Thetownend.com

what do you lot make of it?
i aint got a clue how to vote as both sides seem to give the same reasons for picking for or against.Both point to the advantage bnp will get from it.
i think i want to vote no as our system is ok,but am not 100% sure

oh, and vote labour by the way.

Almost everyone you meet who says they will vote for AV says they would prefer full Proportional Representation, but that AV is the only alternative to FPTP that's on the table.  I'm in that camp myself.

There are powerful arguments for & against, which makes the whole issue a very grey area.  For me, the most persuasive point is that under FPTP, large tracts of the population (again, me included) have votes that count for nothing at all.  Where I live, the Tories would win even if they decided to put Gary Glitter up for election.  My vote, practically speaking, never gets heard or used...so I think I'll vote for AV because it gives people like me a voice again.

I know that this is just one argument among many, though.  Polls seem to indicate that the 'No' campaign is well ahead, so it seems we are stuck with the existing system for at least another generation.  Where the Lib Dems go from here, I have no idea.

I want proportional representation, and this is just a weak compromise by the coalition.

I know this isn't how politics is meant to work, but the people campaigning for AV, and all the constant blanket nagging i get from some acquaintances via Facebook updates and Tweets means i'll probably vote against it.

I'll vote yes, if only because I'm fed up of tory cunts telling me it's too complicated for types like me too understand. It's not. It's pretty fucking simple in fact.

I'll vote yes because anything Cameron and John Reid are against must be a good idea. It'll make stuff all difference though.

As far as I can understand it is a Liberal proposal which the Tories have agreed to as part of the pact they had to make. The Liberals have shown that to be honest they are just not up to real government with the mps that are presently standing. Good in opposition but thats about it. Living in Bath which is a close call I dont AV would make any difference so its a BIG fat NO from me. Plus I dont think we really want a coalition government, which sounds like a good idea but in reality doesn`t suit us Brits.

The AV proposal was a baby of the last Labour government, but taken up by the tories as a sop to the Lib Dems, who weakly said thanks a lot now we can really show what we are made of....which they are about to do, because the vote will be lost.
Personally, I agree with the principle, which is that anyone elected has (some) support from over 50% of the electorate, but proportional representation it ain't.  In the Scottish Elections tomorrow, we will have something like Prop. rep (the List system, and, whilst I don't particularly like the SNP, I think the Scottish Parliament has generally done pretty well out of it.

The London suberb of Paedotoryville?

The rest of your post was spot on. I'm still not decided on how to vote. I probably won't as doing so is not going to get us any closeer to PR.

Is it just me or given the importance of the vote has the AV message (pro and con arguments)  failed to be debated properly in public. I can imagine a sizeable % of the population not having a clue what it all means, I'm not much better myself!

Interesting that I believe all three parties use a similar system to elect their leaders......

So the tories are essentially saying, we understand it but you plebs don't... nice.

Incidentally i know this has been everywhere but it should be on the TV, people might watch it and realise how simple the system is... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk

AV Referendum? Patronising bullshit - if there was a genuine attempt to reform the electoral system then all options would be on the table - AV, FPTP, PR, STV, AV+ etc. That we only have 2 options highlights that this is a referendum on their terms, which by logical conclusion means that nothing will change whichever system we choose.

Funny how this was a referendum no-one asked for (and was never promised at the election, a "miserable little compromise" Nick Clegg called it) yet this is the one we get. Conversely the referenda most promised by all parties over the last 20 years on; the euro, the Lisbon Treaty and the membership of the EU we don't get. The reason? We would give the 'wrong' answer; that should tell us everything on how much the AV option will actually change anything.

Me? I'm not voting.

I'm with ghanimah. It's just a shoddy compromise designed to stitch up Clegg and remove any genuine attempt at electoral reform for a generation by discrediting the whole topic.

Still not sure which way I'll vote, or whether I'll specify the other option as my second preference :)

At the moment, a government can stay in power for ten years at a throw (Thatcher/Major, Blair/Brown) on about 30-40% of the votes. If that feels wrong, then there's a case for reform.

