Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

Which is why it would need a complete reform and give local councils much more power with central government dealing with national issues. A bit like USA where each state controls themselves and government deals with anything national.
 
I cracked up today when Cameron was ranting about how bad AV is and the kind of people he felt it may allow to win. I think he forgot that he was elected Party Leader under the Conservative Party's voting system which is AV.........:D:D:D
 
sldsmkd said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the analogy is fine - the sole difference in Parliament will be a different proportion of seats. Constituents won't have a greater voice, MPs won't work harder, they won't do anything different - except around election time of course.

Even if it costs £1 it's too much - PR would be worth a cost, as would a more radical overhaul or even AV+. It just isn't worth it.

It's a brick. And quickly turning into the elephant in the room.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Which is why it would need a complete reform and give local councils much more power with central government dealing with national issues. A bit like USA where each state controls themselves and government deals with anything national.
Click to expand...
Flick of the broadsheets today shows me that I actually want less responsibility placed with local councils :D
 
From my knowledge in GCSE History, I personally feel PR can lead to a "leadership" where there is no real leader if people know what I mean?

Therefore nothing can really get done :(

FPTP for me, whoever gets the most votes gets the power, and stop backhand coalition deals which were clearly never going to work in the first place.....
 
avec said:
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.
Click to expand...

So even when AV gives the 50%+ majority winner eventually after rounds of elimination, the losing parties can still form a coalition?

I thought the whole point of AV was that the overall most-preferred party gets in to power, what is the point if the smaller parties can team up just like they did in the last FPTP?
 
krooton said:
So even when AV gives the 50%+ majority winner eventually after rounds of elimination, the losing parties can still form a coalition?

I thought the whole point of AV was that the overall most-preferred party gets in to power, what is the point if the smaller parties can team up just like they did in the last FPTP?
Click to expand...

AV is about electing MPs not governments per se.
 
I got the flyer from the No to AV campaign through my door this morning. And what a staggeringly dishonest piece of literature it is. Why is the public face of this campaign being dominated by such low quality discourse from both sides?
 
I'll be voting NO for the simple and honest reason that the chances of a Conservative majority government would all but disappear under AV. Oh and it would annoy the Lib-Dems.
 
Mr Jack said:
Ah, someone with more time and energy than me has taken the time to put together a takedown of that No2AV leaflet
Click to expand...

It does disgust me that the NO campaign is relying on lies and misinformation. If they had presented arguments with actual facts then I would be willing to give them a fair chance. By spreading misinformation they've pretty much admitted they can't come up with a real opposition to AV or a real reason for keeping the current system.
 
OriginalJonty said:
It does disgust me that the NO campaign is relying on lies and misinformation. If they had presented arguments with actual facts then I would be willing to give them a fair chance. By spreading misinformation they've pretty much admitted they can't come up with a real opposition to AV or a real reason for keeping the current system.
Click to expand...

AV encourages weak government.

End of.
 
britboy4321 said:
AV encourages weak government.

End of.
Click to expand...

Give me dictatorship or give me death, ey Britters?


I also just noticed something that the NO campaign skirts around.

MP A: 34 votes
MP B: 30 votes
MP C: 20 votes
MP D: 16 votes

FPTP sees MP A 'win' with a majority minority.

AV will see the above MP C not able to win with 50%, as even if all the MP D voters have MP C as their second pref, it would only be 36%, and go to another round.

So an extreme situation could see MP B suddenly surge ahead with 66% of the votes.

"How unfair, they were coming in 2nd place under FPTP!!!"

Yes, yes, but another extreme situation could see MP A storm it with 70% by round 3, or even hit 50% by round 2.

Using extreme situations is a weak way to fight one's agenda.

As a voter, why would you not want to be able to signify that you agree with the policies of more than one party?

Look at it like a menu.

100.

40 of them ideally want steak, but also like lasagne, but hate fish.
35 of them ideally want lasagne, but hate steak and fish.
25 of them ideally want fish, but also like lasagne, but hate steak


Lasagne is clearly the common ground that everyone would happily eat, but FPTP sees 60% go hungry as steak won the majority minority.

100% would eat lasagne
40% would eat steak
25% would eat fish

How is that more democratic?
 
krooton said:
As a voter, why would you not want to be able to signify that you agree with the policies of more than one party?

Look at it like a menu.

100.

40 of them ideally want steak, but also like lasagne, but hate fish.
35 of them ideally want lasagne, but hate steak and fish.
25 of them ideally want fish, but also like lasagne, but hate steak


Lasagne is clearly the common ground that everyone would happily eat, but FPTP sees 60% go hungry as steak won the majority minority.

100% would eat lasagne
40% would eat steak
25% would eat fish

How is that more democratic?
Click to expand...

Food makes everything much more simpler :)
 
You are thinking of political parties being entirely seperate entities from each other, rather than thinking of them being somewhere along the political spectrum ranging from Fascism to Communism.

You see no-one will jump from 'strong left wing' to 'strong right wing' - so the centralists get a massive advantage (hence the lib-dems LOVING the idea .. its not about what is best for the country, it's about what is best for THEM).

I like your 'restaurant' example. If would however be more accurate to let us say the only thing on the menu is steak .. and the vote is 'how do you want it cooked'.

No-one is going to say 'First choice - rare .. second choice, very well done' or vice versa. People are always going to choose their second choice as close to the 'first choice' as is available. So everyone will choose 'second choice .. er .. medium'. The people who like it well done, the people who like it rare, EVERYONE with second choice moves centralist on the 'steak cookedness' front (apart from a very few moving more extreme, which are barely worth mentioning).

Everyone is going to lean their second choice towards the centre.

So the centre will win, despite virtually no-one WANTING medium steaks, everyone will have 'medium' steaks for year after year. Everyone loses -- apart from the 'MEDIUM' steak 'first choicers' - who somehow get power, from being the third most popular option - just because they're 'almost' what people actually wanted :/ Marvellous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom