Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Mr1Croft on April 29, 2011, 01:32:24 am
-
Well, with less than a week to the referendum, the question has to be asked? What (if any) will you be voting for? Should we continue with the 'First Past the Post' voting system and the simplicity it brings, (although too simple and by all means not democratic in terms of the 'popular vote' and majority voting) or do we make the switch and become the 4th country in the world to use the AV system.
I swing towards AV, although it does jepordise Milibands chances of winning his own seat in the next general election, although im sure his share of the votes would shoot up now he is leader of the opposition.
-
Unless some poll is saying otherwise, I would be shocked if Edward lost his seat round here in any form of voting system. Like the ex Tory MP Alan B'Stard, the size of his majority is massive.
-
A definite NO from me.
Nick Clegg was right when he called AV a \"miserable compromise.\" It isn't true proportional representation. All it means is that supporters of small fringe parties effectively get two or more votes while the rest get one. So if you vote BNP first, your vote could get counted three times. If you vote Labour, chances are your vote will be counted once. Hardly fair, or proportional, is it?
The principal beneficiaries will be the Lib Dems and the result will be more coalitions, with Cleggy's mob acting as kingmakers, more broken promises and more back-room stitch-ups. And if we should be daft enough to vote for it, we'll be stuck with AV for decades. That's why many who favour genuine PR are voting NO next week.
I'd be happy to debate the merits of FPTP versus genuine PR- Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies is, I believe, the most genuine form- but on Thursday I'll be saying a resounding NO.
-
Unless some poll is saying otherwise, I would be shocked if Edward lost his seat round here in any form of voting system. Like the ex Tory MP Alan B'Stard, the size of his majority is massive.
Miliband won Doncaster North with 47.3% of the vote last May, so under AV the votes of the bottom placed candidate would be redistributed, and so on until he reached 50%. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have won, although those who voted for the socialist candidate, the English Democrats, UKIP and the BNP would have probably ended up having their votes counted twice, at least.
Incidentally, as our \"local\" MP, does he ever show his face at a Rovers game?
-
I think it's a 'no' from me. My vote is and always has been for one party and I have no other preference. I don't see that I should be forced to choose a second, third or whatever else favourite as I simply do not have other preferences.
If Ed has ever been to a Rovers game in the past (very doubtful I'd imagine!) then the chances of it happening now are probably much slimmer now he's so much more higher profile.
-
It`s a no from me, why would I want an alternative person to represent me?
-
Red Ed is a Leeds fan.....
It's a no from me, one vote is simply that, one vote, that's my belief. There isn't a single best way to do it really. Some say it's not fair with more of the population against their MP as is pretty much always the case, but I don't whinge about that, I never have and probably never will be a labour voter, my MP is labour (and she was useless when we needed her) but she was fairly voted in.
-
Unless some poll is saying otherwise, I would be shocked if Edward lost his seat round here in any form of voting system. Like the ex Tory MP Alan B'Stard, the size of his majority is massive.
Miliband won Doncaster North with 47.3% of the vote last May, so under AV the votes of the bottom placed candidate would be redistributed, and so on until he reached 50%. It is inconceivable that he wouldn't have won, although those who voted for the socialist candidate, the English Democrats, UKIP and the BNP would have probably ended up having their votes counted twice, at least.
Incidentally, as our \"local\" MP, does he ever show his face at a Rovers game?
He's a L**ds fan :laugh: typical, ain't it? :( :laugh:
Ah, BFYP beat me to it by seconds :laugh:
-
It's a no from me, one vote is simply that, one vote, that's my belief.
That's fine. No one would hold a gun to your head and insist on you choosing multiple candidates. The fact that you personally wouldn't wish to use an alternative vote can and should be separate from your opinion on the general principle.
Personally, I'm not massively in favour of AV as a system, but it is slightly fairer than what we currently have. Our current system is utterly indefensible. It gave pretty much unfettered power to both Thatcher and Blair when neither of them got remotely close to winning a majority of votes in the country. That is wrong by any stretch of the imagination.
Supporters say that at least it gives strong Government, but that is b*llocks too. Four times in my lifetime, the current system has lead to hung parliaments (Feb 74 and last year) or desperately slim majorities and weak governments (Oct 74 and 1992). The difference between the instability and weakness on one side and near-Monarchical, unopposed power on the other is frequently just a few hundred thousand votes going one way or another in key marginals. Meanwhile, voters in seats with large majorities are effectively disenfranchised because their votes will not change the outcome. By no argument can that be described as fair or democratic.
AV is far, far from ideal, but it's a step. I'll be voting for it.
-
It's a yes from me too. Not perfect, but a small step to a fairer system. Look at political reform,there have been years of talk of reform of the House of Lords, nothing happens, Cameron has flooded the Lords with peers. As long as vested interests reamin powerful and we have a voting system delivery minority governments (popular vote), nothing will change. Think beyond Clegg to years of a Tory government when boundaries change, voting yes is a better way of finishing this coalition, a no to AV will result only in the Libs in the wilderness for years.
-
Not saying this will be the case here, but none of the countries who've implemented AV have ever even looked at moving onto AV, so - in my opinion, I must stress - I doubt anything will be different here.
-
Agree with it being a small step forwards to enfranchising those in areas where there's big majorities, and maybe it will make the difference in the power of party's elected by less than 50% of the voters.
I'm not convinced its substantial enough. Will it be a step forwards towards something better and encourage people to feel safer about a further change, or a step to where people think thats concession enough for PR?
I'd vote yes but I booked a last minute holiday and left it too late to get my vote sorted :headbang:
-
I would have liked to have an alternative vote ON the alternative vote rather than first past the post
I HAVE voted AV .... as stated its a step in reet direction at least
-
Sorry had to get my snap and did not want to get timed out !
Politics is a minefield but surely it cant be right that Major (Conservative) won the Election he looked sure to lose by 1100 or so votes. He got a majority of 21 so if he had lost 11 of those seats he would have lost the election
Some of those Seats were won by a TINY amount of votes and the 11 seats addded up to just 1100 and a bit
Meanwhile in somehere like Hemsworth or Goole and Thorne donkeys years ago the winnner (Labour) would have a majority of say 30000 and win just 1 (one) yes just one seat - is that fair.
Thatcher (Conservative) won at least one election with around 42 % of the vote by a f****ng LANDSLIDE and clobbered everyone but the elite
So 42 of every 100 people who voted wanted the Tories to govern but 58 of those who voted DID NOT want to have them in charge - is that fair ?
Oh god I am stopping NOW !!!!
Vote AV you know (I know) it makes sense
-
Sorry had to get my snap and did not want to get timed out !
Politics is a minefield but surely it cant be right that Major (Conservative) won the Election he looked sure to lose by 1100 or so votes. He got a majority of 21 so if he had lost 11 of those seats he would have lost the election
Some of those Seats were won by a TINY amount of votes and the 11 seats addded up to just 1100 and a bit
Meanwhile in somehere like Hemsworth or Goole and Thorne donkeys years ago the winnner (Labour) would have a majority of say 30000 and win just 1 (one) yes just one seat - is that fair.
Thatcher (Conservative) won at least one election with around 42 % of the vote by a f****ng LANDSLIDE and clobbered everyone but the elite
So 42 of every 100 people who voted wanted the Tories to govern but 58 of those who voted DID NOT want to have them in charge - is that fair ?
Similar situation with Blair in 97. Labour won 43% of the votes but 65% of the seats. (Difference was of course that Blair was never going to use that to drive a left-wing revolution in the way that Thatcher had been utterly radical with the power that she had in the 80s.)
In fact, no party has won more than 50% of the vote since Stanley Baldwin's Tories in 1935. So in pretty much EVERY election since, a majority has voted AGAINST the party that ends up governing. Madness!
In fairness, at least the current Govt can argue that they have a combined 60% of the votes cast at the last Election. Although the sheer incompetence of the Lib Dems means that effectively we have a Govt shaped and driven by radical Tory policies despite the fact that only 36% of the Electirate voted for the Tories last year.
As I say, AV is not ideal by a long way, but it is much better than the ridiculous and iniquitous current system. It's all very well TRB saying vote against AV but then lobby for for STV. That's pie in the sky. AV is the best that anyone will get in our lifetimes. Vote against it now and the question will be put to bed. You'll be stuck with the current system for another 2 generations.
-
Really dont know on this one, I'm inclined to say no to AV on the basis that if its not broke dont fix it, and AV would complicate matters. People are stupid unfortunately, they barely give any thought into who to vote for in 1st past the post, never mind having to vote for 2nd and 3rd choices. I think most would just have a fav party to vote for and then put any old numbers in the other boxes, so it just makes a farce of it.
Having said that Our English Democrat mayor (who I voted for and glad I did) wouldnt have won if it were not for AV.
Those are the two things that spring to my mind and having considered both, I will be Voting NO to AV.
-
It is broken though, how many people actually bother voting for anyone under the current system? It's not even 50% is it? So on that basis, yes try and fix it , even if it's only a small step.
YES from me.
I'm not bothered if it leads to more coalition governments - MP's are supposed to represent their constituencies and not just follow their party policy. I'm all for not having any party having it all their own way, whichever one it is.
A NO vote is a TORY vote. A YES vote will keep those f**kers out for ever.
-
A NO vote is a TORY vote. A YES vote will keep those f**kers out for ever.
So why do around 130 Labour MPs- over half the parliamentary party- say they'll vote NO? Could it be because they realise that only one party will benefit from AV- the Lib Dems.
-
As I say, AV is not ideal by a long way, but it is much better than the ridiculous and iniquitous current system. It's all very well TRB saying vote against AV but then lobby for for STV. That's pie in the sky. AV is the best that anyone will get in our lifetimes. Vote against it now and the question will be put to bed. You'll be stuck with the current system for another 2 generations.
In fact, I think precisely the opposite- vote AV in and we'll be stuck with it for at least two Parliaments after this one. Keep the status quo, and the possibility of real change remains open.
-
As I say, AV is not ideal by a long way, but it is much better than the ridiculous and iniquitous current system. It's all very well TRB saying vote against AV but then lobby for for STV. That's pie in the sky. AV is the best that anyone will get in our lifetimes. Vote against it now and the question will be put to bed. You'll be stuck with the current system for another 2 generations.
In fact, I think precisely the opposite- vote AV in and we'll be stuck with it for at least two Parliaments after this one. Keep the status quo, and the possibility of real change remains open.
Totally disagree. Where will the political pressure for STV come from? The Lib Dems are the motor for the change to PR. They are currently at a historical high water mark in terms of their political influence. For the next generation, their influence will be nowhere near as strong - if the next election is held under FPTP, the Lib Dems will be lucky to get 20 seats and they'll go back to their previous role as a pointless little fringe party.
So, in that scenario, with AV already having been comprehensively rejected, why should Parliament concern itself with more navel gazing over the voting system. The issue will have been put to bed, and you'll not see another referendum on the issue in your lifetime.
-
If the Lib Dems get AV, they're unlikely to want further change- given that it will benefit them disproportionately. If it is rejected then they will have to come up with something better.
In any case, if you judge the campaign purely on its merits, Yes to AV deserves to lose. All the gambits that they hoped would work in their favour- holding the vote on the same day as local and assembly elections, allowing a valid vote on a low turnout- have backfired on them. And rather than make the case for change, they've resorted to abusing their opponents.
-
[attachment=631]AV.png[/attachment]
A convincing argument?
-
I'll vote yes. It's not ideal but it's a good step.
A yes vote would signal the public are open to change and the chances of a vote on PR would be increased.
A No vote will kill the debate and I doubt we'll ever get the chance for change again in our lifetimes. The Conservatives fear a yes vote, they stand to lose most from it, and they won't want to risk it again.
A yes is an opportunity not to be missed.
-
If the Lib Dems get AV, they're unlikely to want further change- given that it will benefit them disproportionately. If it is rejected then they will have to come up with something better.
In any case, if you judge the campaign purely on its merits, Yes to AV deserves to lose. All the gambits that they hoped would work in their favour- holding the vote on the same day as local and assembly elections, allowing a valid vote on a low turnout- have backfired on them. And rather than make the case for change, they've resorted to abusing their opponents.
I think you must be referring to the NO voters TRB. The yes voters get abused and the lies are told by the NO campaign. I'll point out them if I have to.
VOTE A BIG YES TO CHANGE THE SHIT POLITICAL SYSTEM WE HAVE.
The No voters just want to keep their shit government jobs easily - MAKE IT HARD FOR THE f**kERS!
-
A NO vote is a TORY vote. A YES vote will keep those f**kers out for ever.
So why do around 130 Labour MPs- over half the parliamentary party- say they'll vote NO? Could it be because they realise that only one party will benefit from AV- the Lib Dems.
NO. It's because around 130 Labour MP's don't give a f**k about you or me, just about their safe seats. They want things to stay the same because they've got a job. Change is bad in the eyes of the dinosaur.
Ed wants AV - at least the leader of the party isn't a dinosaur.
-
So why do around 130 Labour MPs- over half the parliamentary party- say they'll vote NO? Could it be because they realise that only one party will benefit from AV- the Lib Dems.
There are several reasons. Some of them are cantankerous old t**ts like Reid, Blunkett, Prescott or Beckett who made their names in ecosystem that gave them great power when their party got 40% or less of the vote. Traditionally, there has always been a streak in the Labour party that saw the current system as the only way that a strongly left wing Govt could ever be elected in this country - a very left wing party would never get 50% of the vote, but might squeak a majority with 35-36% due to the vagaries of the system.
You say the change to AV would benefit the Lib Dems. And so it should. I'm no fan of them but the current system is indefensible. The Lib Dems received 23% of the vote at the last election but only 8-9% of the MPs. That is TOTALLY undemocratic and to be blunt is a f**king disgrace. It's also a disgrace that both Tory and Labour MPs are supporting the system that allows such a perversion if the public will.
Prescott has openly said that he opposes AV on the simple grounds that Labour would be less powerful. The Tories oppose it for precisely the same reason, although they are too smart to say so, so they've muddied the argument with side issues like the cost (so democracy is less important than cutting costs! Socrates would turn in his grave!)
AV is not perfect but it would be a symbolic shift towards a more equitable system. As I've said before, if AV is defeated today, the issue will be off the agenda for 50 years and we'll be stuck with Lab or Con Governments given unfettered power on 38% of the vote. I
Genuinely baffled how any honest intelligent person can support that
-
I'd endorse every word of that BST.
-
AV explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTI3Xpkp0Y
-
Really dont know on this one, I'm inclined to say no to AV on the basis that if its not broke dont fix it, and AV would complicate matters. People are stupid unfortunately, they barely give any thought into who to vote for in 1st past the post, never mind having to vote for 2nd and 3rd choices. I think most would just have a fav party to vote for and then put any old numbers in the other boxes, so it just makes a farce of it.
Having said that Our English Democrat mayor (who I voted for and glad I did) wouldnt have won if it were not for AV.
Those are the two things that spring to my mind and having considered both, I will be Voting NO to AV.
Let me shorten that for you Boomstick....
\"Really dont know on this one, I'm inclined to say no to AV on the basis that... thats what my Tory masters tell me to do!\"
;-)
-
Surely since most of us live in Yorkshire it doesn't make a difference on a local scale. Labour will win by a country mile regarless of the voting system around here because of Thatcher
-
Generally yes maybe not in Harrogate for instance but that isn't the point. We regularly have governments elected that aren't what most people want. Is that right?
-
Do we? I think America can claim that since 3 presidents have been elected despite having fewer votes than their opponents but thats not the case here. Of course a lot of people don't want to Tory's in power but someone had to lose the general election
I don't think that AV or FPTP is the problem its the constituencies. Whoever is elected skews the voting areas as much as possible so they maintain their majority during the next election.
What i do like about AV is that it forces candidates to canvass areas which they wouldn't do otherwise and actually give a damn about people that wouldn't normally vote for them
-
Do we? I think America can claim that since 3 presidents have been elected despite having fewer votes than their opponents but thats not the case here. Of course a lot of people don't want to Tory's in power but someone had to lose the general election
I don't think that AV or FPTP is the problem its the constituencies. Whoever is elected skews the voting areas as much as possible so they maintain their majority during the next election.
