The AV referendum

It's not actually that bad an article in many respects. It's just a shame it completely undermines any good points it makes with its political rhetoric and utterly ridiculous conclusion.

It's not actually that bad an article in many respects. It's just a shame it completely undermines any good points it makes with its political rhetoric and utterly ridiculous conclusion.

thats the mail for you they only interested the politics of hate and preserveing the politics of the right and their hatred of the moderates in this country.

what a suprise from the tory right bible the daily mail ,the poor mans sun ha ha

Please explain. The Sun being what, exactly? The rich man's something or other...

The Tory Right's bible is The Telegraph. HTH

Please explain. The Sun being what, exactly? The rich man's something or other...

 

The Tory Right's bible is The Telegraph. HTH

don,t talk daft its always been thedaily mail the paper which even supported hitler at one point in our history, the telegraph is more of the moderate torys and treats their readers like they have some sense.

The majority of people in this country are represented by an MP they didn't vote for.

The majority of people in this country are represented by an MP they didn't vote for.

I have never been represented by anybody!

I have never had a local MP or a National govt represent my vote in 30 years of voting.

First voted Lab in the election when Maggie came in in 79, and voted lab in the subsequent elections the tories won.

Voted LD against Blair and nulabour in the all the elections Blair won.

Voted Lab last year.

My vote has never returned a local MP or a National winner.

Locally I have voted regularly for a rainbow coalition of Lab/LD/Green/Comm/Independent and have never yet picked a winner at either seat or council level.

I've also just voted 'yes' in the referendum but that isn't going to win either !!!!

Edit that down or you'll get an infraction.

Oops....well spotted that man.....duly snipped.

Not that there's much chance of inadvertently quoting a full Daily Mail article on here having a vast affect on their revenue streams.....all those people on this thread who were about to pop out to the newsagents to buy it will now keep their money in their pocket as a result of that post..... ;-)

don,t talk daft its always been thedaily mail the paper which even supported hitler at one point in our history, the telegraph is more of the moderate torys and treats their readers like they have some sense.

Oi! I read the Daily Mail now. I did used to read the Express - what does that make me?

Oi! I read the Daily Mail now. I did used to read the Express - what does that make me?

Indecisive?

Oi! I read the Daily Mail now. I did used to read the Express - what does that make me?

Statistically that would suggest you are female and at least in your fifties or sixties. You also probably enjoy wearing shoulder-padded blouses, talking about how much your eldest child earns, blaming 'others' for all of your ills, and boasting about the minor gentry you once hob-nobbed with.

Why you should vote yes in the Alternative Vote referendum.

Because it would p1ss Dunce off !

I don't think it's that specific

Once again this issue has proven how feckin immature this country is when it comes to politics and debating what should be a simple issue. Both campaigns have been characterised by negativity, misinformation and scare tactics... feckin patheitic.

If you look at the issue objectively, and without your party political blinkers, its feckin obvious that a fairere system is one in which the local MP has the 'backing' of the MAJORITY of the consituents. At present we have a system where many MPs have not only small percentages of the the local vote (because turn out is always so poor) but often as low as 35% of the local vote... This directly contributes to the apathy when it comes to voting as so many of the seats are 'safe' - with a small number or constituencies (and thus a small number of teh population) living in marginals that swing and determine the government - for many, if you live in Tory or Labour Heartland, and have the opposite view, your vote in effect counts for nothing... not a true demonstration of democracy.

So it should be obvious that a sysyem that takes into account EVERYONES preference and also who they wish to to avoid representing them is a fairer system all round..... However, that does not mean its should be AV, or that its the best system to ensure a stable and strong Government of either side. It has failings, in that quite rightly many have argued that its also unfair for some folks to have in effect' more than one vote' - that is actually not true, as AV does NOT give anyone more than one vote, but merely transfers it.

However, I can understand why some might have issues with this, afterall if someone is in the lead after round one, they have demonstrated that they are the FIRST choice of teh highest number - the problem is that could be as low as 30%, thus not really representative of the local population.

Is there a fairer system? YES IMHO there is - but our current government believes we are all too stupid to understand it - and the wet LibDems just bent over and took one up the backside from thier masters anyway.