The choice we've got is from a system that doesn't work anymore, to one that will work a bit better, because it will make more people's votes count and make governments more accountable and representative.

It's also saying that when offered the chance to change things - however small those changes might seem - then you'll do it.

If you vote no, or if you don't vote at all, then you are voting in favour of the status quo. No to AV is yes to FPTP. Yes to FPTP says you're happy with how things are.

I like the Cat video.

Funnily enough I'm being pushed in the opposite direction by the blatant lies and scaremongering of the No camp who all seem to assume I'm an idiot. Actually, they may have a point

People have trouble putting one X in a box - asking them to put numbers in the order of preference is going to totally fuck up the ballot papers of 80% of the country

And the fact the cat beat the dog because some retards thought they would be a nice second choice has confirmed that it's a NO from me.

Life would be a lot simpler if it was just the Conservatives and Labour party, none of this wishy washy shite you get now a days, Red or Blue end of, none of this "I want to be different" crap and pretend that you can mix and match politics...

Sounds good to me, if they can't cope with numbering things 1-4 I won't be losing sleep over their disenfranchisement.

I cant decide, is the AV vote subject to AV? In which case I may put
1) FPTP
2) AV

appease my confusion a little..

I am with you on this one totally. Well said..... :clap:

I've tried to avoid all the official campaigns, and the only propaganda i've seen relating to the no vote is from the Yes Campaign bleating on about how it's wrong. They're doing a much better job of getting all up in people's grills - to start with, i didn't even know there was a No campaign! My main problem, is that I know a lot of lefties and students, who keep clogging up my News Feed with whinging and droning on about voting Yes. I much prefer hearing about people's dinner plans and everyday irritations, and frankly this is getting in the way...

It will just make politics more middle ground and parties similar. I can't be bothered to vote

What you mean 'how dare anyone have a different opinion' to the Tories or Labour - what if you hate them both? Am I supposed to be disenfranchised then?

Just googled - 0.38% of votes were spoiled in 2001 (many of these deliberately). So people don't have trouble putting an x in a box.

The idea that "putting a list of three things in order" is complicated is just not true.

And if you're after simple, then a system where 35% of the votes can deliver 60% of the seats in a parliament that then governs with a working majority of 50-100 of 650-odd MPs isn't all that straightforward either.

Yes - you have to be in one camp or the other... none of this mamby pamby stuff, it's people like with an opinion that have ruined this word... if you don't like it emigrate to somewhere that likes ideaology...

Well just writing is difficult for some people, X's are easy - I bet of you asked people to put a more complicated letter like 'G' more would get it wrong because they are so used to putting an X.

Imagine how much more complicated school lessons on politics is going to be now - the voting bit used to take 5 seconds - the kids will never get it as it means mixing words with numbers

I think they are proposing 'happy face', 'sad face' and 'straight-mouth neutral face'

It's gonna be a NO for me.
If you have 5 candidates named a,b,c,d & e.
A gets 35%, B gets 30%, C gets 17%, D 10% & E gets 8%.
In the second round E is eliminated , but that 8% of votes gets counted again using their second choice. For simplicity if they all put candidate D as second choice then candidate C would be eliminated as the next round would be A 35%, B 30%, C 17% D 10% + 8% = 18%.
In the third round it could be that C's second choices get added to Candidates D's 1st choices & E's second choices to eliminate candidate B. & win.
All very complicated, messy & unfair. No wonder the lib dems back it!

Why should someone who votes for say the BNP, get their alternative choices taken into account to the extent that my first choice is "outvoted"

You're still going to get that, it just that the other 10-20% needed to take them over 50% will be made up of second or third choice votes.

Personally I can't see the point in saying I like party X, but if they don't win then I'd prefer it to be party Y. That's a bit like saying if I can't have my favourite cake, I'll have that one with dog shit smeared all over it instead.

No thanks.

No it's not. It's like saying (to use Stan Pajak's analogy from the Adver today) "It’s like if you go to the pub and say I’ll have a pint of Archers. If they haven’t got that, you ask for a pint of Arkells. You haven’t bought two drinks. You’ve bought one; but you’ve shown a preference"

If the alternatives do strike as being about as appealing as dog shit, you don't have to express a second/third/whatever preference.

Well, quite, but I was aiming for dramatic effect :)

And now that I think about it, the choices will be a lot more like choosing between different lumps of shit than pieces of cake so I think the analogy probably works better than I first thought.

You could extend the analogy to describe how the Tories have stitched up the Lib Dems by forcing them to fight for a watered-down, comprimise option that neither they or anyone else really wanted in the first place.

Tories:
Carrot cake...mmmm.  We really like carrot cake.  It's great.

Lib Dems:
No it isn't.  We've been eating it for years and it makes us puke.  It has carrots in it and carrots have no business at all being in a cake.  If we're going to join your gang, we're going to insist on a referendum where everyone gets to decide whether we stick with carrot cake or move to chocolate cake instead.

Tories:
Chocolate cake?!  You're joking, aren't you?  OK, we know quite a few people like chocolate cake, but we're not going to let you ask anyone whether they want it.  No way.  But you can ask them if they want beetroot cake if you like.

Lib Dems:
Beetroot cake?!  Fuck off.  You can stick that right up your arse.  No one likes beetroot cake.  (OK, the Australians do, but that's it.  And even they want to get rid of it.)  Even we don't want beetroot cake.  Granted, it's going to be a little tastier than carrot cake.  But it's still shit.

Tories:
Tough.  It's beetroot cake or nothing.

Lib Dems:
OK then.

But a vote against beetroot cake is a vote for carrot cake.

So when the referendum is lost, they can turn round and say "We told you, everyone likes carrot cake. Let's not have any more of this cake related nonsense again. Now sit down and eat your carrot cake, forever".

Precisely.

And we live in a 'democracy'.  Apparently.

Amusingly, the Yes Campaign is the colour of Beetroot.

And the No Campaign the colour of Cat Sick.

Seriously, who did the colour pallette for this referendum?

I couldn't decide whether to go with my heart, my head or my gut, so I put it to a vote. My gut came third, so I eliminated that and used the second preference for the gut voters and added those to the head and heart votes. My head won with a slight majority.

If I'd used the first-past-the-post system my heart would have won. Stupid AV! My head's an idiot!

Sorry I may have missed your sarcasm in your original post. I'm not voting in the referendum one way or the other but as a candidate in the last election I know that the simple process of FPTP is a struggle enough for a worrying number of the electorate; so how they will cope with something more complicated I'm not sure. I once had to agree to a spoiled ballot with a farm yard scene drawn on it including trees, tractors and and various farmyard animals. How long that took to draw makes the mind boggle.

You can get royally fucked if you think i will try and understand that.

Local or general? Who for/where did you stand? Just curious - mind your own is a perfectly good answer

Exactly the point.

If it really is true that FPTP is the only system that the population can understand/deal with, then we really need to spend more on education.  You get the politics you deserve, I guess.

To av or av not.

As the BNP are against AV, I will vote for it.

Spending money on education is largely a waste....a recent survey found that 1 in 10 schoolkids think that Haddock is a planet.

I shall be voting yes...simply because I hate Tories.

2010, general election in Oxford West as a UKIP candidate (and am standing in the local elections for tomorrow). I've never voted for the main parties ever - have fought against our EU membership for over 20 years particularly since the ERM debacle which ended, for the UK, on 22nd September 1992 - when my family nearly lost our house as a direct result.

All I know is because of AV 2 x schools in Calne being used as polling stations I get an extra days kids club

At least you beat the Animal Protection candidate then.

And Greens  :D

Or you just explained it appallingly badly

I think Phil's explanation was the best I have read yet to be honest.....

It seems to me that in reality it ain't going to make a whole heap of difference either way - I am sure I was hearing earlier on the radio that the last election would have ended more or less the same as it did with AV....

Personally I think it just isn't worth the £250 Million it would supposedly cost to implement.....

The £250mil cost in the no av leaflets is incredibly misleading. It includes the £91 million cost of the referendum for a start, which you won't save if you vote no.

Thai politics is easy.

Rule #1) The Democrats always win.

Rule #2) If the Democrats don't win, refer to rule #1.

Even so - over £150 Million seems a lot of money for something which will possibly make very little difference

The only way it really works (AV) is for voting to be mandatory (as in Australia where AV works well) - unless you have everyone voting we will continue to be in a stalemate in many areas where the party that have pretty much always been in will remain in

Which it won't as far as I can gather. Isn't that one of the things the No campaign just made up? It apparently assumes we'd have to move to electronic voting, which simply isn't true

OK - put another way I cannot see the point if it isn't going to really make much difference regardless of the money aspect :)

Fair enough. I'm far from convinced myself, just annoyed by some of the outright BS put out by the No campaign. I may vote Yes just to spite them.

AV is a load of bollocks. I'm sorry but it is. If i want to vote for a party i'll vote for them. That then means I don't want to vote for anyone else. So why should I have to vote for 4 parties in order of preference? This is politics not the X-Factor. If you believe in 1 party why would you also believe in another?

My arguements against it are this:
- OK I understand you can only vote for one and leave off the rest. So if this is the case will most people just end up doing this anyway therefore making the whole system totally pointless?
- It's just a desperate cry from the likes of the Lib Dems and the other small parties that never stand a chance in a general election. It smacks of power hungry politicians who don't care so much about politics but whether they can get their claim to fame for their egos. Do I want to enhance their chances? Do I fuck.
- What's wrong with FPTP? It's been used for years and no one has moaned until the last election. It's only because we got a hung parliment. That was down to all 3 main parties being shite not the voting system. A hung parliment happens once every 30 years at best. It was a fluke. A one off. It wasn't because our system doesn't work.
-It's no coincidence that only 3 countries worldwide use this system. I do believe the Aussies use it and they actually want to get rid of it. What does that tell you about it? If it doesn't work for them and it only works for 2 countries worldwide then why would it work for us?

Tried to answer your points as best I can.

AV isn't perfect, but it might change the way parties behave.

Two party systems encourages bad politics. It's in their interest to want the majority of people not to care, because then they can wind up their base to win an election.

In the US, the Republicans worked out that because turnout was so low, it was more important to wind up their core support than appeal to the apathetic majority.  So they went big on things like guns, abortion and gay marriage. These aren't really important, but they are the things that get hardcore Republicans out to vote, whilst everyone else stays at home. Then they can do what they really want to do (start wars, cut taxes, etc)

If you say "it won't change anything" - that's exactly what they want you to think. You stay home whilst bonkers people always go and vote.

AV makes people appeal to the majority, not their tribe. It's your call on whether or not that's a good thing.

It is a relatively crap voting system, but less crap than FPTP, but it sends a signal that you think things are broken.

AV won't change a thing, it's just a convoluted way of maintaining the status quo whilst pretending that we all have a little bit more choice.

I don't think either side have made their case well, or indeed hardly at all. They seem, as usual, to have been more focused on squabbling with each other (particularly Tories vs Lib Dems) than actually putting the arguments. The whole thing has been massively disappointing and IMO both sides have failed.

Fair play to you ghanimah. Takes some cohones and commitment to put yourself up there, good on you.

Good luck. I presume there isn't a deposit you need to shell out like for the general election?

Thanks Batch, you're right local elections are 'free' to stand in

Are they? Can I get my name in for tomorrow?

fB for prime minister

All of the cost stuff is completely wide of the mark and just more propaganda. This article analyses some of the bollocks that both sides of the AV camp have been putting out, well worth a look:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-av-round-up-the-truth-behind-the-claims/6364

I'm definitely voting yes to AV. I want to vote for a party which is closest to my political opinion and also have a say in who actually gets elected..... plus I fucking hate Cameron and the 'no' campaign.

He wouldn't have if the voters of Oxford West knew about his football allegiance!  :)

First-time voter tomorrow having just turned 18.

Yes to AV.

If local elections really are free we've missed a massive trick here, could definitely have got Ben elected :/

I'm not sure you can use proxy servers and resetting your router to rig local elections.

Definite No from me

AV for me.

Av it.

I'm sure this has come up on another thread and, for the same reasons as before, I'll be voting no.

Politics will be in fucking trouble 2/3rds of the candidates are reliant on Lib Dem voters to get them elected. Fuck me the c u n t s are faceless and boring enough as it is

Nick Clegg is a babe.  :girlgiggle:

The proper way to decide which way to vote is to look at the famous people in each camp and decide which ones are bestest.

1st past the posters
David Gower-turtle like grey haired Cricket Dinosaur idiot
Darren Gough-I once heard him say that the 1st record he ever bought was "Whigfield, Saturday Night" he's 40
James Cracknell -accident prone Olympian
Peter Stringfellow -yucky
Esther Rantzen - buck toothed child abuser
Ross Kemp - Prison absconder and famed Gang Banger

AV Supporters
Colin Firth -Floppy haired lovey
Stephen Fry -Norwich Bandwagon jumper,notorious Homosexual brain box
John Cleese-Grumpy hotelier
Helena Bonham Carter-Gothic actress who plays pretty much the same roll in everything she does.  
Kriss Akabussi -Laughing simpleton
Joanna Lumley-Posh Gurkha Cat lover
Ediie Izzard- pretended to be a Cross Dresser to gain fame.
Tony Robinson-once had a cunning plan now digs holes looking at broken pottery

Clearly the cool people support AV,so thats what im going to do.

Tony Robinson supports Bristol City.

Big fat no from me.

i'm off to vote in a minute and still don't know what way to go.i've read the posts on here and done some research myself.both ways are flawed and i'm not entirely happy with either system. i think i'll spoil the paper.

Thats a joke...right?

no.why you think that?

What the point of going to the polling station just to spoil the paper...you might as well stay at home?

disagree,because at least anyone who spoils their vote has still taken the time to go and do so.

It's kind of the point.  Under FPTP, I (and millions of others) might as well walk in to the booth with a pair of scissors and make a snowflake out of the voting slip for all the effect it would have.  I think I might spoil mine too, now you mention it.

Havent you guys anything better to do today....mines a big fat NO

Simple question, what voting methods do the political parties use to vote for their leaders?

Yep, a version of AV (ie you have to get over 50% of the votes cast, or a majority, to win).

Do they therefore object to this for deciding the government because they think the population is too stupid to understand it?

it was because of this,and cameron telling us to vote no that i voted yes in the end.

I believe that under first past the post, the only current Party leader in power would be Clegg. David Davies definitely beat Cameron in the first round of voting, as did the other Milliband.

Quite funny really.

another reason that sawayed me to a yes was that we wouldn't have to select more than one candidate,but you can if you want to.
think the no's will win anyway

Yeah, this is something that the yes campaigners should have really grabbed and made a point of making clear. Lot's of people seem to be annoyed about having to put down 3-4 people they wouldn't want, but you can still just vote for one person if you want.

I agree that no is probably going to win, the only thing I can think of is that maybe Yes voters are more likely to actually make the effort and vote. Don't think it will make enough difference though.

Exactly arriba. It's the difference between "I couldn't be arsed to turn up" and "I don't like/agree with any of the options I've been given". One is apathy, the other is active rejection. You go, girl!

I'm voting no because 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Also, I think FPTP is fairer. Peoples mention PR, but that way you will no longer be able to pick your constituent MP, and you will no longer be able to force out an MP you don't like (it's always funny when one of the Cabinet gets voted out at a General Election), as you will voting for a party instead, and they will decide who becomes an MP. AV's been put forward as a compromise between the two but it stinks. You're brought up under 'One Person, One Vote' but that doesn't apply in AV. There will be additional costs if AV came in via longer counts (if the first count didn't get an absolute majority, they'll have to reallocate other votes meaning they'll have to count again) or machines to work it all out (whether it'll cost the money what the No camp says I do not know).

Please, please tell me you're joking.

I'm pretty sure if you did a decent survey of the population, you'd find the majority vote for the party anyway rather than the individual.

I blame thatcher for all this

The old cunt

And if they did a referendum on the current system vs PR, it'd probably be a lot closer than this one will be. Which is, of course, why we didn't get that. Heaven forfend they should offer us a vote on something we might actually want. To (mis)quote a very wise man earlier in this thread it's like being offered a choice as to what type of shit you'd like on your cake.

I'm going to spoil mine, just because i've never done it before...

Not necessarily true....Have just voted in Scottish Parliament election - you get two voting papers.  One elects a constituency MSP and the second elects regional MSPs on a 'proportion of the vote' basis.  So there were just 4 candidates for the constituency election and about ten for the region - and I could vote for two different parties - and, indeed the Greens did not stand for the constituency election because they knew they had no chance, but have candidates for the region on the basis that they could well get enough votes for at least one to be elected.  we shall see what the results actually throw up, but i quite like the idea.

I shall be voting Yes for the following reasons:

- The 2 big parties are going to have to be less complacent, and work hard for every vote, meaning they'll have to appeal to a wider audience.

- The AV system will crush extremist parties like the BNP.

- Any system which lets a Government be elected when less than half of the population wanted them is clearly flawed.

- There will be no need for spoiler votes. i.e. Wanting the Green party to win, but voting Labour purely because you don't want the Tories to get in. People can actually vote for the parties they want, no matter how small they are.

I disagree... AV will help the BNP as it will help all fringe parties. Thats why most fringe parties are promoting AV. (Except surprisingly the BNP)

Nah, the BNP would still get the first choice votes they already get, but they'd be at the very bottom of every sensible voter's order of preference so would never get anywhere near the 50% support needed to get an MP.

I think you've got that exactly the wrong way around.  The fringe parties, as fringe parties, would be the least likely to pick up second and third preference votes, so would drop out of the process very quickly if they got past the first round.

This also tells you why the BNP are voting against AV.  Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Why are the greens & liberals for it then ?

1. Jesus Christ!
2. Yes it does: AV does not give people extra votes. The system sticks to the principle of “one person, one vote”.


It's easiest to quote on this one:

Central to the No camp’s claim is that an AV system will need electronic voting machines, which would add £130m to the bill for an AV election. FactCheck previously proved this spurious.

There is no evidence that AV would require an electronic system. And as the Political Studies Association (PSA) points out, elections held under AV – and under the more demanding STV system – in Australia, Ireland and Scotland are all, in general, conducted using traditional paper ballots.

The AV referendum itself is estimated to cost £91m, regardless of the result. Subtract this £91m cost and the £130m from the No’s estimated £250m and you are left with a cost of £29m for voter education.

Aside from educating the voter, counting the votes would take longer than under FPTP. However, there are no estimates on how much this would cost.

The Cabinet Office has set aside £120m for the next general election; £10m more than the 2010 election (which cost £82m to run and £30m to deliver candidates’ election leaflets).

The PSA said: “Even if we suppose (unrealistically that the current cost of running an election (up to £90m) would be doubled by the introduction of AV, that implies an annual cost across a five-year electoral cycle of only around 30p per person. Clearly, this is a very small sum.”

Because, unlike the BNP, they are not universally offensive to just about everyone outside their core support.  And, therefore, they are much more likely to benefit from the redistribution of votes if they get past the first round.  AV is a nutter's nightmare.

Probably because they are more likely to be a second preference.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/downloads/What%20is%20AVweb.pdf

just to inform those who don't understand the AV process

Agree with that and that's why i'm voting "No". At the end of the day people can moan about FPTP but it's worked for many years now and I like the fact you get to vote for a local MP as well as a big daddy at Downing Street.

You're still voting for a local MP with AV.

I agree and have also voted no.

AV could boost the number of votes for the BNP but it would be highly unlikely to help the party win any seats.

In fact, in a very divided constituency, the BNP arguably has a better chance of winning a seat under First Past the Post than under AV.

Take Australia’s far-right One Nation party – in 1998 Pauline Hanson would have won a seat under FPTP but under AV she didn’t pick up enough low preferences from mainstream voters.

