Alternative Vote Referendum - May 5th 2011

The way in which the question is being asked is completely wrong, it should read:

What format should voting be for general elections?

FPTP

AV

Other (please state)

I don't think the Lib Dems or others will settle if we do or don't get AV - it's going to cost a lot more money when we decide that we should overhaul the system completely the next time there's a hung parliament.

There needs to be a proper debate about the future of democracy in this country, including accountability but also a fair representation of the population.
 
britboy4321 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a crap analogy. I like my steak medium. If I can't get that, I'll have it medium rare.
 
britboy4321 said:
Find anyone in the world that likes their steak 'rare', if they can't have that, 'very well done'.

What? You're struggling?

Capiche?
Click to expand...

So you're against AV because you're against non-extremist, moderate governments?

britboy4321 said:
I presume (read 'hope') this is a joke!

I guess a single bus being driven by 5 drivers, each with their own steering wheels, wouldn't lead to any problems either :D
Click to expand...

Personally, the weaker the government, the better.
 
britboy4321 said:
Everyone is going to lean their second choice towards the centre.
Click to expand...

See, now that's an actual argument against AV rather than the crud we're getting from the No2AV campaign :)

And you're right, to an extent, however as politics becomes increasingly more nuanced and the old left/right dichotomy becomes less and less valid, the problem reduces in scale. Moreover, isn't actually a better reflection of the will of the people if it does happen?
 
britboy4321 said:
I presume (read 'hope') this is a joke!

I guess a single bus being driven by 5 drivers, each with their own steering wheels, wouldn't lead to any problems either :D
Click to expand...

Does strong government lead to good governance though? Many countries using PR consistently outperform the UK, both economically and socially. Just look at Germany or any of the Scandinavian countries.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I think there is plenty of evidence from the previous government which should that a majority government can produce some awful legislation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I want a government that creates legislation based on a consensus of differing views and philosophies, not on the basis of one crazy guy's chat with the fairies.
 
britboy4321 said:
I presume (read 'hope') this is a joke!

I guess a single bus being driven by 5 drivers, each with their own steering wheels, wouldn't lead to any problems either :D
Click to expand...

Under FPTP there have been minority governments which could be argued to be weak governments.

1974 Labour - lasted 8 months.

1977 Labour after the collapse of Lib Lab pact, fell after a vote of no confidence in 1979.

Between Dec 1996 and May 1997 - Minority Tory government.

2010 could have led to a Conservative Minority Government but obviously led to the Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition.

In my view a minority government would be a lot worse as nothing would get done than where a coalition is formed where some things do get done with input from varying sources.
 
growse said:
Exactly. I want a government that creates legislation based on a consensus of differing views and philosophies, not on the basis of one crazy guy's chat with the fairies.
Click to expand...

OK, Let's look at the fun fun fun we get with weak government.

- It is very much more expensive, with the beurocracy costs going through the roof. Meeting after meeting after meeting, and trying to get 7 different people to completely agree on all points within a 29 page white paper, it jsut a blimin' nightmare.

- Actually No-one gets exactly what they want within the legislation by the government. So in a manner of speaking everyone loses. Ironically this is why we are having a referendum on AV rather than Proportional rep. NO-ONE wants the AV referendum -- not the tories, not Labour, not the Libdems. Its a huge compromise - but effectively everyone kinda loses .. !

- Small bits of extreme legislation can get through, because those last few votes are essential (eg. OK Mr BNP - we need your 6 votes so desperately, what do we need to do for you to get them?)

- The government is VERY slow reacting. Earthquake in Japan? Shall we send aid? Well, let's have a 6 week negotiation period with all the members of the coalition to decide how much, and work out the other 17 bits of legislation that need to change as everyone is negotiating their votes. Receptionist - book 12 meetings please Oh, everyone's dead now? Ooops ..

- Governments are less honest. They produce a manifesto - and can't implement any of it because some part of the coalition or other complains and wants changes. So they put the whole lot in the bin, and just say to the opposition who would normally skin them alive for this: 'er, no-one got voted in, all our promises are mute .. hohoho'

- No bold steps can be taken as people that frankly don't care about whether there is a major train route built in London or not, think 'Everyone wants this to work, so I'm going to say no JUST so I can wheel and deal for a leisure centre in Grimsby'. It actually CAUSES friction where there is absolutely no decent reason for friction - and then we're back YET AGAIN to meeting after meeting after meeting to try and work it out.

- U-turns are very prominent - as people compromise more elsewhere to change legislation they don't like

- The moment any member of the coalition disagrees whole-heartedly with the legislation and isn't prepared to compromise - the whole lot hits the dustbin. So if 1 person in the coalition is unreasonable ('I will only vote on anything if Grimsby gets an international airport, full stop')- the whole gig becomes a farce


Or, to sum it up into 1 word -- dithering.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom