Joensuu

Agree with you on every point you make. This is my reading of the situation too. But if you look past the politics, it IS a fairer system, it IS and improvement over the current mess, and while not the big step forward Clegg should have insisted upon, the small benefits it does introduce should be something everyone who believes in democracy should welcome. Lib Dem votes have dropped because the party has sold out, and liberals hold their principals in high regard. This of course means that there are still plenty of liberals in the country who will vote for any consitutional improvement, whether or not they will ever vote LibDem again is a different matter. [FWIW, Clegg should not have joined either party in coalition, he should have stuck to liberal principals, and allowed Cameron to form a minority government, and then allowed his MP's to vote for/against any measure as they see fit - the outcome would have been that liberal measures proposed by the Conservatives would have found an easy passage through parliament, authoriatarian ones wouldn't have, the Lib Dems would have retained their voters, and all legislation would have needed to have been balanced to get through the house - everyone's a winner. As it is, Clegg has done the stupidest possible thing; he sold out by placing personal power before party and the opinions of his voters. While Clegg is in charge, the Lib Dems will continue to poll very low numbers, as such, AV won't actually benefit the Lib Dems much at all - it only stands to benefit our democracy.]

Yes, most definately. Anyone voting against AV must not believe these situations are unfair; they must be placing party before democracy.

Absolutely, we need consitutional reform, and even if we adopt AV, we won't have reformed enough. It is a small step in the right direction, nothing more. I do love the fact that the three countries who use AV is used but those against AV as if this were reason not to reform. In actual fact, few countries use AV because it isn't fair enough (albeit fairer than FPTP). Take a look at the list of countries who have bypassed AV and opted for a much fairer alternative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation

Evening the number of voters per constituency would indeed be an improvement over the current mess. However, it would still suffer from many of the same problems as the current system, with a handful of seats being the only ones voters actually have a choice in. However, I disagree about your '5th choice' remark. Either you are trying for an anti-AP sound bite, or you are misunderstanding AP. Very, very few poll cards would ever get down to their 5th choice. This could only happen if the vote in a seat was heavily split, with no party dominating. I could also only happen for voters who have voted for minority parties with each of the top 4 preferences (had they placed any of the larger parties in their top 4 votes they wouldn't stand a chance of their 5th choice ever coming into play). As such, the scenario you paint will rarely happen, if at all. On the rare occasions that it does ever occur, the vote would have to be so tight, that voters whose chosen parties have already been eliminated (and therefore those whose votes (and opinions) essentially don't count in FPTP) get their second and sometimes third choices assessed. Generally, all this means is that if there is a 'marmite' party, who is loved by say 45%, but hated by 55%, even if the 55% of the vote is split, the majority of a constituency still get an MP they can tolerate, rather than one whom they detest. Having read many of your previous posts, I'm sure that you already know all of this. You possibly even agree that AP is a fairer electoral system than the current mess, but you can't help putting your party allegiances before making our democracy more representative.

As I said above, I felt very similar to this, and was tempted to come to the same conclusion. Then I realised that doing so would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Any improvement is better than no improvement.

Your call WG. Always best not to think about what to vote for, eh? One point though, AV doesnt prevent you from knowing who you're voting for, it simply increases your options, and allows more people to have their opinions reflected. Voting against AV because you dislike Liberals, is a bit like Finland's reasons for siding with the Nazi's.

No, i don't mind. All people deserve for their opinion to be represented, however abhorrent their opinion. AV isn't as fair as PR, but it's a definate improvement over our current biased, and unrepresentative system.

No real difference on that one Dune. AV is only slightly more likely to deliver a hung parliament than FPTP - however it is substantially fairer (albeit not fair enough IMO). Also, coalitions work well elsewhere. They add balance to the mix, and help to stem the endless swings from left to right with each undoing the other's reforms. More consistancy in the middle will strengthen and stabilise.

I was torn between voting for AV and abstaining because of the lack of a PR option. Having thought about it, that would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Anyone who wants a more proportional electoral system with the number of cast votes more closely relating to the number of seats allocated has to vote yes. Anyone voting no, is putting party or politics before the aim of creating a fairer and more proportional democracy. Edit: QED, all about parties, nothing about whats the fairest way for votes to reflect seats:

It is a mystery why they have tolerated him thus far.

Drop the anti-'socialist' rhetoric and agenda already. What I said would be true in any organisation, whether public or private. 'Work a bit harder' is only possible if you are arguing that badger and his colleageues don't already work hard enough.

Dune if 3 can manage the workload of 5 then you are right. However if there is a backlog of work, or anyone is working excessive overtime, you'd be wrong. badgerx16 - best of luck.

I have a friend from Cardiff who likes to throw on a frock and makeup and head out to transvestite nights. His girlfriend seems to find it funny rather than anything else. He is an ugly f***** though.

Woking

Pilchards - if he still posts on here.

Made me chuckle. I've been an idiot all along.

If it were natural for men to brest feed, I'm sure they'd have nipples, oh. [NB, have removed the 'sneering' elements before quoting the substance from your post]

Are you applying rule 1 to homosexual animals copulating? Blimey...

GLT, I've tried making it really simple, but people still don't seem to get it. No, your misunderstanding of what I said has lead you to a completely incorrect conclusion. A liberal who cherishes the freedom of speech is happy for anyone to say anything they want to. However, upholding freedom of speech, does not mean that you agree with, or are precluded from disagreeing with anything that is said. It really isn't that hard to understand. As Voltaire is famously cited as saying 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'.

You misunderstand liberality, just because we respect the freedoms of the individual to say what they want, doesn't mean we have to respect what they are saying. Nobody should be applauded just for using their right to speak, it's what they say that matters.

I will tolerate everything except intolerance. People bring stigmatism upon themselves for their own words and actions - nothing about being liberal or not.

I know you haven't said whether you support the EDL or not, but given your refusal to condemn their beliefs, and your argent defence of them against any criticism, I have formed my own conclusions. You have the freedom of speech to convince me otherwise. Freedom of Speech doesn't equate freedom from criticism. The two go hand in hand. You have the freedom of speech to tell anyone you wish to whether you support the EDL, but don't expect it to prevent you from being stigmatised. Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing, it gives everyone enough rope, and it's up to you to choose how to use it.

Constructive as always hypo.

Yes, for the 10th time, the EDL are entitled to march and have freedom of speech (please don't make me type this again - read it this time!). Why are you so passionately defending their right to march (despite it not being under thread from the liberals who support it)? What's your agenda here? Are you trying to out-liberal us? Because the only logically assumption I can make is that you support the EDL, but don't want to be stigmatised on here for admitting to it.

You have made that point 4 pages ago. You hold the fort every time you continuine to post arguing against anyone who decrys the EDL. You haven't revealed your support for this organisation, but your strong defence of them certainly lends us all to make that assumption. I can only assume that if you don't support the EDL, you might make a few less partizan posts, and condemn them occasionally? Do you condemn them in any shape or form?