Wes Tender

Or whether your local MP extolled the virtues of family life whilst having an affair? So the electorate should take the view that it's nothing to do with them, then? After all, lots of them do it, much as many of them fiddled their expenses claims. But who are we to pass judgement, eh, Chez?

Who cares? Let the voting public decide what they want. You can cry into your beer afterwards.

As I said earlier, there is little point in saying anything further, as it has all been said over and over again. The matter will have been resolved by close of play on the 5th and the voting public will have spoken. If the result is that the No vote prevails, then it must be because they consider that the current system is fair, or at least better than AV, or would you conclude that the voting public are thick? That is the usual position adopted by those who support the AV position, especially the Lib Dems, who pretend that they are only interested in fairness, when really they are pursuing their own party's self-interest, the same as the others.

Could you rewrite this in English, please?

You're describing the typical Lib Dem voter here.

The most embassingly bad dive has to be the Kachloul one. Probably the worst dive in football history. It was pure comedy.

But you can't be critical of a low turnout to vote and draw any reasonable conclusions from the voters' apathy. Every single voter has the opportunity to register their preference with just two clear choices, therefore it is immaterial whether the side that wins does so with a small majority or whether there was a large percentage turnout. Or would you prefer it that there had to be a majority of a certain percentage before changes are made, or that every voter must vote, as in Australia? As it stands, a low percentage turnout is indicative of apathy and I would take that to mean that most could not care either way. This would be pretty damning of the contention that the current system was unfair, as one would have thought that given the opportunity, most would relish the chance to put things right.

A good summary, which I agree with.

And there we have it. Apart from the arrogance that another poster is incapable of an astute observation, there is the assertion that despite the electorate having voted in the purest form of democracy, a referendum, the decision will not be accepted by certain parties. I'm presuming that if the No vote prevails, that the electorate will have deemed FPTP to be fair, or at least fairer than AV. Otherwise it will be arrogance again to accuse the electorate of not having the intelligence to make up their own minds on that.

I'll keep on driving my classic Rolls Royce and you can keep your Sinclair C5. And that is quite enough of this debate for me. I'm not going to change your mind and you're certainly not going to change mine. As Dune astutely observed, the greatest mechanism for democracy is the referendum. All of this debate is useless in the light that the voting public will have their say in a few days time. I do hope that once the result is in, that will be the end of it.

1) Simplicity. The candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of the number of candidates. 2) The person elected is the one most preferred by the most electors. 3) Because the system is simpler, it is easier to Police and less open to fraud. 4) Because it is simpler, it is less costly to administer. 5) It makes the removal of an unpopular Government easier. 6) It is less likely to produce coalitions which are more likely to be weaker, as the minority party has a say in Governement disproportionate to its vote. This coalition is very much a rarity, as usually there is a clear majority for one party or other. 7) More likely to exclude extremist parties. 8 ) Tried and tested, popular in most of the other democracies around the World. Those seem good enough reasons to me.

A bit lame. MPs in the dock might refer to the expenses scandal, or it might refer to any number of cases where MPs have appeared in court for many misdemeanours. But whether the flyer claims that this would not happen under AV or not is immaterial. The inference is clearly that these things happen because of the FPTP system. Do you believe that they would not have happened under the AV system? If so, then you have to admit that the claims were spurious. If not, then why not?

Over to you, Joensuu

Here it is, on their own website:- http://fairervotes.3cdn.net/ea73598b50138dd28e_5qm6idk84.pdf Ah! Already posted by Scummer

It was single sheet flyer posted through our door about a week or so ago. One side headed "What will you be voting for in May", the other headed "Happy with the way things are?" It was published by http://www.yestofairervotes.org and printed by Europa Quality Print in Woolwich. Promoted by Willie Sullivan on behalf of Yes in May 2011 Ltd in London.

I really can't be arsed to refer to a previous post I made, referring to the leaflet that was put out by the Yes campaign in which it stated that a No vote would result in "your voice not being heard, MPs in the Dock and expenses scandal". Now, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person; do you really believe for one minute that having the AV system would have stopped MPs being in the dock, or fraudulent expenses claims? And being objective, if you can, would you therefore not categorise these scurrilous claims as being confusing, midirected, or scare tactics? You see, this sort of gutter tactic is not exclusively the preserve of the No campaign, so I await your response, either condemning that leaflet, or defending it if you can.

Quite.

I thought that I had made a few debating points with Verbal, but surely I'm entitled to pull him up on his assertion that it would be a bad day for democracy if the No vote prevailed, in the same way that I will when the Yes campaign suggest that any intelligent person would vote for change, or that the AV system is fair, or the FPTP system unfair. This is all opinion, not fact. Regarding the labels that are attached to the various factions, then that has also been applied by many of the posters and I'm sure that they're able to take it back as well as dish it out. But the whole thing is factionalised between the left and the right, apart from the Labour Party, who don't know which way to turn. But it is fair to say that most people in politics are voting according to a position that change will either be bad or good for the party they support, the Lib Dems having the most to gain and the Conservatives the most to lose. Accepting this position, what is therefore wrong with the labels and the ensuing sweeping generalisations? Who in this debate is genuinely only contributing from a totally independent and unbiased position? From previous debates on political matters, I could easily predict what their opinion would be from most posters before they typed a single word.

As you say, each to their own. Next time your car is making strange noises, consult your neighbour, the plumber, instead of the garage mechanic. After all, although the plumber's opinion might be flawed, the mechanic might have a vested interest in making up his diagnosis and presenting it as fact.

You see, there you go again. Whether it will be bad day for democracy or not is purely a matter of opinion based on personal preference of whether one considers the existing system to be the best, or whether one thinks that it needs to be changed. This is typical of the arrogance of the left, who also infer that anybody who supports the status quo in the voting system, must be a bit thick. As to your assertion that the declining numbers of the electorate is partly due to the electoral process, then I'm presuming that they will grasp this opportunity with both hands and vote overwhelmingly for this "fairer" system that you champion. A referendum is the only truly democratic mechanism and here is the chance for the disillusioned man in the street to change things. So there is nothing more to say about it until the vote has taken place, is there? Of course, many voters might be disillusioned because MPs get themselves involved in corrupt practices like fiddling their expenses, breaking election manifesto promises, having affairs, or just because in many seats one party has an overwhelming majority that is difficult to overturn. But if there is a low turnout of voters on this referendum, what conclusion will you draw then? That they couldn't be bothered to vote for the change because they really didn't think that it was necessary, or because they are just fed up with politicians and politice generally?

He is NOT right. I know that he thinks he is and that various others think he is too, but as I said, I would much rather take the word of a renowned expert on the subject than that of a layman. If those who disagree wish to have their opinions hold more water, then let them provide evidence in the form of experts who have the opposing opinion. I don't remember seeing much of that. But likewise, who cares, as long as the referendum returns a No vote and puts an end to these attempts to tinker with a voting system which is better and fairer than any of the alternatives.

Yes, I would rather take the opinion of somebody who is an accredited expert on the subject, regardless of his political affiliation, over CB Fry, who as far as I know, is not an expert on anything much. Next.

Credit due to Hartlepool, who came to give us a game and sought to try and get 3 points. Up until half time, they had given a decent enough account of themselves, even though we dominated most of it. But they had the odd chance or two, whereas we had also failed to convert the chances that fell to us. Sometimes it happens, as it did in the Walsall match, that you can dominate and have numerous chances which you do not take, whereas the other team have one chance and take it and win the match. So when we went in front through the Lambert penalty, I was still nervous. We stroked the ball about, having large periods of possession against a side a man down, who didn't often commit themselves too far forward, in case we caught them out with the sucker-punch. So they sat back and we passed it sideways, forward, back, sideways again. It all looked very pretty, but once or twice, there were some nervous moments when we gave the ball away and a quick counter-attack, or a bad mistake like the one Richardson made, could have lost us two points. I could almost see the situation whereby we played the match out like that until Hartlepool scored the equaliser in the last minute and we rued the time we had wasted passing the ball about without penetration. Thankfully, we gained a free kick right in Lambert territory. I think most thought that he would have a crack at scoring from it, but I had an inkling that something else would happen. I said to the guy next to me that he would hit it onto Fonte's head and it would end up in the top left corner and they both duly obliged. I had thought that Fonte had sealed player of the season on Saturday, but if there were any doubters out there, this second goal in two vital matches must have clinched it. The second goal gave us the breathing space we needed and then we could justifiably play the possession passing to run the clock down comfortably. Performances worthy of a mention were Lallana, Fonte (of course), Lambert, Harding, Guly Kelvin and Connolly. Connolly in particular was excellent, I thought. He seemed fit enough to keep going up to the final whistle and was a constant thorn in their side. If he can keep going until the end of the season, he will have been a superb replacement for Barnard if he carries on as he has. I am really beginning to feel that with Lallana back, rumours that Schneiderlin might return, Dickson, Richardson, Forte, Chaplow, Gobern all available as useful players who we can use one match and rest the next, we have quite a complete set of players to take us to the line. The confidence in the team must be sky high after these 6 points over Easter, especially as we have been the only team to have beaten Brighton at their home. Posh have fallen by the wayside, so it is only us and Huddersfield, who have to play Brighton. The crowd today were magnificent and there is now a real belief that we can finish the job and get automatic promotion.

I'm afraid that personally I'd prefer to believe Lord Norton, who I have quoted before on this matter. As earth-shattering as it must seem to some, CB Fry is not to my knowledge an expert on Parliamentary affairs and as infallible as he believes himself to be, he does from time to time get it wrong. Now, I know from past experience that he will never admit it, but there it is. Paddy Ashdown reckons it was a form of AV too and look what an authority he is on most things. Regarding whether Davis would have won had there been FPTP used in the leadership election, that is also not a fact, as that rather depends whether the vote would have been exclusively by the MPs or the membership.

No, you're wrong. It is not a form of AV and I'm sorry, just because you say it is does not make it so.