The AV referendum

[Minty]

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.

 

What is far MORE critical to the debate is not what the politicians want, but what the public want. That's the whole point. This is about how we vote our politicians in and irrespective of what the politicians want, yes or no, the PUBLIC need to know what both options mean and make an informed choice based on that, and not on anything the politicians say, IMO.

[trousers]

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.

 

But doesn't that amount to the same thing that I was suggesting....i.e. that the vast majority of people in this country are not unhappy enough with the current system to warrant changing it? In other words, by not kicking up a fuss about it the silent majority are actually (albeit inadvertantly) giving off a very strong democratic message?

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

But you can't be critical of a low turnout to vote and draw any reasonable conclusions from the voters' apathy. Every single voter has the opportunity to register their preference with just two clear choices, therefore it is immaterial whether the side that wins does so with a small majority or whether there was a large percentage turnout. Or would you prefer it that there had to be a majority of a certain percentage before changes are made, or that every voter must vote, as in Australia? As it stands, a low percentage turnout is indicative of apathy and I would take that to mean that most could not care either way. This would be pretty damning of the contention that the current system was unfair, as one would have thought that given the opportunity, most would relish the chance to put things right.

[trousers]

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.

 

[Joensuu]

What does the 3rd S in USSR stand for?

 

I assume similar to what the 'D' stands for in Laos (LPDR)

[dune]

What is far MORE critical to the debate is not what the politicians want, but what the public want. That's the whole point. This is about how we vote our politicians in and irrespective of what the politicians want, yes or no, the PUBLIC need to know what both options mean and make an informed choice based on that, and not on anything the politicians say, IMO.

 

IMO the reason some people feel disenfranchised by politics is precisely because of the elitest Nottinghill middle class careerists - Milliband, Balls etc and the way that all the main parties are so central in their politics. By voting YES to AV it would make the situation worse because it would mean that the likelihood of coalitions increases with the Lib Dems yo yoing between a Labour and Tory coalition. I don't want this. I want a majority Tory government and I think most Labour supporters want a majority Labour government. At least under these circumstances the electorate has the opportunity to change the nations direction, but if the vote to AV is YES the electorate will be stuck with a wishy washy system that results in horse trading and back room deals.

[trousers]

But you can't be critical of a low turnout to vote and draw any reasonable conclusions from the voters' apathy. Every single voter has the opportunity to register their preference with just two clear choices, therefore it is immaterial whether the side that wins does so with a small majority or whether there was a large percentage turnout. Or would you prefer it that there had to be a majority of a certain percentage before changes are made, or that every voter must vote, as in Australia? As it stands, a low percentage turnout is indicative of apathy and I would take that to mean that most could not care either way. This would be pretty damning of the contention that the current system was unfair, as one would have thought that given the opportunity, most would relish the chance to put things right.

 

Nutshell

[Minty]

But doesn't that amount to the same thing that I was suggesting....i.e. that the vast majority of people in this country are not unhappy enough with the current system to warrant changing it? In other words, by not kicking up a fuss about it the silent majority are actually (albeit inadvertantly) giving off a very strong democratic message?

 

I simply believe it is better to have more of the explicit vote of the electorate, than to surmise as to why they didn't vote. The only strong message being given off by a silent majority is that, for some reason, they chose not to vote... anything beyond that is supposition.

[trousers]

I simply believe it is better to have more of the explicit vote of the electorate, than to surmise as to why they didn't vote. The only strong message being given off by a silent majority is that, for some reason, they chose not to vote... anything beyond that is supposition.

 

Technically, yes.....but, are you suggesting that the most likely reason people won't vote in the referendum is because they are unhappy with FPTP?

 

Of the two assumptions we can draw from the apathy of the non-voters, which do you think is the most likely reason?

 

(a) because they are not sufficiently unhappy with the current system

 

or

 

(b) because they are sufficiently unhappy with the current system?

 

Sometimes, reasonable argument has to be made on reasonable assumptions rather than black and white 'fact'

[Joensuu]

We all agree that voters are apathetic. IMO, this is because people perceive that voting doesn't seem to change anything, and generally many find politcs boring. FPTP has a lot to answer for.

 

There is a sad irony in voters being so apathetic that they can't be bothered to vote for a system that will help re-enpower them. Guess it's like a patient giving up the will to live; even the offer of a possibly lifesaving drug doesn't seem to be tempting them.

[Minty]

But you can't be critical of a low turnout to vote and draw any reasonable conclusions from the voters' apathy. Every single voter has the opportunity to register their preference with just two clear choices, therefore it is immaterial whether the side that wins does so with a small majority or whether there was a large percentage turnout. Or would you prefer it that there had to be a majority of a certain percentage before changes are made, or that every voter must vote, as in Australia? As it stands, a low percentage turnout is indicative of apathy and I would take that to mean that most could not care either way. This would be pretty damning of the contention that the current system was unfair, as one would have thought that given the opportunity, most would relish the chance to put things right.

 

We all know however there are different stages of activity for people who want to make a change. Just like those who support charities to different degrees, or even those who join political parties, some are very active at the heart of the organisation, some contribute time and money, some just vote or sign petitions, some say they support them but actually don't DO a whole amount. That's just human behaviour.

 

As I said previously, I will fully accept the result of this referendum but the only TRUE way to know what the majority of an electorate feel is for them all to vote. I'm not sure about mandatory voting but that's a separate discussion.

[Joensuu]

Technically, yes.....but, are you suggesting that the most likely reason people won't vote in the referendum is because they are unhappy with FPTP?

 

Of the two assumptions we can draw from the apathy of the non-voters, which do you think is the most likely reason?

 

(a) because they are not sufficiently unhappy with the current system

 

or

 

(b) because they are sufficiently unhappy with the current system?

 

Sometimes reasonable argument has to be made on reasonable assumptions rather than black and white 'fact'

 

© beause the current system is so flawed, they have simply lost all faith in voting?

[Minty]

Technically, yes.....but, are you suggesting that the most likely reason people won't vote in the referendum is because they are unhappy with FPTP?

 

Of the two assumptions we can draw from the apathy of the non-voters, which do you think is the most likely reason?

 

(a) because they are not sufficiently unhappy with the current system

 

or

 

(b) because they are sufficiently unhappy with the current system?

 

Sometimes, reasonable argument has to be made on reasonable assumptions rather than black and white 'fact'

 

Well in that case, I would say

 

© because they don't care enough either way.

[trousers]

© beause the current system is so flawed, they have simply lost all faith in voting?

 

Possibly

[trousers]

Well in that case, I would say

 

© because they don't care enough either way.

 

Indeed. So why go to all this trouble to change something that the majority don't care about?

[Minty]

Indeed. So why go to all this trouble to change something that the majority don't care about?

 

Fair question, and my honest (and clearly biased) opinion based on my beliefs is that if people really understood all the ins and outs of the two systems then they would care about it and vote yes (but I would simply be happy for them to vote full stop). As Joensuu says, people have lost faith in voting and in politics to such a degree that they are beyond caring no matter what is put before them.

 

Ultimately, it is a sad indictment of politics overall in this country.

[dune]

© beause the current system is so flawed, they have simply lost all faith in voting?

 

And when the public vote NO to AV it'll settle that argument. Or will it be the fault of the voting system that you didn't get what you wanted?

[trousers]

Fair question, and my honest (and clearly biased) opinion based on my beliefs is that if people really understood all the ins and outs of the two systems then they would care about it and vote yes

 

I think that's what Verbal calls "patronising the British electorate".... ;-)

[Verbal]

Indeed. So why go to all this trouble to change something that the majority don't care about?

 

Any democracy that leaves its electorate feeling as disenfranchised and disillusioned as our is needs to find ways of improving things. What's so annoying about the No campaign is its habit of using the very disengagement with the electoral process as some sort of satisfaction indicator. Are you really trying to tell us that the reason that vast numbers of people don't vote in this country is because they've been happy with politicians and the political process?

[Minty]

I think that's what Verbal calls "patronising the British electorate".... ;-)

 

Not my intention at all, I didn't say they weren't capable of understanding it, they simply don't take the time to because they feel they are too busy and/or don't want to.

[badgerx16]

What does the 3rd S in USSR stand for?

The SECOND 'S' is for 'Sotsialisticheskik' - ( It is, however, the 3rd 'C' in CCCP )

Edited 27 April, 2011 by badgerx16

[dune]

The SECOND 'S' is for 'Sotsialisticheskik' - ( It is, however, the 3rd 'C' in CCCP )

 

Good old Wikipedia.

[badgerx16]

Good old Wikipedia.

My parents subscribed to 'Soviet Weekly'.

[trousers]

Any democracy that leaves its electorate feeling as disenfranchised and disillusioned as our is needs to find ways of improving things. What's so annoying about the No campaign is its habit of using the very disengagement with the electoral process as some sort of satisfaction indicator. Are you really trying to tell us that the reason that vast numbers of people don't vote in this country is because they've been happy with politicians and the political process?

