Jon Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Can anyone please tell me which political party put a referendum on AV into their election manifesto? What's that, even Clegg said it was a load of shite? Oh, so he did! FFS, this is the price of LD participation in the coalition gov' and has the square root of FA to do with what is best for the country, just what is best for a bunch of power hungry politicians. I'd say the people that can't see that are the frickin' stupid ones. It's a half arsed concession from the tories, yes. It's not what The Lib dems wanted. But it's slightly better than what we have. So yes, I can see all of the above AWOL. and I'll vote Yes, becuase AV is slightly better in democratic terms than FPTP. andyone who can't see that must be "frickin' stupid" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 However, if you choose to vote for a party that less people support, In a great many constituences, MP's are returned despite most people who voted, voting against them (or not for them). Democracy my arse. Under AV, at least the MAJORITY of voters are pretty happy with the returned MP, not the MINORITY. But you don't vote AGAINST a candidate you vote for the person you want to represent you - surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Is there any danger, just for once in your life, you can look at something as important as the constitution without trying to shoe horn party politics into the issue? Seriously, it's ridiculous. Jon (AWOL) - what the hell are you talking about? The constitution under this current flawed system allows for attacks on it like we are seeing from Cameron. Just because that does not sit comfortable with your political views is your problem not mine. The examples of the changes that Cameron is forcing in (ironically Cameron a big supporter of the No campaign was voted in under AV) are there to show that FPTP allows for and seemingly encourages these constitution changes. We have a totally flawed voting and parliamentary system in this country. We have ridiculous situations where parties can gain majority Gvts with less than a majority vote. We have a flawed system where a PM can decide to change the number of MP's to favour their own party. We have a flawed system where a PM can appoint 170 new Lords to the HOL at the drop of a hat. we have a HOL that still includes people in there based on who their grandmother was screwed by. We have a flawed system where non-residents have a say who gets elected. We have a flawed system where not every vote is equal. Is that non-party enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Check out exactly how AV increases the democratic voting power in every constituency: AV=Slightly greater voter power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 So in essence Ian you don't support the cornerstone of democratc politics, that being, one man = one vote and may the best win. Have I got that right? Besides, the last lot made an utter bollox of the constitution with their ludicrously ill thought out devolution settlement, so moaning that Cameron is doing the same (despite being against the AV tosh) is extremely ironic. The point is something this important shouldn't be put to the people on the basis of a party political compromise and that is ALL this vote is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I'm voting no. Refunding losing bets is something paddy power do, not something the electoral system should. I just can't equate voting in an MP to parliament as placing a bet. It should be a more democratic process than that. Every vote should count IMO. OK, so it still may not under AV, but it has a greater chance of doing so than under FPTP. Yes, every vote should count, which it would if we got proportional representation. With AV it's not a case of "every vote counts" it's a case of "every vote counts, except for the people who get multiple votes!" With AV it's possible that when you have 3 candidates left eliminating the 3rd place will have the 2nd place win, based on people's 4th or even 5th choice preferences, whereas if you redistributed the 2nd place preferences of the 1st place candidate the 3rd place could win. Under AV, at least the MAJORITY of voters are pretty happy with the returned MP, not the MINORITY. Are they? Would you be pretty happy if your 3rd or 4th choice got in? I wouldn't be. It'll still be a case of the majority not having their 1st choice preference in, the minority being pretty happy, and everyone being pretty indifferent (or relieved that their least favourite candidate didn't get in). People aren't going to be whooping in the streets that some bloke they put in 3rd place managed to pick up 50% of the votes after their 1st and 2nds got eliminated, and people who's candidate came 2nd aren't going to be happy that their 2nd preference was eliminated in 3rd before they had a chance to say "well I wouldn't mind him either really". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 5, 2011 Author VT Supporter Share Posted May 5, 2011 Check out exactly how AV increases the democratic voting power in every constituency: AV=Slightly greater voter powerOK, I'm thick. I totally don't understand that website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Is there any danger, just for once in your life, you can look at something as important as the constitution without trying to shoe horn party politics into the issue? Seriously, it's ridiculous. Jon (AWOL) - what the hell are you talking about? The constitution under this current flawed system allows for attacks on it like we are seeing from Cameron. Just because that does not sit comfortable with your political views is your problem not mine. The examples of the changes that Cameron is forcing in (ironically Cameron a big supporter of the No campaign was voted in under AV) are there to show that FPTP allows for and seemingly encourages these constitution changes. We have a totally flawed voting and parliamentary system in this country. We have ridiculous situations where parties can gain majority Gvts with less than a majority vote. We have a flawed system where a PM can decide to change the number of MP's to favour their own party. We have a flawed system where a PM can appoint 170 new Lords to the HOL at the drop of a hat. we have a HOL that still includes people in there based on who their grandmother was screwed by. We have a flawed system where non-residents have a say who gets elected. We have a flawed system where not every vote is equal. Is that non-party enough for you? Except that in the UK you don't vote for a government or a party, you vote for a local representative in Parliament. There has NEVER been a system to elect a "government" The PM is the man who can command the support of the majority of the house of commons, NOT necessairily the leader of the biggest party. PM's have ALWAYS created Peers along party lines. Lloyd George did it to force through several reforms - didn't Mr Blair get into hot water of the issue of Peerages.....? :? I rather think so. Cameron is not the first and won't be the last to manipulate this system so to lay sole blame at his door for this is highly disingenuous. Hereditary Peerages are not the only failings of the Lords. Alan Sugar got in for being on TV, Seb Coe got in for being able to run..... John Prescott got in for eating.... Lords reform is something that Blair promised - and largly failed on, and if the coalition has failed on something. It is choosing to look into AV rather than the failings of the second chamber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 So in essence Ian you don't support the cornerstone of democratc politics, that being, one man = one vote and may the best win. Have I got that right? Besides, the last lot made an utter bollox of the constitution with their ludicrously ill thought out devolution settlement, so moaning that Cameron is doing the same (despite being against the AV tosh) is extremely ironic. The point is something this important shouldn't be put to the people on the basis of a party political compromise and that is ALL this vote is about. Cornerstone of democratic politics? - Oh please. One Man - One Vote is exactly what I support, hence I despise the current system. You are the one that prefers the Undemocratic FPTP system. The last lot? :-) Is there any danger, just for once in your life, you can look at something as important as the constitution without trying to shoe horn party politics into the issue? Seriously, it's ridiculous. FFS, this is the price of LD participation in the coalition gov' and has the square root of FA to do with what is best for the country, just what is best for a bunch of power hungry politicians. Don't be so bloody stupid, democracy is about making sure the tory majorty can't have a tory government! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Check out exactly how AV increases the democratic voting power in every constituency: AV=Slightly greater voter powerOK, I'm thick. I totally don't understand that website. It basically explains how AV would make no difference to 70% of the Parliamentary seats compared to FPTP. Putting the decision to elect governments in the hands of 30% of people. Yup.... democracy at its finest. :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Except that in the UK you don't vote for a government or a party, you vote for a local representative in Parliament. There has NEVER been a system to elect a "government" The PM is the man who can command the support of the majority of the house of commons, NOT necessairily the leader of the biggest party. PM's have ALWAYS created Peers along party lines. Lloyd George did it to force through several reforms - didn't Mr Blair get into hot water of the issue of Peerages.....? Confused I rather think so. Cameron is not the first and won't be the last to manipulate this system so to lay sole blame at his door for this is highly disingenuous. Hereditary Peerages are not the only failings of the Lords. Alan Sugar got in for being on TV, Seb Coe got in for being able to run..... John Prescott got in for eating.... Lords reform is something that Blair promised - and largly failed on, and if the coalition has failed on something. It is choosing to look into AV rather than the failings of the second chamber. Interesting that you still support a FPTP system then that allows for these things to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 5, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted May 5, 2011 Sifting through the normal squabbling, I still see no real arguments as to why FPTP is a better system than AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Sifting through the normal squabbling, I still see no real arguments as to why FPTP is a better system than AV. Turn that on its head and you'll find no compelling arguments for AV either. Unless it's a genuine improvement (which it's not imo) then what is the point of changing just for the sake of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Sifting