Don't know if anyone is paying any interesting into the AV referendum. I have found it quite interesting to follow. Well more the way the yes/no parties have gone about trying to convince people to vote.

 

The no party say don't vote yes because it is too complicated. Kind of shows what they think of working class Britain, apparently we don't have the skills to order things from most like to least like and that if we think that something is completed we wont give it a try.

 

I think most importantly we have the chance to make a change and although it isn't the change people wanted failing to vote yes give politicians the excuse to not offer change in the future.

As with everything politics based, us normal working class Brits are being treated a incompetent fools.

The leaflet that came round lately was plain condescending!

 

A few things to either entertain or depress...

 

No to AV Leaflet (explained)

 

That's a nice example of their poor persuasion techniques.

option 3

option 3

 

Can't help but think there is a better way to go about it.

Three people have votes no yet failed to comment, hmm wonder why? Voting for an ideology so have no facts or logical reason to back it up?

As with everything politics based, us normal working class Brits are being treated a incompetent fools.

The leaflet that came round lately was plain condescending!

 

A few things to either entertain or depress...

 

No to AV Leaflet (explained)

 

 

Great link!

 

I got one of those condescending leaflets through the door yesterday, reminded me of the tripe you get in those 'Get rich quick' sales letters. I'm shocked that this kind of scaremongering is legal, let alone to allowed to be used for a referendum vote.

As with everything politics based, us normal working class Brits are being treated a incompetent fools.

The leaflet that came round lately was plain condescending!

 

A few things to either entertain or depress...

 

No to AV Leaflet (explained)

 

 

oh dear "Get's the largest minority". Sums up the intelligence of the people on the Yes camp. I've not seen anything from them apart from low grade champagne socialist 'celebrities' telling me how great it is and idiots like Clegg/Cable trying to feather their own nests. Politicians are not being allowed to speak, especially from the Labour party who seem to have been told to keep schtum by their leader....who is only opposing for opposition's sake and after 3 successful wins via FPTP is basically unelectable and desperate.

 

The big problem with this is that it is being rushed through and we could well end up with a complete mess. If we adopt it then voting should also be made compulsory.

It's a yes vote from me, but not because I think AV in itself makes enough of a difference to our electoral system. Even though local MP's will no longer be chosen on a FPTP system, the government will. For example, in the last election the majority of voters showed their support for the more 'socialist' end of the spectrum (I use the term socialist very loosely). But here we are with a tory government. AV will address this to a point, but I don't believe it will make the changes we should be seeing in our electoral system. If it paves the way for deeper reforms, it will have done its job in my opinion. If not, it could turn into a waste of money.

 

And yes, the govt literature was the most patronising drivel to have ever occupied my letter box.

Cofee Shop is cool.

Yes notbanksy, I feel a no vote will give them a chance to shut up shop.

 

Interesting video for any confused cats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk&feature=player_embedded

01:55 "rather than having to hedge your bets with just one candidate"

 

Ah, no. AV would be "hedging your bets", not FPTP.

I've ripped up my forms. Both systems have pros and cons.

I don't really care one way or the other, the voting system isn't the part of the political system I'd like to see changed. But still, I don't like people who complain about a system and don't do anything about it, so I'll make a point of voting.

 

I don't like the idea of AV. It seems to favour the minority parties. If I vote for Conservatives (1) and Monster Raving Loony Party (2) and the Conservatives don't get enough votes, my vote counts for the Monster Raving Loonies. As a coder, I'm not a fan of the stuff I've written and the end result being dependent on something I can't control

I don't like the idea of AV. It seems to favour the minority parties. If I vote for Conservatives (1) and Monster Raving Loony Party (2) and the Conservatives don't get enough votes, my vote counts for the Monster Raving Loonies. As a coder, I'm not a fan of the stuff I've written and the end result being dependent on something I can't control

 

With FPTP you would've lost in your hyperthetical scenario anyway. Plus you don't have to vote for any parties. You can put as many or as few preferences down as you like. Therefore if you only place one vote and your only party gets knocked out you don't favour any other party.

Edited May 1, 201115 yr by itodd

What itodd said.

 

Think about people who like the smaller parties, I might like UKIP but know they don't have a chance, in FPTP i'd have to vote for someone else if i wanted my vote to make a difference. In av i'd get to show my intent for the party and also get to have a chance for my vote to mean something.

I'm English but living in Spain so I'm actually unable to vote but have been watching this quite a lot as I get british TV (and BBC news of course haha!)

I would definitely vote yes. It may make it complicated for some people but surely if those people find it complicated they aren't really the type of people we want voting and having an impact on our government!

I couldn't pick between two parties at my local election and actually had to vote for the one I thought was most likely to get it. I would have loved to have been able to have a second choice!

 

I love the examples you've shown on here, let's hope we're from a country that still retains some common sense.

I don't quite follow the phrase "my vote will make a difference under AV" as a good thing*. If you were to vote for UKIP and enough people voted for that candidate for the MP to be elected, that party could have an MP in the Commons. Factor that up a few MPs and the party in charge couple be in charge with a smaller number; if that number's less than 325, there's a chance that the party in charge won't be able to pass a new act. This worries me, since laws are passed through precedent and acts of parliament (and if the recent super injunctions are anything to go by, precedent isn't always a good thing; but to me, it seems more likely under AV)

 

Call me cantankerous but I think the current system works better.

 

*I've re-factored this sentence 3 times, I still don't like the way it sounds...

Factor that up a few MPs and the party in charge couple be in charge with a smaller number; if that number's less than 325, there's a chance that the party in charge won't be able to pass a new act.

 

This happened in the 2010 election with FPTP.. hence the current coalition government. How does this show the current system is any better than AV?

