The AV referendum

[dune]

Liberal Party 19.3% of the vote, 2.2% of the seats... fair? Last election, Lib Dems 23% of the vote, 8% of the seats, they gained votes but LOST seats.

 

Which is the primary reason i'm voting NO. Can't stand the Liberal Party so anything that annoys them and their supporters is amusing.

[bridge too far]

Baldly? (sic)

 

bald (bôld)

adj. bald·er, bald·est 1. Lacking hair on the head.

2. Lacking a natural or usual covering: a bald spot on the lawn.

3. Lacking treads: a bald tire.

4. Zoology Having white feathers or markings on the head, as in some birds or mammals.

5. Lacking ornamentation; unadorned.

6. Undisguised; blunt: a bald statement of policy.

Maybe he meant this definition?

[Saintandy666]

Which is the primary reason i'm voting NO. Can't stand the Liberal Party so anything that annoys them and their supporters is amusing.

 

It isn't just the Liberal party that can lose out here, so can the conservative party. FPTP only allows for a 2 party parliament really which when you consider only 65% of the population voted for the two 'main' parties, it's now redundant.

 

But yes, you have shown your true colours now. You aren't voting for FPTP because it is the better and fairer system, but because it allows you and your chums to continue the labservative anti-democratic fix of our parliament!

[Verbal]

Baldly? (sic)

 

Yes, baldly, Wes - a word in the English language, unlike 'miscomprehend'. Now where's that link demonstrating that Norton is 'THE foremost British constitutional expert'?

[solentstars]

Which is the primary reason i'm voting NO. Can't stand the Liberal Party so anything that annoys them and their supporters is amusing.

 

i see the bnp want a no vote and its no suprise what your vote was going to be was it.

[solentstars]

It isn't just the Liberal party that can lose out here, so can the conservative party. FPTP only allows for a 2 party parliament really which when you consider only 65% of the population voted for the two 'main' parties, it's now redundant.

 

But yes, you have shown your true colours now. You aren't voting for FPTP because it is the better and fairer system, but because it allows you and your chums to continue the labservative anti-democratic fix of our parliament!

 

are you suprised he would love a fascist or communist system .

[Wes Tender]

Yes, baldly, Wes - a word in the English language, unlike 'miscomprehend'. Now where's that link demonstrating that Norton is 'THE foremost British constitutional expert'?

I rather suspect that you really meant to type "badly" as neither baldly or more usually boldly makes much sense.

 

Miscomprehend - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Miscomprehend

 

And regarding the reference to Norton, that came from here:-

 

http://www.psa.ac.uk/Content.aspx?ParentID=2&SearchID=1002008

 

There he is, just under Bogdanor. You'd have thought that the award judges would have been a bit more sensitive about the wording, wouldn't you, as it must have put Bogdanor's nose out of joint.

[Wes Tender]

are you suprised he would love a fascist or communist system .

 

rofl!

[Verbal]

I rather suspect that you really meant to type "badly" as neither baldly or more usually boldly makes much sense.

 

Miscomprehend - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Miscomprehend

 

And regarding the reference to Norton, that came from here:-

 

http://www.psa.ac.uk/Content.aspx?ParentID=2&SearchID=1002008

 

There he is, just under Bogdanor. You'd have thought that the award judges would have been a bit more sensitive about the wording, wouldn't you, as it must have put Bogdanor's nose out of joint.

 

Which proves my point. Nowhere there does it say that Norton is Britain's 'foremost constitutional expert'. Read more carefully - or google or furiously - next time, Wes. (Clue: even if we accept their smoke-blowing terms, 'Parliament' does not equal 'constitution'. HUGE difference!

[dune]

i see the bnp want a no vote and its no suprise what your vote was going to be was it.

 

I'm not a BNP supporter - they are are a party for disenfranchised Labour supporters. I'm a member of the UKIP which is a focus group for right wing Conservatives. UKIP want me, as a member to vote YES, but i'm voting NO because a NO vote is the best vote to help the Tories at a national level and UKIP by their nature (a focus group) can never impose themselves other than in European elections so it's ridiculous of the partys executive to be in favour of a system which helps our enemies - the Liberals and to a lesser extent the Socialists.

Edited 22 April, 2011 by dune

[dune]

rofl!

 

That is without doubt the most interesting post i've ever read of yours. Actually it's the only post i've ever read of yours.

[Wes Tender]

That is without doubt the most interesting post i've ever read of yours. Actually it's the only post i've ever read of yours.

 

I was laughing at Solentstars assertion that FPTP was a fascist or communist system.

[dune]

I was laughing at Solentstars assertion that FPTP was a fascist or communist system.

 

OK. I don't really think you're dull.

[Ludwig]

Opinions on the system ought to be based on preservation and promotion of democracy, as opposed to political oneupmanship. To focus your attentions on the latter is rather short-sighted and demonstrates the childish partisan nature of anyone basing their view of whether to switch or not on that. This childish nature is perfectly embodied in 'dune', of course.

[dune]

Opinions on the system ought to be based on preservation and promotion of democracy, as opposed to political oneupmanship. To focus your attentions on the latter is rather short-sighted and demonstrates the childish partisan nature of anyone basing their view of whether to switch or not on that. This childish nature is perfectly embodied in 'dune', of course.

 

That is politics. That is why most Conservative and Labour supporters, activists and parliamentarians want to keep FPTP. The current system favours either a Conservative or a Labour government ruling with a majority.

 

2/3 of Tory voters are voting to keep FPTP (according to polls). The vast majority of that 2/3 are voting NO for political reasons i.e to help the Tory Party which helps the country because a Conservative government is best for the country.

 

AV is slightly more democratic than FPTP and STV is a lot more democratic, but at the end of the day you've got to look after your own interests and the nations interests. It's in the nations best interests IMO to have strong majority govts and FPTP is the best system to deliver this.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes, baldly, Wes - a word in the English language, unlike 'miscomprehend'. Now where's that link demonstrating that Norton is 'THE foremost British constitutional expert'?

 

It comes from Star Trek: "to baldly go where no man has gone before" - ask Patrick Stewart.

[Saintandy666]

That is politics. That is why most Conservative and Labour supporters, activists and parliamentarians want to keep FPTP. The current system favours either a Conservative or a Labour government ruling with a majority.

 

2/3 of Tory voters are voting to keep FPTP (according to polls). The vast majority of that 2/3 are voting NO for political reasons i.e to help the Tory Party which helps the country because a Conservative government is best for the country.

 

AV is slightly more democratic than FPTP and STV is a lot more democratic, but at the end of the day you've got to look after your own interests and the nations interests. It's in the nations best interests IMO to have strong majority govts and FPTP is the best system to deliver this.

 

So all this argument of is AV fairer, is AV more democratic we've been having the last 7 pages...

 

There we have it, argument closed. So people, do you want more democracy or less democracy?

[pap]

That is politics. That is why most Conservative and Labour supporters, activists and parliamentarians want to keep FPTP. The current system favours either a Conservative or a Labour government ruling with a majority.

 

2/3 of Tory voters are voting to keep FPTP (according to polls). The vast majority of that 2/3 are voting NO for political reasons i.e to help the Tory Party which helps the country because a Conservative government is best for the country.

 

AV is slightly more democratic than FPTP and STV is a lot more democratic, but at the end of the day you've got to look after your own interests and the nations interests. It's in the nations best interests IMO to have strong majority govts and FPTP is the best system to deliver this.

 

You feel that way now, but when the next Labour government comes in and repeals Dave's "Legalisation of shooting peasants" bill, you'll be moaning about strong Government then.

[pap]

Btw, just listening to Baroness Warsi on Any Questions (Radio 4) on the AV issue. She denied that Cameron was elected on anything like AV.

 

What a thoroughly despicable piece of work she is. Ill-informed, deceptive and without a shred of concern for anything outside the Conservative Party. It wouldn't be so bad if she were a heavyweight intellectual on the right side of the spectrum, but she's far from that. She strikes me as combative but unintelligent, is completely unelected herself, yet feels she is able to contribute to a debate on electoral reform.

[Wes Tender]

Btw, just listening to Baroness Warsi on Any Questions (Radio 4) on the AV issue. She denied that Cameron was elected on anything like AV.

 

What a thoroughly despicable piece of work she is. Ill-informed, deceptive and without a shred of concern for anything outside the Conservative Party. It wouldn't be so bad if she were a heavyweight intellectual on the right side of the spectrum, but she's far from that. She strikes me as combative but unintelligent, is completely unelected herself, yet feels she is able to contribute to a debate on electoral reform.

 

Quote: Lord Norton

Why on earth do supporters of the Alternative Vote (AV) claim that the Conservative Party uses a form of AV to elect its leader? Paddy Ashdown was doing it earlier today. Some also claim that the French elect their president by a form of AV. Such claims betray a basic ignorance of electoral systems. The Conservatives do not use AV or a form of AV to elect the leader and the French do not use a form of AV to elect the president. AV uses an ordinal ballot structure. Where second or multiple ballots are employed, with a single preference employed in each, then one is employing a different electoral system.

 

So go ahead; try and argue that Lord Norton is not a heavyweight intellectual on the right side of the political spectrum. Presumably he is also il-informed too. And I'm presumimg that you are yourself unelected and yet you seem quite prepared to contribute to a debate on electoral reform.

[dune]

Btw, just listening to Baroness Warsi on Any Questions (Radio 4) on the AV issue. She denied that Cameron was elected on anything like AV.

 

What a thoroughly despicable piece of work she is.

 

Don't expect me to defend Warsi. I can't stand her.

[Joensuu]

Don't expect me to defend Warsi. I can't stand her.

 

Dune in 'can't stand Muslim shocker'.

[bridge too far]

It comes from Star Trek: "to baldly go where no man has gone before" - ask Patrick Stewart.

 

My friends had dinner with him in Israel last week - true story

 

Yours faithfully

 

Namedropper (by association) BTF

[pap]

Quote: Lord Norton

 

So go ahead; try and argue that Lord Norton is not a heavyweight intellectual on the right side of the political spectrum. Presumably he is also il-informed too. And I'm presumimg that you are yourself unelected and yet you seem quite prepared to contribute to a debate on electoral reform.

 

A central principle of Warsi's defence of FPTP is "one person, one vote". If the Tories had seen fit to implement this in their own leadership election, Cameron would not be leader of the party.

 

Lord Norton is using the letter of the electoral system used to mask the end result. If you vote for someone who is eliminated in the first round of a run-off contest, then whoever you choose in the next run-off is, by default, your second preference. He's not ill-informed on the issue at all. Quite the opposite, he's deliberately misleading. As I've said before, the only difference between a run-off and AV is the amount of times a voter needs to vote.

 

And you're right. I'm not elected to any office, same as Warsi. She's on Any Questions, I'm idly dismantling arguments that have been regurgitated verbatim by people on a football forum. Go figure.

[dune]

Dune in 'can't stand Muslim shocker'.

 

She's no Tory. Trying to tell people what they can and cannot talk about at the dinner table is what you'd expect from a Socialist. I loved the way David Cameron didn't back her comments up - a snub to her views if ever I saw one. I don't think she's very popular in Conservative circles.

[dune]

My friends had dinner with him in Israel last week - true story

 

Yours faithfully

 

Namedropper (by association) BTF

 

My brother was the guest of Madge (out of Benidorm) at some awards ceromony the other week.

 

Namedropper (by association) Dune

[Lord Duckhunter]

A central principle of Warsi's defence of FPTP is "one person, one vote". If the Tories had seen fit to implement this in their own leadership election, Cameron would not be leader of the party.

 

Lord Norton is using the letter of the electoral system used to mask the end result. If you vote for someone who is eliminated in the first round of a run-off contest, then whoever you choose in the next run-off is, by default, your second preference. He's not ill-informed on the issue at all. Quite the opposite, he's deliberately misleading. As I've said before, the only difference between a run-off and AV is the amount of times a voter needs to vote.

 

And you're right. I'm not elected to any office, same as Warsi. She's on Any Questions, I'm idly dismantling arguments that have been regurgitated verbatim by people on a football forum. Go figure.

 

To compare a party leadership election to a general election is totally wrong. If you wanted to run general elections on the same basis, than a Labour party member who was also a union member would get 2 votes, if he was an MP as well he'd then get 3.Tory leadership elections rules are delberately written the way they are because of the nature of politics. It protects the party from damaging splits what an incumbent is challanged. A prime example was the Thatcher resignation (although the rules were slightly different, the end result was the same).Thatcher was challanged by Hestletine and won the intial vote, she did not however win by a big enough margin, therefore it went to a second round. The cabinet had all backed Thatcher, but went to her between votes telling her to step down as they would vote for Hestletine in the second round. She had lost the support of the cabinet, but they had shown loyalty (except Hestletine, who therefore lost the election). David Davis had many MP's pledge to vote for him "in the first round", he actually lost votes in the third round of voting when the final 2 would have gone to the members. Had the MP's had one vote only, who knows who they would have voted for. Davies was the favourite and the system allowed people to pledge support for him to his face, to vote for him right up until the final round (therefore honouring that pledge) and then voting for Cameron in the final run off.That is not AV, it was a system to get the top 2 through to the membership, who then had one member one vote.MP's may have voted for Davies to ensure that the party members got to vote between a left and a right candidate. remember in the Labour leadership Dianne Abbot picked up enough nominations on the basis that some MP's who were supporting someone else thought it important that a leftie was on the ballot. You can not demend parties run their elections on the system that they support for general elections, they are 2 different things.The final FPTP membership vote ended with large Cameron majority.

 

You're right,Warsi is not elected, but then neither are Kinnock, Ashdown or Eddie Izzard, but they seem to be having their say.

[pap]

I'm not making any demand that parties elect their leader using the same system as for General Elections, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tory No campaign, your paragraph of jumbled apologism notwithstanding.

 

The difference between Warsi and the two politicians you mention is that at some point, both were elected to public office. They are Lords now, but have at least been elected members of the lower house at some point in their political careers. Warsi, despite trying, has never been returned as a member of Parliament. And frankly, Izzard can at least claim some popular support ( he wouldn't have a career otherwise ).

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm not making any demand that parties elect their leader using the same system as for General Elections, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tory No campaign, your paragraph of jumbled apologism notwithstanding.

 

.

 

It's not hypocrisy at all, it is not AV.

 

Is it hypocrisy that a Labour member can get 3 votes in a leadership election, whilst only letting me have one in a general election?

 

Is it hypocrisy that the leadership are campaigning for AV,when they set up the London Mayoral elections, Scottish & Welsh Parliaments under a differant voting system?

[View From The Top]

 

Is it hypocrisy that the leadership are campaigning for AV,when they set up the London Mayoral elections, Scottish & Welsh Parliaments under a differant voting system?

 

Ummmm. You are aware aren't you that the current Labour leadership didn't do the above and that those in the Labour Party that did are campaigning for FPTP?

 

Don't want you looking silly now do we.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Ummmm. You are aware aren't you that the current Labour leadership didn't do the above and that those in the Labour Party that did are campaigning for FPTP?

 

Don't want you looking silly now do we.

 

Harriet Harman,Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander, John Denham, Peter Hain, and Hilary Benn. All support AV and we're all advisors to Govt or MP's that voted in favour of the above voting system.Ed Milliband was an advisor to Gordon Brown, these people have been at the heart of Labour for years, the only reason you dont see Brown and Blair spouting their views, is it would damage the yes vote too much.

[View From The Top]

Harriet Harman,Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander, John Denham, Peter Hain, and Hilary Benn. All support AV and we're all advisors to Govt or MP's that voted in favour of the above voting system.Ed Milliband was an advisor to Gordon Brown, these people have been at the heart of Labour for years, the only reason you dont see Brown and Blair spouting their views, is it would damage the yes vote too much.

 

Blunkett, Precott and Reid, to name three, were those who made the decisions and are supporting FPTP.

 

As I said, wouldn't want you looking silly or anything.

[solentstars]

I'm not a BNP supporter - they are are a party for disenfranchised Labour supporters. I'm a member of the UKIP which is a focus group for right wing Conservatives. UKIP want me, as a member to vote YES, but i'm voting NO because a NO vote is the best vote to help the Tories at a national level and UKIP by their nature (a focus group) can never impose themselves other than in European elections so it's ridiculous of the partys executive to be in favour of a system which helps our enemies - the Liberals and to a lesser extent the Socialists.

 

same old propaganda but your language and talk of enemies show your authoritarian tendencies and your love of a one party state.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Blunkett, Precott and Reid, to name three, were those who made the decisions and are supporting FPTP.

 

As I said, wouldn't want you looking silly or anything.

