bickster Posted March 16, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2011 It'll preserve the three party state, it actually works against minorities in practice so any smaller party who may be on the rise (like the greens for example in the last election) will get even less representation than they do now. The only thing it may do is give the third party a bit more power and right now... So in practice it'll actually delay any significant reform by decades. In theory it sounds great, in practice it'll keep things just they way they are with a few different localised results. In short its the con job of electoral reform No it doesn't work against the minorities, at least not in Australia where we have AV. People who like the greens/UKIP/whoever are far more likely to actually vote for them if they can then put a second preference which means their vote is not wasted. Reform by degrees is better than no reform at all. Of course it works against them, people vote for them, then their votes get transferred to someone else and they get no part in anything so in terms of being able to do anything, they get nothing. Thats exactly the same situation as now except its dressed up as change, when its not change its keeping the tossers of the three main party in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Yes for me. Not ideal but better than what we've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 It'll preserve the three party state, it actually works against minorities in practice so any smaller party who may be on the rise (like the greens for example in the last election) will get even less representation than they do now. The only thing it may do is give the third party a bit more power and right now... So in practice it'll actually delay any significant reform by decades. In theory it sounds great, in practice it'll keep things just they way they are with a few different localised results. In short its the con job of electoral reform No it doesn't work against the minorities, at least not in Australia where we have AV. People who like the greens/UKIP/whoever are far more likely to actually vote for them if they can then put a second preference which means their vote is not wasted. Reform by degrees is better than no reform at all. Of course it works against them, people vote for them, then their votes get transferred to someone else and they get no part in anything so in terms of being able to do anything, they get nothing. Thats exactly the same situation as now except its dressed up as change, when its not change its keeping the tossers of the three main party in power. Yet now people don't vote for them at all, clearly a worse option. If it comes to a marginal seat it might be what is needed to push them over the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 16, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2011 If it comes to a marginal seat it might be what is needed to push them over the line. Indeed. There would be, I'd imagine say Lib Dem supporters who are miffed with them, who would be likely to transfer either first or second prefs to say the Greens, or ditto Tories with UKIP, which in more marginal seats will enable them to get in. Once they're in they will be judged on what they do, as well as what they say. It's not PR, but it gives a help to the likes of the greens, who unsurprisingly are in favour of it. [i haven't checked UKIPs views as I don't want to contaminate my computer with little england viruses]. The Tories who are against it, use it for their leadership elections, too. Hypocrits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 16, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2011 I can virtually guarantee that not one seat will go to a marginal party under AV. Even the Electoral Reform Society regards it a a system that disadvantages the minority parties Here's the ERS case for AV The case for AV All MPs would have the support of a majority of their voters. Following the 2010 election 2/3 of MPs lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history. It retains the same constituencies, meaning no need to redraw boundaries, and no overt erosion of the constituency-MP link. It penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes. It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote. It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the need for negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad-church policies. ERS AV Page In fact if the Tories in Brighton Pavilion had transferred to Labour. Which was perfectly possible given the policies of the parties at the last election, the Greens being way too left wing for your average Tory and Labour being just to the left of Ghengis Khan, it would probably have prevented the Greens getting in as the Blue rinse brigade even contemplate voting Labour to prevent the **** hippy hordes getting elected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 For the highlighted part, I can't see that at all. Why would say, labour voters not put down greens as a second preference over traditional rivals like the Tories or lib dems? Perhaps they are trying to claim it will discourage "extremist parties" meaning the BNP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 16, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 16, 2011 What would the point be for a Labour Voter to put down Green as a second preference? The only time that would have any effect would be when Labour were below the greens in the poll. If Labours votes transferred to Green, then Labour would have become the minority party in that constituency and in that instance the person voting might as well have voted Green in the first place. How the last election looked and would have looked Major benefactor under AV - The Lib Dems, notice any extra "Others" nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 It's not really proof of anything using the voting patterns under a different voting system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Big no for me. I don't see anything wrong with the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 How will we vote in a new voting system? is it first past the post? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 i believe AV may give more power to the BNP (even though posts above suggest not), and therefore i voted NO, and will vote NO in the real vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 How will we vote in a new voting system? is it first past the post? :? Very smart observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 i believe AV may give more power to the BNP Why do you believe that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 17, 2011 Moderator Share Posted March 17, 2011 How will we vote in a new voting system? is it first past the post? :? Very smart observation. Well it is still a first past the post system, its just that the post is set at 50% until there are only 2 candidates left. ------------------------------------- See I would be in favour of AV for a "House of Representatives" style chamber with a second house voted in by PR that also had real power. But there's no way we'll get that kind of reform if we keep with the status quo and just give the libdems a few more seats at the expense of whichever of the other two parties is more popular at the time. We need radical reform not "Here's a reform" even though its done little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 My concern, Bicks, would be that if this gets rejected by the electorate, that the major parties will use that as evidence that actually, the country doesn't want political reform at all. What's going to make them give us further options? It's not in their interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NulliSecundus Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 i believe AV may give more power to the BNP (even though posts above suggest not), and therefore i voted NO, and will vote NO in the real vote. You are voting with the BNP then as they are blocking the vote on AV on the basis it's unfair. What's unfair is the BNP slipping into power with FPTP in a seat like Barking - they can win with only 33% of the vote whereas with AV they would need 50% approval from the electorate in some capacity. UKIP and the Greens (for example) will certainly benefit from this as in some areas I'm sure 50% can approve of a candidate in some capacity but I can't imagine 50% approving of the BNP anywhere. Just FYI - I'm for AV. Not quite as good as STV but like previous posts have said - if the people vote no - what emphasis will there be on change in the future. Dickhead MP's will just say the public don't want change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 i believe AV may give more power to the BNP (even though posts above suggest not), and therefore i voted NO, and will vote NO in the real vote. You are voting with the BNP then as they are blocking the vote on AV on the basis it's unfair. What's unfair is the BNP slipping into power with FPTP in a seat like Barking - they can win with only 33% of the vote whereas with AV they would need 50% approval from the electorate in some capacity. UKIP and the Greens (for example) will certainly benefit from this as in some areas I'm sure 50% can approve of a candidate in some capacity but I can't imagine 50% approving of the BNP anywhere. Just FYI - I'm for AV. Not quite as good as STV but like previous posts have said - if the people vote no - what emphasis will there be on change in the future. Dickhead MP's will just say the public don't want change. Exactly. I agree on both points. It is pretty obvious who this will help based on who is for it and who is against. A motion that the Greens are for and the Tories and BNP are against will be getting a yes from me. A vote for no will be taken and spun by the big 2 parties as a sign that people are happy with the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Options seem flawed to me. You can vote Yes for AV, whilst still wanting further electoral reform or a more pure PR system. AV for me >>> FPTP, so I'll vote Yes, whilst still wanting further electoral reform .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 if voted in it will hamper any further attempts to get real electoral reform in this country.. I think the opposite to this. I think a No vote will kill any further chance of improvement once and for all. AV is IMO a bit better than what we have now, and so I'll vote for it. If something that's only a bit better gets binned, then something a lot better will never have a chance. It's like chipping away at the wall they've set up around themselves. 100% with the wise Owl on this one. One step at a time and all that .... I can't see too much chance of revolution, so evolution must be a better option than stagnation .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Big no for me. I don't see anything wrong with the current system. :shock: :shock: :shock: Really. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the current system? You see no flaws in it whatsoever? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts