Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
I think the whole AV thing is daft, if I wanted my second choice to win I would have voted them number one not two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It's not daft, Jan!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Yes it is - there's absolutely no merit in it.
Roger
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
There is a merit in it: that many who vote, do not feel obliged to vote for a different party than the one they might have chosen.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I'm all for it.
A few thing strike me about this though. Firstly the debate is ridiculous and full of crazy scaremongering. Secondly I'm not sure why we are bothering as the outcome is obvious, in that I don't think it will be voted in!
If 'crazy' parties like the BNP are likely to benefit from this system, why are they against it? Small turn outs and apathy towards our middle of the road parties with no dialectic under out FPTP system is more likely to result in the success of extreme parties.
DC is obviously against it, resorting to stupid comments like 'it's unbritish' which in itself suggests that he is desperate for an argument against. If we vote something in, then surely by definition it is 'British', which is the point of this referendum. I don't see how comments like this help anyone. If it is voted in DC will contest it on low turnout...and this is British?
Additionally Mr Cameron has said that 'it is too complicated'. Coming from a man that explained 'big society' so badly that it's architects doubt it's success. if Mr Cameron can't get his head around this, then surely he is not fit for the the job. On the other hand if he contemptuously thinks that we can't get our heads around it, he is not fit for the job either.
Only a majority vote will tell. Perhaps by this system the Conservative would have got voted in properly?
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
DT1
I agree that we are hearing nothing but scare stories about this being a back door for the extremists.
We do need something that will re-engage voters with the electoral system and this might just be it. Perhaps, instead of people feeling able to vote for the extremes as a protest knowing there is no chance of them getting elected we will see a more considered approach? FPTP does not do what voters want it to.
An honest debate would be helpful but there are too many self-interests for this to happen.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Personally I do not mind which way the referendun goes, as I am not standing for election and see no need to do so in the future either.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
My problem with the AV system is that I don't want or have a second choice. It's either my candidate wins or they lose and I just have to take that on the chin as part of the democratic process of the UK.
It's similar to going to a restaurant ordering a fillet steak but having to put something else down that I don't like to eat say dog stew, as my second choice. I'd rather do without.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You and I are as one there Marek.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
if things stay the same then we will continue with parties needing 37% of the vote to form a government.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
They will not stay the same Howard.
The constituency changes will make a difference to the maths. There may also be further political realignments going on whether AV goes through or not.
What was wrong is one party forming a government with a 65 seat majority on 36% of the vote while the other main party falls short of a majority by 20 odd seats on 37% of the vote even with the main opposition party getting a smaller share than in the first instance... That will not happen again.
There are to many question marks over the av system i think we should stick with what we have .
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
might make a x in the yes box yet.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
we do have to watch concerns over boundary changes that baz mentions, not being done in any form of fairness, more to do with thrying to get more tory seats
like marek i want to vote for my first choice and take same view as marek
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
In France a candidate is elected if he gets >50% of the vote. If no candidate does get >50%, there is a run-off 2 weeks later between the top two candidates. That seems to me to be a fair system.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
So Keith.
Please justify your reasons for thinking that the boundaries should not be changed in order to reduce the the substantial advantage they provide the Labour Party?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
the same reason as not to give torys an avantage.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No-one is suggesting that Brian, just levelling out the playing field.
Jim Hood Labor is against AV
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
John Goodwin Lab is against A V
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!