Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Hpc "a V" Referendum Poll


pl1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Only to the simple.

Most Labour MPs are for a No, most New Labour former Cabinet ministers are for a No - so even by your own cracked decision making process you've screwed up.

The current leader of the Labour party supports the yes campaign. Since he is likely to be well informed as to which option will give him the greatest chance of becoming Prime Minister, I have voted no.

The only thing that matters is that we don't get Labour back in power, everything else is a side show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For instance, say the BNP came last, and every BNP voter puts tory second, and the majority of votes go to labour and the conservative party, but there is not a 50 majority for either, then the BNP party voters second choice get added to the conservatives. Why is a BNP voters second choice more important than say the Lib Dems voters?

The answer to your last question: it isn't. No candidate can win except by eliminating all other candidates. No candidate can be eliminated[1] unless an absolute majority of all voters prefer another candidate. Thus in your example, neither tory nor labour can win until counting has established that an absolute majority of voters prefers them to the other. The order of whose second-preference votes are counted first is a purely mechanical issue, and cannot affect the outcome between the leaders.

[1] except the candidate with fewest first-preference votes, who is eliminated equally under either system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO to AV

If we had AV at the last election, Gordon Brown would still be PM **shudder**

At last! The evidence I have been looking for for ages.

I have often felt that people post things as facts when they actually have no way of knowing whether they are right. Thanks for providing proof.

It's always risky to run with something you read or hear just because it strikes a chord with your personal leanings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to your last question: it isn't. No candidate can win except by eliminating all other candidates. No candidate can be eliminated[1] unless an absolute majority of all voters prefer another candidate. Thus in your example, neither tory nor labour can win until counting has established that an absolute majority of voters prefers them to the other. The order of whose second-preference votes are counted first is a purely mechanical issue, and cannot affect the outcome between the leaders.

[1] except the candidate with fewest first-preference votes, who is eliminated equally under either system.

The party most likely to gain from AV is the Greens. Many voters who state a first choice of one of the big three will be unwilling to name the other two on their ballot paper. Because being "green" has been pushed so hard in recent years many folk will see it as a harmless second choice and "the right thing to do" while also avoiding giving any support to their sworn enemies. Also those who vote for fringe parties will stick the Greens in their list. Expect to see them coming second and third in a lot of seats if we get AV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The party most likely to gain from AV is the Greens. Many voters who state a first choice of one of the big three will be unwilling to name the other two on their ballot paper. Because being "green" has been pushed so hard in recent years many folk will see it as a harmless second choice and "the right thing to do" while also avoiding giving any support to their sworn enemies. Also those who vote for fringe parties will stick the Greens in their list. Expect to see them coming second and third in a lot of seats if we get AV.

No chance. The core vote of the Big Three will easily shut the Greens out, they only way they'll gain seats is if the Lib Dems impload and their voters look for a new home.

Edited by Authoritarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

some AV myths debunked:

  • It makes MPs work harder: nope, it makes their life easier by guaranteeing them a majority. Nope, it does neither. Work harder or less hard is a red herring.

  • It gives us more choice: nope, it encourages the Big Three to converge policy-wise to pick up those all important 2nd preference votes. It may reduce effective choice. Wrong. Our current system is the absolute worst for ensuring a focus-group-identified tail of swing-voters in key marginals wags the dog of every party aspiring to government. We cannot predict the eventual outcome, but more choice is likely if it enables a realignment away from two-and-a-half main parties.

  • It eliminates tactical voting: again no. There's nothing wrong with tactical voting (in fact every vote is a 'tactical' vote) but AV actually institutionalises it. Voting UKIP 1 and Tory 2 is every bit as tactical as voting Tory under FPTP to keep Labour out. That's just too dumb to merit a response. If a voter prefers UKIP and Tory to Labour, let them say so.

  • It's fairer: no, PR would be fairer, AV is a majoritarian system. Different question. PR is fair to parties. Calling it "fair" presupposes you support, or at least accept as inevitable, a party system. AV or STV is fairer if we're voting for people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appears we are still waiting for a good reason for keeping FPTP apart from "keeps Labour out" (which unfortunately forgets 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections).

Nice to see the Newsnight "no" panel producing "more coalitions" (wrong), "too complicated" (you calling me too stupid to understand it?) and "vote no if you hate Clegg" (just pathetic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At last! The evidence I have been looking for for ages.

I have often felt that people post things as facts when they actually have no way of knowing whether they are right. Thanks for providing proof.

It's always risky to run with something you read or hear just because it strikes a chord with your personal leanings.

Its none of those things. I'm just spreading good old fashioned FUD*

*Fear Uncertaintly and Doubt.

tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appears we are still waiting for a good reason for keeping FPTP apart from "keeps Labour out" (which unfortunately forgets 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections).

Nice to see the Newsnight "no" panel producing "more coalitions" (wrong), "too complicated" (you calling me too stupid to understand it?) and "vote no if you hate Clegg" (just pathetic).

What was Dan Snow on? As a historian he would know that the WWII coalition was nothing to do with the voting system (the Tories had a massive majority at the time). Why he would use that as an AV benefit is beyond me.

Not against changing the voting system, I am open to discussion on that. But not AV as it stands.

Also presented as a "historian" and "broadcaster." He is in fact a BBC presenter, so not so sure he should have been deployed in that task at all.

Edited by Sir John Steed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was Dan Snow on? As a historian he would know that the WWII coalition was nothing to do with the voting system (the Tories had a massive majority at the time). Why he would use that as an AV benefit is beyond me.