There are FAR better transferrable voting systems such as STV that place a much higher value on the 1st choice vote than the 2nd or 3rd. Its is VERY simple - 2nd choice voye only counts for as half a vote when redistributed and the 50% winning post reduces accordingly. 3rd choice votes, count for less again etc so in many cases the original winner will still win as if you get 45%+ in teh first round its almost certain taht you will get past 50% in the secod, which is fair. However, if you only have 30% in the first round yet are somehow in the lead because of a fragmented vote, its more difficult as the 2nd and 3rd choices will have greater impact...

That system esures that in seats where a candiate is obvioulsy cloase to finish line (40%+ in the first round) usually goes on to win. Whereas if there is no clearly preferred candidate (no one above around 35%), the redistribution ensures that the winner is at least preffered over the others by the majority and what is not fair about that, as it provides a much better local mandate. Trouble is teh population is considered too stupid to be able to cope with AV let alone STV of various kinds... sad and pathetic...

Also teh Torries voting NO in this seem to have very short memories. The Tory MPs, Rags and supporters were always very quick to highlight how Blair never really had a mandate during his third term as he only got around 20% of the vote.... yet now they are defending the sysyem that allows for that status quo - not through any rational common sense, but simply (as are labour) because its one that works to keep them in government.... so all parties supporting the NO campaign are hypocrits to be honest with the Tory's being teh worst kind given theri bklair bashing over the mandate issue - which is the same principle.

Frank's Cousin - :thumbup:

Anybody voting NO gets the system they deserve, and has no right to ever again complain about an election result.

I've just been and voted NO.

Once again this issue has proven how feckin immature this country is when it comes to politics and debating what should be a simple issue. Both campaigns have been characterised by negativity, misinformation and scare tactics... feckin patheitic.

 

So the whole country is immature when it comes to politics? Except for you, and a few "objective" people without political blinkers.

 

If you look at the issue objectively, and without your party political blinkers, its feckin obvious that a fairere system is one in which the local MP has the 'backing' of the MAJORITY of the consituents. At present we have a system where many MPs have not only small percentages of the the local vote (because turn out is always so poor) but often as low as 35% of the local vote... This directly contributes to the apathy when it comes to voting as so many of the seats are 'safe' - with a small number or constituencies (and thus a small number of teh population) living in marginals that swing and determine the government - for many, if you live in Tory or Labour Heartland, and have the opposite view, your vote in effect counts for nothing... not a true demonstration of democracy.

 

And nothing that any other voting system could introduce is going to change those Tory or Labour heartlands from being just that. So your point is? As for voting numbers and percentages, people have the freedom to vote or not. What do you advocate? The Australian system, where people are forced to vote by law?

 

So it should be obvious that a sysyem that takes into account EVERYONES preference and also who they wish to to avoid representing them is a fairer system all round..... However, that does not mean its should be AV, or that its the best system to ensure a stable and strong Government of either side. It has failings, in that quite rightly many have argued that its also unfair for some folks to have in effect' more than one vote' - that is actually not true, as AV does NOT give anyone more than one vote, but merely transfers it.

 

The bit highlighted is surely negativity, one thing that you lambasted. And is it untrue that people do not have more than one vote under AV? If their vote is transferred, that is a vote for another candidate, therefore not the same as their first choice vote. So how can it not be another vote? :

 

However, I can understand why some might have issues with this, afterall if someone is in the lead after round one, they have demonstrated that they are the FIRST choice of teh highest number - the problem is that could be as low as 30%, thus not really representative of the local population.

 

But again, nobody is stopping people from casting their vote. And you bet people would be entitled to feel agrieved if the person with the most votes was beaten by somebody who had received only enough votes initially to come say third in the first ballot.

 

Is there a fairer system? YES IMHO there is - but our current government believes we are all too stupid to understand it - and the wet LibDems just bent over and took one up the backside from thier masters anyway.

 

But you said yourself that the electorate was too imature to understand politics. Couldn't it be that the Government agree with you? And as the Lib Dems are so hopeless, a bloody good thing that they aren't the Government. And then you wonder why the electorate are apathetic, when the party that could be a decent alternative to the main two parties are so unlectable

 

There are FAR better transferrable voting systems such as STV that place a much higher value on the 1st choice vote than the 2nd or 3rd. Its is VERY simple - 2nd choice voye only counts for as half a vote when redistributed and the 50% winning post reduces accordingly. 3rd choice votes, count for less again etc so in many cases the original winner will still win as if you get 45%+ in teh first round its almost certain taht you will get past 50% in the secod, which is fair. However, if you only have 30% in the first round yet are somehow in the lead because of a fragmented vote, its more difficult as the 2nd and 3rd choices will have greater impact...

 

That's simple is it?

 

That system esures that in seats where a candiate is obvioulsy cloase to finish line (40%+ in the first round) usually goes on to win. Whereas if there is no clearly preferred candidate (no one above around 35%), the redistribution ensures that the winner is at least preffered over the others by the majority and what is not fair about that, as it provides a much better local mandate. Trouble is teh population is considered too stupid to be able to cope with AV let alone STV of various kinds... sad and pathetic...

 

Today, we have a referendum on the voting system. You reckon that the public are thought to be too stupid to understand AV. Well, here is their opportunity to vote for that system at least, if they want it. You and others harp on about how unfair the current system is, so the Yes vote will turn out in their droves and throw out this unfair system, yes? Or will you consider it to be some miscarriage of justice and attempt to find some reason why they didn't either vote, or vote Yes?

 

Also teh Torries voting NO in this seem to have very short memories. The Tory MPs, Rags and supporters were always very quick to highlight how Blair never really had a mandate during his third term as he only got around 20% of the vote.... yet now they are defending the sysyem that allows for that status quo - not through any rational common sense, but simply (as are labour) because its one that works to keep them in government.... so all parties supporting the NO campaign are hypocrits to be honest with the Tory's being teh worst kind given theri bklair bashing over the mandate issue - which is the same principle.

The biggest gripe with Tory voters is that the so-called mandate that Blair had last time around, was achieved with the help of the large number of Labour MPs from Scottish and Welsh seats, where those countries have their own Parliaments (Assemblies). That and the smaller number of voters required to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative or Lib Dem one.

And if you accuse the Cons/Lab of hypocrisy for wanting to keep a voting system that favours them, then if you are truly unblinkered, you will also accept that the main reason that the Lib Dems want to change the current system, is that other voting systems would favour them. Or do you naively believe that they want the change solely in the interests of fairness?

Frank's Cousin - :thumbup:

 

Anybody voting NO gets the system they deserve, and has no right to ever again complain about an election result.

In the same way that anybody voting Yes must accept that the voting public have expessed their wishes democratically and they must accept the result and stop their bleating if the result is that the vote is for leaving things as they are.

Anybody voting NO gets the system they deserve, and has no right to ever again complain about an election result.

In the same way that anybody voting Yes must accept that the voting public have expessed their wishes democratically and they must accept the result and stop their bleating if the result is that the vote is for leaving things as they are.

Neither is quite true and, with respect, it's a fairly typical example of how each side unfairly tries to deride the other.

If someone votes no, that doesn't necessarily mean they are happy with FPTP or think that it is the best system and therefore have 'no right to ever again complain'. They are simply voting against AV at the present time.

And whichever option wins, thankfully the democracy that we live in means supporters of the opposite, 'losing' view at this referendum are perfectly entitled to campaign and try to raise the issue again in the future, be it the same or modified.

.... the smaller number of voters required to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative or Lib Dem one.

Shouldn't they then be supporting a more proportional system ?

Once again this issue has proven how feckin immature this country is when it comes to politics and debating what should be a simple issue. Both campaigns have been characterised by negativity, misinformation and scare tactics... feckin patheitic.

 

If you look at the issue objectively, and without your party political blinkers, its feckin obvious that a fairere system is one in which the local MP has the 'backing' of the MAJORITY of the consituents. At present we have a system where many MPs have not only small percentages of the the local vote (because turn out is always so poor) but often as low as 35% of the local vote... This directly contributes to the apathy when it comes to voting as so many of the seats are 'safe' - with a small number or constituencies (and thus a small number of teh population) living in marginals that swing and determine the government - for many, if you live in Tory or Labour Heartland, and have the opposite view, your vote in effect counts for nothing... not a true demonstration of democracy.

 

So it should be obvious that a sysyem that takes into account EVERYONES preference and also who they wish to to avoid representing them is a fairer system all round..... However, that does not mean its should be AV, or that its the best system to ensure a stable and strong Government of either side. It has failings, in that quite rightly many have argued that its also unfair for some folks to have in effect' more than one vote' - that is actually not true, as AV does NOT give anyone more than one vote, but merely transfers it.

 

However, I can understand why some might have issues with this, afterall if someone is in the lead after round one, they have demonstrated that they are the FIRST choice of teh highest number - the problem is that could be as low as 30%, thus not really representative of the local population.

 

Is there a fairer system? YES IMHO there is - but our current government believes we are all too stupid to understand it - and the wet LibDems just bent over and took one up the backside from thier masters anyway.

 

There are FAR better transferrable voting systems such as STV that place a much higher value on the 1st choice vote than the 2nd or 3rd. Its is VERY simple - 2nd choice voye only counts for as half a vote when redistributed and the 50% winning post reduces accordingly. 3rd choice votes, count for less again etc so in many cases the original winner will still win as if you get 45%+ in teh first round its almost certain taht you will get past 50% in the secod, which is fair. However, if you only have 30% in the first round yet are somehow in the lead because of a fragmented vote, its more difficult as the 2nd and 3rd choices will have greater impact...

 

That system esures that in seats where a candiate is obvioulsy cloase to finish line (40%+ in the first round) usually goes on to win. Whereas if there is no clearly preferred candidate (no one above around 35%), the redistribution ensures that the winner is at least preffered over the others by the majority and what is not fair about that, as it provides a much better local mandate. Trouble is teh population is considered too stupid to be able to cope with AV let alone STV of various kinds... sad and pathetic...

 

Also teh Torries voting NO in this seem to have very short memories. The Tory MPs, Rags and supporters were always very quick to highlight how Blair never really had a mandate during his third term as he only got around 20% of the vote.... yet now they are defending the sysyem that allows for that status quo - not through any rational common sense, but simply (as are labour) because its one that works to keep them in government.... so all parties supporting the NO campaign are hypocrits to be honest with the Tory's being teh worst kind given theri bklair bashing over the mandate issue - which is the same principle.

good sumary frank i was hopeing we were a forward looking country but history of parlment shows we hate change of any sort -ie.votes for women etc ...

blair would wipe the floor with the present generation of politicians.

i can see the country going for a election in the next few years after camerons betrayal and labour returning to power which i though would take them at least 10 years.

If someone votes no, that doesn't necessarily mean they are happy with FPTP or think that it is the best system and therefore have 'no right to ever again complain'. They are simply voting against AV at the present time.

I voted NO because it helps the Tories. That's it. I know AV is fairer, but I don't want fairer, I want the system that is least likely to deliver left wing power.

I voted NO because it helps the Tories. That's it. I know AV is fairer, but I don't want fairer, I want the system that is least likely to deliver left wing power.

at least your being honest dune unlike some of the other die hard tories/labour supporters on here.

I voted NO because it helps the Tories. That's it. I know AV is fairer, but I don't want fairer, I want the system that is least likely to deliver left wing power.

Fair enough, as solentstars says, at least you're being honest. Shame that you're so blinkered about left wing politics that you can't even debate them, but we'll save that for another day!

Neither is quite true and, with respect, it's a fairly typical example of how each side unfairly tries to deride the other.

 

If someone votes no, that doesn't necessarily mean they are happy with FPTP or think that it is the best system and therefore have 'no right to ever again complain'. They are simply voting against AV at the present time.

 

And whichever option wins, thankfully the democracy that we live in means supporters of the opposite, 'losing' view at this referendum are perfectly entitled to campaign and try to raise the issue again in the future, be it the same or modified.

Agreed. I was merely putting across the opposite view to Badger's to show the other side of the coin. In much the same way that throughout I have countered the adjectives "fair" or "unfair" when they have been applied by the Yes Campaign.

