Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

[OriginalJonty]

I'm advocating a FPTP system, where MPs have party loyalty.

If no-one has party loyalty and individual MPs vote on what is best for their constituency, it'll be like herding cats ..

So, you're against MP's voting in the best interests of the people who elected them and instead believe they should be told how to vote?

Right...

 

[Trifid]

I love how the system is so ****** up that the best option is to not have our elected representatvies think independently.

I'd love our MPs to able to think independently on individual issues. At the moment we have a bunch of sheep who vote yes to what ever their party says and no when their party is not in power (most of the time).

With AV I'd be very tempted to vote for our local independent first assuming I agree with their policies.

 

[britboy4321]

So, you're against MP's voting in the best interests of the people who elected them and instead believe they should be told how to vote?

Right...

Precisely. It's the only system which works in real life.

If MPs vote in the best interests of their local constituencys always there is absolutely no point in having parties at all. The only point in bothering with a party is to form voting blocks. With no parties as you seem to advocate, the amount of compromise, discussion and wheeling&dealing that would have to be done to get ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER done EVER would be unfathomable.

Hey, why not dump MPs altogether and have referendums on everything Perfect democracy yea?


Also -- you may as well dump the role of 'PM' - as he will have precisely no more power than any other MP. Marvellous.

 

[OriginalJonty]

Precisely. It's the only system which works in real life.

If MPs vote in the best interests of their local constituencys always there is absolutely no point in having parties at all. The only point in bothering with a party is to form voting blocks. With no parties as you seem to advocate, the amount of compromise, discussion and wheeling&dealing that would have to be done to get ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING WHATSOEVER done EVER would be unfathomable.

Hey, why not dump MPs altogether and have referendums on everything Perfect democracy yea?

I haven't advocated against parties? However, having the party agree on everything would not be a good thing in the long run. What would be the point of elections at all if MPs have to blindly follow what they're told to do?

 

[LLBDTiberio]

Will be voting "yes". Although I prefer the PR system anything is better than the undemocratic FPTP system. Then again, I think the main problem with the UK is that too few people actually vote and take part in the democratic process yet are the first people to moan when the government does something they don't agree with.

 

[Glaucus]

it is not un-democratic. what ever your thoughts are that is clearly bs, the party with the biggest margin gets into power, if they don't get such a big margin they need a coalition. You may not like the style but to call it un-democratic is just childish.

 

[britboy4321]

I haven't advocated against parties? However, having the party agree on everything would not be a good thing in the long run. What would be the point of elections at all if MPs have to blindly follow what they're told to do?

By advocating MPs should all be able to vote exactly how they want to on everything is effectively advocating against parties.

Here is what we have at the moment

1) The MPs for a party are told which way they should vote to agree with the party. Although they arae never forced to vote this way, if they don't it could have ramifications (explained to them in advance, a process called 'whipping').. ranging from light-weight stuff (they won't get their personal small almost insignificant amendments to their other bills - eg. 'Preston hospital doesn't get it's 15m maternity wing, so which way are you gonna vote on this unrelated bill Preston MP?') to more hardcore whipping tactics (not inviting them to join the cabinet (messing up their career), having them as a candidate for a 'tougher' constituency next time (risking their job), or even not having them as a party candidate next election (losing them their job unless they're tremendously popular with the locals so could stand as an independent)).

2) The MPs can still vote for whatever they want, but of course it's not a secret ballot or anything. No MP is ever FORCED to vote one way - just, er, strongly encouraged.

3) Some times you have 'backbench revolts' - when a load get together and say 'they can't screw with us all, lets ALL vote against our bosses together'. Which often works.

4) The PM or cabinet can declare a 'free vote'. This means any MP can vote for what they want without fear of repecussion. Normally after negotiation with the opposition to ensure they also offer a free vote. It means the government doesn't really know which way it wants to go, so they ask the house.


Now, if there is always no consequence for voting against your party, seriously, what is the point in having a thing called a 'political party'? There would be no point in it existing would there? As it is the same as a load of MPs standing as independents.

Also - I'm being deadly serious here .. what would be the point in having 1 person declared 'the prime minister'? He would have the same authority as everyone else - not more! Therefore the office may as well not exist. You see the problems?

 

[avec]

To the person who complained about the Lib Dem proportion of the vote compared to Labour and said "where is their representation?", I do believe their representation is in the fact that they are now in a majority coalition government and have had more power than the Lib Dems have had in a very long time.

FPTP isn't perfect, no voting system is.

For some of you to say things like "well 60% of the country didn't vote for these guys so why are they in power?", does that mean the one with even less votes deserves it on second preferences? I don't think so.

To the guy that said FPTP is undemocratic, well, you're obviously totally uneducated on the subject and should spend at least an hour doing a little research on what you will be voting for, considering just how important it is.

The more I read about AV the more I sincerely hope we get a No vote in May.

I don't want this country to end up like Germany (held to ransom by the Greens) or Australia (struggling with an unpopular voting system where second and third place matter more than first place).

 

[meghatronic]

 

[Rich_L]

Hah, love the newest thing coming from the No group - that the change to AV is for 'tactical party advantage' - just utter lol at the sheer shamelessness of their posturing - yes I'm sure that the reason the Tories and half of Labour so desperately want FPTP to stay is because of the 'fairness' of FPTP, not because it allows both parties to form a majority government from their minority of votes...

What tactical advantage exactly does AV offer? That the Lib Dems might get a proportion of seats that reflects their vote share? The Lib Dems aren't seeking an *advantage* they are seeking to correct the ridiculous *disadvantage* that they, and any other party seeking to upset the two-party status quo, have under the wholly unfair FPTP system.

 

[meghatronic]

Hah, love the newest thing coming from the No group - that the change to AV is for 'tactical party advantage' - just utter lol at the sheer shamelessness of their posturing - yes I'm sure that the reason the Tories and half of Labour so desperately want FPTP to stay is because of the 'fairness' of FPTP, not because it allows both parties to form a majority government from their minority of votes...

Both sides of the debate are shameless and cringeworthy. Cable was ranting about Strictly Come Dancing earlier. The whole affair is an embarrassment.

 

[avec]

Hah, love the newest thing coming from the No group - that the change to AV is for 'tactical party advantage' - just utter lol at the sheer shamelessness of their posturing - yes I'm sure that the reason the Tories and half of Labour so desperately want FPTP to stay is because of the 'fairness' of FPTP, not because it allows both parties to form a majority government from their minority of votes...

What tactical advantage exactly does AV offer? That the Lib Dems might get a proportion of seats that reflects their vote share? The Lib Dems aren't seeking an *advantage* they are seeking to correct the ridiculous *disadvantage* that they, and any other party seeking to upset the two-party status quo, have under the wholly unfair FPTP system.

You are incredibly misguided if you think that the Lib Dems aren't doing this for personal gain and a tactical party advantage.

 

[Rich_L]

True, some of the Yes arguments are pathetic but the No campaign I think is definitely the most disingenous/deceptive.

I think the Yes campaign are missing a massive trick - from everything I have seen they seem to only be appealing to the 'liberal' crowd whereas UKIP could benefit hugely - they should absolutely embrace the UKIP support.

i.e.
http://michaelheaversblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/poll-shows-under-av-that-ukip-has-wide.html

You are incredibly misguided if you think that the Lib Dems aren't doing this for personal gain and a tactical party advantage.

Perhaps I didn't quite make it clear - the Torys and Labour have far more to gain from keeping FPTP, than the Lib Dems do by the change to AV. The best that AV will give the Lib Dems is an appropriate proportion of seats to their vote share, they will still not have any chance to form a majority government - whereas FPTP is so important to the Torys and Labour because it massively favours them getting a majority government - although it was awesome that FPTP still conspired to produce a hung Parliament last time round

 

[avec]

the Torys and Labour have far more to gain from keeping FPTP, than the Lib Dems do by the change to AV. The best that AV will give the Lib Dems is an appropriate proportion of seats to their vote share, they will still not have any chance to form a majority government - whereas FPTP is so important to the Torys and Labour because it massively favours them getting a majority government - although it was awesome that FPTP still conspired to produce a hung Parliament last time round

They'll remain the two largest parties with the most money behind them and the most power between them.

The Lib Dems on the other hand will go from the minority third choice to regular election winners as they'll routinely be required to team up with whichever of the two larger parties comes second in order to usurp the actual winner.

The Lib Dems stand to gain more than anyone else from AV. As do all the other minority parties as they'll be routinely required to participate in the back room deals that will help form governments behind closed doors should AV be chosen.

 

[Xelene]

They'll remain the two largest parties with the most money behind them and the most power between them.

The Lib Dems on the other hand will go from the minority third choice to regular election winners as they'll routinely be required to team up with whichever of the two larger parties comes second in order to usurp the actual winner.

The Lib Dems stand to gain more than anyone else from AV. As do all the other minority parties as they'll be routinely required to participate in the back room deals that will help form governments behind closed doors should AV be chosen.

Sounds good to me. Our electoral system is massively skewed by FPTP, just look at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

Labour had 29% of the vote and 258 seats, whereas Lib Dems had 23% of the vote and 57 seats.

The DUP had 0.6% of the vote and 8 seats, whereas UKIP had 3.1% of the vote and no seats at all.

I'd personally favour some form of PR that fits the UK, such as STV or AV+ but we aren't being offered that. AV for me.

 

[Glaucus]

Av won't change that at all, it is still set on boundaries and this is the biggest problem, we need a national vote, with no boundaries.

 

[meghatronic]

I'd personally favour some form of PR that fits the UK, such as STV or AV+ but we aren't being offered that. AV for me.

This is the problem.

You have a wheel. You want a car, I offer you a brick. You accept the brick as it's better than nothing. Ludicrous.

If not PR, why bother? If we get AV we'll *never* get PR (people wanted AV!!!). If we don't get AV we'll *never* get PR (people don't want change).

 

[Castiel]

I think they need to overhaul the constituency system before changing the voting system.

Besides which if we are going to have a proportional representation system, then let us have one, some kind of half-way compromise is just pointless.

 

[Xelene]

This is the problem.

You have a wheel. You want a car, I offer you a brick. You accept the brick as it's better than nothing. Ludicrous.

If not PR, why bother? If we get AV we'll *never* get PR (people wanted AV!!!). If we don't get AV we'll *never* get PR (people don't want change).

Because AV is marginally less ****ty than FPTP, and it's likely to return slightly more voices in Westminster in favour of further change than FPTP will.

Your brick analogy is ridiculous, a bicycle frame would be closer. It's not a car sure, but it makes the wheel marginally more useful and their might be some transport at the end of it.

 

[britboy4321]

Av won't change that at all, it is still set on boundaries and this is the biggest problem, we need a national vote, with no boundaries.

Being devil's advocate here a little .. but the argument is that then the politicians won't give a monkey's about 'local issues'. No-one will specifically argue FOR .. er .. Grimsby.