The AV referendum

[trousers]

If someone is too thick to understand AV then they shouldn't have a say in who runs the country IMO.

 

Seriously, put your candidates in order of preference - 1, 2, 3 & 4. What is there to not understand?

 

The idea that parties like BNP will benefit from AV in nonsense as well, they are way more likely to get in under the currrent system where you only sometimes need 30% of the vote. I don't think there is any place in the UK that would ever have over 50% of the people vote for BNP.

 

In a true democracy, shouldn't the hundreds of thousands (?) who vote for minority parties (such as the BNP) get a say in how the country is run?

 

If AV sets out to exclude the legal voice of some parts of society (no matter how repulsive we find their legal opinion) then it strikes me that Clegg was right all along about AV....it's a miserable little compromise. Let's have true PR where everyone's voice, and vote, counts...

[pedg]

In a true democracy, should the hundreds of thousands (?) who vote for minority parties (such as the BNP) get a say in how the country is run?

 

If AV sets out to exclude the legal voice of some parts of society (no matter how repulsive we find their legal opinion) then it strikes me that Clegg was right all along about AV....it's a miserable little compromise. Let's have true PR where everyone's voice, and vote, counts...

 

If PR was on the table I, like many here, would vote for it. Unfortunately its not and we have the compromise solution. You can unfortunately only vote on what is in front of you. Some minority parties, such as the green's will probably do better under AV both as a first choice and a latter choice. Some such as the BNP will have the limitations of their support shown up. Until we break the one constituency/ one MP link then we will never have a true democracy. AV is but a purgatory that we need to pass through before then.

Edited 26 April, 2011 by pedg

[pap]

1) Simplicity. The candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of the number of candidates.

2) The person elected is the one most preferred by the most electors.

3) Because the system is simpler, it is easier to Police and less open to fraud.

4) Because it is simpler, it is less costly to administer.

5) It makes the removal of an unpopular Government easier.

6) It is less likely to produce coalitions which are more likely to be weaker, as the minority party has a say in Governement disproportionate to its vote. This coalition is very much a rarity, as usually there is a clear majority for one party or other.

7) More likely to exclude extremist parties.

8 ) Tried and tested, popular in most of the other democracies around the World.

 

Those seem good enough reasons to me.

 

Simplicity. It's your top answer and a pre-requisite of two of your other answers. You're concerned about the simplicity of a poll that takes place once every five years.

 

Sorry, that's not going to cut it.

 

Voting in a general election is a big deal. It allows us to assert our views and choose the person that will look after our affairs for the next five years. We don't do it every day, and going from FPTP to AV is not the returning officer's equivalent of the twelve Labours of Hercules.

 

The argument that we should sacrifice a genuine mandate from the constituents for the sake of an easy life is insulting.

 

We don't care about "simple" in other public offices. Government departments are notorious for process and red tape, while thousands of bean counters make their living navigating the murky waters of our tax tribuataries. If every other part of life is labyrinthine, I think we can put up with a bit more complexity in our voting system if it leads to more representation.

 

I know you've made a couple of arguments like "because it's simple, it's cheap" or "because it's simple, it's easy to count and less likely to be defrauded". Ultimately, it all comes down to cost. We'll need to pay people to count for longer and we'll need to train people on spotting voting irregularities under the new system. Having the right to representation is a precious, not cheap. If we have to pay a bit more every five years to get the benefits of AV, so be it.

 

I'd cover the rest, but I've just pressed F5 and seen joensuu's excellent post.

[pap]

In a true democracy, shouldn't the hundreds of thousands (?) who vote for minority parties (such as the BNP) get a say in how the country is run?

 

If AV sets out to exclude the legal voice of some parts of society (no matter how repulsive we find their legal opinion) then it strikes me that Clegg was right all along about AV....it's a miserable little compromise. Let's have true PR where everyone's voice, and vote, counts...

 

I agree. Let's have true PR. Unfortunately, that is not on the table, was never on the table - and in defence of Nick Clegg, he probably wasn't the man that stopped it from being on the table.

 

In the meantime, a vote for AV would represent a step toward PR and a message from the people that we do care about how we elect our representatives.

[dune]

In the meantime, a vote for AV would represent a step toward PR and a message from the people that we do care about how we elect our representatives.

 

And when the electorate votes NO the public will have spoken.

[pap]

And when the electorate votes NO the public will have spoken.

 

We'll see. I suspect you are right, but I have an outside hope that the referendum will come down to "who gives a f*ck".

 

The student vote will be interesting. Comes down to whether the consensus rail against Clegg for his broken promises on tuition fees or not.

[dune]

We'll see. I suspect you are right, but I have an outside hope that the referendum will come down to "who gives a f*ck".

 

The student vote will be interesting. Comes down to whether the consensus rail against Clegg for his broken promises on tuition fees or not.

 

The student vote is irrelevent. Most of them won't get out of bed to vote.

[dune]

Don't forget that 5th May isn't just about the AV referendum.

