The AV referendum

[Minty]

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.

Absolutely you are, and that's not the problem I have. Healthy debate is vital.

 

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.

 

You might be right about predicting votes and about some peoples motives, but quite simply, by making the assertion that there is an 'arrogance of the left' you tar everyone with the same brush, so how can you expect people to respect your individual opinion when you don't recognise that there are plenty of individual opinions on the left?

 

I treat others as I expect to be treated myself. That means I don't resort to such sweeping statements, because I would not want to be judged that way.

 

I'll be honest, it was unfair of me to jump on your post, it was just the first one I read on returning to the thread, so I apologise for that. My point is valid for anyone and everyone who makes the same sweeping statements.

[pap]

Left and right labels should not apply here, and in general, labels are damaging in the extreme.

 

I support a number of party's viewpoints on specific views. Would I take the whole package of a political party? Of course not. It's idiotic in the extreme to begin with, and political parties have a nasty habit of doing things that you would not imagine them doing, such as tuition fees or expensive foreign adventures with the US.

 

You made an interesting point earlier on about a referendum being the purest form of democracy. It really should be, but right now, it feels like we're in highly familiar territory, with campaigns instead of political parties. Neither camp has been entirely straightforward with the voters. It's a very simple question, and I feel that either option can be understood by most people.

 

The big difference between the two campaigns is that despite the muck flying about, the Yes campaign does have better points to make. That's not down to their media strategy. It's because FPTP is utterly indefensible and AV beats it in every way.

 

I haven't seen a single argument for FPTP that doesn't involve an element of self-interest.

[Joensuu]

Left and right labels should not apply here, and in general, labels are damaging in the extreme.

 

I support a number of party's viewpoints on specific views. Would I take the whole package of a political party? Of course not. It's idiotic in the extreme to begin with, and political parties have a nasty habit of doing things that you would not imagine them doing, such as tuition fees or expensive foreign adventures with the US.

 

You made an interesting point earlier on about a referendum being the purest form of democracy. It really should be, but right now, it feels like we're in highly familiar territory, with campaigns instead of political parties. Neither camp has been entirely straightforward with the voters. It's a very simple question, and I feel that either option can be understood by most people.

 

The big difference between the two campaigns is that despite the muck flying about, the Yes campaign does have better points to make. That's not down to their media strategy. It's because FPTP is utterly indefensible and AV beats it in every way.

 

I haven't seen a single argument for FPTP that doesn't involve an element of self-interest.

 

Excellent post. Agree entirely. With little to defend the existing system, the No campaign has had to rely upon confusion, misdirection and scare tactics. If only there were a law to limit the debate to the subject in hand, ie the relative pros and cons of FPTP and AV - the latter would win by a landslide.

[Wes Tender]

Excellent post. Agree entirely. With little to defend the existing system, the No campaign has had to rely upon confusion, misdirection and scare tactics. If only there were a law to limit the debate to the subject in hand, ie the relative pros and cons of FPTP and AV - the latter would win by a landslide.

 

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.

[Verbal]

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.

 

Could you post a link to this document please?

[Joensuu]

Could you post a link to this document please?

 

Yup, this, or a scan would do if you can't link to it.

[franny]

I haven't seen a single argument for FPTP that doesn't involve an element of self-interest.

 

I think I would agree with almost everything you have said since this is a significant constitutional change and it should be an argument about what is right for the country not that which is right for Labour/Con/Lib Dem etc..in future elections. Your last sentence suggests that perhaps there is no self interest in the AV campaign but when you have Mandelson the failed despotic & disgraced ex former minister who was also an unelected and unaccountable minister / Euro commisomer who was telling us to vote Yes because it would be one in the eye against Cameron and the Tories that smacks to me of massive self interest and may also impact the honest views of the AV campaign. These sort of interventions just underline the self interest of all poiticians and the low respect they hold for the electorate and it is that which is wrong with politics not the FPTP or AV or any other smokecreen they may put up.

[Scummer]

Could you post a link to this document please?

 

I was just looking for it with no luck, although part of me thinks I've had it through my door.

 

Did find this though which is quite interesting:

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6893578/exclusive-yes-to-av-leaflets-printed-on-ballot-machines.thtml

[Wes Tender]

Could you post a link to this document please?

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.

[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.

 

http://fairervotes.3cdn.net/ea73598b50138dd28e_5qm6idk84.pdf

[pap]

I don't think anyone is arguing that gutter tactics are the exclusive province of the No campaign. Both campaign feature politicians with promotional literature dripping with condescension.

 

That said, the No campaign is naturally more reliant on misinformation than the Yes campaign, as they are failing to show any of the benefits from FPTP. The sad thing is, they'll probably win with these tactics.

 

While the various claims made by either campaign are worthy talking points, too much focus on the hi-jinks they orchestrate diverts from the issue at hand. I'm voting for AV despite some of the crap the Yes campaign have printed in their literature ( the key one being "Nick Griffin is voting no, so we will vote yes!" ).

 

It's a very simple choice between two options. It is a shame that neither official campaign has credited the British public with enough intelligence to make the decision on their own, particularly as that is what we should all be doing on the big day.

[pedg]

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.

 

I think the argument goes that with the current electoral system once you get elected into a safe seat you are basically on the gravy train and its this 'job for life' position that tempts MPs into taking advantage of the rules about expenses, etc, but that an MP that has to appeal to/keep on the right side of a broader share of their constituents would be less likely to take advantage of things like the house flipping etc.

[Minty]

Yeah, that's a ******** leaflet. Most publicity from both sides is, as I made the point earlier in the thread.

 

Solid, independent information about the choices is needed. Just as it is in elections and all other votes. Sadly it is rarely available or forthcoming and individuals then have to decide whether to believe the hype and the media coverage, or do their own digging to find out the facts. No surprise therefore in this day and age, that most voting is done (in elections) based on relatively little information and possibly only 1 or 2 key policies, and that this referendum (IMO) will be decided primarily on the leaflets from the two camps and the media coverage. And again, as this thread has proven there is far more to the choice than most people realise.

[Wes Tender]

Here it is, on their own website:-

 

http://fairervotes.3cdn.net/ea73598b50138dd28e_5qm6idk84.pdf

 

Ah! Already posted by Scummer

[pap]

I think I would agree with almost everything you have said since this is a significant constitutional change and it should be an argument about what is right for the country not that which is right for Labour/Con/Lib Dem etc..in future elections. Your last sentence suggests that perhaps there is no self interest in the AV campaign but when you have Mandelson the failed despotic & disgraced ex former minister who was also an unelected and unaccountable minister / Euro commisomer who was telling us to vote Yes because it would be one in the eye against Cameron and the Tories that smacks to me of massive self interest and may also impact the honest views of the AV campaign. These sort of interventions just underline the self interest of all poiticians and the low respect they hold for the electorate and it is that which is wrong with politics not the FPTP or AV or any other smokecreen they may put up.

 

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that there is no party political self-interest in voting for AV.

 

Strip away that self-interest though, and AV has merits in its own right over and above our current electoral system.

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

Over to you, Joensuu

[pap]

Are you only on this forum to attempt to make people look small, Wes?

 

You are succeeding, sir. Just not in the way you might imagine.

[Joensuu]

Having read the linked PDF, it's clear to me that the Yes campaign are playing on the need to change politics generally, and associating this with voting yes. This is IMO largely irrelevent to the current debate, and in an ideal world should really have been avoided. The leaflet isn't inaccurate per se, but it is associating changing the voting system with changing the political system (of which this is merely one component). While the leaflet associates MPs in the dock, and the expenses scandal with the current electoral system - crucially, it doesn't claim that AV would change this.

 

All considered, this leaflet is a long way shy of the No campaign's deliberate attempts to deceive and distort the truth (e.g. cost £250m more etc).

[dune]

Who thinks we should have a poll on here?

[pap]

It would be interesting from a point of viewing of seeing a specific slice of society, but otherwise, a bit redundant.

 

Unlike most of the other polls in this site, we'll actually get to decide for real on May 5th

 

However, I second a poll out of curiosity alone.

[Saintandy666]

Having read the linked PDF, it's clear to me that the Yes campaign are playing on the need to change politics generally, and associating this with voting yes. This is IMO largely irrelevent to the current debate, and in an ideal world should really have been avoided. The leaflet isn't inaccurate per se, but it is associating changing the voting system with changing the political system (of which this is merely one component). While the leaflet associates MPs in the dock, and the expenses scandal with the current electoral system - crucially, it doesn't claim that AV would change this.

 

All considered, this leaflet is a long way shy of the No campaign's deliberate attempts to deceive and distort the truth (e.g. cost £250m more etc).

 

Indeed it is, and the Baby advert where it was basically saying 'Choose between AV or babies dying' was disgusting.

[solentstars]

i see that nutter Margaret Becket from the hard left another fptp supporter sideing with nutters from the hard right ,funny how strange bedfellows they become when their self interest is at stake rather than making the system more slightly democratic for voters..

mind you i always thought she was a selfish ***** and a user.

[Joensuu]

Indeed it is, and the Baby advert where it was basically saying 'Choose between AV or babies dying' was disgusting.

 

Ay... let us remind ourselves the depths to which the No campaign have slipped (and they have the nerve to pick holes in leaflets which contain slightly unclear text FFS).

 

Edited 26 April, 2011 by Joensuu

[Joensuu]

i see that nutter Margaret Becket from the hard left another fptp supporter sideing with nutters from the hard right ,funny how strange bedfellows they become when their self interest is at stake rather than making the system more slightly democratic for voters..

mind you i always thought she was a selfish ***** and a user.

 

Exactly, the ONLY reason to support the No campaign is self interest (whether left or right). The No campaign could be summed up as "Career over Country" - exactly the sort of behaviour we need remove if we are to clean up our democracy.

[Wes Tender]

While the leaflet associates MPs in the dock, and the expenses scandal with the current electoral system - crucially, it doesn't claim that AV would change this.

 

 

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?

[pap]

i see that nutter Margaret Becket from the hard left another fptp supporter sideing with nutters from the hard right ,funny how strange bedfellows they become when their self interest is at stake rather than making the system more slightly democratic for voters..

mind you i always thought she was a selfish ***** and a user.

 

When it comes down to it, any politician campaigning for FPTP is doing it out of self-interest. That, I can kinda live with. It's what they do.

 

I simply cannot comprehend why a member of the public would want to retain it, though.

[pap]

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?

 

All this is garnish.

 

List the merits of FPTP over AV.

[Joensuu]

I simply cannot comprehend why a member of the public would want to retain it, though.

 

I can think of two reasons:

 

1) Self interest - aka, they are hard-line Tories/Labour, and would prefer to see Tory/Labour policy implemented rather than see our democracy made more representative.

 

2) Stupidity - aka, they haven't/are unable to consider the arguments themselves, and have instead been blinded by one of the No campaign's adverts. As such, they now live in fear of Baby's dieing, or Nick Clegg looking smug, or extra money being spent etc..

[Verbal]

i see that nutter Margaret Becket from the hard left another fptp supporter sideing with nutters from the hard right ,funny how strange bedfellows they become when their self interest is at stake rather than making the system more slightly democratic for voters..

mind you i always thought she was a selfish ***** and a user.

 

Yes, behind all the mud-slinging - which does seem to be appreciably worse among the No campaign - is this simple and important issue of representative democracy. The idea that we shouldn't progress to a more democratically representative system astonishes me. The vested interests on the left and right are motivated only be their intense desire to keep power to themselves, which is best done in a system which makes the most of geographic concentrations of voter blocs. That the present system does this at the expense of a more representative system is a scandal. As a result, politicians become entrenched, cosy - and, yes, corrupt. My own view is that a connection CAN be made between FPTP and MPs' corruption - largely because many of those guilty of such practices were in 'safe seats' (what does that term alone tell you about the present system?) - in shires or inner cities.

 

Disrupt an electoral system that delivers 'safe seats' and MPs will be much more on their mettle. That may be a hope more than a fact, but it's better than sticking with a broken status quo, and the disillusion and electoral disengagement that goes with it.

 

The question is, are we democrats or cannon fodder?

[Joensuu]

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?

 

No. Why not? Simply because IMO there isn't a direct correlation between the electoral system, and that behaviour of those elected. As I said before: "While the leaflet associates MPs in the dock, and the expenses scandal with the current electoral system - crucially, it doesn't claim that AV would change this. "

[Joensuu]

All this is garnish.

 

List the merits of FPTP over AV.

 

Shh, that's exactly what the No campaign want to avoid at all costs - they can't possibly pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate if they are forced to actually debate the relative merits of the systems...

[pedg]

Ay... let us remind ourselves the depths to which the No campaign have slipped (and they have the nerve to pick holes in leaflets which contain slightly unclear text FFS).

 

 

They don't happen to have one involving guns and kittens as well do they?

[solentstars]

Yes, behind all the mud-slinging - which does seem to be appreciably worse among the No campaign - is this simple and important issue of representative democracy. The idea that we shouldn't progress to a more democratically representative system astonishes me. The vested interests on the left and right are motivated only be their intense desire to keep power to themselves, which is best done in a system which makes the most of geographic concentrations of voter blocs. That the present system does this at the expense of a more representative system is a scandal. As a result, politicians become entrenched, cosy - and, yes, corrupt. My own view is that a connection CAN be made between FPTP and MPs' corruption - largely because many of those guilty of such practices were in 'safe seats' (what does that term alone tell you about the present system?) - in shires or inner cities.

 

Disrupt an electoral system that delivers 'safe seats' and MPs will be much more on their mettle. That may be a hope more than a fact, but it's better than sticking with a broken status quo, and the disillusion and electoral disengagement that goes with it.

 

The question is, are we democrats or cannon fodder?

 

good post unfortunately i think we are cannon fodder and the main political party's love that fact,i wish their were no safe seats and more independent voters to keep thatt sleazy lot at westminster on their toes and still cannot believe we have a unelected 2nd chamber in this day and age.

[hypochondriac]

Personally I think that advert is disgusting. It's not influencing my vote either way however.

[Joensuu]

They don't happen to have one involving guns and kittens as well do they?

 

 

Vote NO or Wes Tender pulls the trigger?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Elliot Morley would have won his seat under AV, he won with 53% of the vote.So how on earth is AV going to clean up politics?

 

Why do people on here keep reapting the Yes to AV lie that David Davies would have won the Tory leadership under FPTP? It is not true, Davies and Cameron came first and second and therefore went to the membership. If the Yes to AV people want to clean up politics they should start by not telling lies themselves.

[Wes Tender]

All this is garnish.

 

List the merits of FPTP over AV.

 

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.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

 

 

The question is, are we democrats or cannon fodder?

 

As a democrat I assume you will accept the outcome of the vote.It will be the opinion of the British people, where it matters, in the ballot box .

[Joensuu]

Elliot Morley would have won his seat under AV, he won with 53% of the vote.So how on earth is AV going to clean up politics?

 

By itself it won't. It is merely the first of a series of changes that are needed to help our government better reflect the wishes of our people.

 

Why do people on here keep reapting the Yes to AV lie that David Davies would have won the Tory leadership under FPTP? It is not true, Davies and Cameron came first and second and therefore went to the membership. If the Yes to AV people want to clean up politics they should start by not telling lies themselves.

 

This is simply because the AV part of the Tory Leadership election system is the part relating to the voting by MPs - and not the voting by members (as by the time the memebers get to vote the contestants have been whittled down to 2 anyhow - making AV at this stage null and void).

