Traktion Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 PR is the ultimate in pisspoor electoral systems. You don't like the main parties, but also don't like either of the two main alternatives of voting? That is just odd. What do you suggest will help to shift the incumbents, of which the current system supports, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickolarge Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 PR is the ultimate in pisspoor electoral systems. Only if you believe that a single party must govern alone. Strong government, strong leader and all that. Looking at those who have attained that status, too strong would be my verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 You have ignored the thousands of people in every constituency who would have voted for a minor party, but voted Labour/Tory because otherwise it's a wasted vote and there's a 2 party system Exactly! Is it any wonder that voters, scared by the evil Tories, resigned to voting Labour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickolarge Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 You have ignored the thousands of people in every constituency who would have voted for a minor party, but voted Labour/Tory because otherwise it's a wasted vote and there's a 2 party system But the LibDems could be wrong in their assumption that the wasted vote factor is all that is keeping them from parity or even overtaking the other two. I don't see a 3 party equal fight as a given even if we got full PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappycocco Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I'm in favour if it excludes liebour and the bnp or means those parties get a lot less votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 This is the cost of moving from a 2 party system to a 3+ party system. Either we stick with having a choice of 2 parties who play swapsies every few years or we open the playing field up a bit. As only a minority of people generally vote for the party which win, many of which did so as to not 'waste' their vote, I would say the former isn't working out any more. Decades ago, when 95%+ people voted for Labour or Conservatives, it worked fine. However, now both of those have failed us many times, is it any wonder that people want more choice? As for strong governance, look what Labour did over the last decade or so... I wouldn't call that positive. Neither would I call what the Tories did before that positive. A choice of a kick in the face or a kick in the nuts, isn't much of a choice at all really, is it? AV does not give you more choice, you can vote green, UKIP, BNP, EDL whatever you want under FPTP. You will have exactly the same choices under AV. If AV is introduced and Cleggasm is in power next time do you think that the voting population will be happy? They will want revenge on Clegg and the only way that can be achieved is by voting them out of power. Will not happen under AV, people will feel even more wronged. Just look back to public opinion when Brown desparately tried to stay in power by forming a coalition, it was viewed as outrageous because the people had voted and they had lost. AV does nothing to produce strong governance it just gives an excuse for parties to say "Oh we are in a coalition now so we have changed our minds and what we said before the election has all been changed to a "coalition agreement" and sod you voters because we have POWER. Good governance is based on an opposition being able to defeat the govt in votes in the house or by the house of lords defeating govt bills. AV will always give the coalition an unassailable majority and does nothing to change the lords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) I'm in favour if it excludes liebour and the bnp or means those parties get a lot less votes. In short, you would be in favour if it means your views are listened to most? That shouldn't be the reason to want AV - it should be to give as many people as possible an equally loud voice. EDIT: To add... that includes Green, BNP, UKIP and any other marginal view point which are currently ignored almost completely by the current system. If you ain't red or blue, you may as well not bother voting at the moment. Edited March 31, 2011 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 You have ignored the thousands of people in every constituency who would have voted for a minor party, but voted Labour/Tory because otherwise it's a wasted vote and there's a 2 party system Where is all the proof of this people not voting for minor party because they felt it was a lost vote. Fantasy land. The reason that parties get elected on 30% of the vote is because significant numbers of people vote for minority parties. What AV may stop is tactically voting but that is people making their mind up to vote for a different party than hey prefer for political reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So, here is a poll, asking us how we are going to vote in a poll, asking how we would like to vote in the next poll! That's true. We should set up a poll to see if people want it removed. Or shifted to another board. Or made sticky. Or made sticky and shunted to another board, or kept as-is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 In short, you would be in favour if it means your views are listened to most? That shouldn't be the reason to want AV - it should be to give as many people as possible an equally loud voice. EDIT: To add... that includes Green, BNP, UKIP and any other marginal view point which are currently ignored almost completely by the current system. If you ain't red or blue, you may as well not bother voting at the moment. They will be ignored under AV as soon as they are last in count. What changes from FPTP, err nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabbagepatchkid Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 AV does not give you more choice, you can vote green, UKIP, BNP, EDL whatever you want under FPTP. You will have exactly the same choices under AV. If AV is introduced and Cleggasm is in power next time do you think that the voting population will be happy? They will want revenge on Clegg and the only way that can be achieved is by voting them out of power. Will not happen under AV, people will feel even more wronged. Just look back to public opinion when Brown desparately tried to stay in power by forming a coalition, it was viewed as outrageous because the people had voted and they had lost. AV does nothing to produce strong governance it just gives an excuse for parties to say "Oh we are in a coalition now so we have changed our minds and what we said before the election has all been changed to a "coalition agreement" and sod you voters because we have POWER. Good governance is based on an opposition being able to defeat the govt in votes in the house or by the house of lords defeating govt bills. AV will always give the coalition an unassailable majority and does nothing to change the lords. Are you feeling OK ralph? They will be ignored under AV as soon as they are last in count. What changes from FPTP, err nothing. If that's what you believe, I take it you'll be voting yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britney's Piers Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The Yes campaign is largely funded by a company who makes counting machines for...AV! It's an overcomplicated load o' sh*te, of dubious benefit and allows twonks like Lucas to gain influence well above their level of support. To be avoided at all costs. It's no more complicated than voting for an X Factor winner, and if you do not understand X factor you are in trouble anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Are you feeling OK ralph? If that's what you believe, I take it you'll be voting yes. I am feeling fine thanks. I will be voting no because this is a sop and a stitch up of the voters. We need real change in the way the system is run not some slops thrown to us and then to be either told if a no vote "well the electorate are happy with the current system they have voted." or in the case of yes "Right we have given you the choice, thats it for now, no reforem of the house of lords, no reform of political patronage, no banning non local mps being parachuted into safe seats." It is a con. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I cannot imagine any government system than what we have had recently could be less representative of the people or steal as much money from them. Therefore I will vote for anything that changes it. I would feel happier voting for the PG Tips chimpanzees than what we have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Look at what Ireland hs got from PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 It's no more complicated than voting for an X Factor winner, and if you do not understand X factor you are in trouble anyway. Is that - Understand on a technical level the basis of the TV show and how so register one's preference for the performers therein? or - Understand on a philosophical level how people, living a desperately short existence in a universe of unbridled wonder, can watch the X factor for more than a 2 minute period without their brains imploding in a fit of terminal ennui at the sheer inanity of it all. I have trouble with the second one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilchardthecat Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Where is all the proof of this people not voting for minor party because they felt it was a lost vote. Fantasy land. The reason that parties get elected on 30% of the vote is because significant numbers of people vote for minority parties. What AV may stop is tactically voting but that is people making their mind up to vote for a different party than hey prefer for political reasons. The Tories are shit scared of it because they know that about 50% of the votes they got last time would go to UKIP under AV. There is no 'evidence' of this either way, but there are bucket-loads of anecdotals and a huge bag full of game theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The Tories are shit scared of it because they know that about 50% of the votes they got last time would go to UKIP under AV. There is no 'evidence' of this either way, but there are bucket-loads of anecdotals and a huge bag full of game theory. And then when UKIP are kicked out the votes go back to the Torys. Same result just a longer process and as I say no change, still no UKIP MP's still loads and loads of Labour and Tory MP's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphmalph Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superted187 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Anyone see that programme on BBC1 with Lembit Opik 2 nights ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I will vote for it, as if it doesnt go thro there is no chance for PR. I do think there are too many Mp's, I live on the Wirral and there are currently 4 MP's for one metropolitan borough, I am not sure if one is enough but two certainly is. I am not sure also that that delinking MP's from geographical areas is good which seems to be the only downside about PR I've got a lot more in common with 20somethings who live 200 miles away than the old lady who lives next door. Geographical location seems a pretty arbitrary way to lump people together. FPTP is doing a great job of suppressing policies which benefit under 35s because we are always in the minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Look at what Ireland hs got from PR. I believe Ireland has single transferable vote, not PR. The HPC pin-up country, Germany, has a form of PR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 AV does not give you more choice, you can vote green, UKIP, BNP, EDL whatever you want under FPTP. You will have exactly the same choices under AV. What is the point of voting for any of the above under FPTP? It will make no difference at all, yet you lose your ability to vote against the incumbents. With AV, you would vote for any of the above in preference to having to vote against the incumbents. However, if any of the above fail to get decent support, they you fall back to the default FPTP position - negative/tactical voting. With AV you get to vote for who you want first, then who you don't want second. With FPTP you either waste your vote or vote for you you don't want... unless you happen to be a die hard Labour/Tory supporters who thinks they can do no wrong (I minority in my experience). Your point is disingenuous by not taking these issues into consideration. If AV is introduced and Cleggasm is in power next time do you think that the voting population will be happy? They will want revenge on Clegg and the only way that can be achieved is by voting them out of power. Will not happen under AV, people will feel even more wronged. Just look back to public opinion when Brown desparately tried to stay in power by forming a coalition, it was viewed as outrageous because the people had voted and they had lost. With AV, they can avoid voting for Clegg and/or the Lib Dems, just as they can with FPTP. If you think that everyone hates the Lib Dems now, you will have nothing to fear, as they will get few votes. AV does nothing to produce strong governance it just gives an excuse for parties to say "Oh we are in a coalition now so we have changed our minds and what we said before the election has all been changed to a "coalition agreement" and sod you voters because we have POWER. Good governance is based on an opposition being able to defeat the govt in votes in the house or by the house of lords defeating govt bills. AV will always give the coalition an unassailable majority and does nothing to change the lords. I don't want the sort of 'strong governance' that either of the main parties offer. Nor do many others, I suspect. However, if the majority love 'strong governance' as much as you think, they will only vote red or blue, just as they always have. Changing the lords is another debate. Governments never change too much at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The Tories are shit scared of it because they know that about 50% of the votes they got last time would go to UKIP under AV. There is no 'evidence' of this either way, but there are bucket-loads of anecdotals and a huge bag full of game theory. Yes, I suspect you are right. Additionally, as many UKIP supporters would support the Tories as a second choice, it means they can vote by order of preference, rather than risking getting Labour instead of UKIP or Tories. And then when UKIP are kicked out the votes go back to the Torys. Same result just a longer process and as I say no change, still no UKIP MP's still loads and loads of Labour and Tory MP's. Why are you so bothered then? If a UKIP vote is lodged and published, but it turns into a Tory vote as there weren't enough UKIP fans to give them a seat, what is your problem with AV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) They will be ignored under AV as soon as they are last in count. What changes from FPTP, err nothing. If I could vote for who I liked, I'd probably go for Libertarian, then UKIP, then Tory, then Lib Dem. I may even switch Lib Dem and Tory, depending on how things pan out over the next years*. The point is, it's my personal order of preference. I know the Libertarians wouldn't get many votes and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be ready to govern, but it shows support. The same for UKIP, but they are probably closer to being able to govern. If the Tories got in, I'd be happy it wasn't Labour. Compare this with someone who hates the Tories under FPTP. The only party who could get them out are Labour in most cases. Even if the person hates Labour, but despises the Tories even more, they have to hold their noses and vote Labour. As a result, all the minority parties don't get voted for and have no chance of ever competing... and the 2 party regime marches on... * Lib Dems like the idea of a land value tax and have discussed a citizens income. If it wasn't for their socialist meddling ways and their pro-European ways, I'd consider them ahead of the Tories. This is the point though - there are many flavours of policy, which just two parties doesn't explore. Edited March 31, 2011 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.