What i do like about AV is that it forces candidates to canvass areas which they wouldn't do otherwise and actually give a damn about people that wouldn't normally vote for them
That last sentence makes me think we're singing from the same hymn sheet./
-
I can see the merits of both but don't see it making a difference in Donny. I'm not for AV cos it'll give more power to minority parties such as BNP etc and thats never a good thing
-
I can see the merits of both but don't see it making a difference in Donny. I'm not for AV cos it'll give more power to minority parties such as BNP etc and thats never a good thing
That's bollox, AV mitigates against extreme policy.
-
Dont you think it can be swayed though to give minority parties votes in later rounds? For instance. What is to stop 2 relatively minor parties to form a coalition of sorts before the vote, and campaign their supporters to vote for the other as second choice? One might go out in the first cut, but the other will get a swathe of second choice votes which might be enough to knock out one of the big three in some seats.
Havingsaid that, I'm all for it in the absence of a proper review of our voting system with ALL options considered. My vote went in about 40 mins ago.
-
If you've got the following list:
Labour
Tory
Lib Dem
BNP
Independent
People will pick their first choice on personal prefference. After that they will base opinions on a limited ammount of info. They might pick people like the BNP or Indies as they represent ANY alternative to their least favourite party (normally Labour or Tory)
What i'm trying to say is that the big parties will polarise people and will get a lot of 1's or 5's. The minority parties will pick up lots of 2s, 3's and 4's
The BNP is a bad example because they alienate so many of the public, but a neutral party like the greens stand to gain a lot from it (like the Lib Dems...how convenient)
-
Interesting that you pick an example with 5 candidates and allocate votes 1-5. I wouldnt give the BNP or the Tories a vote at all. In fact, I maynot vote for any candidate other than my favoured one.
-
If you've got the following list:
Labour
Tory
Lib Dem
BNP
Independent
People will pick their first choice on personal prefference. After that they will base opinions on a limited ammount of info. They might pick people like the BNP or Indies as they represent ANY alternative to their least favourite party (normally Labour or Tory)
What i'm trying to say is that the big parties will polarise people and will get a lot of 1's or 5's. The minority parties will pick up lots of 2s, 3's and 4's
The BNP is a bad example because they alienate so many of the public, but a neutral party like the greens stand to gain a lot from it (like the Lib Dems...how convenient)
But the likes of the Lib Dems and Greens deserve more representation anyway. I don't see the problem.
I don't see anyone voting Con first and Lab second.
-
Interesting that you pick an example with 5 candidates and allocate votes 1-5. I wouldnt give the BNP or the Tories a vote at all. In fact, I maynot vote for any candidate other than my favoured one.
And you can still vote for just one candidate under AV. You don't have to nominate alternatives. I would vote Lab 1, Lib 2 and in a three horse race I wouldn't vote 3.
-
That is one of my issues with it, you effectively give some people 2 votes and others not. I mean I would vote Tory and have no interest in the others, like it or lump it that's who I tend to vote for. But why should Paul down the street who wouldn't mind a couple get a couple of says when I only want one guy? That's my problem with the system.
I voted no today, not to keep the Tories in a better position, hell I'm a tory voter in Doncaster the current system hardly gives my guy much of a chance, but I don't think AV is better, I actually think it's worse and will cause more problems. People haven't liked this coalition (mainly because many forget things change from election campaigns to real government), AV would probably give us lots of coalition, when it isn't wanted.........
I expect the no vote to win, largely because AV isn't a great system, not because the system doesn't need changing.
-
I expect NO to win. Largely through misunderstanding, a desire to punish Nick Clegg and Tory voters and some left wingers looking after their own interests.
It's a great shame because the real issues aren't given enough consideration.
-
I expect no to win too...the two big parties will protect their seats and try and keep it as a 2 party system.
Or to put it another way
\"The enemy of my enemy is my friend\"
-
That is one of my issues with it, you effectively give some people 2 votes and others not. I mean I would vote Tory and have no interest in the others, like it or lump it that's who I tend to vote for. But why should Paul down the street who wouldn't mind a couple get a couple of says when I only want one guy? That's my problem with the system.
I voted no today, not to keep the Tories in a better position, hell I'm a tory voter in Doncaster the current system hardly gives my guy much of a chance, but I don't think AV is better, I actually think it's worse and will cause more problems. People haven't liked this coalition (mainly because many forget things change from election campaigns to real government), AV would probably give us lots of coalition, when it isn't wanted.........
I expect the no vote to win, largely because AV isn't a great system, not because the system doesn't need changing.
The two vote issue is EXACTLY what I meant earlier when I said that the Tories have been deliberately muddying the water.
The have made hay with this minor issue whilst totally diverting the debate from the fact that in 2010, they received 36.1% of the vote but 47% of the seats. In 2005, Labour got 35.2% of the vote but 54% of the seats. THAT is the morally corrupt issue at the heart of the debate. It's the fact that the current system is utterly non-democratic. It's not about whether a few BNP voters would have a chance to have their vote transferred to the Monster Raving Loony Party. It's about the fact that the vast majority of MPs win their seats on a MINORITY of the votes cast.
Well doen to the Tories actually. Politically, they have played it brilliantly, and once again, the Lib Dems have been inept in their politicking. Miliband has been shady but sensible, saying that he supports AV on principle, but seeing the say the wind was blowing and refusing to be a public figure on the issue - htat way he leaves the Lib Dems to look like the fall guys.
By the way, you mention coalitions. We've had 3 de facto coalitions over the last 9 parliaments (now, 92-97 when Major needed support from the Ulster Unionists to survive, 74-79 when Labour needed support by the Liberals). So the current system is both totally undemocratic AND not guaranteed to give us strong Govt. And, the current system allows the abomination of a Thatcher Govt being allowed to drive a fundamentalist right wing revolution when consistently a large majority of the votes were cast AGAINST her. Totally, totally indefensible.
-
So far...
Yes - 3,310,655
No - 7,179,466
65% of voting areas declared
Crushing defeat for AV! :)
-
I'm not surprised by the result, but I am by the scale of it. Then again, I think the Yes campaign has been very poor indeed. I think the reason for all the bitterness from the Lib Dems is because they thought the Tories would sit on their hands and allow Yes a fairly easy ride. As a result, they tried to win with a low-key campaign.
My local council has gone from having a Lib-Lab coalition to an outright Tory majority, with Labour losing a couple of apparently safe seats to the Greens. Analyse that, if you will!
-
Jeezes.
Can somebody put another ten bob in the meter?
I see the Grange Hill school of philosophy wins out again. Let's not try and fix it, because it's absolutely perfect as it is.
Well done.
-
Phew, thank god for that. I'm so glad the country saw what a farcical system AV would be. A bad night for gonzo and co too especially in scotland!:woot: :laugh:
-
I wonder if your children will be thanking you when we get another Thatcherite government a few years down the line.
AV is just so complicated.
I really can't see why anyone who hasn't got a vested interest would have voted NO. Unless they're just a bit stupid of course. I guess that covers about 67% of the population though, so no surprise. And that's being generous.
-
I wonder if your children will be thanking you when we get another Thatcherite government a few years down the line.
AV is just so complicated.
I really can't see why anyone who hasn't got a vested interest would have voted NO. Unless they're just a bit stupid of course. I guess that covers about 67% of the population though, so no surprise.
The YES campaign was pathetic. The Lib Dems couldn't really front it because they know that people would rather have the rotting corpse of Fred West round for dinner than admit that they agree with anything that Clegg says (or the different thing he'll say next month).
Labour wouldn't front it because (a) they risked a split and (b) why stick your head above the parapet to be shot down if the vote went wrong?
So all I got stuffed through my letterbox was a message from a bunch of showbiz luvvies telling me how awfullyh nice it would be if we had AV and there'd be an end to nastiness, world poverty, kiddy porn and Eric Pickles. (I voted YES based on the last one...)
The Tories played a blinder. Bided their time then smashed into the debate head-on like a tackle from Alan Warboys, Animal and Hugh Dowd combined. The Lib Dems were left blubbering on the side saying, \"Big kids playing too rough\" and the job was done.
Politics eh? f**king hell.
-
Too f**king right Billy.
It was left in the hands of incompetent buffoons. It was writing on the wall before it even started. Pathetic.
Yesterday was the first time I've bothered voting for over 25 years as it might have actually counted this time, but hey, I won't f**king bother again. Like at least 35% of the rest of the population.