 

[trousers]

If PR was on the table I, like many here, would vote for it. Unfortunately its not and we have the compromise solution. You can unfortunately only vote on what is in front of you. Some minority parties, such as the green's will probably do better under AV both as a first choice and a latter choice. Some such as the BNP will have the limitations of their support shown up. Until we break the one constituency/ one MP link then we will never have a true democracy. AV is but a purgatory that we need to pass through before then.

 

I disagree that AV is a necessary stepping stone to PR. If PR is as popular as people make out then all Labour and the Lib Dems have to do at the next election is put it at the top of their manifesto. Voila - you'll have PR in the next parliament regardless of whether or not we go to AV in the meantime.

 

In my opinion, the "vote for AV to get PR" mantra is a red herring and enters the supposed scaremongering territory of the 'no' campaign.

 

The one conundrum I don't get with the 'yes' campaign is that they say AV will banish the 'ugly' minority parties, such as the BNP, to the political scrap heap, and yet, if it was true PR on the table, the opposite would be true.

 

Assuming most AV advocates are also PR advocates, aren't they opening themselves up to accusations of a dichotomy in one of their key arguments?

[trousers]

We'll see. I suspect you are right, but I have an outside hope that the referendum will come down to "who gives a f*ck".

 

The student vote will be interesting. Comes down to whether the consensus rail against Clegg for his broken promises on tuition fees or not.

 

I would imagine they'll highlight the fickle nature of human behaviour: support the likes of Clegg when it suits them; burn effigies of him when it doesn't...

[dune]

[pedg]

I disagree that AV is a necessary stepping stone to PR. If PR is as popular as people make out then all Labour and the Lib Dems have to do at the next election is put it at the top of their manifesto. Voila - you'll have PR in the next parliament regardless of whether or not we go to AV in the meantime.

 

In my opinion, the "vote for AV to get PR" mantra is a red herring and enters the supposed scaremongering territory of the 'no' campaign.

 

The one conundrum I don't get with the 'yes' campaign is that they say AV will banish the 'ugly' minority parties, such as the BNP, to the political scrap heap, and yet, if it was true PR on the table, the opposite would be true.

 

Assuming most AV advocates are also PR advocates, aren't they opening themselves up to accusations of a dichotomy in one of their key arguments?

 

Problem is that the big parties (i.e. Labour and the Tories) know they will lose out under PR so there is no way we will get a vote on PR no matter what the public opinion if it was just down to them. As it is we only got the AV vote as the price for the libdems supporting the tories and I doubt they would have agreed to a vote on PR to get into power. I think that a no vote on AV will drastically reduce the chance of us having a vote on going to PR in the short to medium term.

 

I the question of the minority parties I guess it depends on which you think is better. A parliament that fully represents the political spectrum across the country proportional to the support of each group where we may end up with one or two MP's for extremist parties or a parliament where the representation of groups are out of proportion to their support in the country.

Edited 27 April, 2011 by pedg

[dune]

A dossier published by the Labour ‘No to AV’ group claims the system would seriously damage the party’s electoral chances.

It suggests that AV would have cost Labour 20 seats last May and given the Lib Dems 32 more.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380912/Labour-war-AV-Big-beasts-turn-Mandy-backing-Yes-campaign-kick-Cameron.html#ixzz1Kholea2d

[Joensuu]

A dossier published by the Labour ‘No to AV’ group claims the system would seriously damage the party’s electoral chances.

It suggests that AV would have cost Labour 20 seats last May and given the Lib Dems 32 more.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380912/Labour-war-AV-Big-beasts-turn-Mandy-backing-Yes-campaign-kick-Cameron.html#ixzz1Kholea2d

 

Finally one of the opposing groups coming clean about their opposition. They might as well have prefixed their statement with "AV is indisputably the better system, but... "

[trousers]

I see Lord Mandy has waded in with his usual insightful reasoning...."vote for AV to damage Cameron".

[badgerx16]

That is almost as despicable as the one with the baby on it. The NO campaign cannot sustain a valid argument so resort to Goebbels-esque distortion and misdirection.

[trousers]

That is almost as despicable as the one with the baby on it. The NO campaign cannot sustain a valid argument so resort to Goebbels-esque distortion and misdirection.

 

Are you suggesting the great British electorate are gullible and thick enough to fall for such nonsense from the 'no' campaign...? ;-)

[solentstars]

Are you suggesting the great British electorate are gullible and thick enough to fall for such nonsense from the 'no' campaign...? ;-)

 

yes i,ve talked to some work colleges who were for fptp and i expect like a lot of voters do not understand the av system and when i explained in simple terms they changed their mind.

thy belived that they have been lied to.

[solentstars]

a little bit from the tory bible the daily mail---A dossier published by the Labour ‘No to AV’ group claims the system would seriously damage the party’s electoral chances.

