Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
It would appear that the tables have turned in favour of a 'No' vote according to a poll out today. The 'Nays' so to speak have taken a 16 point lead. I must admit I am agin the reform preferring the 'first past the post' system.
I wonder how our esteemed local councillors most of whom are busy canvassing and knocking on doors begging for your vote on May 5th feel about this matter?.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#2
I believe that "First Past The Post" system is the only one we should have.
Our democracy was built on it and we should not muddle or meddle with our voting system; keep it simple and sensible.
Roger
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#3
Initially I was in favour of the NO vote..plunging to keep the first past the post system. But have been pondering the following..
Are there too many safe seats?
Are there too many seats where your vote counts for nothing at all?
Are there too many safe seats where your MP doesnt have to bother to do very much at all?
If you are a Labour voter and you live in MidShiretown where Sir Rodney-Pimpernell-Haviland always gets returned, then your AV voting system might make him less smug in his safe seat and more inclined to work for his wider constituency.
Likewise cloth capped Labourite Jimmy Jones might be very safe in Shipbuildsville ooop north.
Maybe AV would shake all that up a bit.
Or would it?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
PaulB the blog I am uploading later is on AV.
The short answer to the points that you raise are as follows:
1/ AV will not impact at all on 'safe seats' but will have its greatest impact in marginal heavily contested seats.
2/ Those who vote for the loony fringe, fruitcake candidates and extremists will have their preferences counted again and again. Support a major party and it wont be worth using second/third preference votes. Do you really want BNP voters to have a greater say that Conservative or Labour voters?
I do agree with you though that there are far too many safe seats and that is an issue that needs addressing. This is being done in the reduction in the number of MPs and 'levelling out' of voter numbers between seats with the more frequent boundary reviews. The proportion of safe seats will be significantly reduced.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#5
Up until a moment ago I could see little or no advantage for the voter in adopting AV, now I am not at all sure.
If the NO2AV camp thinks it prudent to enlist the services of an ageing 'pimp' and utilise a serviceman, badly treated by each and all in parliament, there MUST be something to the YES campaign.
Roger, you card.
AND
What about the reduction in seats and the boundary changes? When do we get a vote on these?
I doubt very much if AV will make any PPC/sitting member work harder for votes, but it is certain that nothing on the table will do so either.
Let's keep it simple: vote for the candidate of your choice BUT rerun the elections of any that do not secure 50+% of the vote.
Rather like the pro-EU vote of recent years, for which there was no referendum, let's keep putting the question until we get the answer that we want?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#6
Stringfellow's poster was an unoffical work-up, a very funny one though! (note the spelling mistake in it... - see my blog those who have not seen the poster.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#7
Barry, I have had a look, but you say nothing. No graphs, no statistics, no in-depth reasoning. Just puff!
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
the more i look at the alternative voting system the more i like it, any elected representative should have to gain more than 50% of the vote.
it will not happen though, too many vested interests who will put enough scare stories about.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#9
Howard, the 50%+ notion has fallen by the wayside. There is to be NO insistence on the 50% threshold.
I would like to be informed as to how much of a turn-out is required, how much of a majority has to gained and how are spoiled referendum ballots to be assessed?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
A bit like the arguments you make then Tom...
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#11
High praise indeed, Barry.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#12
barryw,so its ok for the likes of cameron,clegg and milliband to have the advantage of the av vote but not the genrael public to vote goverment in then.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#13
Yes, there are far too many 'safe seats' but the reduction in MP's will not change that, it will only create a couple of new ones. Many people in the current constituencies never have a chance to see their MP's and many MP's never get around to visiting areas of their patches. With larger constituencies all you will get is more MP's who are conversant with their parties dogma but have no idea of local issues from one boundary to the other of their constituency.
AV will not solve any of the problems, if anything it would reduce turn-outs as enough cannot be bothered to vote for one so how many more would not turn out if they thought they had to put them in order? It would not matter that you could still vote for just one, the perception would be there.
Any government established on 2nd, 3rd or 4th place votes could never claim to have any sort of mandate for anything and the cross party slanging matches would replace debate even more than they do now.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
tom
i think we are at cross purposes, i think you are refering to the referendum in post 9, i was referring to the voting system if a.v. is brought in.
chris
the system is used in appointing party leaders.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#15
Afraid not Howard, we are talking about the same thing.
I too talk about the future under AV. There is NO requirement for the declared victor to have secured over 50% of the votes.
There is an interesting idea put forward by one Patrick Baker here...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/apr/20/av-fptp-us-debt-cuckoo?INTCMP=SRCHIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
No it is not Howard. It is actually more complex than that. It is not AV but members of parliament go through a series of elimination ballots to reduce the field to two candidates who are subject to a member vote. There are very different dynamics involved to AV.
Tom is right. A lot of people will not use second/third etc preferences and results elsewhere show the winner falling short of 50%.
The Australian experience is not good and it would not be a surprise if they dropped it in favour of a return to FPTP. Then there is what, Fiji and Papua New Guinea only who use this flawed system.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#17
Chris - I could not disagree with you more over the impact of the constituency changes.
The small 'rotten borough' inner city seats that suffer low turn-outs from small electorates will be eliminated and be merged into larger areas encompassing a broader electorate. Rural seats tend to have larger electorates anyway but these will too be reduced in number and again will broaden their base of electors.
Overall the impact will be a smaller proportion of safe seats.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#18
The problem is, that many vote Labour to get the Tories out, and then vote Tories to get Labour out.
The yes vote in May would change all that, and put some coulour into voting.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
with you totally there alex, i always vote against rather than for a party at national level. i would like the opportunity to place candidates and parties in order of preference, will not happen though, the big parties have too much to lose to let that happen.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#20
howard,if the av ststem works in goverment ie,picking the leader of any said party why wouldnt it work if the public had a go.
