This seems quite a literate summary of pros and cons of AV.
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/R ... 20Vote.pdf
CHeers
D
AV...
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: AV...
Dave Wells wrote:
> Funny innit how it will be decided by a yes or no vote or first
> past the post wins !!
That's because that's as far as the Tories were prepared to go.
The LibDems would have probably preferred a referendum decided by AV on the three options: (i) old system (ii) AV (iii) proportional representation.
> Funny innit how it will be decided by a yes or no vote or first
> past the post wins !!
That's because that's as far as the Tories were prepared to go.
The LibDems would have probably preferred a referendum decided by AV on the three options: (i) old system (ii) AV (iii) proportional representation.
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: AV...
As I said earlier I'm sure that millions of the 'prols' (as that chunk of society used to be called) will be told which way to vote in the referendum by that foreigner Rupert Murdoch. I find it ironic how The Sun are so madly patriotic, yet on things like this, and on Europe, they don't push for what the nation would want and need but instead what their proprietor wants - and he lives thousands of miles away.
It has been said that if we had had AV years ago Neil Kinnock would probably have won the 1992 election. The Sun pushed very hard for the Tories to win that election and it has been said, and books have been written about this too, that had it not been for The Sun the Tories would have lost. I found it incredible how The Sun then slated the Tories during that 1992-97 term of office and were very glad to see the back of them and to see Tony Blair win in 1997 - something they pushed for at that election.
The Sun newspaper seems to like a party and leader, then hate them when in office, and are so glad they are gone at the next election it makes you wonder why they pushed so hard for them to be there in the first place.
It has been said that if we had had AV years ago Neil Kinnock would probably have won the 1992 election. The Sun pushed very hard for the Tories to win that election and it has been said, and books have been written about this too, that had it not been for The Sun the Tories would have lost. I found it incredible how The Sun then slated the Tories during that 1992-97 term of office and were very glad to see the back of them and to see Tony Blair win in 1997 - something they pushed for at that election.
The Sun newspaper seems to like a party and leader, then hate them when in office, and are so glad they are gone at the next election it makes you wonder why they pushed so hard for them to be there in the first place.
Re: Beutelwolf, Randyandy, Sam S
If you want lib dems having a say in every election vote YES,if you want to see the lib dems disappear into oblivion forever more vote N0. I am definitely voting NO.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Beutelwolf, Randyandy, Sam S
Thank you, number 6, for confirming my suspicions. You're voting 'no' for emotional reasons, not logical or rational ones. A bit like Cameron with his 'gut instinct' reasoning.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
Dave Wells
- Posts: 2714
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Sam
"I can only repeat what I've said about it helping minority parties and encouraging a my diverse set of opinions in parliament, as well as the vote being more representational of the country's vote."
Out of interest, what evidence have you to back up your statement that
1. AV helps minority parties?
2. Encourages a diverse set of opinions in parliament?
3. The vote is more representational of the country's vote?
Cheers
D
Out of interest, what evidence have you to back up your statement that
1. AV helps minority parties?
2. Encourages a diverse set of opinions in parliament?
3. The vote is more representational of the country's vote?
Cheers
D
Re: Sam
If you read the latest crap from LabourYes it all relates to the minority party that almost everyone hates and how AV will defeat them.
Still can't answer how it defeats that minority but by some miracle is the best thing since sliced bread for others.
While on and to save another thread the latest bullcrap from the yes campaign "Worried about Your job Your MP isn't"
Not only do the prats have a go at anyone who disagrees with them they even have a pop at the MP's who are in support of them !laugh!
Still can't answer how it defeats that minority but by some miracle is the best thing since sliced bread for others.
While on and to save another thread the latest bullcrap from the yes campaign "Worried about Your job Your MP isn't"
Not only do the prats have a go at anyone who disagrees with them they even have a pop at the MP's who are in support of them !laugh!
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
[quote]Out of interest, what evidence have you to back up your statement that
1. AV helps minority parties?[/quote]
I have no evidence. Just opinion based on simple logic: If people have more choices in how they vote, there's more chance minority parties getting more votes.
[quote]2. Encourages a diverse set of opinions in parliament?[/quote]
Follows on from my opinion of 1. If minority parties have a better chance of more votes, they have a better chance of gaining a parliamentary seat - which will create more diversity.
[quote]3. The vote is more representational of the country's vote?[/quote]
Because, again, logic dictates that if no candidate gets the 50% needed then getting over the 50% line due to peoples' second preferences is more acceptable than someone taking the seat with just 33% of the vote (he/she might have been the last person the other 67% would have voted for).
There. My opinion explained. Much more than what I've got from the 'no' campaigners, which as you can see from randyandy and number 6, it's a mish-mash of 'oh, it costs too much' then, 'they don't really want AV' then, 'they give conflicting reasons', and finally the most frightening nugget of all: 'if you've wasted your vote voting for any other party apart from the big two, you don't deserve representation.' That, to me, is horrifying.
And by the way, I've read the article you provided a link to. I find it biased and slightly misleading. For example, one of the very first 'fails':
"? AV's offer in relation to proportionality:
AV is one of the family of ?Preferential?, not ?Proportional?, voting systems. It does not claim to
create any proportionality between a party?s vote and its seats. The Electoral Reform Society
(ERS) says it is ?much like FPTP? and ?It can be less proportional than First-Past-the-Post?."
Yes, on occasion it can be less proportional than FPTP, but is their evidence it's regularly less proportional? Or is it only less proportional very very occasionally? I mean, strictly, I could say the following and be correct: "Drink driving can be a safe way of getting home in the early hours of Sunday morning." You can't argue with that statement because it's true. It can be safe to put your fucking head in a lion's mouth while eating a bacon sandwich but in general we don't recommend it if you like your head attached to your torso.....just like, generally, drink-driving is considered dangerous.
Stating what something can be doesn't paint a fair, accurate picture of what something is more likely to be.
1. AV helps minority parties?[/quote]
I have no evidence. Just opinion based on simple logic: If people have more choices in how they vote, there's more chance minority parties getting more votes.
[quote]2. Encourages a diverse set of opinions in parliament?[/quote]
Follows on from my opinion of 1. If minority parties have a better chance of more votes, they have a better chance of gaining a parliamentary seat - which will create more diversity.
[quote]3. The vote is more representational of the country's vote?[/quote]
Because, again, logic dictates that if no candidate gets the 50% needed then getting over the 50% line due to peoples' second preferences is more acceptable than someone taking the seat with just 33% of the vote (he/she might have been the last person the other 67% would have voted for).
There. My opinion explained. Much more than what I've got from the 'no' campaigners, which as you can see from randyandy and number 6, it's a mish-mash of 'oh, it costs too much' then, 'they don't really want AV' then, 'they give conflicting reasons', and finally the most frightening nugget of all: 'if you've wasted your vote voting for any other party apart from the big two, you don't deserve representation.' That, to me, is horrifying.
And by the way, I've read the article you provided a link to. I find it biased and slightly misleading. For example, one of the very first 'fails':
"? AV's offer in relation to proportionality:
AV is one of the family of ?Preferential?, not ?Proportional?, voting systems. It does not claim to
create any proportionality between a party?s vote and its seats. The Electoral Reform Society
(ERS) says it is ?much like FPTP? and ?It can be less proportional than First-Past-the-Post?."
Yes, on occasion it can be less proportional than FPTP, but is their evidence it's regularly less proportional? Or is it only less proportional very very occasionally? I mean, strictly, I could say the following and be correct: "Drink driving can be a safe way of getting home in the early hours of Sunday morning." You can't argue with that statement because it's true. It can be safe to put your fucking head in a lion's mouth while eating a bacon sandwich but in general we don't recommend it if you like your head attached to your torso.....just like, generally, drink-driving is considered dangerous.
Stating what something can be doesn't paint a fair, accurate picture of what something is more likely to be.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Sam
"Out of interest, what evidence have you to back up your statement that
1. AV helps minority parties?
Sam's reply "I have no evidence. Just opinion based on simple logic: If people have more choices in how they vote, there's more chance minority parties getting more votes."
Points1 and 2 hinge on the statement above. The key point is you have no evidence. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "helps". Given that av is not proportional in any way, then I cannot see "helps" meaning that parties who are not in the first three, ending up winning a seat.
So the only way "helps" can have any meaning in the AV scenario re. minority groups seems to be in horse trading prior to the election i.e. Green candidate, UKIP, BNP etc say to one of the main three parties - you agree to do this (either with or without telling the electorate what we have agreed) and we will tell our supporters to vote for your party as their second preference. This apparently happens regularly in Australia, one of the few countries in the world that actually uses this system for their general election. There, parties provide their own vote sheets to be copied to the ballot paper.
So this potentially creates a situation whereby minority groups may have more influence but no accountability. Second-choice trading among the parties may become widespread and smaller parties may thrive in their new role of vote-lobbyists. With AV there is a danger that the tail wags the dog.
I am also a tad amused by the way in which a number of the YES to AV supporters argue that it will "help" the Greens (nice minority party) and not the BNP (horrible minority party)
I suspect that what characterises both the Yes and No campaigns is they have no real idea how this is going to pan out. Given that we do not know:
1. How many people are going to select more than 1 candidate.
2. How many people are going to select multiple preferences.
3. How many people are going to put in preferences for all the candidates on the ballot paper e.g. English Democrats, Independents, Raving Loony etc etc
it is a bit unlikely that anyone can predict how this will pan out. Given what we DO know i.e. it is not proportional, does not "help minority parties to win seats", does not end majority governments based on a minority of the votes since there is no compulsion to put in preferences, allows minority groups to potentially work like lobbyists for their preferences without any accountability, I personally see no reason to move from FPTP to AV
What matters far more than any voting system is how we can hold parties to account when they get votes for one set of principles which they then promptly dump on the basis of political expediency to get power - naming no names. Based on results over the past century, at least FPTP tends to be overwhemingly a provider of one party governments. And in the case of one party governments you can say "You promised this. You did this, you bastards. Last time I will vote to you."
Cheers
D
1. AV helps minority parties?
Sam's reply "I have no evidence. Just opinion based on simple logic: If people have more choices in how they vote, there's more chance minority parties getting more votes."
Points1 and 2 hinge on the statement above. The key point is you have no evidence. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "helps". Given that av is not proportional in any way, then I cannot see "helps" meaning that parties who are not in the first three, ending up winning a seat.
So the only way "helps" can have any meaning in the AV scenario re. minority groups seems to be in horse trading prior to the election i.e. Green candidate, UKIP, BNP etc say to one of the main three parties - you agree to do this (either with or without telling the electorate what we have agreed) and we will tell our supporters to vote for your party as their second preference. This apparently happens regularly in Australia, one of the few countries in the world that actually uses this system for their general election. There, parties provide their own vote sheets to be copied to the ballot paper.
So this potentially creates a situation whereby minority groups may have more influence but no accountability. Second-choice trading among the parties may become widespread and smaller parties may thrive in their new role of vote-lobbyists. With AV there is a danger that the tail wags the dog.
I am also a tad amused by the way in which a number of the YES to AV supporters argue that it will "help" the Greens (nice minority party) and not the BNP (horrible minority party)
I suspect that what characterises both the Yes and No campaigns is they have no real idea how this is going to pan out. Given that we do not know:
1. How many people are going to select more than 1 candidate.
2. How many people are going to select multiple preferences.
3. How many people are going to put in preferences for all the candidates on the ballot paper e.g. English Democrats, Independents, Raving Loony etc etc
it is a bit unlikely that anyone can predict how this will pan out. Given what we DO know i.e. it is not proportional, does not "help minority parties to win seats", does not end majority governments based on a minority of the votes since there is no compulsion to put in preferences, allows minority groups to potentially work like lobbyists for their preferences without any accountability, I personally see no reason to move from FPTP to AV
What matters far more than any voting system is how we can hold parties to account when they get votes for one set of principles which they then promptly dump on the basis of political expediency to get power - naming no names. Based on results over the past century, at least FPTP tends to be overwhemingly a provider of one party governments. And in the case of one party governments you can say "You promised this. You did this, you bastards. Last time I will vote to you."
Cheers
D