This happened in the 2010 election with FPTP.. hence the current coalition government. How does this show the current system is any better than AV?

It happened during the Second World War too, as well as a few other times. I can't say that coalitions would never happen under FPTP as clearly they will, but it seems to me that they are more likely under AV.

another fact. Eddie Izzard supported the Euro, Gordon Brown and supports AV. I rest my case. Who said the guy wasn't a comedian.

It happened during the Second World War too

There was no hung parliament, where did you get that from? FPTP works great for elections with only two parties but elections in this country aren't a 'two horse race' any more

Edited May 2, 201115 yr by itodd

There was no hung parliament, where did you get that from?

I heard it somewhere, my mistake. But there have been hung parliaments before now (1923, 1929 and 1974) Was close to the war

I love the ad (which might be below) asking for money to support the no vote.

I love the ad (which might be below) asking for money to support the no vote.

Haha yeah I noticed that, surprisingly conveniently placed..

Tut tut...

Dirty Tories

can't imagine the Guardian saying anything different. Isn't the pro Yes electoral commission going to get a nice handout of AV is adopted so they're shamelessly promoting for their own ends.

As for the Guardian, biggest bunch of hypocrites out there. http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/the-guardians-rank-hypocrisy-on-tax-avoidance/

There was no hung parliament, where did you get that from? FPTP works great for elections with only two parties but elections in this country aren't a 'two horse race' any more

But there was a coalition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Government_1940-1945

can't imagine the Guardian saying anything different. Isn't the pro Yes electoral commission going to get a nice handout of AV is adopted so they're shamelessly promoting for their own ends.

As for the Guardian, biggest bunch of hypocrites out there. http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/the-guardians-rank-hypocrisy-on-tax-avoidance/

I am in no way condoning this, but you must be able to distinguish the journalists from the CEO's and board members. Just because their organisation is rife with hypocrisy, doesn't mean the reporting has no value.

 

The tories are up to their neck in it, and there's no getting away from it. And if labour were still in power, so would they. The less said about Clegg's lot, the better!

But there was a coalition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Government_1940-1945

I never said there wasn't. But that was a wartime coalition, it was for a different reason than today's coalition government.

I haven't read much about AV but as I understand it you put your vote in preference 1=your primary vote followed by 2,3,4,5, if 1 doesnt get 50% then they take your other options into account, what if you dont fill in other preferences, wouldnt that just count as a single vote with no alternative.

 

Or am I just talking b******s

Edited May 3, 201115 yr by pat24

I haven't read much about AV but as I understand it you put your vote in preference 1=your primary vote followed by 2,3,4,5, if 1 doesnt get 50% then they take your other options into account, what if you dont fill in other preferences, wouldnt that just count as a single vote with no alternative.

 

Or am I just talking b******s

Almost, you're other preferences will only be taken into account if your 1st choice party has the lowest votes of that round and gets knocked out. And if you only put one choice then that counts as a single vote (like the current system) and if that party gets knocked out you will favour no other party as you have no alternative for your vote to go to

Let's zoom out a bit and say that once we actually have some candidates to vote FOR and not vote because we're voting AGAINST certain candidates then the voting system is of secondary importance. So long as the BNP don't get in of course.

For so long as I can remember the public have voted a party in and then been complaining about them afterwards.

The Conservative party during the Thatcher years - what a joke.

The Labour party during the Blair/Brown years - what a joke.

The current Government - what a joke.

 

I guess a Labour/Liberal collaboration MIGHT work but I doubt it.

 

Trouble is - all the parties have become generic now, doesn't matter which you vote for out of the big three, you'll get much the same result, albeit manifesting itself in slightly different ways.

So in a way it might be a good thing if the minority parties were given more of a chance. However it might be a bad thing as well.

 

Once politicians start concentrating on real politics rather than ratings and television appearances etc. and the general public get their thick heads OUT of that copy of the Daily Mail and the Sunday Sport and NOT voting for politicians because they "like their smile" then we might be on the road to getting somewhere.

And I guess I vote either yes or no to AV - whichever is more likely to get those chinless public school sellouts out of power who are in at the moment (oh yeah Clegg and Cameron, I nearly forgot their names due to being so blinded by their lack of prowess). Whoever would have thought that once the Liberals finally did get into power they would sell out so easily and quickly.

 

It's a joke, surely.

 

Edit - did I mention that I blaim the media largely, mainly the Daily Mail (likes to appeal to readers who consider themselves "too intelligent" for the Sunday Sport) which in my opinion is a very dangerous tabloid and actually largely runs the country.

Edited May 3, 201115 yr by Gibson

It's smoke and mirrors. As the old saying goes, you're solving the wrong problem. We don't need a new voting system to make more people less unhappy about the lying bastards we're saddled with, we need to stop them breaking campaign promises so people trust the ones we elect more.

All i know is that our current system (if it was the same as gemranys) alowed hitler to gain control...

 

im just happy i can vote this year woo!

All i know is that our current system (if it was the same as gemranys) alowed hitler to gain control...

 

im just happy i can vote this year woo!

 

err...http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/germany/chancellor_dictator.shtml Seems he was more like Gordon Brown and able to just take the position

err...http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/germany/chancellor_dictator.shtml Seems he was more like Gordon Brown and able to just take the position

 

yeah but i swear that was after he got the most votes... then he started bending all the rules!

 

cant really remember got a D in history ^^

All i know is that our current system (if it was the same as gemranys) alowed hitler to gain control...

All voting systems allow potential tyrants to gain control. It's not the fault of the system itself, but how a certain personality exploits the national mood during a time of crisis.

 

The problem we face today in British politics is that we have no real choice when it comes to voting. It's a one-horse race; we simply get to choose the jockey.