elections with candidates nominated by local people and based on their contribution to whatever field (except politics) they've worked in. Maintain the current role of scrutinsing legislation from the Lower House only to keep the supremacy of the Commons and fix terms at 10 years. The HOL is the perfect forum for PR if we are to retain it. Rather than the friends and favours approach and who your great grandfather shagged system we have at the moment. So compromise situation is AV for HOP and PR for HOL. Get rid of any party allegiance at council levels - make it an offence to be associated with any party and get rid of Tory party. Job done, next problem? That is the Australian model. AV for the lower house and PR for the upper house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 That is the Australian model. AV for the lower house and PR for the upper house. and it works OK there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 If you are a British citizen it is entirely proper that you retain the right to vote. That vote is allocated to the last constituency you lived in, so last May my vote was allocated to Sutton Coldfield. I'm not keen on people trying to limit the right to vote except for those serving custodial sentences at the time of the election - although the EU is forcing that on the UK anyway. AFAIK all western democracies allow their citizens abroad to vote in domestic general elections. Probably we differ then on that. I have always had issues with people who no longer living here, and obviously having no intention of returning soon so not those on temp work assignments having the right to vote. For me you lose that privilege once you leave, if you chose to come back then so be it its restored if you are a UK passport holder. Effectively you have the situation where people no longer living in the constituency having a say in it, plus the bigger issue of Tax paying and contributor to the UK society having a say in it. While we have the FPTP system allowing people from outside a say is wrong IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 12, 2011 Author VT Supporter Share Posted April 12, 2011 Might work but I'd prefer local elections with candidates nominated by local people and based on their contribution to whatever field (except politics) they've worked in. Maintain the current role of scrutinsing legislation from the Lower House only to keep the supremacy of the Commons and fix terms at 10 years. The HOL is the perfect forum for PR if we are to retain it. Rather than the friends and favours approach and who your great grandfather shagged system we have at the moment. So compromise situation is AV for HOP and PR for HOL. Get rid of any party allegiance at council levels - make it an offence to be associated with any party and get rid of Tory party. Job done, next problem? That is the Australian model. AV for the lower house and PR for the upper house.I think I like that. My objection to PR is that it (necessarily???) clashes with the idea of an MP representing a particular constituency. But the ideal of having an elected upper house that reflects the proportion of the votes across the country as a whole has some appeal. I guess the minority parties would still argue that their vote wouldn't count for much, but hey, that's why they're a minority. Still musing on how the actual voting (by us, the punters) would work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts