The AV referendum

[solentstars]

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.

 

are you surprised -alot of people are just cannon fodder for their party's and show they are brain dead and proud of it,you only got to look at the stupid rubbish they post on here,,that is why under the fptp system governments only target the 60 to 90 seats in swing seats to form governments and is normally decided by independent voters.

at least people like dune are honest about fptp and if you are a die hard tory or labour you know want 2 party system of fptp for selfish reasons.

[Wes Tender]

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?)

 

I certainly hope that your job does not rely heavily on comprehension, as you patently fail to comprehend that just because one system is utilised to elect an MP in a Parliamentary election, that it doesn't have to be used also in the election of a Party leader. If you can't see that we are talking about two entirely different entities and that there might be a number of reasons (some which have been explained already by DH and another one added by me) why it is preferable to have these two diverse methods applicable to these two diverse situations, then I cannot see how I can get you to comprehend it.

 

Perhaps you ought to go on Lord Norton's blog and ask him to explain it to you, or better still, tell him he's wrong and a hypocrite if he cannot see the difference. Explain to him what qualifications you hold on these matters that make you a bigger expert than him; I'm sure that he'll be impressed.

 

They did NOT abandon a core plank of their belief when it suited them, as this system has been in use since 1998. Over the years, they have made adjustments and improvements to facilitate the input of party members when the candidates were whittled down to two. Historically before that, the Party hierarchy selected the leader. Allowing the membership to vote on a one person one vote basis, good democracy, or bad, do you think?

[Wes Tender]

at least people like dune are honest about fptp and if you are a die hard tory or labour you know want 2 party system of fptp for selfish reasons.

 

And of course in the interests of balance, if you are capable of it, then you would also admit that the main beneficiaries of the AV system would be the Lib Dems, which is why they named the referendum as the price for their co-operation in the pact.

[bridge too far]

Oooooeeerrrr it's all getting a bit handbags!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13181756

Edited 24 April, 2011 by bridge too far
only forgot to add in the link <doh>

[aintforever]

And of course in the interests of balance, if you are capable of it, then you would also admit that the main beneficiaries of the AV system would be the Lib Dems, which is why they named the referendum as the price for their co-operation in the pact.

 

Without doubt, doesn't make any difference to the merits of either system though.

 

The fact that the Tories use a similar system to elect their leader doesn't mean it is necessarily right as a voting system but it does make their blanket opposition hypocritical and obviously down to self interest.

[solentstars]

seats in the north who might vote li

And of course in the interests of balance, if you are capable of it, then you would also admit that the main beneficiaries of the AV system would be the Lib Dems, which is why they named the referendum as the price for their co-operation in the pacttop labour winning seatsQUOTE]

 

i would tend to agree but i think it would also help tories in the north and labour in the south when the sitting mp needs to get over 50% to win and have a majority of all their electorate rather than the narrow base of about 38% most sitting mps get elected on now.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

The fact that the Tories use a similar system to elect their leader doesn't mean it is necessarily right as a voting system but it does make their blanket opposition hypocritical and obviously down to self interest.

 

For the last time, the Tory Party does not use AV to elect it’s leader. The Leader is elected by one member one vote from the party members after the MP’s have put forward 2 candidates. The 2 candidates are not elected by the process being proposed now.

 

The reason for the preliminary system they use (which is different from any election system proposed by any party), is because of damaging splits in the past. The party decided to use a complicated system to whittle down candidates to 2, which involves multiple votes by the MP’s. It is because the leader will need the broad support of all MP’s to run the party in Parliament, without that their would be terrible splits and briefing against the leader.The final vote is a run off, one member one vote.

[SuperMikey]

Even though i'm not really a fan of the AV system, i'll be voting Yes anyway, just to p!ss off the 'No' campaigners who have been saying completely untruthful things. Hopefully this referendum will cause a split in the coalition - I fear for the future of the Lib Dems the longer that they stay in partnership with the Tories, more and more MPs are coming out and saying they're utterly p!ssed off with the behaviour of the Tories.

[dune]

Even though i'm not really a fan of the AV system, i'll be voting Yes anyway, just to p!ss off the 'No' campaigners.

 

Why would the NO campaigners be ****ed off after they've won?

[Wes Tender]

Even though i'm not really a fan of the AV system, i'll be voting Yes anyway, just to p!ss off the 'No' campaigners who have been saying completely untruthful things. Hopefully this referendum will cause a split in the coalition - I fear for the future of the Lib Dems the longer that they stay in partnership with the Tories, more and more MPs are coming out and saying they're utterly p!ssed off with the behaviour of the Tories.

 

Of course, the Yes campaign are not totally innocent of this themselves, so your reason for voting Yes is somewhat flawed.

 

As I had posted already elsewhere, the flyer sent out by the Yes campaign states that a No vote was a vote for more of the same. Fair enough.

 

It then goes on to say that "the No vote would result in your voice not being heard, (for some reason) MPs in the dock, expenses scandal."

 

Now although I'm assuming by "the dock", they mean the courts and not the working harbour environment, I fail to see how the introduction of AV will stop MPs' involvement in the sort of activities that have resulted in them ending up in Court. And the expenses scandal had absolutely nothing at all to do with whether we had FPTP or AV.

 

They really must think that the electorate are a bit simple if they'll believe this sort of ignorant scaremongering.

 

Mind you, the people supporting the Yes campaign actually do think that the electorate cannot be very intelligent if they fail to see why the system needs to be changed.

[CB Fry]

For the last time, the Tory Party does not use AV to elect it’s leader. The Leader is elected by one member one vote from the party members after the MP’s have put forward 2 candidates. The 2 candidates are not elected by the process being proposed now.

 

 

Err, yes they do. You can say it "for the last time" as much as you like but you're wrong.

 

The Tory party (or any party) could have a simple first past the post most member votes wins election for their leader. But they don't.

 

All the parties use an AV system to elect their leader and the Tories definitely do. The whittling down of candidates via the parlimentary party working through second and third rounds of voting is AV. That's what AV is for f u c k's sake.

 

The hilarious mechanism in the tory party of course is that the plebs in the party don't actually get their say until the parlimentary party has whittled it down via their little AV system. You can hardly call the final run off "FPTP" when it's been engineered to two bloody candidates. You might as well call it AV as the winner needs more than 50% of the ballot.

 

The only difference in a national AV election, is that to save time, all the second and third choices are captured on one ballot in one go, rather than multiple rounds of voting. Calling voters back to the polls time and again for multiple rounds of voting would be a little silly.

[aintforever]

For the last time, the Tory Party does not use AV to elect it’s leader. The Leader is elected by one member one vote from the party members after the MP’s have put forward 2 candidates. The 2 candidates are not elected by the process being proposed now.

 

The reason for the preliminary system they use (which is different from any election system proposed by any party), is because of damaging splits in the past. The party decided to use a complicated system to whittle down candidates to 2, which involves multiple votes by the MP’s. It is because the leader will need the broad support of all MP’s to run the party in Parliament, without that their would be terrible splits and briefing against the leader.The final vote is a run off, one member one vote.

 

The original candidates who received the fewest votes are knocked out until there is two left - that is essentially the same as AV but voting in different rounds. It doesn't matter what language you use to describe it, in the final "run off" some people are voting for their 2nd or 3rd choice.

 

The Tories are against it because they know they will lose seats, you know that is the reason.

[Wes Tender]

Err, yes they do. You can say it "for the last time" as much as you like but you're wrong.

 

The Tory party (or any party) could have a simple first past the post most member votes wins election for their leader. But they don't.

 

All the parties use an AV system to elect their leader and the Tories definitely do. The whittling down of candidates via the parlimentary party working through second and third rounds of voting is AV. That's what AV is for f u c k's sake.

 

The hilarious mechanism in the tory party of course is that the plebs in the party don't actually get their say until the parlimentary party has whittled it down via their little AV system. You can hardly call the final run off "FPTP" when it's been engineered to two bloody candidates. You might as well call it AV as the winner needs more than 50% of the ballot.

 

The only difference in a national AV election, is that to save time, all the second and third choices are captured on one ballot in one go, rather than multiple rounds of voting. Calling voters back to the polls time and again for multiple rounds of voting would be a little silly.