 

It suggests that AV would have cost Labour 20 seats last May and given the Lib Dems 32 more.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380912/Labour-war-AV-Big-beasts-turn-Mandy-backing-Yes-campaign-kick-Cameron.html#ixzz1Ki25OAW4

[Verbal]

Are you suggesting the great British electorate are gullible and thick enough to fall for such nonsense from the 'no' campaign...? ;-)

 

Do you really approve of such shocking distortions?

[solentstars]

I disagree that AV is a necessary stepping stone to PR. If PR is as popular as people make out then all Labour and the Lib Dems have to do at the next election is put it at the top of their manifesto. Voila - you'll have PR in the next parliament regardless of whether or not we go to AV in the meantime.

 

In my opinion, the "vote for AV to get PR" mantra is a red herring and enters the supposed scaremongering territory of the 'no' campaign.

 

The one conundrum I don't get with the 'yes' campaign is that they say AV will banish the 'ugly' minority parties, such as the BNP, to the political scrap heap, and yet, if it was true PR on the table, the opposite would be true.

 

Assuming most AV advocates are also PR advocates, aren't they opening themselves up to accusations of a dichotomy in one of their key arguments?

 

so its no change for you and you are happy to have massive majority governments with mandates voted in by only 36 to 39% of the voting public and carry on with a unelected 2nd chamber:rolleyes: and i thought we were a educated nation.

[badgerx16]

Are you suggesting the great British electorate are gullible and thick enough to fall for such nonsense from the 'no' campaign...? ;-)

Well, the NO campaign obviously think it's a viable assumption.

[dune]

Are you suggesting the great British electorate are gullible and thick enough to fall for such nonsense from the 'no' campaign...? ;-)

 

The electorate were stupid enough to vote in a Labour government for 13 years.

[solentstars]

Well, the NO campaign obviously think it's a viable assumption.

 

yes they really think we are cannon fodder and its some of supporters

[dune]

yes they really think we are cannon fodder and its some of supporters

 

what?

[Wes Tender]

It is deceptive to suggest that just because something is 'simple' it has to be the better solution. The engine's on an Austin Rover used to be simple.

 

So you'd prefer complicated, then. Complicated is better, make eveything more difficult to understand, solutions to problems ought to be difficult to solve, yes?

 

How is it fair to have a 'simple' system in which the outcome of an election is determined by a handfull of seats - live in the wrong place you might as well not vote under FPTP.

 

Get real. The social demographics of a place have a far larger impact on which way a person votes than the voting system. That won't change just because the voting system changes either.

 

Your argument here is itself oversimplified.

 

Well, I'm glad it is, because the crux of the FPTP election is that the person with the most votes wins. You'd rather the person who comes second or third wins, or have I over-simplified that?

 

Exactly. So you will be voting Yes then?

No, Because the person with the most votes would probably not be elected under your system.

 

There you go with that simple nonsense again. 'Simple' doesn't equate 'good'.

 

No FPTP isn't easier to police.

No FPTP isn't less open to fraud.

 

Simple equates to simple. It IS easier to Police. It IS easier to prevent fraud.

What makes you suggest such?

 

I thought that it would be obvious that the simpler a system is, the less likely it is to be open to abuse. Do you disagree?

 

Simple simple simple simple simple - is that your only rational(e) ? Are you going for the Hovis vote or something. I ask you this - is it better to be simple but fundamentally flawed, or mildly less simple and much fairer?

 

That depends what you are discussing, how flawed, how much simpler and fairer. In any event, I don't accept that the FPTP system is fundamentally flawed. I think that AV is though.

 

NB - your 'cost less to administer' line is wrong. Unless you have anything to back it up with, I assume you are drawing upon Australian evidence? In which case, you hold any form of election (AV, FPTP, PR whatever) where voters a spread thinly across hundreds of miles of scrubland, and you try to find a way to keep the costs down eh? Try AV in the UK and the change in cost will be negligable, if any.

 

Maybe not a lot, but certainly more

 

Sorry, I thought you were a democrat. This is a democracy right? Or are you arguing for a dictatorship here?

 

Don't be silly. It doesn't make you look very bright jumping to such strange conclusions

 

 

You missed the words 'fractionally' and 'theoretically'.

 

No I didn't. You add whatever words come into your mind to make you happy if you like.

 

Firstly:

 

AV is only fractionally more likely to cause coalitions. Evidence suggests no election result would have been different in the past 30 years.

 

What a load of garbage! Just who precisely is able to predict what the second, third or fourth choices might have been in any particular seat? Evidence is something factual, therefore there is no evidence, just idle conjecture that cannot be proven.

 

Secondly:

 

Coalition governments have a track history of working very well in a broad range of countries. There is no evidence that they are 'weaker' - that is a myth.

 

It is not a myth. It is a matter of opinion.

 

They do however help to prevent the endless swings from left to right, with each side undermining the changes implemented by the other. If you like coalitions help to reduce the short-term nature of modern politics, they help to moderate the exteremes of government that have been inflicted upon the UK in the past 50 years. Not having more coalitions could be the very reason this country is in such a mess.