 

So, had the entire Tory Leadership election system been replaced with FPTP (with MPs voting - not members), then based on the results of the first round of voting Davis with 62 votes would have been elected (beating Cameron's 56 votes into second place).

 

Now of course you can argue that this isn't a like for like as the FPTP model prevents the members from voting - but essentially that's just splitting hairs. The fact is, had the first round of the Tory Leadership election been decisive (FPTP), Davis would now be leader

[Wade Garrett]

Ay... let us remind ourselves the depths to which the No campaign have slipped (and they have the nerve to pick holes in leaflets which contain slightly unclear text FFS).

 

 

That is sick and true politics of the gutter.

[Joensuu]

As a democrat I assume you will accept the outcome of the vote.It will be the opinion of the British people, where it matters, in the ballot box .

 

I will. Additionally, I assume that if you consider yourself a democrat you will accept the publics right to continue to petition for a more representative voting system, irrespective of the outcome.

[pedg]

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.

Tried and tested, popular in most of the other democracies around the World.

 

Those seem good enough reasons to me.

 

Wrong on so many counts...

 

1) Yes its simple but by that token so are pompey supporters.

2) It depends how you define preferred. AV guarantees the winner has some level of support from over 50% of the electorate.

3) No proof. I would have thought it was easier to stuff the ballot when you only vote for one person. Having lots of votes from the same place having exactly the same arrangements of voting preferences would be a greater indication of fraud than a simple single vote.

4) The only cost over the current system is having the counters around for a few more hours. But I guess that's a good reason to reject an improvement in our democratic representation.

5) How?

6) Depends if you think a 'strong' government that can ignore the opinion of the majority of the country and inflict policies driven by political dogma rather than reasoned debate on the country is a good thing. I think at this point it is usual to say that germany don't appear to have done too badly from a succession of coalitions.

7) Some research has shown the reverse is true. Hence the BNP opposing AV.

Its used in lots of countries but not sure if it is popular.

 

More on point 5: In just 1 election in 100 years has a government with a working majority been replaced by a government with a working majority from another party.

Edited 26 April, 2011 by pedg

[Verbal]

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.

 

That's a shame, because they're not very good reasons.

 

1. The idea that the British electorate is too thick to understand AV is patronising.

2. The very problem with FPTP is that is DOESN'T elect people preferred by most voters. This, in fact, is a brilliant reason for supporting AV.

3. Scaremongering - and hardly likely to impress anyone who's witnessed the appalling corruption under FPTP.

4. Untrue.

5. Untrue.

6. Possibly true - but this is what representative democracy means, surely. I see you like to view yourself as cannon fodder rather than a voter

7. Untrue. They don't oppose it themselves for nothing.

8. The worst reason for doing anything is that it's 'always' been this way. There are better ways of doing it - especially in an increasingly corruption ridden British political system.

[trousers]

The idea that the British electorate is too thick to understand AV is patronising.

 

Half the British electorate are too thick to understand the meaning of the word 'patronising', let alone what a voting system is...

 

;-)

[Joensuu]

1) Simplicity. The candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of the number of candidates.

 

It is deceptive to suggest that just because something is 'simple' it has to be the better solution. The engine's on an Austin Rover used to be simple.

 

How is it fair to have a 'simple' system in which the outcome of an election is determined by a handfull of seats - live in the wrong place you might as well not vote under FPTP.

 

Your argument here is itself oversimplified.

 

2) The person elected is the one most preferred by the most electors.

 

Exactly. So you will be voting Yes then?

 

3) Because the system is simpler, it is easier to Police and less open to fraud.

 

There you go with that simple nonsense again. 'Simple' doesn't equate 'good'.

 

No FPTP isn't easier to police.

No FPTP isn't less open to fraud.

 

What makes you suggest such?

 

4) Because it is simpler, it is less costly to administer.

 

Simple simple simple simple simple - is that your only rational? Are you going for the Hovis vote or something. I ask you this - is it better to be simple but fundamentally flawed, or mildly less simple and much fairer?

 

NB - your 'cost less to administer' line is wrong. Unless you have anything to back it up with, I assume you are drawing upon Australian evidence? In which case, you hold any form of election (AV, FPTP, PR whatever) where voters a spread thinly across hundreds of miles of scrubland, and you try to find a way to keep the costs down eh? Try AV in the UK and the change in cost will be negligable, if any.

 

5) It makes the removal of an unpopular Government easier.

 

Sorry, I thought you were a democrat. This is a democracy right? Or are you arguing for a dictatorship here?

 

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.

 

You missed the words 'fractionally' and 'theoretically'.

 

Firstly:

 

AV is only fractionally more likely to cause coalitions. Evidence suggests no election result would have been different in the past 30 years.

 

Secondly:

 

Coalition governments have a track history of working very well in a broad range of countries. There is no evidence that they are 'weaker' - that is a myth. They do however help to prevent the endless swings from left to right, with each side undermining the changes implemented by the other. If you like coalitions help to reduce the short-term nature of modern politics, they help to moderate the exteremes of government that have been inflicted upon the UK in the past 50 years. Not having more coalitions could be the very reason this country is in such a mess.

 

7) More likely to exclude extremist parties.

 

You mean more likely to ignore anyone with a different opinion. If you don't include all views proportionately you get a growing resentment of politics and apathy towards voting. This breeds extremist views. A move away from the outdated FPTP system will help reduce this apathy, by helping to reflect society more accurately. Do this and watch the extremist crumble.

 

8 ) Tried and tested, popular in most of the other democracies around the World.

 

Flawed argument. Aside from Canada, South Korea, and one of India's two houses, no other major democracy uses the outdated FPTP system. Almost every major democracy, from Sweden to Japan uses the far fairer PR system. AV is the half-way house, it is much fairer than FPTP, but still shy of full PR.

 

FPTP has been tried and tested - and it has been found wanting. No countries are moving to FPTP, many (such as New Zealand and South Africa) have seen it's fundamental flaws and moved away.

 

Again, just because your Austin Rover is tried and tested, doesn't mean it's the best on the market.

 

Those seem good enough reasons to me.

Really? They seem rather illogical attempts to try and legitimise personal bias to me.

 

Keep on driving your old clapped out Rover, just don't try and sell it to us as if it were a modern vehicle.

[solentstars]

I will. Additionally, I assume that if you consider yourself a democrat you will accept the publics right to continue to petition for a more representative voting system, irrespective of the outcome.

 

i very much doubt those posters want to have a more democratic system has i suspect they are die hard supporters of the party and do well out of the present system.

[aintforever]

If someone is too thick to understand AV then they shouldn't have a say in who runs the country IMO.

 

Seriously, put your candidates in order of preference - 1, 2, 3 & 4. What is there to not understand?

 

The idea that parties like BNP will benefit from AV in nonsense as well, they are way more likely to get in under the currrent system where you only sometimes need 30% of the vote. I don't think there is any place in the UK that would ever have over 50% of the people vote for BNP.

[Thedelldays]

If someone is too thick to understand AV then they shouldn't have a say in who runs the country IMO.

 

Seriously, put your candidates in order of preference - 1, 2, 3 & 4. What is there to not understand?

 

The idea that parties like BNP will benefit from AV in nonsense as well, they are way more likely to get in under the currrent system where you only sometimes need 30% of the vote. I don't think there is any place in the UK that would ever have over 50% of the people vote for BNP.

 

ahh....freedom of speech and democracy at its finest........

[aintforever]

ahh....freedom of speech and democracy at its finest........

 

That's why the BNP oppose it, needing the ability to count to 4 rules out half their support.

[pedg]

Lets look at the 'broad' support for the no to AV compaign. This graph:

 

 

Take from here:

 

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2011/04/no-to-av-donors/

 

Shows that of the doners to the 'no to av' campaign the vast majority are tory supporters and that the campaign are unwilling not only to say who has donated less than 7,500 but also to say the total amount that has been donated.