The AV referendum

[Whitey Grandad]

So I am guessing you would not be happy if even if you did not like it you did not get a choice and had to eat what 36% of the restaurant customers had chosen as there favorite?

I'm not exactly clear what you are trying to say there, but if I did not like the choice I would not eat it. I'm like that.

[pedg]

I'm not exactly clear what you are trying to say there, but if I did not like the choice I would not eat it. I'm like that.

 

I switched metaphorical horses mid race...

 

Anyway I assume you would be glad there was a choice if your favorite was not available?

[Wes Tender]

Sadly, you have a poor grasp of logic and politics it seems, Lord T. If you read back over the thread, you'll find plenty of convincing argument showing how poor turnouts and a sense of disenfranchisement are a consequence, at least in part, of FPTP. I don't recall ANY Yes supporter on here saying the public is 'thick' (how did you come by such a weird conclusion, except presumably to suit your own ill-thought out conclusions?) - only that we need an electoral system that (1) weakens the latter-day rotten boroughs, safe seats, (2) weakens the hold of single-issue, protest-vote parties, and (3) gives everyone a sense that their votes actually count.

 

Have a little think, read the thread again, and get back on here. I have a 'liberal elite' sew-on badge all ready for you.

 

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

[aintforever]

 

I see no FPTP supporters have explained why it is fair that these guys have to go to a coffee shop.

[dune]

I see no FPTP supporters have explained why it is fair that these guys have to go to a coffee shop.

 

As a fptp supporter i've seen the polls, so frankly this whole debate is over. We win, you lose - deal with it.

[Right sider]

Just to amuse my self I might vote with a 1 and 2 rather than an X.

[benjii]

If you can't see the obvious logical fallacy of that stupid beer/coffee poster you are too stupid to be entrusted with any sort of vote other than "rusk or rattle".

[badgerx16]

If you can't see the obvious logical fallacy of that stupid beer/coffee poster you are too stupid to be entrusted with any sort of vote other than "rusk or rattle".

As opposed to the entirely clear, honest, and truthful analagies on the 'baby' and 'flak jacket' posters.

[benjii]

As opposed to the entirely clear, honest, and truthful analagies on the 'baby' and 'flak jacket' posters.

 

Haven't seen those.

 

I am dipping casually into this thread from time to time.

[dune]

Haven't seen those.

 

I am dipping casually into this thread from time to time.

 

That's the best policy. I can't wait for the result. The Liberal Elite on here will really spit their dummies out then.

[benjii]

That's the best policy. I can't wait for the result. The Liberal Elite on here will really spit their dummies out then.

 

Don't be a prat. There are more important issues than winding up fellow obsessives.

[dune]

Don't be a prat. There are more important issues than winding up fellow obsessives.

 

Such as?

[badgerx16]

That's the best policy. I can't wait for the result. The Liberal Elite on here will really spit their dummies out then.

 

I don't see why; the low turnout, which will probably lead to a NO vote, will merely confirm the apathy with which the majority view the current political scene. The amount of effort being expended by the Tories, and many Labour 'big guns', in support of the NO campaign shows their own insecurity with the concept of having to be truly democratic, and also the very low opinion they hold of the electorate in general.

[Thedelldays]

a low turn out and a no vote will keep this issue at bay for another generation and we can get on with more important issues like sorting the fuking country out

[pedg]

a low turn out and a no vote will keep this issue at bay for another generation and we can get on with more important issues like sorting the fuking country out

 

and possibly the country is 'fuked' because we have had a succession of left wing and right wing governments that have each spent their time implementing their own illogical policies driven by the political dogma while undoing the similar policies implemented by the previous government?

[Thedelldays]

and possibly the country is 'fuked' because we have had a succession of left wing and right wing governments that have each spent their time implementing their own illogical policies driven by the political dogma while undoing the similar policies implemented by the previous government?

the country is fooked because labour fuked it up....after doing a pretty good job at the start

 

I would rather a PM/cabinet get 2 terms (like the US)...that way they cant get stale and have 3 terms (like the last tory/labour lot) and do too much

[pedg]

who followed a Tory government that fuked up, etc, etc.

[Thedelldays]

who followed a Tory government that fuked up, etc, etc.

 

indeed...but if you limit a cabinet/PM to 2 terms..like the US system they dont get the dreaded 3rd bash and fuk everything up

well, we have a coalition now.....left and right of centre thrown in and people are baying for it to fail......not a lot will change with a different voting system

some are too tribal with their vote to make a mish mash work

[dune]

a low turn out and a no vote will keep this issue at bay for another generation and we can get on with more important issues like sorting the fuking country out

 

Very true. But sadly it'll probably take a generation to sort out the mess Labour left.

[badgerx16]

Very true. But sadly it'll probably take a generation to sort out the mess Labour left.

It'll take a similar time to sort out the mess the Casino Capitalists dumped on the world's financial systems.

[Wes Tender]

I don't see why; the low turnout, which will probably lead to a NO vote, will merely confirm the apathy with which the majority view the current political scene. The amount of effort being expended by the Tories, and many Labour 'big guns', in support of the NO campaign shows their own insecurity with the concept of having to be truly democratic, and also the very low opinion they hold of the electorate in general.

 

Yes, it will show what a non-event the voting public consider this referendum to be. If they considered that the current system was unfair and had an opportunity to change it, they would surely turn out in their droves to correct this apparent injustice, wouldn't they?

 

And whereas the Tory and Labour big guns are only expending so much effort because of their own insecurity at having to be truly democratic, the Lib Dems are in the campaign purely because they believe the country needs a fairer voting system, not that they believe that they will gain a considerable advantage from it if the system were to be changed.

 

But whereas I'm presuming from your comment that you consider the AV system to be what is truly democratic, it is in fact the referendum that comes closest to being that. So having agreed to allow the referendum, how can they be accused of being insecure or having a low opinion of the electorate in general?

 

No doubt that if the main two party's top guns did not put in this "massive effort", you'd have accused them of not taking the issue seriously and therefore treating the voting public with contempt, so they can't win with you, eh?

[aintforever]

That's the best policy. I can't wait for the result. The Liberal Elite on here will really spit their dummies out then.

 

I think most AV supporters on here are intelligent enough to realise that the no vote will probably win, people in this country are to ingrained in the red/blue ****** to care about wether it's actually the fairest way to vote.

 

I will vote yes but don't really give a sh!t, either way my vote is pretty useless. I expect nazi nut-jobs like you will be the ones spitting out dummies if they lose.

[dune]

Just explained to the old woman next door about AV and how complicated it is, and said how the Australians want to go back to the way we do it. That's another NO vote in the bag.

[Saintandy666]

Just lied to the old woman next door about AV and how complicated it is, and said how the Australians want to go back to the way we do it. That's another NO vote in the bag.

 

Corrected.

[Wes Tender]

Well done Dune.

 

Corrected yours too. Childish, isn't?

Edited 1 May, 2011 by Wes Tender

[Verbal]

Corrected yours too. Childish, isn't?

 

Come on Lord Tender, you're better than that. Aren't you?

 

And when are you going to give up your exclusion of the possibility that a reason people will stay away from voting yes is their general disenchantment with politics - the kind of disenchantment that has been charted by psephologists (presumably except from your 'most eminent' colleague) for decades? There's a danger yours is a self-fulfilling argument: FPTP, with its encouragement of safe seats and other forms of disenfranchisement leads to political disenchantment with the political process; therefore any attempt to offer a change is met with the same disenchantment.

 

Furthermore, if the turnout is as low as it is on the 5th, your self-satisfied conclusion that 'therefore everyone is happy' might be stretched a little bit - unless you really want to argue, like those aristocratic nobs who defended rotten boroughs on the same grounds, that the sign of a healthy democracy is that few take part in it.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Come on Lord Tender, you're better than that. Aren't you?

 

And when are you going to give up your exclusion of the possibility that a reason people will stay away from voting yes is their general disenchantment with politics - the kind of disenchantment that has been charted by psephologists (presumably except from your 'most eminent' colleague) for decades? There's a danger yours is a self-fulfilling argument: FPTP, with its encouragement of safe seats and other forms of disenfranchisement leads to political disenchantment with the political process; therefore any attempt to offer a change is met with the same disenchantment.

 

Furthermore, if the turnout is as low as it is on the 5th, your self-satisfied conclusion that 'therefore everyone is happy' might be stretched a little bit - unless you really want to argue, like those aristocratic nobs who defended rotten boroughs on the same grounds, that the sign of a healthy democracy is that few take part in it.

 

Turnout will only drop with a more complex system. Thicko's like me just want an easy system.

[Wes Tender]

Come on Lord Tender, you're better than that. Aren't you?

 

And when are you going to give up your exclusion of the possibility that a reason people will stay away from voting yes is their general disenchantment with politics - the kind of disenchantment that has been charted by psephologists (presumably except from your 'most eminent' colleague) for decades? There's a danger yours is a self-fulfilling argument: FPTP, with its encouragement of safe seats and other forms of disenfranchisement leads to political disenchantment with the political process; therefore any attempt to offer a change is met with the same disenchantment.

 

Furthermore, if the turnout is as low as it is on the 5th, your self-satisfied conclusion that 'therefore everyone is happy' might be stretched a little bit - unless you really want to argue, like those aristocratic nobs who defended rotten boroughs on the same grounds, that the sign of a healthy democracy is that few take part in it.

 

As big a leap of imagination to conclude that if there is a low turnout, it is because of a general disenchantment of politics, instead of it being because the electorate do not care that much about the issue. After all, referenda only occur pretty well with the regularity of Halley's Comet, so are you saying that the electorate are fed up with those too? This isn't a local Council election where people can't be bothered because they're just not interested in local politics. This is an extremely rare opportunity to change the voting system, so if there is a low turnout, the conclusion that people don't see the change as necessary is far more likely than your conclusion that it is an apathy about politics in general.

 

What leads to disenchantment with politics, is the political parties failing to connect with the electorate with policies that fire their imagination. Also, many politicians have lost the respect of the electorate because of scandalous behaviour like the expenses fiasco, or through hypocrisy and arrogance. Furthermore, there are very few politicians with any degree of gravitas or real conviction; everything is sound-bites and spin now. Yes, there might be disillusionment because in many seats it is nigh impossible to unseat an MP of one party or another and it might also seem that the current system does not favour a third party, although my own feeling is that the current third party exemplify the lack of gravitas and conviction. But it is easy to bleat about the system, whilst overlooking the other reasons I have given as to why there is this general disenchantment.

 

And I agree also with Sergei. A more complex voting system will increase this disenchanment.

[pap]

Turnout will only drop with a more complex system. Thicko's like me just want an easy system.

 

Are you really saying you are unable to order things from 1-4?

[pap]

Article on the conflicting claims of the two campaigns about whether AV will produce coalitions "most of the time", or about the same. Looks at the situation in Oz, which both camps are using as "proof".

[Verbal]

Are you really saying you are unable to order things from 1-4?

 

Sergei is the lab rat for Lord Tender's hypothesis. So yes.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Are you really saying you are unable to order things from 1-4?

 

No I get bored.

[pap]

No I get bored.

 

Believe me, if you can read SWF, don't think you'll hit your boredom threshold in an AV poll.

[badgerx16]

But whereas I'm presuming from your comment that you consider the AV system to be what is truly democratic, it is in fact the referendum that comes closest to being that. So having agreed to allow the referendum, how can they be accused of being insecure or having a low opinion of the electorate in general?

AV is not 'truly democratic', nor is it the system I would prefer - that is Single Transferable Vote, which is far more democratic and proportional. However, we are not having a referendum on adopting PR, we are being offered AV as an alternative to FPTP, therefore AV gets my vote as it is better than what we have, but is far from being what I would choose, ( I view it as nothing more than the first step to a properly accountable system ). The controlling faction in the coalition, the Tories, had to offer a referendum on the electoral system as a condition of the LDs joining them, but they have flexed their muscles and forced the LDs to accept a far weaker motion than they would themselves have ever chosen. The LDs were backed into a corner and have found themselves pushing for a system most of their members would never have asked for.

[pap]

Still not a shred of a case for FPTP.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Still not a shred of a case for FPTP.

 

Only that most people will vote to keep it.

[pap]

Some updates on the debate :-

 

(Don't) Blame Canada

First, Canadian general election happened yesterday. Canada has 11 hung parliaments under FPTP, which destroys the No 2 AV argument that FPTP is a magic bullet against that sort of thing. This time, the Conservatives got an absolute majority. With 40% of the public vote. The centre-left vote was split across two parties.

 

Cameronballs

Also, the PM was on Today this morning ( iPlayer - 2:19 ). Humphreys gave him a good grilling, and lo and behold, Cameron came across as knowingly clueless and confrontational, accusing the veteran broadcaster of not understanding the AV system. Usual bolox about needing voting machines, refused to condemn the baby poster. How this man ever became PM is beyond me. Under AV, he probably wouldn't.

 

Cyber-squatting

The No 2 AV campaign has bought yes2av.org - and using it for their own campaign. There's a group that's confident of their argument.

 

Armando Ianucci

Finally, Armando Ianucci did some balanced sniping of both official campaigns for the Evening Standard, before finally pledging his vote.

[Wes Tender]

Some updates on the debate :-

 

Cameronballs

Also, the PM was on Today this morning ( iPlayer - 2:19 ). Humphreys gave him a good grilling, and lo and behold, Cameron came across as knowingly clueless and confrontational, accusing the veteran broadcaster of not understanding the AV system. Usual bolox about needing voting machines, refused to condemn the baby poster. How this man ever became PM is beyond me. Under AV, he probably wouldn't.

 

Well, I thought that Cameron gave as good as he got. But if you wish to believe otherwise, then carry on. It's only your opinion. He became Prime Minister because he was elected to lead his party and then his party had the largest number of seats. How did Gordon Brown become PM? And how did Clegg become Deputy PM?

[scotty]

Well, I thought that Cameron gave as good as he got. But if you wish to believe otherwise, then carry on. It's only your opinion. He became Prime Minister because he was elected to lead his party and then his party had the largest number of seats. How did Gordon Brown become PM? And how did Clegg become Deputy PM?

 

I have to say, I agree with pap. Ive normally got a lot of time for Cameron, think hes doing a decent job in very difficult circumstances, but he came across as a prize prat on Today this morning. Thought Humphries was more restrained with him than he needed to be.

[Saintandy666]

Wow, John Humphreys schooled David Cameron.

[solentstars]

I have to say, I agree with pap. Ive normally got a lot of time for Cameron, think hes doing a decent job in very difficult circumstances, but he came across as a prize prat on Today this morning. Thought Humphries was more restrained with him than he needed to be.

had high hopes for cameron has a progresive leader but it looks hes being undermined by the rightwing nutters of the tory party and is becoming a poormans tony blair.

[scotty]

had high hopes for cameron has a progresive leader but it looks hes being undermined by the rightwing nutters of the tory party and is becoming a poormans tony blair.

 

I'd go along with that. Give him a chance though, we'll see what he does when the going gets tough, cant see many alternatives myself at the moment.

[solentstars]

Only that most people will vote to keep it.

i think your right and sadly think more people will not bother to vote in future elections has their votes will be wasted in safe seats, and only the marginal seats really matter now under fptp .

i was hopeing cameron was going to lead a reforming government with the liberals and be remembered in the history books.

[solentstars]

I'd go along with that. Give him a chance though, we'll see what he does when the going gets tough, cant see many alternatives myself at the moment.

sadly thats true

[trousers]

I've decided to vote thus: 1st choice AV; Second choice FPTP.

 

It's a win-win for me.

[Wes Tender]

Wow, John Humphreys schooled David Cameron.

 

No. Humpheys got it wrong, Cameron told him so. Humphreys is the one who needs to go home and do his homework before he next quizzes somebody on something like this.

[dune]

ComRes has a new poll in todays Independent

 

Topline referendum voting intention taking into account likelihood to vote and excluding don’t knows and won’t votes stands at YES 34%, NO 66%.

 

Get in.

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

[trousers]

Yes vote would take us back to the bad old days

 

One thing seems certain in the welter of claims and counter-claims about tomorrow’s referendum: AV is progressive. The referendum is being held at the insistence of the Lib Dems, which always proclaims itself the party of progress.

Alongside Nick Clegg, the Yes campaign is being led by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, who is the self-styled champion of the new political generation.

 

And their campaign is endorsed by a bevy of celebrities and luvvies who you would hardly term traditionalists. They include the fragrant Joanna Lumley, the tweeting Stephen Fry and comedian Eddie Izzard, who is so achingly right-on that he tells jokes in two languages.

 

In contrast the No campaign boasts a solitary star, Richard Wilson of One Foot In The Grave, whose television persona is the epitome of curmudgeonliness.

 

He is joined by a couple of hard-boiled politicians from the Left such as former home secretaries David Blunkett and John Reid. And, of course, there is David Cameron, our Etonian Prime Minister.

It seems to say it all: the Yes to AV campaign appears to offer hope for a new kind of politics, one that is in touch with the people, while the No campaign merely means more of the same, broken old political system.

 

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being progressive, AV would be a giant step backwards.

Out would go the open politics of ‘one man, one vote’ – a system that, contrary to what the Yes campaign would have you believe, is one of comparatively modern times.

Back would come the elite politics of the bad old world, when we were ruled, not by the ballot box, but by deals done behind closed mahogany doors in country houses, London clubs and parliamentary committee rooms.

No doubt the venues where the backroom deals are concluded would be different.

 

But I remain to be convinced that London’s trendy Groucho Club is more fundamentally democratic than White’s, the traditional St James’s club of the aristocracy

.

I will explain why AV would take us back to the corrupt politics of old, but first let me make a concession. No form of voting is perfect – whether it is first-past-the-post or AV. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and works better for one purpose rather than another.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1383303/AV-referendum-Yes-vote-bad-old-days.html#ixzz1LNO12Gs2

Edited 4 May, 2011 by trousers

[dune]

Edit that down or you'll get an infraction.

[solentstars]

Yes vote would take us back to the bad old days

 

One thing seems certain in the welter of claims and counter-claims about tomorrow’s referendum: AV is progressive. The referendum is being held at the insistence of the Lib Dems, which always proclaims itself the party of progress.

Alongside Nick Clegg, the Yes campaign is being led by the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, who is the self-styled champion of the new political generation.

 

And their campaign is endorsed by a bevy of celebrities and luvvies who you would hardly term traditionalists. They include the fragrant Joanna Lumley, the tweeting Stephen Fry and comedian Eddie Izzard, who is so achingly right-on that he tells jokes in two languages.

 

In contrast the No campaign boasts a solitary star, Richard Wilson of One Foot In The Grave, whose television persona is the epitome of curmudgeonliness.

 

He is joined by a couple of hard-boiled politicians from the Left such as former home secretaries David Blunkett and John Reid. And, of course, there is David Cameron, our Etonian Prime Minister.

It seems to say it all: the Yes to AV campaign appears to offer hope for a new kind of politics, one that is in touch with the people, while the No campaign merely means more of the same, broken old political system.

 

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being progressive, AV would be a giant step backwards.

Out would go the open politics of ‘one man, one vote’ – a system that, contrary to what the Yes campaign would have you believe, is one of comparatively modern times.

Back would come the elite politics of the bad old world, when we were ruled, not by the ballot box, but by deals done behind closed mahogany doors in country houses, London clubs and parliamentary committee rooms.

No doubt the venues where the backroom deals are concluded would be different.

 

But I remain to be convinced that London’s trendy Groucho Club is more fundamentally democratic than White’s, the traditional St James’s club of the aristocracy

.

I will explain why AV would take us back to the corrupt politics of old, but first let me make a concession. No form of voting is perfect – whether it is first-past-the-post or AV. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and works better for one purpose rather than another.

 

I happily concede that AV and other forms of multi-round voting can work well when there are several candidates for a single important post.

 

This is why such systems are used nowadays for elections to the leadership of both the Conservative and Labour parties and other posts such as the presidency of the Royal College of Physicians.

It is plausible to argue that the position of MP is just such an important post. After all, there are always several candidates and an ever-more diverse electorate that refuses to be corralled into traditional party loyalties. Doesn’t AV — rather than first-past-the-post — best meet this situation?

 

There is much to be said for this argument and it is the only intellectually respectable plank of the Yes campaign.

But it ignores a crucial fact: that an MP has two functions. The first is to represent his or her constituency; the second – and arguably much more important – function is to determine the choice of prime minister and therefore of government.

And that is where the trouble lies. Almost all the evidence shows that AV and Proportional Representation – which the Yes campaign insists is the next step in its planned reform of the voting system – would lead to more political parties, more independent MPs and more little splinter groups in the Commons.

 

Every one of these would hold a position of power as the diminished main party leaders wooed them for their vote when forming a government. While it may appear on the surface that AV hands more power back to the people, the horse-trading between MPs and party apparatchiks that would go on in electing a government would actually have the very opposite effect.

The real questions should be: which electoral system produces a Commons that best reflects that elusive thing, the ‘General Will’? Which best connects voters to politicians and the political system in general?

 

For this, first-past-the-post is way in front. And we can demonstrate this historically since – contrary to what is widely assumed – first-past-the-post been employed only for a relatively short period of time in the 700-year history of Parliament.

In the past, elections and the electorate were very different from now. Votes were cast in public and therefore subject to every form of pressure. Electorates were frequently tiny which meant seats were often ‘rotten boroughs’, owned outright or sold to the highest bidder.

 

Also, most seats had two MPs which encouraged electors to cast their two votes tactically. And party ties were weak.

The result was that MPs enjoyed a high level of independence from voters and elections rarely made much difference. Instead, majorities had to be formed on the floor of the Commons. There were elaborate compromises over policy and generous use of bribes to buy support.

 

All this was changed by the secret ballot and the introduction of ‘one man, one vote’. The idea was first floated in the 17th century during the Civil War. But it was too radical even for the men who had cut off Charles I’s head and it was introduced step by step by the Reform Acts of the 19th and early 20th centuries, starting in 1832 and ending in 1949.

 

The effect was immediate. In 1835, for the first time, a government fell as a direct result of losing a general election. And between 1867 and 1910, every general election but one brought about a change of government.

 

The result was a new sort of politics. Party leaders addressed the nation rather than the Commons; they issued manifestos and had to take continuous account of public opinion. And if they didn’t, they were kicked out. And all due to ‘one man, one vote’.

Do we really want to go back to the bad old days of elitist politics, backroom deals and endless corruption? To tick or number endless boxes on our ballot forms but leave the formation of coalition governments to secret negotiations between party apparatchiks?

 

To see the most solemn manifesto commitments dumped with power being handed to minority parties and mavericks?

If you do, vote Yes tomorrow.

 

But if you have some respect for our history and the popular sovereignty that came about through ‘one man, one vote’, vote No. And be proud of it

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1383303/AV-referendum-Yes-vote-bad-old-days.html#ixzz1LNO12Gs2

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