 

I disagree (naturally) But I'm not about to go into any detail, as this debate isn't about political history. Suffice to say that there has always been the possibility of having more parties that would be electable, were they to have policies that were attractive to the electorate. Take the Lib Dems as a prime example.

 

You mean more likely to ignore anyone with a different opinion. If you don't include all views proportionately you get a growing resentment of politics and apathy towards voting. This breeds extremist views. A move away from the outdated FPTP system will help reduce this apathy, by helping to reflect society more accurately. Do this and watch the extremist crumble.

 

Don't tell me what I mean. I mean more likely that extreme parties will not be elected. And typically there you go again with your adjective "outdated" it might be a system that has endured, but whether it is outdated is a matter of opinion, as is your conjecture as to what extremists might or might not do under each system.

 

Flawed argument. Aside from Canada, South Korea, and one of India's two houses, no other major democracy uses the outdated FPTP system. Almost every major democracy, from Sweden to Japan uses the far fairer PR system. AV is the half-way house, it is much fairer than FPTP, but still shy of full PR.

 

Flawed argument. Is Sweden a major democracy? LOL. And what a list! From Sweden to Japan. Wow! who'd have thought that there were so many! I think that I read somewhere that over 60% of the World's countries used FPTP. I don't want to go into a debate about PR, but again I don't accept that as a fairer system either. Why don't you just add "in my opinion" before stating that one system is fairer than another, as really that is all it is.

 

FPTP has been tried and tested - and it has been found wanting. No countries are moving to FPTP, many (such as New Zealand and South Africa) have seen it's fundamental flaws and moved away.

Most countries that have a democratic voting process have historically gone for FPTP as the starting point and most have kept it. But naturally you get some countries where government changes produce a groundswell of opinion wanting change, mostly because as in our case, it suits one political party to change it. Make no bones about it, this vote on a change to our system has been brought about purely because the Lib Dems had the leverage to exact that referendum as the price for their support for the Conservatives and because they would be the main benefiicaries of that change. It is disingenuous to suggest that the only reason that the Conservatives want to keep FPTP is because that benefits them, while not admitting as a Lib Dem that you want to change the system because that suits your party. Naturally you'll say you want the change because it's fairer, therefore I'll argue that the current system is fairer.

 

Again, just because your Austin Rover is tried and tested, doesn't mean it's the best on the market.

 

Useless analogy. Is that the best you can come up with? Who said anything about whether something tried and tested was necessarily the best? But at least people are familiar with something like that, they know its strengths and weaknesses, which is more than can be said for AV or PR in this country. If somebody is therefore more comfortable with something they are familiar with, then that is up to them.

Really? They seem rather illogical attempts to try and legitimise personal bias to me.

 

Just as your opinions seem just the same thing to me. Or do you believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong? Yes, you probably do.

 

Keep on driving your old clapped out Rover, just don't try and sell it to us as if it were a modern vehicle.

 

I'll keep on driving my classic Rolls Royce and you can keep your Sinclair C5.

 

And that is quite enough of this debate for me. I'm not going to change your mind and you're certainly not going to change mine.

 

As Dune astutely observed, the greatest mechanism for democracy is the referendum. All of this debate is useless in the light that the voting public will have their say in a few days time. I do hope that once the result is in, that will be the end of it.

[trousers]

Well, the NO campaign obviously think it's a viable assumption.

 

But, given the British electorate are predominantly clever and astute, the 'yes' campaign have nothing to fear by such scaremongering from the 'no' campaign....surely?

[trousers]

what?

 

I think it's one of those "re-arrange these words into a well know phrase" quizzes.... ;-)

[badgerx16]

But, given the British electorate are predominantly clever and astute, the 'yes' campaign have nothing to fear by such scaremongering from the 'no' campaign....surely?

Now I know that you are not taking this debate seriously

[Joensuu]

So you'd prefer complicated, then. Complicated is better, make eveything more difficult to understand, solutions to problems ought to be difficult to solve, yes?

 

Not at all, I'd prefer 'fairer'. AV isn't complex, it is merely fractionally more difficult to comprehend than FPTP. If FPTP is learning your alphabet, AV is like learning to spell CAT, not complex like writting Shakespeare.

 

Get real. The social demographics of a place have a far larger impact on which way a person votes than the voting system. That won't change just because the voting system changes either.

 

Yes social demographics have a large say over votes. Under FPTP this means that the outcome of excessively wealthy or excessively poor seats is determined before a vote is cast. Only a handful of seats determine the election. If you live in Eastleigh or Winchester your vote counts, if you live in Shefield or the New Forest you might as well not bother under FPTP.

 

Well, I'm glad it is, because the crux of the FPTP election is that the person with the most votes wins. You'd rather the person who comes second or third wins, or have I over-simplified that?

 

No, the crux of FPTP is that you can win with a minority of support. You can easily have candiates who are hated by 65% of the voters winning the seat. Similicity is often a blessing, but not in this case.