 

Harman,Alexander, Hain and Denham all voted in favour of the electrol system used, it is not down to just 3 people, however much you try to pretend it is.

Edited 23 April, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter

[solentstars]

That is politics. That is why most Conservative and Labour supporters, activists and parliamentarians want to keep FPTP. The current system favours either a Conservative or a Labour government ruling with a majority.

 

2/3 of Tory voters are voting to keep FPTP (according to polls). The vast majority of that 2/3 are voting NO for political reasons i.e to help the Tory Party which helps the country because a Conservative government is best for the country.

 

AV is slightly more democratic than FPTP and STV is a lot more democratic, but at the end of the day you've got to look after your own interests and the nations interests. It's in the nations best interests IMO to have strong majority govts and FPTP is the best system to deliver this.

 

blimey dune you shocked me and posted a good summary about self interest and no wonder the the dinosaurs of left and right want to keep fptp because alot of them would never get the required 51% to win under av.

[pap]

It's not hypocrisy at all, it is not AV.

 

Is it hypocrisy that a Labour member can get 3 votes in a leadership election, whilst only letting me have one in a general election?

 

Is it hypocrisy that the leadership are campaigning for AV,when they set up the London Mayoral elections, Scottish & Welsh Parliaments under a differant voting system?

 

The only reason it is not AV is because people have to vote several times. Does that sound like one person, one vote? AV is a time-saving shortcut of this system, something which you are ostensibly ignoring. The only other difference is that voters do not express all preferences up front, and therefore can change their preferences after the initial ballot.

 

And yes, there is an element of hypocrisy in the devolved Governments having PR, but there is also an element of pragmatism. There is no way, for example, that Stormont could run under FPTP.

[Wes Tender]

I'm not making any demand that parties elect their leader using the same system as for General Elections, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tory No campaign, your paragraph of jumbled apologism notwithstanding.

 

The difference between Warsi and the two politicians you mention is that at some point, both were elected to public office. They are Lords now, but have at least been elected members of the lower house at some point in their political careers. Warsi, despite trying, has never been returned as a member of Parliament. And frankly, Izzard can at least claim some popular support ( he wouldn't have a career otherwise ).

 

Lord Duckhunter has shot you down in flames with a good grasp of the background of the system used by the Conservatives to elect their leader, so there is no hypocrisy at all. Another reason for the system used, is that it allows a stalking horse to put himself forward in the first instance, a guise to flush out other candidates when they see how things stack up after the first ballot. If you cannot comprehend the nuances of the system and why it is employed, better not to comment on it.

[pap]

AV is a time-saving shortcut of this system, something which you are ostensibly ignoring. The only other difference is that voters do not express all preferences up front, and therefore can change their preferences after the initial ballot.

 

Lord Duckhunter has shot you down in flames with a good grasp of the background of the system used by the Conservatives to elect their leader, so there is no hypocrisy at all. Another reason for the system used, is that it allows a stalking horse to put himself forward in the first instance, a guise to flush out other candidates when they see how things stack up after the first ballot. If you cannot comprehend the nuances of the system and why it is employed, better not to comment on it.

 

I think I understand the differences just fine. I'm just refraining from assigning colourful descriptions to the candidates.

 

If you cannot comprehend the meaning of someone's post, probably best not to comment on it.

[Wes Tender]

The only reason it is not AV is because people have to vote several times. Does that sound like one person, one vote? AV is a time-saving shortcut of this system, something which you are ostensibly ignoring. The only other difference is that voters do not express all preferences up front, and therefore can change their preferences after the initial ballot.

 

And yes, there is an element of hypocrisy in the devolved Governments having PR, but there is also an element of pragmatism. There is no way, for example, that Stormont could run under FPTP.

 

Wow! Such miniscule differences between AV and NOT AV! Why, they're almost identical.

 

There is no hypocrisy at all just because the Conservative Party favour FPTP for Parliamentary Elections and a more suitable procedure for the election of their leader. You say that you understand the differences between AV and the system employed in the Conservatives leadership poll, but clearly you don't, or you wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy over it.

[TopGun]

Laughing at the Clegg attempt to fight for AV/PR and disassociate from the Conservatives today... what they call too little, too late! Sniffed it, liked it, lost it! Ironic that had Clegg gone with Labour, he'd probably have got AV if he'd stuck with Labour...