 

No. I was careful to word it "not unhappy enough" rather than "happy with" as, I agree, 'apathy' does not equal 'happy with'.

Edited 27 April, 2011 by trousers

[trousers]

Not my intention at all, I didn't say they weren't capable of understanding it, they simply don't take the time to because they feel they are too busy and/or don't want to.

 

Or....they've considered it and feel that that abstaining is a valid stance? (as you say, we'll never really know)

[Minty]

(as you say, we'll never really know)

 

Indeed, so, contrary to most other SaintsWeb threads which seem to enjoy going round in circles, I think that's probably my lot.

[solentstars]

And when the public vote NO to AV it'll settle that argument. Or will it be the fault of the voting system that you didn't get what you wanted?

 

like anything in Britain change comes very slowly and we rather look backwards than forwards ,it will happen has 2 party politics are finished and look back laugh how we stuck with a outdated system for so long

[solentstars]

Any democracy that leaves its electorate feeling as disenfranchised and disillusioned as our is needs to find ways of improving things. What's so annoying about the No campaign is its habit of using the very disengagement with the electoral process as some sort of satisfaction indicator. Are you really trying to tell us that the reason that vast numbers of people don't vote in this country is because they've been happy with politicians and the political process?

mps

good post verbal sums up how like the diehard mps no voters protect their bankrupt system to keep a political elite in a red blue love in-,lets hope we get a government one day who believe in more open democracy and a elected second chamber and be representative of modern Britain rather than the oxbridge elite.

[Joensuu]

And when the public vote NO to AV it'll settle that argument. Or will it be the fault of the voting system that you didn't get what you wanted?

 

The push for a more representative voting system will continue regardless of the outcome of this referendum.

 

If the result is 'no', it won't relate to the voting system, it will be entirely because of the public apathy to politics that AV might help to resolve (that and the dirty tactics the no campaign have been running with).

[dune]

If the result is 'no', it won't relate to the voting system, it will be entirely because of the public apathy to politics that AV might help to resolve (that and the dirty tactics the no campaign have been running with).

 

So just like with the EU, when the public reject what the Liberal Elite want, and say NO, you keep asking the question until you get what you want.

[Saintandy666]

What does the 3rd S in USSR stand for?

 

Oh yes, and what does the D stand for in DPRK(North Korea). The name doesn't mean ****.

 

You clearly have no idea what socialism and communism actually is!

[Minty]

So just like with the EU, when the public reject what the Liberal Elite want, and say NO, you keep asking the question until you get what you want.

 

Oh look, there's that Liberal Elite label again. Just as pointless as the last time.

 

Anyway, ultimately, it is his democratic right to try to do so if he so wishes...

[Joensuu]

So just like with the EU, when the public reject what the Liberal Elite want, and say NO, you keep asking the question until you get what you want.

 

No, just like the civil rights movement, or the suffragettes, when you are campaigning for the greater good you don't give up just because the public are apathetic or misdirected.

[Saintandy666]

[Verbal]

No. I was careful to word it "not unhappy enough" rather than "happy with" as, I agree, 'apathy' does not equal 'happy with'.

 

That phrase is like a curtain the No campaign dare not look behind - because if they did they'd find an electorate disillusioned by the political process, about being disenfranchised in 'safe seats' (latter-day rotten boroughs), and marginalised by politicians whose security in their own safety means they start scamming the system to pay for their moats. And FPTP stands as a guilty contributor to all that. AV won't be an overnight cure, but it is the start of a long process of reform in a country which by its nature has evolved its constitutional changes rather than go for full-scale revolution.

[Joensuu]

For anyone still undecided, Hazel Blears is voting no.

[Verbal]

For anyone still undecided, Hazel Blears is voting no.

 

That's it then. 'Yes' it is.

[pap]

So just like with the EU, when the public reject what the Liberal Elite want, and say NO, you keep asking the question until you get what you want.

 

How easy your life must be, dune. Putting people into boxes.

 

I'd consider myself pretty liberal on some issues, but think membership of the EU is a bad deal for the UK. Do you think there is any chance of your beloved Tories letting us have a say on that one?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Personally I find AV extremely dull; it is far more likely to turn voters off than on; how will that sort the falling turnouts out?

 

I like our general elections, with Jonathan Dimbleby, swingometers, independent candiates campaigning on one issues, Sunderland east being the first to declare. First Past the Post has does the jopb for me. Its a no from me.

[Verbal]

Personally I find AV extremely dull; it is far more likely to turn voters off than on; how will that sort the falling turnouts out?