 

No, Because the person with the most votes would probably not be elected under your system.

 

Exactly, but the person who appeals to the constituants as a whole will be elected instead.

 

 

Simple equates to simple. It IS easier to Police. It IS easier to prevent fraud.

 

True (but irrelevent) wrong, & wrong. Evidence please for these claims.

 

 

I thought that it would be obvious that the simpler a system is, the less likely it is to be open to abuse. Do you disagree?

 

No, that is not evident whatsover. The simplest forms of organised government are dictatorships and oligarchies - which, if we apply your logic, as they are so simple, they must be less open to abuse, right? If you are going to make sweeping claims, please provide some form of evidence.

 

That depends what you are discussing, how flawed, how much simpler and fairer. In any event, I don't accept that the FPTP system is fundamentally flawed. I think that AV is though.

 

How flawed depends upon your scale. Lets say Anarchy is 0, and PR is 100, I'd say AV would be around 90, and FPTP around 85. But heck thats just subjective. FPTP isn't as flawed as a completely non-democratic system. But when it's compared to more representative forms of democracy it is obvious how open to abuse it is. And abused it has become, but the larger parties.

 

Maybe not a lot, but certainly more

 

Agreed, it is likely to cost a small amount more in the first few elections, mostly to train people in the new system.

 

Sorry, I thought you were a democrat. This is a democracy right? Or are you arguing for a dictatorship here?

 

Don't be silly. It doesn't make you look very bright jumping to such strange conclusions

 

Sorry, think I must have misunderstood you. Looking back at your original statement here "It makes the removal of an unpopular Government easier" - Firstly, I don't consider that FPTP does this any more effectively than AV does. Secondly, I believe AV will help to encourage more central, balanced and moderate governments.

 

 

No I didn't. You add whatever words come into your mind to make you happy if you like.

 

Fair enough. I can only assume you don't undertand the differences between FPTP and AV then.

 

 

What a load of garbage! Just who precisely is able to predict what the second, third or fourth choices might have been in any particular seat? Evidence is something factual, therefore there is no evidence, just idle conjecture that cannot be proven.

 

Agreed that nobody knows for sure, as voting patterns will change (especially as under AV suddenly people will be free to vote for the candiate that the want to without wasting their vote).

 

However, I based my claim upon various attempts to analysis the data (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm ). You base your counter claim that this is 'garbage' and 'idle conjecture' upon?

 

It is not a myth. It is a matter of opinion.

 

Well you are welcome to your opinion. However, opinion without substance isn't a sensible foundation for making any decision.

 

I disagree (naturally) But I'm not about to go into any detail, as this debate isn't about political history. Suffice to say that there has always been the possibility of having more parties that would be electable, were they to have policies that were attractive to the electorate. Take the Lib Dems as a prime example.

 

I disagree (naturally). Most voters (say 60%) are entrenched in either the red or blue camps. The other 40% of the voters have rarely had representation.

 

Do you not agree that the left right swing is damaging? If Labour support unions, the Tories dismantle the industry, if the Tories change rules making small business loans cheaper, Labour will increase taxes on now profitable small companies. It's a relentless swing, with both parties detesting ther other, and undoing each others policies. Each swing adds layers of complexity and beuracracy. If both sides were more moderate, the country would be advancing smoothly not endlessly deconstructing.

[Joensuu]

Don't tell me what I mean. I mean more likely that extreme parties will not be elected. And typically there you go again with your adjective "outdated" it might be a system that has endured, but whether it is outdated is a matter of opinion, as is your conjecture as to what extremists might or might not do under each system.

 

Okay, I shan't try to interpret what you mean if it bothers you so. I believe strongly that all views should be represented, that the number of MPs in each party should be as proportional as possible to the number of votes cast. I believe that if you exclude extremist voices, their cause grows in popularity as people see them as oppressed (they deliberately play the underdog). I also strongly believe that if you do the opposite, and give the extremist voices enough rope, they do a Griffin and hang themself on Question Time.

 

As I'm not allowed to tell you what you mean, you'll have to interpret why I disgree with you from my opinions above.

 

Flawed argument. Aside from Canada, South Korea, and one of India's two houses, no other major democracy uses the outdated FPTP system. Almost every major democracy, from Sweden to Japan uses the far fairer PR system. AV is the half-way house, it is much fairer than FPTP, but still shy of full PR.

 

Flawed argument. Is Sweden a major democracy? LOL. And what a list! From Sweden to Japan. Wow! who'd have thought that there were so many! I think that I read somewhere that over 60% of the World's countries used FPTP. I don't want to go into a debate about PR, but again I don't accept that as a fairer system either. Why don't you just add "in my opinion" before stating that one system is fairer than another, as really that is all it is.

 

Yes, Sweden is definately a major democracy.

 

We are going around in circles here - I've already listed the countries on this thread, and now you are chastising me for not wanting to list them all again. If anyone is interested, the list of countries who have bypassed AV, and gone for the fairer PR system can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation. I'm only bringing PR in to this to explain why the 'only Australia' argument against AV is a non-starter - most other sensible countries have simply dismissed FPTP completely, then leapfrogged the fairer AV system, and ended up with the fairer still PR system.

 

60% is nonsense. 48 countries use FPTP (in any form), thats under 25%. Here is a list of those great democracies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

 

Oh, and the evidence determining that AV is indeed fairer than FPTP is so overwhelming, that I don't see the need to caveat my words. That would be a bit like a biologist adding doubt to a science text book because some people can't get past creation myths.

 

Most countries that have a democratic voting process have historically gone for FPTP as the starting point and most have kept it.

 

I don't know whether that's true or not. It might be, but I can't be bothered to work it out. Certainly, it can only possibly be true if you are saying that Tuvalu, Malawi, Lebanon, Yeman, Ethiopia, Ghana, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan and all your other leading lights of FPTP have actually put much thought into how to make their democracy fairer.

 

But naturally you get some countries where government changes produce a groundswell of opinion wanting change, mostly because as in our case, it suits one political party to change it.

 

Changing to AV (or preferably PR) is not because it favours one party over another, it is because is a more representative system of holding elections.

 

The only reason not to change is when you have parties in power who benefit from the election system that brought them into power, and who see no reason to undermine their own jobs by improving democracy.

 

Make no bones about it, this vote on a change to our system has been brought about purely because the Lib Dems had the leverage to exact that referendum as the price for their support for the Conservatives and because they would be the main benefiicaries of that change.

 

I make no bones about it. I wouldn't care if this was UKIP or the Greens who had forced this referendum. Voting yes is a benefit to our democracy.

 

Unfortunately, as the large parties don't want to undermine themselve to improve our democracy, one of the smaller parties was obviously going to be tarnished with acting in their own self-interest were they ever to succeed in forcing the hand of power.

 

It is disingenuous to suggest that the only reason that the Conservatives want to keep FPTP is because that benefits them, while not admitting as a Lib Dem that you want to change the system because that suits your party.

 

Not at all. If you took the parties out of the debate, and assessed the systems fairly, FPTP would pick up few if any supporters. Some lib dems might be acting in self-interest - if they are they should be ousted from politics. All Tories/Labour No voters can only be acting in self interest. All Tory and Labour Yes voters can only be acting for the benefit of the country.

 

Naturally you'll say you want the change because it's fairer, therefore I'll argue that the current system is fairer.

 

IMO, not one of your arguments holds water. If you genuinely believe this (after you have tried to remove your party aliegences from the equation) then I'm lost for words. I simply can't fathom the logic of your position if it isn't an attempt to ensure that the party of your choice retains a system which favours it.

 

Useless analogy. Is that the best you can come up with? Who said anything about whether something tried and tested was necessarily the best?

 

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I assumed that this was your cornerstone argument. It's simple tried and trusted innit.

 

But at least people are familiar with something like that, they know its strengths and weaknesses, which is more than can be said for AV or PR in this country. If somebody is therefore more comfortable with something they are familiar with, then that is up to them.

 

Of course, who'd want change eh? Who needs TV when you have radio? I'm comfortable with the wireless, but I'm not familiar with this newfangled television box machine.

 

Just as your opinions seem just the same thing to me. Or do you believe that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong? Yes, you probably do.

 

Honestly, yes, I do. Not because you are saying them, just because of what you are saying. If you make any points that I agree with, or can even see sense in, rest assured I will tell you. It seems to me as if you are filtering out the logic, and accepting merely the straws that suit your chosen outcome.

 

Keep on driving your old clapped out Rover, just don't try and sell it to us as if it were a modern vehicle.

 

I'll keep on driving my classic Rolls Royce and you can keep your Sinclair C5.

 

Nice. Almost fitting. I assume your Roller is starting to rust, and does 5 miles to the gallon. I'm not sure the C5 is my cup of tea, but swap it for a Tesla, and you're analogy makes pefect sense.

 

 

And that is quite enough of this debate for me. I'm not going to change your mind and you're certainly not going to change mine.

 

Agreed. (See, when you make sense, I agree with you!) I have work to do as well, and am going to have to make up the time I've spent on this.

 

As Dune astutely observed, the greatest mechanism for democracy is the referendum. All of this debate is useless in the light that the voting public will have their say in a few days time. I do hope that once the result is in, that will be the end of it.

 

Dune & astutely in the same sentence? I can assure you that whatever the outcome of the public vote, this won't be the end of the press for a fairer electoral system.

[dune]

Dune & astutely in the same sentence? I can assure you that whatever the outcome of the public vote, this won't be the end of the press for a fairer electoral system.

 

Of course it won't. The Liberal elite hate democracy when it doesn't deliver the result they want. The EU is exactly the same.

[Joensuu]

Of course it won't. The Liberal elite hate democracy when it doesn't deliver the result they want. The EU is exactly the same.