[View From The Top]

Laughing at the Clegg attempt to fight for AV/PR and disassociate from the Conservatives today... what they call too little, too late! Sniffed it, liked it, lost it! Ironic that had Clegg gone with Labour, he'd probably have got AV if he'd stuck with Labour...

 

The small scrap the tories threw him was his referendum on a watered down version of PR. He's so despised that even many who would by nature vote for it will vote against it due to him.

 

You reap what you sow.

[pap]

There is no hypocrisy at all just because the Conservative Party favour FPTP for Parliamentary Elections and a more suitable procedure for the election of their leader. You say that you understand the differences between AV and the system employed in the Conservatives leadership poll, but clearly you don't, or you wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy over it.

 

Sayeeda Warsi : "The principle that resonates with me the most is that there is a clear view in this country that we've had for many decades, generations before have followed, the world copy, and that is, it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, black or white, where you come from, when you go into that ballot booth, every person has one vote, and every vote is of equal value". Any Questions 23/04/11.

 

If she, and the rest of the No votin' Tories believe this, then their election for leader would have consisted of one vote, for one person, of equal value - and they would have elected the person with the highest number of votes at the first count.

 

That didn't happen. They voted again, and in the second round, some voted for different people. So that's two votes. Now, you're contending that there is no hypocrisy because I am apparently indifferent to the nuances of this personally impenetrable system. Good luck with that, although I have to say, I hope you don't design logic circuits for a living.

 

I'm simply illustrating that they abandoned a core plank of their belief when it suited them. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. (Do you?)

[pap]

The small scrap the tories threw him was his referendum on a watered down version of PR. He's so despised that even many who would by nature vote for it will vote against it due to him.

 

You reap what you sow.

 

I think it'd have happened with either possible Coalition, tbh. The form for "parties getting on" hasn't been particularly good, particularly as relations between the parties have been historically combative. That said, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have tried to align on policy in the past, so maybe they would have had a slightly better shout.

 

Most people stared wide-eyed at the notion of a Coalition lasting. I just think Clegg and his ministers-in-waiting were a little blind to the elephant in the room. Whatever the outcome of the vote, it'll be interesting to see the effect on the Coalition. This vote has done permanent damage, imo.

[Shandy_Top_89]

Looks like you're in favour of PR then. AV (in the words of Lib/Dem hero Jenkins) "offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, it is even less proportional than FPTP." Perhaps the 23% of Lib/Dems voters should be asking their leadership why they entered a coalition in return for a vote on a system that "offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, it is even less proportional than FPTP."

 

Bit of a late reply here... but anyways.

 

Your correct AV isnt my preferred system. My personal preference is AV+ for the Commons (retaining the constituency link, and introducting a level of proportionality), and PR for the Lords with members decided by party list. Id also like to see the number of members in each house equalised (600 in each) as the size of the Lords is spiralling out of control.

 

I will still be voting for AV however, as im hopeful that it will get the wheels turning with regard to further electoral reform. I also quite like the idea that the winning candidate has to acquire 50% (or alternatively the maximum level of approval possible). A no vote will pretty much guarentee FPTP for the rest of our lifetimes. Unfortunetly I do believe that the no vote will win out, and not because of those with legitimate and considered reasons... More the 'I dont like Nick Clegg, so I automatically say no to anything he likes' bunch. But hey the most I can do is say yes on the 5th of May and cross my fingers.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

If she, and the rest of the No votin' Tories believe this, then their election for leader would have consisted of one vote, for one person, of equal value - and they would have elected the person with the highest number of votes at the first count.

 

 

 

 

 

It was exactly that,One member one vote, davies or cameron.

 

 

There was a process to decide which 2 candidates went through to the full vote by the party members. The candidate with the most votes from the party members, then won the leadership.The yes to AV people are just telling lies when they say that David Davies would have won under FPTP, whichever system they used Cameron and Davies would have gone through to the vote.

 

The membership then had one member one vote(unlike Labours 1 union/party member/MP 3 votes system) and the one with the highest number won.This turned out to be Cameron, are the Yes to AV people seriously saying that the membership would have voted differently had davies and Cameron been presented to them under a different process?

Edited 24 April, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

 

A no vote will pretty much guarentee FPTP for the rest of our lifetimes. Unfortunetly I do believe that the no vote will win out, and not because of those with legitimate and considered reasons... More the 'I dont like Nick Clegg, so I automatically say no to anything he likes' bunch. But hey the most I can do is say yes on the 5th of May and cross my fingers.

 

Personally I think a Yes vote will harm the chances of full PR even more than a no vote. The big two parties do not want any form of PR. If we get AV, they can turn round and say "you've had your change, we cant keep changing the system every few years".You'll be in the same boat as I feel about the EU. Every time a call for a vote on membership we get "The British people voted for it in the 70's", when in fact the British people voted to stay in something completely different than it has become. The scrap the Tories have thrown the Lib/Dems is all they'll get for generations. Whereas a no vote will mean that percieved injustices will fester and need looking at again. Labour and Tories will not concede any more ground, the message will be the same "you wanted AV, you've got it, we can not keep having votes on it". Now you and me know that AV is about as far from PR as FPTP is, but most of the public are not really interested.All they'll think is we have a fairer system, thats it.

[pap]

It was exactly that,One member one vote, davies or cameron.

 

 

There was a process to decide which 2 candidates went through to the full vote by the party members. The candidate with the most votes from the party members, then won the leadership.The yes to AV people are just telling lies when they say that David Davies would have won under FPTP, whichever system they used Cameron and Davies would have gone through to the vote.

 

The membership then had one member one vote(unlike Labours 1 union/party member/MP 3 votes system) and the one with the highest number won.This turned out to be Cameron, are the Yes to AV people seriously saying that the membership would have voted differently had davies and Cameron been presented to them under a different process?

 

Yes, and this process involved voting multiple times to determine the two front runners.

[Lord Duckhunter]

But Labour dont use AV, PR, FPTP or any sort of vote to decide which candidates go through to their members votes. You just need X amount of nominations.

 

In a parliamentry election the preliminary process is ten parliamentary electors of the constituency put you forward. The preliminary process for the Tory party is decided amongst MP's. The full vote is One member one vote.

 

You can complain about the Tories not using FPTP for their preliminary, but if you do that must surley complain that Labour dont use their favourite voting system during their preliminary process, or indeed their full election (they allow certain members 3 votes,but dont believe that's right in a general election).

 

You have been taken in by the Yes people's lies. Under a preliminary process of FPTP David Davies and David Cameron would have still been the two to go through. David Cameron would still have won,In the One member, one vote election that followed.

Edited 24 April, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter

[bridge too far]

Lord D, two points:

 

The Labour Party doesn't have a view on AV v FPTP. They've left it to individuals.

 

With regard to the Labour Party's election for leader, you have to understand that the Labour Party comprises a number of organisations. Trade Unions, The Co-operative Society, the Fabian Society to name but three. Each of those subsidiary organisations has a say in the leadership election. A Trade Union, for example, might choose to vote for candidate A and another Trade Union for candidate B. As a (now retired) Trade Union member, I had a say in who I thought my TU should vote for but that's not a DIRECT vote for the leadership candidates. It's merely a mandate to my TU. As it happens, my TU chose an alternative candidate.

 

I only had one DIRECT vote for the leadership.

 

I don't think any comparison can be made for leadership of a political party (an internal matter) and for a General Election (a national matter).

 

I shall still be voting NO (in fact I already have as I have a postal vote).

[aintforever]

It was exactly that,One member one vote, davies or cameron.

 

 

There was a process to decide which 2 candidates went through to the full vote by the party members. The candidate with the most votes from the party members, then won the leadership.The yes to AV people are just telling lies when they say that David Davies would have won under FPTP, whichever system they used Cameron and Davies would have gone through to the vote.

 

The membership then had one member one vote(unlike Labours 1 union/party member/MP 3 votes system) and the one with the highest number won.This turned out to be Cameron, are the Yes to AV people seriously saying that the membership would have voted differently had davies and Cameron been presented to them under a different process?

 

That method is no different to AV except voting is done in different rounds.

 

And why oh why do you keep banging on about Labour, they are not pro or against AV. In fact you illustrate perfectly what is wrong with the current 2 party system. You have labeled yourself blue so agree with anything the blues say through fear of red without actually engaging your brain and deciding for yourself what is best.

Edited 24 April, 2011 by aintforever