egafd.com

[quote]I never said either of those things, it was you that said {Chavs wouldn't be likely to vote if they didn't know who Gordon Brown was}[/quote]

Not exactly true. I didn't say chavs wouldn't be likely to vote, but people who had no idea who Brown was (you can be a chav and know who Brown is, or be a non-chav and have no clue who Brown is). He was our PM for what, 3 years? If they had no idea who he was I think it's safe to say they haven't followed politics recently and were at least apathetic to going out and voting.

[quote]The casual voter that hasn't taken time to really understand it might just pop a tick in the change box as they go to local elections anyway in May and think what the hell.[/quote]

They may well. I could turn this round on you and say the casual person polled about AV would just answer 'No', putting your 50/50 poll, and thus the conclusion that we shouldn't have a referendum, in serious doubt.

In summary, you believe people who answer yes and no in polls are more reliable, intelligent people than those who'll actually vote?

Absolutely NOTHING to do with scaremongering you won't like it but its a fact.

Please don't come back with any bollocks Sam.

I've got my info of Jessica Asato who in case you don't know (and I suspect you don't) is the Director of the Labour Yes to AV campaign.

The yes campaign want the Tories out - not a bad thing as mentioned but they will do anything for it and the BNP thing is a price they are more than willing to pay.

You can quote all the percentages you want the simple facts are if Labour had given 36.1 % of voters reason for them to be voted for they would be in.

We (Labour) didn't and frankly deserve to be in opposition for not doing it.

For fucks sake, yawnfuck. Do I have to spell it out for you to understand?


I said: "b) They're probably the kind who wouldn't bother to go out and vote anyway"

'The kind' I'm referring to are people who didn't know who Brown was. They may or may not be 'chavs'. Get it?

[quote]"In summary, you believe people who answer yes and no in polls are more reliable, intelligent people than those who'll actually vote?"

I don't understand that last bit can you redo it in English please ?[/quote]

So now my summary was too complicated? Jeeeesh!

I'll try and explain again:

1) You seem overly worried that some people who'll vote for AV won't actually know what the fuck they're voting for.

2) You don't seem as worried about the knowledge and experience of AV the people recently polled had. And it's these polls that you're basing your opinion on that we shouldn't have a referendum.

See your bias here? You want to use the results of a poll to back up your argument (and in doing so you're trusting the poll and the education of the people polled) that we shouldn't have a referendum, but saying that if we do have a referendum your average voter will just tick yes without knowing too much about what they're voting for.

You're cherry-picking who you trust to back up your stance. If any significant portion of voters won't know what AV is when they are voting on AV, surely there must be a similar portion of the people who didn't know when asked about whether they wanted AV or not in the polls you're basing your opinion on. The polls aren't to be trusted, according to your own theory, and that means your main reason for not wanting a referendum is flawed from the start.

[quote]We (Labour) didn't and frankly deserve to be in opposition for not doing it.[/quote]

It's not about Labour deserving to be in opposition. It's about parties deserving a more proportional amount of seats/power/influence based on the percentage of people who bloody voted for them. It's about mine and your vote actually meaning something (well, a little more than it does now).

Tell you what, go to a classroom of 8-12 old kids, tell them the percentage of the vote the Lib Dems got in the last election and then ask them to guess the percentage of seats they got in the House of Commons due to that vote. You can then explain to their puzzled faces how 23% of a vote means 8% of power, or how 1% of the vote means only 1 seat out of 650. If the kids can see it's a scam then it shouldn't be that hard to work out.

Using the BNP as an excuse not to have a fairer voting system is akin to not being allowed to travel outside due to terrorism. You'll be screaming 'it's for our own good!' next.

Still not as stupid as you, you complete and utter arse.
I asked a serious question and your reply is the standard you have set on this forum.
Thank fuck you will never be invited to Lizardsrock.
Probably be best anyway as you'd probably have a heart attack if you were to read the comments about you.

[quote]But it won't, you simply fail to understand the system you are supporting.[/quote]

No, you simply fail to realise that I've actually taken the time to read up on AV, AV+, STV and PR. From what you have to say on the matter, however, I'm guessing you've read the odd newspaper article from the Times, Daily Mail or Telegraph and just repeating the the old negative spin.

[quote]The last 7 elections would have had exactly the same result had AV been in place. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown. AV DOES NOT BRING ANY PROPORTIONALITY TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS[/quote]

Yes, the same parties would still have won, but the House of Commons would have been more representative to the voting of the people, making it harder for parties to carry certain motions through. At the moment you can have a party with an overall majority, with only 40% of the public's vote, carrying anything through and the opposing parties can do nothing to stop them. That means the 60% of voters who didn't vote for the winner being shafted.

Further up this thread you've said we shouldn't have a referendum on AV because only 50% would vote yes. Weirdly you're more happy that a party with only 40% of the vote can have the power to what the fuck they want in parliament. Not very consistent, yawnfuck.

[quote]Make votes count at least in a small way by taking the % share nationally of every party and constructing the second chamber accordingly (House of Lords)[/quote]

And who votes for them? I mean the public decides the percentage share of seats but who picks the individuals? Still, I'm with you on a complete overhaul of the HoL.

Interesting, at least your comment is a good coherent one and I agree in principal with what you write. But I do wonder though if it could work.
I expect that there will be spoiled ballot papers from morons, who if breathing were'nt an automatic biological function would stifle their fucking selves.
I think it is worth a go as there are more normal people than morons and it would eventually seem normal to have to vote, as I honestly think that withholding ones vote accomplishes nothing and I'm a twat to the power of ten for suggesting enforced voting in this serious subject, according to the economic guru, the arse slater.