Not against changing the voting system, I am open to discussion on that. But not AV as it stands.

Also presented as a "historian" and "broadcaster." He is in fact a BBC presenter, so not so sure he should have been deployed in that task at all.

There was some confusion between parties working together and WWII times but then again he had to listen to the "no" panel insinuating that "all coalitions are bad" so on a par.

Again, if you can tell us what is wrong with AV that you'd prefer to keep FPTP then it would help the debate.

I think they were trying to get someone similar to Beevor who seemed a bit out of his depth too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of AV, because we'd likely make a mess of implementing it, resulting in total chaos.

(sic)

Interesting point there.

If AV wins, the meeja will look more carefully at what's going on, and see a whole lot more fraud, corruption, phantom voters, gerrymandering. And they'll have a nice new scapegoat for all the long-standing problems they unearth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens is any decent right-thinking people will vote "anyone but Labour", all the low-life scroungers will vote "anyone but the Conservatives". Leaving a nasty situation where third-place wins.

These are the three main problems with AV:

1. It gives more power to the third party.

2. It sets a precedent that whoever gets some dodgy coalition in can change the voting system at a whim.

3. The third party are communist idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens is any decent right-thinking people will vote "anyone but Labour", all the low-life scroungers will vote "anyone but the Conservatives". Leaving a nasty situation where third-place wins.

These are the three main problems with AV:

1. It gives more power to the third party.

2. It sets a precedent that whoever gets some dodgy coalition in can change the voting system at a whim.

3. The third party are communist idiots.

LOL, quite a polarised view you have of the world there. A place where there are only your stereotypical Right and Left wingers. Even though the Labour party are almost as right wing as the Tories. I guess that means anyone to the left of Labour is a commie?

So what else has the Daily Mail told you to do this week? Wave your flag for Wills and Kate like a good little subject...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started out as anti AV but having listed to the arguments and the posturing mainly from top level Tories which irritated me I will be voting for it....

I appreciate this is a Lib Dem thing and I despise them and their open borders policy but feck them if it comes in I wont be voting for them anyway.

Which leaves me with a dilemma come the locals next week. 3 usual choices Tory, Labour and Lib Dem. 2 councillors each Tory and Labour one for the Lib Dems.

One of the Tory councillors is suspected of abusing his position in that he sold a property he owned to the council at what seems now an very inflated price due to the fact it has been structurally condemned. It's value now is thought to be land value + demolish costs where the building + of course sold for £180,000. The council appointed surveyor did not include any structural defect in his report and the council offloaded the property with some others for a £1 to a Housing Asso for development (it was them that discovered the defect)....

The local paper won't touch the story and we only know as a band of concerned residents have done a leaflet drop explaining the circumstances.

Anyway my dilemma I get two votes...

I will vote for the other Tory bloke but want to make sure the one mentioned above don't get in. But I cant bring myself to vote Labour or Lib Dem........ :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the Tory councillors is suspected of abusing his position in that he sold a property he owned to the council at what seems now an very inflated price due to the fact it has been structurally condemned. It's value now is thought to be land value + demolish costs where the building + of course sold for £180,000. The council appointed surveyor did not include any structural defect in his report and the council offloaded the property with some others for a £1 to a Housing Asso for development (it was them that discovered the defect)....

The local paper won't touch the story and we only know as a band of concerned residents have done a leaflet drop explaining the circumstances.

Any chance of scanning the leaflet and uploading to a new thread please, would make a good topic?

Good luck with your campaign.

I also changed my mind from no to yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting Yes.

In 2005, Labour got in with just 35% of the vote!

......and what do you expect that those 35% would have put as their second choice? I would bet on Lib Dim.

......and of those that voted Lib Dim what do you think that their second choice would have been? I would bet on Liebour.

.....and given the above, what do you expect that the outcome of the last election would have been? I would bet on Liebour still being in power.

That is why I will be voting no. What we have doesnt work and isnt democracy but what we could face is outright ruin if liebour get hold of the purse strings again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......and what do you expect that those 35% would have put as their second choice? I would bet on Lib Dim.

......and of those that voted Lib Dim what do you think that their second choice would have been? I would bet on Liebour.

.....and given the above, what do you expect that the outcome of the last election would have been? I would bet on Liebour still being in power.

That is why I will be voting no. What we have doesnt work and isnt democracy but what we could face is outright ruin if liebour get hold of the purse strings again.

Only put a first choice then......simples, they can't count what is not there. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they can count other people's second vote.

Wake up people. Unless Labour's got it wrong on this, which I doubt, a vote for yes is a vote for Red Ed and his goons at the next general election.

....after last time. :lol:

You don't have much faith in the British peoples' judgement. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......and what do you expect that those 35% would have put as their second choice? I would bet on Lib Dim.

......and of those that voted Lib Dim what do you think that their second choice would have been? I would bet on Liebour.

.....and given the above, what do you expect that the outcome of the last election would have been? I would bet on Liebour still being in power.

That is why I will be voting no. What we have doesnt work and isnt democracy but what we could face is outright ruin if liebour get hold of the purse strings again.

You can try and predict possible voting patterns all you like but sometimes crowd mentality is just weird. Especially when dissected by the electoral boundaries.

Why not take a step back for a moment? What is the point of democracy if a party can get in and ruin the country with just 21% of people supporting them? Doesn't sound like democracy to me.

I'd bet that Colonel Gaddafi has 21% of the Libyans supporting him but is he their legitimate leader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.