The problem with reform of the voting system, is that there are so many alternative systems, some that are quite complicated, so that the option to leave things as they are will almost certainly achieve greater support if all of the other alternatives were ranged against it together at one time. So what is the solution? To have a succession of referenda, FPTP v STV, followed by FPTP v PR, v AV, v whatever else is an alternative?

Yes, a party can have reform of the voting system as a main plank of their manifesto, but before it is implemented, there would have to be a referendum on it first. If Frank believes that AV was the wrong choice of the wet behind the ears Lib Dems, why didn't they hold out for something else as the price for the coalition?

Fair enough, as solentstars says, at least you're being honest. Shame that you're so blinkered about left wing politics that you can't even debate them, but we'll save that for another day!

i,ve voted for all partys so i would class myself has a moderate minty and agree with some of the policys of the right and left but i,m not interested in extreme politics of anysort.

i,ve voted for all partys so i would class myself has a moderate minty and agree with some of the policys of the right and left but i,m not interested in extreme politics of anysort.

I've had similar discussions with close friends too... I generally support more left wing policies, but there are some Tory policies I agree with. Even MP's within a party don't agree with all their central policies. This is why I struggle to understand those with entrenched positions about any given party, and despair when political discussions (especially historical ones) focus on the personalities and generalisations rather than looking at policy and outcome on an individual basis.

While I would like PR, I don't think our politicians are emotionally equipped to deal with it atm. Clegg may be haunted by his claim that AV is a "miserable little compromise", but in terms of public comprehension, retaining the constituency link and the current relations between political parties, it's probably the right first step in electoral reform.

Just back from the polling station - I voted Yes. I know it won't count, as there's more support for No, but if the Yes vote gains over 25% then I reckon we could see another referendum within a decade.

Just back from the polling station - I voted Yes. I know it won't count, as there's more support for No, but if the Yes vote gains over 25% then I reckon we could see another referendum within a decade.

Why ? NO means NO, not "Try again later".

The way the EU bullied Eire into another referendum into the Lisbon Treaty within a couple of years of a "NO" vote was nothing less than an effrontery to democracy.

If I had been there or bother to arrange a postal vote, I would have voted NO.

Why ? NO means NO, not "Try again later".

 

The way the EU bullied Eire into another referendum into the Lisbon Treaty within a couple of years of a "NO" vote was nothing less than an effrontery to democracy.

 

If I had been there or bother to arrange a postal vote, I would have voted NO.

We'll have to wait and see how many people actually said "No" though. It looks as if there's a lot of support for apathy amongst us Brits - people who could be swayed by the right system.

I've had similar discussions with close friends too... I generally support more left wing policies, but there are some Tory policies I agree with. Even MP's within a party don't agree with all their central policies. This is why I struggle to understand those with entrenched positions about any given party, and despair when political discussions (especially historical ones) focus on the personalities and generalisations rather than looking at policy and outcome on an individual basis.

somes up britsh politics instead of whats good for the national interest they rather appeal to their narrow base of die hard supporters .

Just back from the polling station - I voted Yes. I know it won't count, as there's more support for No, but if the Yes vote gains over 25% then I reckon we could see another referendum within a decade.

i agree has fptp belongs to a bygone era .

The majority of people in this country are represented by an MP they didn't vote for.

i think its about 75% of seats under the last election results according to one paper .

I've had similar discussions with close friends too... I generally support more left wing policies, but there are some Tory policies I agree with. Even MP's within a party don't agree with all their central policies. This is why I struggle to understand those with entrenched positions about any given party, and despair when political discussions (especially historical ones) focus on the personalities and generalisations rather than looking at policy and outcome on an individual basis.

Agree with this Mincy. And as for those with entrenched positions, none more entrenched on here than that tiresome old dear, bridge too far. Honestly, if Labour put a stuffed donkey up for election in her constituency, she'd vote for it.

Can't vote as i'm away with work, I hadn't decided which way to go so pleased I couldn't in the end.

Went and voted No because I don' believe AV will deliver the "fairness" that everyone thinks it will. The FT ran an interesting article on this yesterday. They said that if the 2010 election was run under AV, the only party to gain seats would be the lib dems, the other minority parties would hold exactly the same number of seats that they won on the FPTP rules. Perhaps they should have given us a choice of systems and I may have voted differently.

Voted yes, although I accept it is likely to be a victory for the no camp.

AV isnt my preferred option, but I still prefer it to FPTP. Also a no here will most likely kill further Commons reform. Regardless of yes or no in this referendum, lets focus on the Lords next.

Voted No. The Lib-dems can suck my c-0ck. If they aren't good enough to win under FPTP then they should try harder. Like a football team not winning promotion and asking the league to give 4 points for losing instead of 0.

Clegg can shove his AV up his bottom.

Went and voted No because I don' believe AV will deliver the "fairness" that everyone thinks it will. The FT ran an interesting article on this yesterday. They said that if the 2010 election was run under AV, the only party to gain seats would be the lib dems, the other minority parties would hold exactly the same number of seats that they won on the FPTP rules. Perhaps they should have given us a choice of systems and I may have voted differently.

How can they know this if people's other preferences were not requested, as per AV?

Voted yes, of course. Been successful in convincing others to do the same.

I still think the No camp will win.

How can they know this if people's other preferences were not requested, as per AV?

They can't. The FT has probably come up with an educated guess of where the votes would go.

Voted No.

Just can't see the point of spending a whole heap of cash moving from one already flawed system to another equally flawed one. FPTP has it's problems, but at least every vote under it has the same weight.

voted no..for no other reason than to cancel out verbals vote

If anyone still believes the "whole heap of cash" crap and is undecided, Blunkett has gone on record saying that No 2 AV made up the numbers.

Voted No.

 

Just can't see the point of spending a whole heap of cash moving from one already flawed system to another equally flawed one. FPTP has it's problems, but at least every vote under it has the same weight.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/campaign-figure-blunkett

David Blunkett has admitted they made up the figures to scare people!

Number 1: It won't cost anything until 2015.

Number 2: It won't cost anymore to run elections under AV, as compared to FPTP as already confirmed by the treasury.

The idea we will need to buy electronic counting machines for £130m is laughable.

Also, remember we spend £345m on health in this country EVERY day... so even if it did cost the amount the amount the no campaign now admit to be a lie, it is barely a drop in the ocean of our finances and a good price for a fairer democracy.

However, as it happens, it doesn't actually cost any extra so there we are.

Just back from the polling station - I voted Yes. I know it won't count, as there's more support for No, but if the Yes vote gains over 25% then I reckon we could see another referendum within a decade.

Why ? NO means NO, not "Try again later".

 

The way the EU bullied Eire into another referendum into the Lisbon Treaty within a couple of years of a "NO" vote was nothing less than an effrontery to democracy.

 

If I had been there or bother to arrange a postal vote, I would have voted NO.

Mikeys right, the AV campaign wont go through this time but if theres a decent level of support for change then we're that much more likely to get a referendum on PR at some point.

As for the irish votes on the lisbon treaty, that is how europe works, get used to it. In any case it was european money that rebuilt the irish economy, there was always going to be payback time, just as the spanish are now finding.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/05/campaign-figure-blunkett

 

David Blunkett has admitted they made up the figures to scare people!

 

Number 1: It won't cost anything until 2015.

Number 2: It won't cost anymore to run elections under AV, as compared to FPTP as already confirmed by the treasury.

 

The idea we will need to buy electronic counting machines for £130m is laughable.

 

Also, remember we spend £345m on health in this country EVERY day... so even if it did cost the amount the amount the no campaign now admit to be a lie, it is barely a drop in the ocean of our finances and a good price for a fairer democracy.

 

However, as it happens, it doesn't actually cost any extra so there we are.

god forbid we have modern tecnology, lets stick with carrier pidgeons:lol:

Voted No. The Lib-dems can suck my c-0ck. If they aren't good enough to win under FPTP then they should try harder. Like a football team not winning promotion and asking the league to give 4 points for losing instead of 0.

 

Clegg can shove his AV up his bottom.

oh dear

As I've said before, I have no issue with people voting no for genuine reasons based on the perceived merits, or otherwise, of the two systems.

But some of the above posts are quite sad IMO.