Wes Tender

Of course, the Yes campaign are not totally innocent of this themselves, so your reason for voting Yes is somewhat flawed. As I had posted already elsewhere, the flyer sent out by the Yes campaign states that a No vote was a vote for more of the same. Fair enough. It then goes on to say that "the No vote would result in your voice not being heard, (for some reason) MPs in the dock, expenses scandal." Now although I'm assuming by "the dock", they mean the courts and not the working harbour environment, I fail to see how the introduction of AV will stop MPs' involvement in the sort of activities that have resulted in them ending up in Court. And the expenses scandal had absolutely nothing at all to do with whether we had FPTP or AV. They really must think that the electorate are a bit simple if they'll believe this sort of ignorant scaremongering. Mind you, the people supporting the Yes campaign actually do think that the electorate cannot be very intelligent if they fail to see why the system needs to be changed.

And of course in the interests of balance, if you are capable of it, then you would also admit that the main beneficiaries of the AV system would be the Lib Dems, which is why they named the referendum as the price for their co-operation in the pact.

I certainly hope that your job does not rely heavily on comprehension, as you patently fail to comprehend that just because one system is utilised to elect an MP in a Parliamentary election, that it doesn't have to be used also in the election of a Party leader. If you can't see that we are talking about two entirely different entities and that there might be a number of reasons (some which have been explained already by DH and another one added by me) why it is preferable to have these two diverse methods applicable to these two diverse situations, then I cannot see how I can get you to comprehend it. Perhaps you ought to go on Lord Norton's blog and ask him to explain it to you, or better still, tell him he's wrong and a hypocrite if he cannot see the difference. Explain to him what qualifications you hold on these matters that make you a bigger expert than him; I'm sure that he'll be impressed. They did NOT abandon a core plank of their belief when it suited them, as this system has been in use since 1998. Over the years, they have made adjustments and improvements to facilitate the input of party members when the candidates were whittled down to two. Historically before that, the Party hierarchy selected the leader. Allowing the membership to vote on a one person one vote basis, good democracy, or bad, do you think?

Wow! Such miniscule differences between AV and NOT AV! Why, they're almost identical. There is no hypocrisy at all just because the Conservative Party favour FPTP for Parliamentary Elections and a more suitable procedure for the election of their leader. You say that you understand the differences between AV and the system employed in the Conservatives leadership poll, but clearly you don't, or you wouldn't accuse them of hypocrisy over it.

Has he been taking lessons from Fergie? When your team win, you are brilliant. When the other team win, you must have been playing below your best, a bad day at the office. We give you credit for winning the division, so kindly have a bit of humility and accept that today we were the better team, playing the better football, with more possession, more chances, more spirit. Perhaps you'll wake up tomorrow, read or listen to what you said and reflect that its made you look like a bit of a prat.

Lord Duckhunter has shot you down in flames with a good grasp of the background of the system used by the Conservatives to elect their leader, so there is no hypocrisy at all. Another reason for the system used, is that it allows a stalking horse to put himself forward in the first instance, a guise to flush out other candidates when they see how things stack up after the first ballot. If you cannot comprehend the nuances of the system and why it is employed, better not to comment on it.

I'm really upset we didn't hammer them 10-0. But it was great that Southampton's forgotten striker, Connolly, scored the first and that Fonte scored the second. I reckon that will move him somewhat up the voting for player of the season, as that was probably the most important goal of the season so far. Glad to see Chaplow back to his best too with a man of the match performance according to Solent.

Quote: Lord Norton So go ahead; try and argue that Lord Norton is not a heavyweight intellectual on the right side of the political spectrum. Presumably he is also il-informed too. And I'm presumimg that you are yourself unelected and yet you seem quite prepared to contribute to a debate on electoral reform.

I was laughing at Solentstars assertion that FPTP was a fascist or communist system.

rofl!

I rather suspect that you really meant to type "badly" as neither baldly or more usually boldly makes much sense. Miscomprehend - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Miscomprehend And regarding the reference to Norton, that came from here:- http://www.psa.ac.uk/Content.aspx?ParentID=2&SearchID=1002008 There he is, just under Bogdanor. You'd have thought that the award judges would have been a bit more sensitive about the wording, wouldn't you, as it must have put Bogdanor's nose out of joint.

Baldly? (sic)

Equally of course, past verbal sparring has established you as one of the equally blinkered warriors of the left who would also only vote one way.

So he's your darling of the left. Perhaps you'll point me at the article in the Guardian informing me that he's the 59th most influential person on the left of British politics so that I can totally mis-comprehend your post in the same way that you did with mine.

I've only just read your latest offering. Please read what I say above several times and try to comprehend a quite simple concept. His reputation as the foremost living expert on the British Constiution has NOTHING to do with the report in the Telegraph listing him as the 59th most influential person on the Right of British Politics. When you talk about intellectual disadvantage, you illustrate your own shortcomings with your comments on this.

There are two statements you refer to, which have little to do with each other and I'm surprised you don't see that. He has been described as the foremost authority on British Constitutional matters and also a World authority too. He was Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Now pray tell me what that has to do with anything else? He has some influence on Politicians' thinking on voting systems purely because of his knowledge of the subject. The mention of his position in the hierarchy of influence on the right of British politics does not diminish his position as the foremost expert on the Constitution, does it?

You're Lord Norton? I'm confused. Why would you get it so wrong then?

Sorry to undermine your lovely and witty little piece of satire, but I'm afraid that it is based on a false premise. http://nortonview.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/conservative-leaders-are-not-elected-by-a-form-of-av/ As Norton is reputed to be the foremost expert on the British Constitution, I'm assuming that he knows what he is talking about. You're not Paddy pants down are you?

I fail to see how the adoption of the AV ststem will change the circumstances in your constituency. At the moment you voted tactically for one party in an effort to stop another party being elected. You are being led to believe that just because you vote for the party that you want to succeed, somehow things will be different. But when your candidate is eliminated with the lowest number of votes and your second choice vote is counted, it will effectively be the same as the tactical vote. You say that over several years your preferred party's share of the vote will increase, but this is what often happens anyway. People get fed up with the two main parties and vote for a third party for a change. But that requires that party to have policies that make it electable in the first place. And all this talk of tactical voting, or thinking about not voting at all is very defeatist. If everybody who took that view did the same, then what chance does your preferred candidate have anyway? If everybody voted for the party they preferred, then they would move up the polls to become a more realistic proposition. I live in a constituency where the sitting MP, a certain Chris Huhne, illustrates to the electorate with bar charts that Labour cannot win here, it's a two horse race between them and the Conservatives and a vote for Labour is a wasted vote. Funny thing though, that when there is a by-election elsewhere, the Lib Dems have managed to overturn much bigger deficits to win the seat. What would they think about literature from the other parties stating that they had no chance there? What has also been said about monied vested interests supporting the two main parties will not go away just because the system changes. And there is nothing to stop the Lib Dems or any other party from adopting policies that make them electable, that are also attractive to people who might be prepared to help finance their campaigns. It seems to me that the parties who most want change, are those who have the most to benefit from it and somehow don't have the drive or the initiative to do it by other means.

Of course, there was a very simple solution to defuse the impetus towards granting the Lib Dems a referendum on voting reform as the price they exacted for their support of the coalition. All Cameron had to do, is to demand in return that simultaneously, the English electorate should to be allowed to vote on the West Lothian question. If the two reform proposals were irrevocably linked, I can't see it gaining the majority support in Parliament to go ahead, as all those Labour MPs and Lib Dems in Wales and Scotland would vote against it. As Joensuu says, people will vote in accordance with their vested interests and they are hardly likely to vote themselves off the Westminster gravy train. Power corrupts, eh?

But their vote will be wasted if their candidate is elimiated for having the fewest votes. Under those circumstances, presumably they will have their votes counted towards their second or third choice. Of course, it could be argued that votes are not wasted now, as often there is tactical voting. The Electoral Reform Society says that tactical voting will be eliminated, but what is a second or third choice on the ballot paper other than a tactical vote if their first choice candidate has no chance of winning?

This has more to do with the disparity in the sizes of constituency and also the fact that disproportionate numbers of MPs elected in Scotland and Wales are represented in the English Parliament, although they have their own Parliaments/Assemblies. If you're so keen on democracy and fairness, then you'd acknowledge that these two factors need to be addressed. It is patently unfair that some constituencies need twice as many voters as others to elect an MP, whilst it is an outrage that Scotland and Wales with their own Assemblies have power to vote over English matters, whereas we have no say in theirs.

See, there you go again. All those who oppose FPTP are sensible, whereas those who oppose it are presumably idiots. And because a system has been in place for centuries, it is antiquated, rather than tried and tested and presumably many who retain it do so because they feel it doesn't need changing. Many of those countries with FPTP are former British colonies, so not altogether surprising that they have inherited the system of Parliamentary democracy from us and consider it to be plenty good enough, as we have been a beacon of democracy in World political history. And you have wasted a considerable amount of your time arguing for PR, whereas in case it had escaped your notice, this debate is about the referendum between the existing FPTP, or the alternative AV, rendering any argument for PR irellevant. And furthermore, how is anybody able to forecast how previous elections might have turned out had AV been the system used then? How can anybody predict how the electorate might have voted with their alternative votes? Pure speculative bunk.

I deliberately chose to be controversial as to the options, exactly to illustrate that conclusions are opinion, not fact. But the opinion that AV is more likely to produce pacts and alliances with the smaller fringe parties holding the balance of power is not so outlandish. Many would reasonably conclude from that situation that the resultant government was weak. It occurred to me that I could actually utilise the post of Joenssu's and just change AV to FPTP. See how it looks. See, it works quite well.