 

I like our general elections, with Jonathan Dimbleby, swingometers, independent candiates campaigning on one issues, Sunderland east being the first to declare. First Past the Post has does the jopb for me. Its a no from me.

 

I don't think the yes campaign was exactly waiting with baited breath.

 

Go on Sergei, surprise yourself, make yourself happy, and do something that brings joy to others. Vote yes, and drag Wes 'I don't want to talk about it any more' Tender in with you.

[Saintandy666]

Personally I find AV extremely dull; it is far more likely to turn voters off than on; how will that sort the falling turnouts out?

 

I like our general elections, with Jonathan Dimbleby, swingometers, independent candiates campaigning on one issues, Sunderland east being the first to declare. First Past the Post has does the jopb for me. Its a no from me.

 

Jonathan Dimbleby will never match David!

[Joensuu]

Personally I find AV extremely dull; it is far more likely to turn voters off than on; how will that sort the falling turnouts out?

 

I like our general elections, with Jonathan Dimbleby, swingometers, independent candiates campaigning on one issues, Sunderland east being the first to declare. First Past the Post has does the jopb for me. Its a no from me.

 

Simple. You can vote for the party you actually want to win, without the current knowledge that doing so is merely a wasted vote. Sure, it's not sexy, but it's a start.

 

Oh, and AV doesn't mean you'll miss out on the the current election sideshows of Dimbleby and swingometers either. In fact you'll probably get to see more independent candidates (they might even stand a chance!), and Sunderland East declaring early might not be a formality. Essentially, all the fun of the first past the post fayre, with less of the undesirable biased bits. If AV is dull, my goodness, FPTP is horrendously tedious.

[trousers]

That phrase is like a curtain the No campaign dare not look behind - because if they did they'd find an electorate disillusioned by the political process, about being disenfranchised in 'safe seats' (latter-day rotten boroughs), and marginalised by politicians whose security in their own safety means they start scamming the system to pay for their moats. And FPTP stands as a guilty contributor to all that. AV won't be an overnight cure, but it is the start of a long process of reform in a country which by its nature has evolved its constitutional changes rather than go for full-scale revolution.

 

Fair points

[trousers]

That's it then. 'Yes' it is.

 

Ditto!

[trousers]

Btw...I assume the AV extollers amongst us are also fans of the football league's playoff system...?

 

(I'm yet to work out quite how bad that analogy is so bear with me)

[Joensuu]

Btw...I assume the AV extollers amongst us are also fans of the football league's playoff system...?

 

(I'm yet to work out quite how bad that analogy is so bear with me)

Hmm, I'm not sure how that works either.

 

How about, having say, the Championship decided by a fan vote. Under FPTP, Leeds would almost certainly get promoted, simply by having so many fans. Under AV, Leeds (and Millwall) wouldn't stand a chance, as I doubt they'd pick up too many people's second or third options..

 

Now, that makes even less sense...

Edited 27 April, 2011 by Joensuu

[Lord Duckhunter]

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...?

 

Why are people taken in by this lie?

 

Under FPTP both Cameron and Davies would have gone forward to the membership. The membership voted 62% for Cameron.

[trousers]

Hmm, I'm not sure how that works either.

 

How about, having say, the Championship decided by a fan vote. Under FPTP, Leeds would almost certainly get promoted, simply by having so many fans. Under AV, Leeds (and Millwall) wouldn't stand a chance, as I doubt they'd pick up too many people's second or third votes..

 

Now, that makes even less sense...

 

A comparable analogy with a football league table would be to allocate the points scored by the bottom clubs to those who finished at the top based on the preferences of said bottom clubs.

 

Or, another wacky system is you promote the 3 clubs who scored the most points....nah, that would never work...

 

(still a crap analogy on reflection...keep trying Trousers...you'll come up with something bordering on intelligence one of these days....maybe)

[trousers]

Why are people taken in by this lie?

 

 

Because the 'yes' campaign are trying to be as cunning as the 'no' campaign...?

[Joensuu]

Why are people taken in by this lie?

 

Under FPTP both Cameron and Davies would have gone forward to the membership. The membership voted 62% for Cameron.

 

You sir, are correct - ish. If you simply substitute the whittling down 'MP voting' rounds, for FPTP, but retain the 'membership' vote at the end, your spot on. However, if you replace all of the rounds including the 'membership' bit with FPTP, then Davis would have won. I guess it depends how you want to evaluate it...

 

Ho, hum, pretty irrelevent in the scheme of things.