egafd.com

Sam

The Yes campaign proclaim a lot of things including that AV will defeat minority parties.

Few are against them having a vote. What they are against is them having that vote and then voting or making a preference, as the AV lot prefer to call it, again.

I don't know how AV would defeat minority parties. I'm not here to defend that particular position and think it's wrong. If people in the 'yes' campaign are saying this then it's political claptrap because the opposing side are scaremongering with the 'It'll let the BNP in!' shite. Tit-for-tat nonsense because people fall for it.

My view is that this country is left of centre, on average. The reason right of centre parties get in quite often is because there aren't many right of centre parties to vote for outside the Conservatives and most recently UKIP. The left of centre vote is spread across more thinly. PR would help give a more proportional government but that's not on offer.

There is an argument that if we'd had AV over the last 5-6 elections it wouldn't have made a difference in who got in power. I agree with this (even though it's hard to prove who someone's 2nd and 3rd choice votes would have been 20 years ago). It would, however, have resulted in more seats for minority parties. Especially in elections where the majority of the winner was low (like the last election). Who wins what isn't the point but how you and I are represented in government. The current system leaves lots of voters who don't vote for the big two, voiceless. I think that's wrong and why I'll be voting for AV.

If AV really was bad for minority parties then I can't see why the Greens or Lib Dems are backing it.

I just want to know why a lot of people are against smaller, minority parties having more influence in government. Is a more diverse set of opinions that bad? Why should you either be black or white to be important? Why do you have to be in the blue or red camp to have a say?

[quote]Your correct AV encourages the minority to vote for what they believe in.[/quote]

A good thing then?

[quote]Trouble is the Yes to AV campaign proclaim it will help some but won't help others.[/quote]

On the other side people say AV means people won't be treated in hospitals and soldiers won't get their equipment with AV (talking about those daft campaign posters). Ignore the bullcrap that most fall for.

[quote]I believe it does help in that some can vote for a minority but then allows them to also have a say on who they would also like when their minority vote is kicked into touch.[/quote]

What's wrong with that? The alternative is you can only have a say if you vote for one of the big two. I'd rather a party win a seat based on a LOT of people's second preferences than a party that won with 31% of the vote and the other 69% get no representation at all.

[quote]That will only encourage minority voting but if you don't give a toss for a minority it means they have more votes[/quote]

Slightly misleading. You're not FORCED to vote and if you do vote AV doesn't FORCE you to give 2nd and 3rd preference votes. If you just want to vote Labour and give no other preferences you can. So, if you 'don't give a toss' about minority parties then you're completely free to ignore them on your ballot paper. Simples. At least you have a choice where as now you ARE forced to pick one candidate and one only.

[quote]That's wrong and is the complete opposite of the "fairness" the Yes campaign also proclaim to want.[/quote]

I agree to an extent. It's not fair - but neither is what we have now. The question is, is it fairer? Will it give a better chance of more diversity in government? Does it give more people representation? I think yes, yes and yes.

And guess what? If you vote 'yes' then and it succeeds I think it will be a watershed moment and we'll be more open to full PR in future. How many times have we, the people, had an opportunity to change how we vote in our government? If it fails we'll be stuck with the same old, unfair, system for generations to come. We'll never get PR if AV fails because people will look back on this referendum and think 'what's the point? We couldn't even get people to vote for AV back in 2011 so I'm not going to bother trying.'

And what if AV is a disaster? Well, we can go back to FPTP. It's not like we'd have it written into a constitution where we have to use AV forever more. Another issue to consider is that it sends a message to politicians that we, the people, are willing and capable of changing how we do things if we're unhappy with the status quo.

Personally I can't see why people are so scared of it. They act like it'd be the end of the world as we know it.

Sam

I've finally got the yes campaign, not you but the director of it (Jessica Asato) to admit that the miserable little compromise is just the next step to what they actually want.

That basically means the millions spent on the referendum, spent at a time of cuts, has been a complete waste of time, it's not what they want and if it does come in, then they will press for what they then do want, at a cost of millions again.

All the stuff relating to how wonderful it will be will then no doubt be tossed aside with things on the lines of AV is crap this is better.

I've not had an answer to why if so many want change does it have to happen now when the referendum is costing so much but it's a question they refuse to reply to.



The debate should have been should we change to this (the final outcome they want) not the compromise and the millions wasted used to sell it at a time when we weren't in the brown stuff.

I don't do "the bullcrap most fall for" I look at the arguments for AV see them change on a daily or weekly basis and know that the arguments are made without the real reason being told.

The % quotes don't wash with me The solution is getting people to vote for you - something the Lib Dems manage to achieve this time around (albeit turning out to be bullcrap)

Independent MP's also show that the % lies also don't add up.

The vote / preference malarkey of you can only make the one choice misses the point of the minority parties we don't like having a say and being recognised when it should be if you want to make that choice it's fine but just don't expect to have a say on any other party.

Not sure if you've heard of it but there is a thing going round called Third Place First which basically equates to putting the effort in to your politics and getting people to vote for you.