through the normal squabbling, I still see no real arguments as to why FPTP is a better system than AV. Turn that on its head and you'll find no compelling arguments for AV either. Unless it's a genuine improvement (which it's not imo) then what is the point of changing just for the sake of it? This. AV is a system that will give an improvement for a small minority, that minority predominantly being people that generally vote for also rans who were never going to get elected anyway, and it STILL doesn't give them what they want, it just gives them what they least don't want. Why spend the money transferring to a system that no one really wants anyway? "it's a stepping stone" isn't a valid answer here, because accepting AV means that the government goes "well, that's the electoral reform sorted then!" and it goes to the bottom of the pile never to be heard from again. Why after implementing AV would they then bother going to PR? They've already given people what they want with AV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Why spend the money transferring to a system that no one really wants anyway? "it's a stepping stone" isn't a valid answer here, because accepting AV means that the government goes "well, that's the electoral reform sorted then!" and it goes to the bottom of the pile never to be heard from again. Why after implementing AV would they then bother going to PR? They've already given people what they want with AV! Where as a No vote means politicians say, "Ok, electoral reform not wanted" and it's never heard of again. A Yes vote proves that the country is not happy with the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Why spend the money transferring to a system that no one really wants anyway? "it's a stepping stone" isn't a valid answer here, because accepting AV means that the government goes "well, that's the electoral reform sorted then!" and it goes to the bottom of the pile never to be heard from again. Why after implementing AV would they then bother going to PR? They've already given people what they want with AV! Where as a No vote means politicians say, "Ok, electoral reform not wanted" and it's never heard of again. A Yes vote proves that the country is not happy with the current system. How about a no vote and continued campaigning for PR? Seeing as a yes vote and then continued campaigning for PR leads to a "we've already given you AV at a cost of xxx million, don't you know the countries broke and we can't afford it!" This isn't a vote on electoral reform, it's a vote on if we want AV, that we don't want AV doesn't say we don't want reform. Voting in AV though sets the process back because no way are they going to pay out twice for changing voting systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Interestingly Labour's 1997 manifesto included a pledge to hold a referendum on changing the electoral system , funny how in 13 years of power they never held it , but it's not like Labour have a history of breaking promises on referendums is it I wonder if Gordon hadn't entered his I agree with Nick phase if we would even be having this vote today ? At first it looked like well played Nick but now I can't help think that Cameron has played him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted May 5, 2011 ...This isn't a vote on electoral reform, it's a vote on if we want AV, that we don't want AV doesn't say we don't want reform. Voting in AV though sets the process back because no way are they going to pay out twice for changing voting systems. That's not the way it seems to be playing. Tories are utterly against any change of any kind. If we ever get a totally tory gov't then no change ever, under their watch. labour were split on the small reform of AV. Their leader has said if No wins, then any future change is off their agenda for a long long time. Without a small change, there cannot be a big change. No to this now, means No to any future proposals of any kind of change for a generation or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted May 5, 2011 Well after all I've said on here the last few weeks, I changed my mind at the last minute and voted YES. Reasoning, not sure really as the system change will make little difference but in some respects I don't object to AV, its better for a constituency based house for sure. It's political parties being elected to a constituency based house that I really object to and in my ideal world, I'd use AV for a constituency based house with no party representation. I'd leave the parties to fight it out in a party based house elected on PR. That and the NO campaign actually got on my tits that much with its ridiculously pathetic scaremongering bollocks, it made me want to vote against them. I also realised either way it'll change **** all and the next time we get a referendum on this will be past my life expectancy, regardless of todays result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Interestingly Labour's 1997 manifesto included a pledge to hold a referendum on changing the electoral system , funny how in 13 years of power they never held it , but it's not like Labour have a history of breaking promises on referendums is it I wonder if Gordon hadn't entered his I agree with Nick phase if we would even be having this vote today ? At first it looked like well played Nick but now I can't help think that Cameron has played him ??? Tony - that has no relevance whatsoever to the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts