pedg

If that is the distribution of votes then I would rather accept a more representative distribution of MP's in parliament with a few extremists than an unrepresentative distribution. Also I think there is something to be said for shining a light on these people, as per the question time with the BNP leader, rather than letting them fester and grow out of the spotlight of normal political debate.

Given their owners I think this is more likely.

To be fair this year pompey have purchased mediocrity.

Have the ruskies actually passed the FAPPT? http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/pompey-past/great-matches/fans_in_limbo_as_rumours_fly_over_pompey_takeover_1_2624917

Problem is that the big parties (i.e. Labour and the Tories) know they will lose out under PR so there is no way we will get a vote on PR no matter what the public opinion if it was just down to them. As it is we only got the AV vote as the price for the libdems supporting the tories and I doubt they would have agreed to a vote on PR to get into power. I think that a no vote on AV will drastically reduce the chance of us having a vote on going to PR in the short to medium term. I the question of the minority parties I guess it depends on which you think is better. A parliament that fully represents the political spectrum across the country proportional to the support of each group where we may end up with one or two MP's for extremist parties or a parliament where the representation of groups are out of proportion to their support in the country.

If PR was on the table I, like many here, would vote for it. Unfortunately its not and we have the compromise solution. You can unfortunately only vote on what is in front of you. Some minority parties, such as the green's will probably do better under AV both as a first choice and a latter choice. Some such as the BNP will have the limitations of their support shown up. Until we break the one constituency/ one MP link then we will never have a true democracy. AV is but a purgatory that we need to pass through before then.

Lets look at the 'broad' support for the no to AV compaign. This graph: Take from here: http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2011/04/no-to-av-donors/ Shows that of the doners to the 'no to av' campaign the vast majority are tory supporters and that the campaign are unwilling not only to say who has donated less than 7,500 but also to say the total amount that has been donated.

Wrong on so many counts... 1) Yes its simple but by that token so are pompey supporters. 2) It depends how you define preferred. AV guarantees the winner has some level of support from over 50% of the electorate. 3) No proof. I would have thought it was easier to stuff the ballot when you only vote for one person. Having lots of votes from the same place having exactly the same arrangements of voting preferences would be a greater indication of fraud than a simple single vote. 4) The only cost over the current system is having the counters around for a few more hours. But I guess that's a good reason to reject an improvement in our democratic representation. 5) How? 6) Depends if you think a 'strong' government that can ignore the opinion of the majority of the country and inflict policies driven by political dogma rather than reasoned debate on the country is a good thing. I think at this point it is usual to say that germany don't appear to have done too badly from a succession of coalitions. 7) Some research has shown the reverse is true. Hence the BNP opposing AV. Its used in lots of countries but not sure if it is popular. More on point 5: In just 1 election in 100 years has a government with a working majority been replaced by a government with a working majority from another party.

They don't happen to have one involving guns and kittens as well do they?

I think the argument goes that with the current electoral system once you get elected into a safe seat you are basically on the gravy train and its this 'job for life' position that tempts MPs into taking advantage of the rules about expenses, etc, but that an MP that has to appeal to/keep on the right side of a broader share of their constituents would be less likely to take advantage of things like the house flipping etc.

Lord Norton appears to be concentrating on the mechanics of the vote rather than the overall effect. The only real difference between how the tory party elect a leader and AV is that with the tories you get to see who is knocked out at each stage and can thus change your vote which would could possibly involve voting tactically (i.e. if you think your preferred candidate has enough votes to get through to the next round you might vote for the weaker challenger to try to get a stronger challenger removed). It would be nice to be able vote at each stage in a general election but that is not feasible so AV is the closest electoral system usable in a general election to the system used by the tories.

http://www.portsmouth.vitalfootball.co.uk/sitepage.asp?a=239909

Indeed. Even if the end result is a similar distribution of MPs to that we currently have the votes before any candidates are removed will give a much better snapshot of political opinion around the country than the current system where people often vote tactically.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Portsmouth-are-on-the-verge-of-a-Russian-takeover-by-Vladimir-Antonov-article727639.html So is there another hurdle to go through besides the FAPPT?

Because there are, thank god, rather less tory MP's that registered voters in the UK it is feasible for them to hold multiple rounds of voting as the person with the lowest vote is eliminated in each round until 2 are left. Voting in a general election cannot be repeated in this way, hence the use of AV to produce the same effect. The mechanism then is different but the general idea is the same, remove the person with the lowest votes and check the votes. If the tory leader was selected by FPTP voting of the MP's it would have been David Davis. We don't know who would have been leader via FPTP for as vote of the tory members as they were not offered the option of selecting between all the candidates.

Next date for the diary: 9.30 tomorrow where, if Leeds beat Reading, pompeys thin mathematical chances of promotion will finally curl up, exhale deeply and then go pop.

At what point in a season does a club have to provide proof that they can forfill their fixtures for the next season.

According to his profile (http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/member.php?2313-Corporate-Ho) he was on here not 2 days ago. Strange (or possibly not) that he has lost the ability to type.

So basically a load of clap.

I want PR but as its not on offer I will take AV as it is less worse than FPTP. Yes AV offers little immediate prospect of a move to better PR but a NO vote will remove the chance of getting PR for probably a generation.

Oh dear, failure to understand LD. A government needs over 50% of the MP's (normally) and for each MP will be elected by 50% of the electorate in that constituency favoring that MP after zero or more rounds of eliminations, as required. The original point is that the tories are scared of AV not because it is less fair but because it is more fair and they think that typically those more centralist in their opinion are probably more likely to favour left over right wing parties and that left wing voters will put more centralist candidates before right wing candidates. This would effectively see Labour voters put lib-dems ahead of tories in their voting preferences and lib-dems probably put labour ahead of tories in theirs. The end result of this they fear is that they will lose a lot of seats they currently hold with 30 odd percent of the vote and never again have the force in government they currently have. If this mindset is true is another matter. There was good article on this in the guardian a week or so back but don't have the link to hand.

Actually the real plan is to tack into popular culture and replace the elections with a special series of the X Factor. (though it could be worse, it could be a special series of Britain's got talent)

No. That's the reason you THINK they are pushing it. The lib dems have been in favour of more representative government for a long time. Not so they get more power but because it is fairer. That's what I THINK.

You only PHYSICALLY vote once but in each round as people with the least votes is removed everybody vote counts... Its a system so simple even Tory MP's appear to understand it (at least when it suits them) so I would not try for a career in politics if I was you.

Yes. If it takes 3 rounds to get to a majority the EVERYONES votes will be counted 3 times.