 

No, you're wrong. It is not a form of AV and I'm sorry, just because you say it is does not make it so.

[aintforever]

No, you're wrong. It is not a form of AV and I'm sorry, just because you say it is does not make it so.

 

Do you agree that in the final run off some people will be voting for their 2nd or 3rd choices though?

[trousers]

If forecasts are correct, the vast majority of people in the country will not take part in the referendum. Ergo, the vast majority of people in the country are happy to stick with the current system.

 

If people were palpably unhappy with FPTP then more that 20-30% would get off their arses to vote for something else....surely?

[Verbal]

If forecasts are correct, the vast majority of people in the country will not take part in the referendum. Ergo, the vast majority of people in the country are happy to stick with the current system.

 

If people were palpably unhappy with FPTP then more that 20-30% would get off their arses to vote for something else....surely?

 

Quite astoundingly wrong trousers. The fact - if it is - that the majority of will not take part in the referendum, just as they did not take part in the last election, is a cause for real concern about the health of democracy in this country. And clearly one of the key reasons for cynicism and disillusion with politics is the modern version of rotten boroughs that FPTP has helped create.

 

The irony is that the very cynicism expressed on here by the predominantly grumpy No's is, beneath it all, a fatalistic belief is the general hopelessness and disengagement of British (especially English) politics. If the No's were to find a way of rising above their less-than-brilliant advocacy of this hopelessness, then they might see some improvement and greater electoral involvement.

 

It's at least worth a try, isn't it? And at least worth more than the present FPTP, which causes ever greater popular withdrawal from the electoral process and politics itself.

[SuperMikey]

Why would the NO campaigners be ****ed off after they've won?

 

I don't think it's that much of a foregone conclusion - some polls are showing there to be as little as a 2 point gap between Yes and No.

[trousers]

Quite astoundingly wrong trousers.

 

No, you're wrong.

 

Your go. (don't forget the 'ner ner ner ner ner' this time)

 

By Jove, I think I'm getting the hang of this opinion malarkey... ("I'm right, you're wrong"..."no, you're wrong, I'm right"...and repeat)

 

Such fun.

[dune]

I don't think it's that much of a foregone conclusion - some polls are showing there to be as little as a 2 point gap between Yes and No.

 

The bookies have it down as a dead cert Mikey and they're not often wrong.

[Joensuu]

Vote yes, anything that ****es off Dune and Thatcher has to be a good idea.

[dune]

Vote yes, anything that ****es off Dune and Thatcher has to be a good idea.

 

It won't **** me off because the outcome is in the bag. But I fully intend to tale the victory with good grace.

[badgerx16]

It won't **** me off because the outcome is in the bag. But I fully intend to tale the victory with good grace.

It will have bugger all to do with you, so how can you 'take the victory with good grace' ?

The whole process is just a sap to the LDs that the Tories have arranged to give the best possible chance of a 'NO' result. If this were a serious referendum STV would be the option, as a far more fair and proportional system, but there's a chance people might actually go for that. As it is the vested interests, within both main parties and their electoral machines, have no desire to risk their safe seats by ditching an electoral system that means they don't have to worry about ever actually attaining a MAJORITY vote.

Edited 25 April, 2011 by badgerx16

[Joensuu]

It won't **** me off because the outcome is in the bag. But I fully intend to tale the victory with good grace.

 

Good to see you being so, err, gracious.

 

Vote yes, because it would be fun to imagine the rage on Dune's skinheaded face.

[dune]

It will have bugger all to do with you, so how can you 'take the victory with good grace' ?

 

I think my campaigning on TSF will make all the diffrence.

[pedg]

No, you're wrong. It is not a form of AV and I'm sorry, just because you say it is does not make it so.

 

Because there are, thank god, rather less tory MP's that registered voters in the UK it is feasible for them to hold multiple rounds of voting as the person with the lowest vote is eliminated in each round until 2 are left. Voting in a general election cannot be repeated in this way, hence the use of AV to produce the same effect. The mechanism then is different but the general idea is the same, remove the person with the lowest votes and check the votes. If the tory leader was selected by FPTP voting of the MP's it would have been David Davis. We don't know who would have been leader via FPTP for as vote of the tory members as they were not offered the option of selecting between all the candidates.

[solentstars]

It will have bugger all to do with you, so how can you 'take the victory with good grace' ?

The whole process is just a sap to the LDs that the Tories have arranged to give the best possible chance of a 'NO' result. If this were a serious referendum STV would be the option, as a far more fair and proportional system, but there's a chance people might acually go for that. As it is the vested interests, within both main parties and their electoral machines, have no desire to risk their safe seats by ditching an electoral system that means they don't have to worry about ever actually attaining a MAJORITY vote.

 

good summary of why fptp is still wanted by the dinosaurs of both main partys and will lead to more voters not bothering in alot of seats they will see their vote wasted of time or voteing for party to keep the other out.

buts thats england we love looking backwards all the time and any thing new is derided.

[solentstars]

The bookies have it down as a dead cert Mikey and they're not often wrong.

 

i think your right dune it looks like the die hard dinosaurs have scared the voters with their lies to get the result they wanted but i fear the libdems will make the torys pay for that in the longer run .

[solentstars]

Even though i'm not really a fan of the AV system, i'll be voting Yes anyway, just to p!ss off the 'No' campaigners who have been saying completely untruthful things. Hopefully this referendum will cause a split in the coalition - I fear for the future of the Lib Dems the longer that they stay in partnership with the Tories, more and more MPs are coming out and saying they're utterly p!ssed off with the behaviour of the Tories.

 

i agree and think the labour party may the ones to benefit from all this mess and can see a election earlier because of the lies and untruths told by senoir tories and i had high hopes for cameron but hes behaving more like blair with the spin and image everyday.

[pap]

There was a good argument on Any Answers yesterday about another benefit of AV - people will always be able to vote for their first preference. Presently, many voters will vote tactically, knowing that their first choice may well be a wasted vote in their consituency.

 

The Conservatives are worried about this because of the second preference votes. Who's second preference will they be? BNP? UKIP? Then who?

 

They have disproportionally benefited from FPTP, and while some Labour members might baulk at the prospect of having to form Coalition governments, it is the Conservatives who have most to lose from AV.

[pedg]

There was a good argument on Any Answers yesterday about another benefit of AV - people will always be able to vote for their first preference. Presently, many voters will vote tactically, knowing that their first choice may well be a wasted vote in their consituency.

 

The Conservatives are worried about this because of the second preference votes. Who's second preference will they be? BNP? UKIP? Then who?

 

They have disproportionally benefited from FPTP, and while some Labour members might baulk at the prospect of having to form Coalition governments, it is the Conservatives who have most to lose from AV.

 

Indeed. Even if the end result is a similar distribution of MPs to that we currently have the votes before any candidates are removed will give a much better snapshot of political opinion around the country than the current system where people often vote tactically.

[CB Fry]

No, you're wrong. It is not a form of AV and I'm sorry, just because you say it is does not make it so.

 

Round one - Clarke, Fox, Cameron, Davis. Clarke got the least amound of votes and was eliminated. The remaining four went into the next round.

 

Round two - Fox, Cameron, Davis. All the people who voted for Clarke previously got to vote again. Fox got the least amount of votes this time and was eliminated.

 

Round three - Cameron, Davis. The AV system used by the Parlimentary party now complete there is a final vote for the membership. The winner has to get more than 50% of the vote.

 

That is AV. It's not "me saying it's AV". It is. The only difference is the pleb membership is kept out of it until the end and the rounds get to be run on seperate occasions rather than on one piece of paper.

 

It is, if anything, a purest form of AV.

 

As you so often are, you're pathetically wrong.

[JackFrost]

No, you're wrong. It is not a form of AV and I'm sorry, just because you say it is does not make it so.

 

I'm afraid CB Fry is right, the Tories did use AV to select Cameron as leader. A slight variant to the proposed system in this election but it was still AV.

 

Interestingly, if the Tories had used first-past-the-post David Davis would have won the leadership campaign.

Edited 25 April, 2011 by JackFrost

[Wes Tender]

I'm afraid CB Fry is right, the Tories did use AV to select Cameron as leader. A slight variant to the proposed system in this election but it was still AV.

 

Interestingly, if the Tories had used first-past-the-post David Davis would have won the leadership campaign.

 

Conservative leaders are not elected by a form of AV

Posted on April 17, 2011 by 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.

 

 

I'm afraid that personally I'd prefer to believe Lord Norton, who I have quoted before on this matter.

 

As earth-shattering as it must seem to some, CB Fry is not to my knowledge an expert on Parliamentary affairs and as infallible as he believes himself to be, he does from time to time get it wrong. Now, I know from past experience that he will never admit it, but there it is. Paddy Ashdown reckons it was a form of AV too and look what an authority he is on most things.

 

Regarding whether Davis would have won had there been FPTP used in the leadership election, that is also not a fact, as that rather depends whether the vote would have been exclusively by the MPs or the membership.

[pedg]

I'm afraid that personally I'd prefer to believe Lord Norton, who I have quoted before on this matter.

 

As earth-shattering as it must seem to some, CB Fry is not to my knowledge an expert on Parliamentary affairs and as infallible as he believes himself to be, he does from time to time get it wrong. Now, I know from past experience that he will never admit it, but there it is. Paddy Ashdown reckons it was a form of AV too and look what an authority he is on most things.

 

Regarding whether Davis would have won had there been FPTP used in the leadership election, that is also not a fact, as that rather depends whether the vote would have been exclusively by the MPs or the membership.

 

Lord Norton appears to be concentrating on the mechanics of the vote rather than the overall effect. The only real difference between how the tory party elect a leader and AV is that with the tories you get to see who is knocked out at each stage and can thus change your vote which would could possibly involve voting tactically (i.e. if you think your preferred candidate has enough votes to get through to the next round you might vote for the weaker challenger to try to get a stronger challenger removed). It would be nice to be able vote at each stage in a general election but that is not feasible so AV is the closest electoral system usable in a general election to the system used by the tories.

[JackFrost]

I'm afraid that personally I'd prefer to believe Lord Norton, who I have quoted before on this matter.

 

As earth-shattering as it must seem to some, CB Fry is not to my knowledge an expert on Parliamentary affairs and as infallible as he believes himself to be, he does from time to time get it wrong. Now, I know from past experience that he will never admit it, but there it is. Paddy Ashdown reckons it was a form of AV too and look what an authority he is on most things.

 

Regarding whether Davis would have won had there been FPTP used in the leadership election, that is also not a fact, as that rather depends whether the vote would have been exclusively by the MPs or the membership.

 

You'd rather believe Lord Norton, ie. the opinion of a Tory whose party is currently opposing to change to AV?

 

CB Fry may not be an expert on Parliamentary affairs but to my knowledge he also isn't an MP or holds a high profile position in politics, and therefore his opinion isn't prone to being dictated by a party whip. .

[Wes Tender]

You'd rather believe Lord Norton, ie. the opinion of a Tory whose party is currently opposing to change to AV?

 

CB Fry may not be an expert on Parliamentary affairs but to my knowledge he also isn't an MP or holds a high profile position in politics, and therefore his opinion isn't prone to being dictated by a party whip. .

 

Yes, I would rather take the opinion of somebody who is an accredited expert on the subject, regardless of his political affiliation, over CB Fry, who as far as I know, is not an expert on anything much.

 

Next.

[dune]

Yes, I would rather take the opinion of somebody who is an accredited expert on the subject, regardless of his political affiliation, over CB Fry, who as far as I know, is not an expert on anything much.

 

Next.

 

CB Fry is right though, but who cares. I know the current systems favours the Tories and that the Liberals will be gutted when they lose. It'll make victory all the sweeter.

[Wes Tender]

CB Fry is right though, but who cares. I know the current systems favours the Tories and that the Liberals will be gutted when they lose. It'll make victory all the sweeter.

 

He is NOT right. I know that he thinks he is and that various others think he is too, but as I said, I would much rather take the word of a renowned expert on the subject than that of a layman. If those who disagree wish to have their opinions hold more water, then let them provide evidence in the form of experts who have the opposing opinion. I don't remember seeing much of that.

 

But likewise, who cares, as long as the referendum returns a No vote and puts an end to these attempts to tinker with a voting system which is better and fairer than any of the alternatives.

[Verbal]

He is NOT right. I know that he thinks he is and that various others think he is too, but as I said, I would much rather take the word of a renowned expert on the subject than that of a layman. If those who disagree wish to have their opinions hold more water, then let them provide evidence in the form of experts who have the opposing opinion. I don't remember seeing much of that.

 

But likewise, who cares, as long as the referendum returns a No vote and puts an end to these attempts to tinker with a voting system which is better and fairer than any of the alternatives.

 

So it's CB's argument versus the alleged reputation of your 'accredited' (!) expert? As dune says (good grief am I writing this?) CB is right. It is AV, and the tiny details of procedural difference are of no importance to the general argument - the same broad principles apply in the Tory election and that proposed under AV. Norton is merely being a Tory apparatchik with this hair-splitting line - but you seem to have boxed yourself in with your belief in his god-like status.

 

If the No campaign wins, it will be a bad day for democracy in this country, which has witnessed a slow decline as a disillusioned and growingly cynical electorate withdraw still further from the electoral process. At least part of that disillusion has to do with a voting system that delivers so little in the way of truly 'representative' democracy.

[JackFrost]

Yes, I would rather take the opinion of somebody who is an accredited expert on the subject, regardless of his political affiliation, over CB Fry, who as far as I know, is not an expert on anything much.

 

Next.

 

Fine, I'd rather take the opinion of someone who has an independent opinion even if it was flawed, instead of taking a politician's 'political spin' and assuming it is 'fact' but that's up to you.

 

You are taking the opinion of someone who couldn't be more politically biased and presenting it as 'fact'.

 

Each to their own I suppose

Edited 26 April, 2011 by JackFrost

[Wes Tender]

So it's CB's argument versus the alleged reputation of your 'accredited' (!) expert?

 

Yes. If you prefer to take the opinion of somebody unqualified against that of somebody reputed to be a major expert on a matter, then good for you.

 

As dune says (good grief am I writing this?) CB is right. It is AV, and the tiny details of procedural difference are of no importance to the general argument - the same broad principles apply in the Tory election and that proposed under AV. Norton is merely being a Tory apparatchik with this hair-splitting line - but you seem to have boxed yourself in with your belief in his god-like status.

Saying that AV is the same as the system used in the Conservatives leadership elections is similar to saying that snow and rain are the same because they are both precipitation. I am not boxed in at all. I am merely steadfast in my convictions.

 

If the No campaign wins, it will be a bad day for democracy in this country, which has witnessed a slow decline as a disillusioned and growingly cynical electorate withdraw still further from the electoral process. At least part of that disillusion has to do with a voting system that delivers so little in the way of truly 'representative' democracy.

 

You see, there you go again. Whether it will be bad day for democracy or not is purely a matter of opinion based on personal preference of whether one considers the existing system to be the best, or whether one thinks that it needs to be changed. This is typical of the arrogance of the left, who also infer that anybody who supports the status quo in the voting system, must be a bit thick.

 

As to your assertion that the declining numbers of the electorate is partly due to the electoral process, then I'm presuming that they will grasp this opportunity with both hands and vote overwhelmingly for this "fairer" system that you champion. A referendum is the only truly democratic mechanism and here is the chance for the disillusioned man in the street to change things. So there is nothing more to say about it until the vote has taken place, is there? Of course, many voters might be disillusioned because MPs get themselves involved in corrupt practices like fiddling their expenses, breaking election manifesto promises, having affairs, or just because in many seats one party has an overwhelming majority that is difficult to overturn.

 

But if there is a low turnout of voters on this referendum, what conclusion will you draw then? That they couldn't be bothered to vote for the change because they really didn't think that it was necessary, or because they are just fed up with politicians and politice generally?

[Wes Tender]

Fine, I'd rather take the opinion of someone who has an independent opinion even if it was flawed, instead of taking a politician's 'political spin' and assuming it is 'fact' but that's up to you.

 

You are taking the opinion of someone who couldn't be more politically biased and presenting it as 'fact'.

 

Each to their own I suppose

 

As you say, each to their own. Next time your car is making strange noises, consult your neighbour, the plumber, instead of the garage mechanic. After all, although the plumber's opinion might be flawed, the mechanic might have a vested interest in making up his diagnosis and presenting it as fact.

[badgerx16]

or because they are just fed up with politicians and politice generally?

This, ( and that's exactly what the Tories are relying on ). For the majority of us the referendum date is tied to the local elections, and these have a far poorer turnout than the General Election. For some, eg London, there isn't even the 'pull' of local politics to get the voters energised. The referendum should have been set on it's own exclusive date.

It will be interesting to see if the level of participation is higher in the peripheries where they are also having their Assembly polls.

[badgerx16]

... the mechanic might have a vested interest in making up his diagnosis and presenting it as fact.

Kwik Fit ?

[Minty]

This is typical of the arrogance of the left, who also infer that anybody who supports the status quo in the voting system, must be a bit thick.

 

Wes, it's a shame that you let yourself down with sweeping statements like this. I think you put across some good points, but IMO, as soon as anyone starts making such sweeping generalisations about 'the left', 'the right', 'the Tories', 'Labour' etc, it devalues their opinion massively.

 

Instead of replying to Verbal's points and taking him on in debate, you just end up leaving yourself open to exactly the same claims of arrogance, for believing that you can correctly state how everyone on the left might behave.

[aintforever]

Yes, I would rather take the opinion of somebody who is an accredited expert on the subject, regardless of his political affiliation, over CB Fry, who as far as I know, is not an expert on anything much.

 

Next.

 

LOL, it's not rocket science. Try using your brain and working it out for yourself.

 

XFactor uses a similar system and the chav masses of the UK can understand how that works.

[JackFrost]

As you say, each to their own. Next time your car is making strange noises, consult your neighbour, the plumber, instead of the garage mechanic. After all, although the plumber's opinion might be flawed, the mechanic might have a vested interest in making up his diagnosis and presenting it as fact.

 

and my point is your doing the equivalent of taking your e.g. VW Golf to a car salesman working for Volkswagen!

[badgerx16]

As a 'leftie', and being capable of independent thought and deduction, it seems to me that the CONservatives do not use AV for their leadership election. This is because between each successive round of voting by which the nominee list is reduced down to the final 2, there is renewed campaigning, ( arm-twisting, bribery, and corruption ), and ALL MPs, not just the supporters of the eliminated candidate, are free to change their votes as they see fit, ( the aforementioned arm-twisting, bribery, and corruption notwithstanding ).

Labour DO use AV for their MP 'college' vote, but then spoil things by falling back to the tried and trusted FPTP by way of block voting to elect the "wrong" candidate.

[Wes Tender]

Wes, it's a shame that you let yourself down with sweeping statements like this. I think you put across some good points, but IMO, as soon as anyone starts making such sweeping generalisations about 'the left', 'the right', 'the Tories', 'Labour' etc, it devalues their opinion massively.

 

Instead of replying to Verbal's points and taking him on in debate, you just end up leaving yourself open to exactly the same claims of arrogance, for believing that you can correctly state how everyone on the left might behave.

 

I thought that I had made a few debating points with Verbal, but surely I'm entitled to pull him up on his assertion that it would be a bad day for democracy if the No vote prevailed, in the same way that I will when the Yes campaign suggest that any intelligent person would vote for change, or that the AV system is fair, or the FPTP system unfair.

 

This is all opinion, not fact.

 

Regarding the labels that are attached to the various factions, then that has also been applied by many of the posters and I'm sure that they're able to take it back as well as dish it out. But the whole thing is factionalised between the left and the right, apart from the Labour Party, who don't know which way to turn. But it is fair to say that most people in politics are voting according to a position that change will either be bad or good for the party they support, the Lib Dems having the most to gain and the Conservatives the most to lose. Accepting this position, what is therefore wrong with the labels and the ensuing sweeping generalisations? Who in this debate is genuinely only contributing from a totally independent and unbiased position? From previous debates on political matters, I could easily predict what their opinion would be from most posters before they typed a single word.

[bridge too far]

^^^

 

I'm voting (no) from an independent and unbiased position. And I object to people assuming I'd do otherwise because I'm 'of the left' although, no doubt, you would have assumed I would vote 'yes'.