 

Yes dune, it's all the fault of those nasty liberal Belgian elite people isn't it. And or course democracy is something liberals hate. I can imagine such soundbytes would go down well in a BNP or EDL meet, but they stop working as soon as you start thinking about the words you are typing.

[Wes Tender]

Dune & astutely in the same sentence? I can assure you that whatever the outcome of the public vote, this won't be the end of the press for a fairer electoral system.

 

And there we have it. Apart from the arrogance that another poster is incapable of an astute observation, there is the assertion that despite the electorate having voted in the purest form of democracy, a referendum, the decision will not be accepted by certain parties.

 

I'm presuming that if the No vote prevails, that the electorate will have deemed FPTP to be fair, or at least fairer than AV. Otherwise it will be arrogance again to accuse the electorate of not having the intelligence to make up their own minds on that.

[dune]

Yes dune, it's all the fault of those nasty liberal Belgian elite people isn't it. And or course democracy is something liberals hate. I can imagine such soundbytes would go down well in a BNP or EDL meet, but they stop working as soon as you start thinking about the words you are typing.

 

And it's so typical of the holier than Liberal elite to label anyone that stands in their way as racists and bigots. ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz. These tired remarks are so predictable, but thankfully because they're trotted out so often they no longer have the deserired effect. The days when the PC brigade ruled are dieing now that we have a Conservative government that has distagmatised talking about issues that the Liberal Elite tried their hardest to supress.

[Joensuu]

And it's so typical of the holier than Liberal elite to label anyone that stands in their way as racists and bigots. ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz. These tired remarks are so predictable, but thankfully because they're trotted out so often they no longer have the deserired effect. The days when the PC brigade ruled are dieing now that we have a Conservative government that has distagmatised talking about issues that the Liberal Elite tried their hardest to supress.

 

Eh? Why are you bringing racism into it? Straw dummy?

 

These 'liberal elite' folk sound proper evil, supressing our rights and stuff. I'm just confused as to who they are, and who they are trying to supress, and why they are misleading called 'liberal' if do indeed aim to supress. You must live in some scary alternative reality.

[dune]

Eh? Why are you bringing racism into it? Straw dummy?

 

These 'liberal elite' folk sound proper evil, supressing our rights and stuff. I'm just confused as to who they are, and who they are trying to supress, and why they are misleading called 'liberal' if do indeed aim to supress. You must live in some scary alternative reality.

 

The worst form of bigotry today is the liberal elite's view of the working classes as a mongrel race of slothful drones

 

We often hear of self-loathing Jews, but what about self-loathing proles – working-class people who look back with contempt at the communities they had the misfortune to grow up in? There’s a very good example of it in today’s Guardian, in this column by Lynsey Hanley, a woman who has made a writing career on the back of the fact that she grew up on a council estate. (It is testament to the middle classes’ continuing colonisation of the media that Ms Hanley can be treated as a curious novelty by Granta and the Guardian, almost as a messenger from some distant, dark planet, simply because she once lived in social housing.) Ms Hanley writes of the “terrible ignorance” of the community she used to live in, prior to her moral and mental rescue by “metropolitan elite liberal values”.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100084500/the-worst-form-of-bigotry-today-is-the-liberal-elites-view-of-the-working-classes-as-a-mongrel-race-of-slothful-drones/

[Minty]

dune - are you capable of debating anything without resorting to generalisations and opinions gleaned from other sources?

 

Anyway, back to AV. If the referendum vote is No, then I will respect that, but that doesn't stop me or anyone else from being allowed to champion the cause of a fairer (in my opinion) voting system. That's the beauty of living in a democracy.

 

Bearing in mind it could be that barely 15% of the electorate might actually cast the 'winning' votes in this referendum, whatever the outcome, it's hardly going to be a landslide majority of the population either way.

[badgerx16]

now that we have a Conservative government that has distagmatised talking about issues that the Liberal Elite tried their hardest to supress.

Your 'CONservative' Government INCLUDES the Liberal ( Democrat ) elite !

[pap]

The worst form of bigotry today is the liberal elite's view of the working classes as a mongrel race of slothful drones

 

We often hear of self-loathing Jews, but what about self-loathing proles – working-class people who look back with contempt at the communities they had the misfortune to grow up in? There’s a very good example of it in today’s Guardian, in this column by Lynsey Hanley, a woman who has made a writing career on the back of the fact that she grew up on a council estate. (It is testament to the middle classes’ continuing colonisation of the media that Ms Hanley can be treated as a curious novelty by Granta and the Guardian, almost as a messenger from some distant, dark planet, simply because she once lived in social housing.) Ms Hanley writes of the “terrible ignorance” of the community she used to live in, prior to her moral and mental rescue by “metropolitan elite liberal values”.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100084500/the-worst-form-of-bigotry-today-is-the-liberal-elites-view-of-the-working-classes-as-a-mongrel-race-of-slothful-drones/

 

And this is pertinent to the debate, how?

