egafd.com

"What would happen if, the ballot paper has 10 candidates and you have to choose 4, but choose only the 1 that you want to win anyway and leave the others blank as you do in the FPTP system that we use?"

In the version of AV that the Lib Dems are planning to bring in if they win the vote, as far as I know you do not have to put any other preferences down. So if you put UKIP down, Rodders as your first and only choice, that's entirely your prerogative. In that instance, if UKIP came bottom of the initial count, you would have no second preferences to transfer.

Cheers
D

Jeremy Vine did a show on it today, if you want to listen to it.

Should have written second preference not second preferences. You only have one, second preference.

[quote]AV seems to be a bit of a dog's breakfast. You are correct that it is not a proportional representational voting system. Clegg, himself described it as a miserable, little compromise. Now he is describing it as "a once in a lifetime opportunity to change politics".[/quote]

I don't understand why something cannot be both a miserable compromise AND a once in a lifetime opportunity.

I want full proportional representation and AV is a compromise.

This is the first time in my 35 years of life that I have an opportunity to change the voting system.

Am I wrong?

What a load of codswallop and scaremongering.

Denying the nation a more proportional House of Commons and using the BNP as an excuse is like denying us our liberty and freedom and using terrorism as the excuse.

What FPTP has given us:

Conservatives: 36.1% of vote = 47.2% of seats.
Labour: 29% of vote = 39.7% of seats.
Liberal Democrats: 23% of vote = 8.8% of seats.

"I don't understand why something cannot be both a miserable compromise AND a once in a lifetime opportunity."

In a simplistic way, it can be i.e. this is potentially a once in a lifetime opportunity to vote for a different general election system.

In terms of the spirit of the phrase "once in a lifetime opportunity" , the phrase invariably suggests a positive rather than negative event as part of this "lifetime opportunity", not a miserable, little compromise.

If I said that attending the 2012 Olympics was a once in a lifetime opportunity but in weeks previous to that had stated that this is going to be a miserable little event which is miles short of being as good as it could have been, people would understandably think "What?"

I suppose this is tied in to the massive antipathy towards Clegg. His arguments in favour of AV are trashed here

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/for ... st-av/5732

and his general complete untrustworthiness can be highlighted in dozens of clips of which this is just one.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/11 ... -election/

Cheers
D

But a miserable little event isn't a miserable little compromise.

One is the view "I don't want this event.", while the other is "It's not what I wanted but it's better than a smack in the mouth."

And I'm not voting 'yes' to AV because I think it will stop MPs fiddling expenses (and never have said this) so I don't see why you posted the first link.

The second link has nothing to do with AV so, again, pointless.

Do I want AV? No. I wanted full PR. Then again I want to screw Adriana Lima but that hasn't stopped me accepting I might have to compromise on that score.......at least for the time being !happy!

AV isn't perfect, but I think it can be considered progression.

[quote]It won't create a more proportional house of commons,[/quote]

Do the maths yourself. It will. It's not perfect, but then again what is?

[quote]unless the general public take a moment to seriously examine AV they could be forgiven for thinking that's exactly what they're voting for.[/quote]

Plenty of other nations use AV or even PR and aren't backward wastelands because of it. They get on just fine. I have enough faith to assume that people who want to vote will 'get it'. It's not fucking rocket science.

[quote]The House of commons will still be FTPT, overall majority required.[/quote]

But the system used to get past that post will be fairer, imo.

[quote]Given that some chavs were interviewed on TV last May and didn't know who Gordon Brown was I'd be worried about the legitimacy of this referendum.[/quote]

If they didn't even know who Gordon Brown was then:

a) I don't see how the current system would help them.

b) They're probably the kind who wouldn't bother to go out and vote anyway so the system used is immaterial.

[quote]Apparently half the country think FPTP is unfair so we should have a referendum to switch to AV, well guess what half the country think AV is unfair too.[/quote]

Half the country believe in ghosts while the other half don't. So what? This doesn't tell us who's right.

"But a miserable little event isn't a miserable little compromise. One is the view "I don't want this event.", while the other is "It's not what I wanted but it's better than a smack in the mouth."

Whatever spin you wish to put on the statement does not prevent it being extremely negative.

"And I'm not voting 'yes' to AV because I think it will stop MPs fiddling expenses (and never have said this) so I don't see why you posted the first link"

This is not about you. Sorry!

My post which you responded to was about Clegg's reasons for supporting AV. Clegg is talking his usual disingenuous nonsense. The Channel 4 link trashes some of his arguments in favour of AV.

"The second link has nothing to do with AV so, again, pointless".

No. It is part of a trend. Clegg is by far the most hypocritical, dishonest politician of his generation. One minute he is trashing the Tory plans to hammer public services, the next he is supporting them in return for power as my link shows. One minute he is trashing AV as a miserable little compromise, the next he is extolling it as a way of stopping MPs from fiddling their expenses.

Cheers
D