I believe it works and if you don't do enough to get the vote then you only have yourself to blame.

[quote]I've finally got the yes campaign, not you but the director of it (Jessica Asato) to admit that the miserable little compromise is just the next step to what they actually want.[/quote]

Of course. PR. Everyone knows that.

[quote]That basically means the millions spent on the referendum, spent at a time of cuts, has been a complete waste of time, it's not what they want and if it does come in, then they will press for what they then do want, at a cost of millions again.[/quote]

So you're saying you'll vote 'no' to AV because it's costing too much? I didn't know 'no' votes were cheaper to count than 'yes' votes. There are many many things governments waste money on - nuclear submarines being one. I think a fairer voting system is worth it.

[quote]I've not had an answer to why if so many want change does it have to happen now when the referendum is costing so much but it's a question they refuse to reply to.[/quote]

Because it's on offer. Can you, I, our dads, granddads or great-granddads remember a time the people had a referendum on voting reform? You don't look a gift-horse in the mouth.

[quote]I don't do "the bullcrap most fall for" I look at the arguments for AV see them change on a daily or weekly basis and know that the arguments are made without the real reason being told.[/quote]

That's just not true though, is it? Why don't you just admit that you don't want AV because you're angry at the Liberal Democrats forming a coalition with the Tories. For me this is about fairness and grasping an opportunity to change things. Political manifestos and politicians change, how we vote rarely does.

[quote]The % quotes don't wash with me The solution is getting people to vote for you - something the Lib Dems manage to achieve this time around (albeit turning out to be bullcrap)[/quote]

There we are - my suspicions confirmed. You're voting 'no' out of anger at one political party, not because you have any real rational reasons to.

[quote]The vote / preference malarkey of you can only make the one choice misses the point of the minority parties we don't like having a say and being recognised when it should be if you want to make that choice it's fine but just don't expect to have a say on any other party.[/quote]

Wow. "If you're a minority party we don't want you to have a say." Like I said, AV doesn't force you to give preferences. If you want to vote for one party and ignore everyone else you're allowed to. Just because you don't want to give preferences don't deny the opportunity others.

[quote]Not sure if you've heard of it but there is a thing going round called Third Place First which basically equates to putting the effort in to your politics and getting people to vote for you.

I believe it works and if you don't do enough to get the vote then you only have yourself to blame.[/quote]

Not sure if you've heard of this but having more people represented in parliament is a good thing.

Actually, AV is really not much different to what we have now, even if it gets through, I personally don't think it will, because a lot of "Established" Politician's from all sides have too much to loose. To me it really makes no difference, if AV is accepted, and you are not happy about it, just vote for one preference, simple as that, it's just the same as FPTP.
In my opinion, it won't get through, also I have come to the conclusion, all Politician's with very few exception's are self serving mongs, with very little power now anyway, European Judges have seen to that.

Sam quoting lines and adding comments to each bit is annoying but let me be absolutely clear:

Quote:

I don't do "the bullcrap most fall for" I look at the arguments for AV see them change on a daily or weekly basis and know that the arguments are made without the real reason being told.

That's just not true though, is it? Why don't you just admit that you don't want AV because you're angry at the Liberal Democrats forming a coalition with the Tories. For me this is about fairness and grasping an opportunity to change things. Political manifestos and politicians change, how we vote rarely does.

is absolute bollocks!

I am angry but only at those within my own party, who didn't do enough to win the votes which led to the coalition.

You can have any voting system you want but if you don't get people voting for you it doesn't matter one bit.

I actually welcome the Limp Dems being in Government because of the wake up call it has given to most, if not all of their supporters, including those members who have left to join us.

They are in because they did enough to get in - that simple and if we had we would be.

Spending millions to change that system to a miserable compromise won't change the reasons to vote.

When you throw in the bullcrap about how good it is, who it will help etc when you know full well that it's not what they want and is just bullcrap in an attempt to make AV viable it narks but the main is that we let people down and are rightly paying the consequences for doing it.

Cleggy is doing yet more lies today on the minority party it won't help but by some miracle will help others and another reason is to show that twat how wrong he is but, as mentioned, my main reason for saying NO is because it won't change what needs to be changed as far as Labour goes.

Funny innit how it will be decided by a yes or no vote or first past the post wins !!

In votes where there are only two options you cannot have any other system.

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.

I'm voting for a system (not my favoured choice I may add) that allows people to give their 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices, but also allowing people like you, if they desire, to choose just one and one only. You, want to vote your way and want everyone else to vote your way too. That's fine if you have good, reasonable reasons. I've had none so far. All you've said is that the 'yes' campaign are sending out mixed messages (don't all politicians?) and that it costs too much (which isn't really true when we're spending much more on Trident, etc. Something Labour would have still spent money on if they'd got into office again).

The only reasons I can think of why you don't want AV is that it's a pay-back vote for the Lib Dems going into a coalition and that you think AV may be bad for the particular party you support.