[dune]

Your 'CONservative' Government INCLUDES the Liberal ( Democrat ) elite !

 

It's the big brother Labour Party that is more Elitest than the LibDems. We all know that Socialism and Communism are closely alligned in that both concepts are all about state control, but New Labour took this control to a level we hadn't seen in this country. The new Nottinghill generation - Balls, Milliband etc are far worse than the old Labour Party.

[Joensuu]

The worst form of bigotry today is the liberal elite's view of the working classes as a mongrel race of slothful drones

 

To be honest, I can't be bothered to read all of that. FWIW, I don't think our existing class system defines society very well. IMO, there is a new 'non-working class', who unfortunately are lumped in with the traditional working class, and tarnish the latter by association. I'm generalising already, but IMO, this new class tend to be politically disinterested, but tend to blame others for their woes - hense, IMO the rise of the various authoritarian parties that we have seen in reacent years. Obviously these are my opinions, and are gross generalisations.

 

NB, does that make me part of your 'liberal elite' who want to supress you?

[Joensuu]

It's the big brother Labour Party that is more Elitest than the LibDems. We all know that Socialism and Communism are closely alligned in that both concepts are all about state control, but New Labour took this control to a level we hadn't seen in this country. The new Nottinghill generation - Balls, Milliband etc are far worse than the old Labour Party.

 

I'm sure you're on the wrong thread, but your point is reasonable, if irrelevent. The biggest flaw in your logic is the fact that New Labour were in most ways economically right wing, they strongly supported privatisation, private enterprise, outsourcing the public sector, reducing state regulation etc. In some ways you might argue that they retained economic left wing policies, primarily the fact that they seemed incapable of reducing the growth of the public sector. Overall though, New Labour were centre right, and broadly authoritarian, certainly further from being socialist or communist that the BNP. Anyhow, if you want to discuss New Labour, start a new thread.

[Saintandy666]

 

1. It won't cost £250m as has already been revealed MANY times.

 

2. What a ridiculous argument. Soldiers dying or AV? As AV will not cost £250m extra, it is a redundant argument, but it is also distracting from the issue at hand. And the next election will be in 2015, which by your beliefs, everything will be fine then... so I'm sure we'll be able to find the £29m cost which the yes campaign can't refute(even if it is still a maybe) out of the apparent £250m cost.

[Saintandy666]

It's the big brother Labour Party that is more Elitest than the LibDems. We all know that Socialism and Communism are closely alligned in that both concepts are all about state control, but New Labour took this control to a level we hadn't seen in this country. The new Nottinghill generation - Balls, Milliband etc are far worse than the old Labour Party.

 

Actually, communism aims for a stateless, classless society... so how can there be state control? This just shows your misunderstanding of political ideas. And do hit back at me with the USSR, they were about as communist/socialist as my arsehole.

[trousers]

Bearing in mind it could be that barely 15% of the electorate might actually cast the 'winning' votes in this referendum, whatever the outcome, it's hardly going to be a landslide majority of the population either way.

 

It depends how one views the vast majority who won't feel the urge to get off their backsides to vote for a change in the voting system.

 

Some would argue that, logically, those that don't vote to change the voting system are, by default, content with the status quo. It could therefore be argued that c.80% of people are not unhappy to stick with FPTP (i.e. those who vote to keep it + those who abstain)

 

Crap analogy alert...

 

If someone asks me 'today' whether I am happy to keep driving my Ford, there are two ways to demonstrate that, yes, I am happy to keep driving it: either I say to him "yes, I am happy" or I ignore him but the next time he sees me six months later I'm still driving the same Ford. He would therefore logically assume that I am still happy with it (i.e. the most likely assumption)

Edited 27 April, 2011 by trousers

[Matthew Le God]

In Prime Minister's question today a Lib Dem MP asked David Cameron to stand aside for David Davis, as he would have come second under first past the post.

 

Thoughts Dune...?

[Minty]

Some would argue that, logically, those that don't vote to change the voting system are, by default, content with the status quo. It could therefore be argued that c.80% of people are not unhappy to stick with FPTP (i.e. those who vote to keep it + those who abstain)

 

lol, well yes, of course some would argue that, but they do so without any factual basis. I'm sure there will be some like that but I would suggest the vast majority who don't vote do so because they simply don't care or don't understand, which is a real shame.

[dune]

And this is pertinent to the debate, how?

 

It's critical to the whole debate because it's the Liberal Elite of the Labour Party - Milliband, Balls etc - and the Lib-Dems that want AV. And if they want it then it's reasonable to suggest that they want it to further their elitist PC aspirations. For that reason if you're in favour of freedom and are sick and tired of nanny state PC doctrine then you vote NO to what they want.

[dune]

Actually, communism aims for a stateless, classless society... so how can there be state control? This just shows your misunderstanding of political ideas. And do hit back at me with the USSR, they were about as communist/socialist as my arsehole.

 

What does the 3rd S in USSR stand for?