The secondary votes of BNP supporters also wouldn’t swing a seat for any other party on their own – going on last year’s results.

The only way the BNP would do better would be through a move to PR (proportional representation) – which would give them seats in proportion to the share of the vote they achieve – and that’s not on offer.

“We are never going to get our feet under the table under the AV system.” - BNP’s deputy chairman Simon Darby.

In what sense?

Absolute Monarchy worked for many years, doesn't make that a top idea.

I just voted. Left the yellow slip unmarked in the booth, does that count as 'spoiling the ballot'

Rebel 8)

Give me a reason it hasn't? No one was moaning about it 4 years ago....

Not true.  It's just higher up the agenda now than it was then.  The Lib Dems have always been against it...and plenty of folk have held that FPTP is unfair, but up until recently have had no reason to suspect that anything could be done about it.  Sadly, after tomorrow it's going to be off the agenda again for a long time.

If you want a parliament where the bulk of the seats are filled with Lib Dems or Lib Dem friendly Labour and Tory MP's all sitting around agreeing with each other about how terrible it is that the wealth gap in the UK is widening out of all imagination, but not having the first fucking clue about what to do about it, then I suppose AV might be your thing.
That Greenie in Brighton can kiss her seat goodbye if it goes through though I should think

People have been complaining about it for decades.

One for Samdy:
[url width=400 height=800]http://rdouglasjohnson.com/misc/av-dogshit.gif[/url]

Surely that last frame should read...

"I'll have parma violets, but if you've ran out of them I'd like some Smarties"

Under a third of the current batch of MPs got over 50% of the vote.

Under half of the total UK population voted for Labour or the Conservatives.

And the third placed party got a central role in Government.

So, again....


In what sense?

Dunno. Mate sent it me, it had dogshit in it, thought Samdy would like it :)

So a system which ensures that the strand of political opinion they represent always dominates parliament is a pretty bright move then.......... oh no it isn't is it?

I'm not a big fan of the Lib Dems or Ukip or and of the other parties which are likely to benefit. But if it stops people being scared of putting down who they want instead of voting for someone because it's not someone else, then I'm in favour, even if it's a party I don't like.

If the conservatives have to pay attention to the fact that 30% of their vote in a constituency came from UKIP or BNP voter's second choice, then that's a good thing. Even if I don't agree with any of them.

Same with Labour and whatever fragments of remaining left wing parties there are.

It's an improvement over knowing that you'll get half your votes from people just because they don't want the other lot in. Whether or not the parties choose to take that into account is up them. I'm sure the conservatives will still be able to rely on UKIP voter's 2nd preference whatever they do, but the whole thing seems a bit more open.

AV isn't a perfect system, but neither is what we've got, and it's a step in the right direction.

I put 1 in the yes box and 2 in the no. Hopefully one of my preferred options wins

The BNP is a Labour problem not a Tory one despite popular misconception

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8454590.stm

It doesn't surprise me - although I haven't read the article yet. The Tory heartlands aren't where immigrants come. I imagine that the more multi-cultural areas are where the left generally do well. Not exactly Chipping Norton.

As opposed to the current system of a choice between Tories, New Tories and Clegg's "Tories in Sheep's Clothing"?

Same shit but worse. Can't see the likes of Jeremy Corbyn  / Tony Benn / Eric Heffer / Dennis Skinner / Dave Nellist getting elected anywhere outside rock solid Labour seats in the future if they have to rely on Liberal voters in the second round

I think you're overestimating your average lib voter a bit. Most of them are just people who won't vote Tory's but are fed up of labour. I doubt many of them are voting on the basis of Nick Clegg and chum's "we should privatise everything" Orange Book. It's pretty much all students and other retards.

Hence the big surprise when Clegg and co showed their true colours with the Tory Coalition. Their voters are liberal on social matters, not economic ones. That's why nobody will vote for them at all now.

Is Tony Benn planning to run again? He's great.

They won't get elected because they won't be selected as candidates. That's got less to do with the system of voting so much as the blandising of all the main parties - welcome to the age of the Technocrat (and I don't mean that in any sense in a good way)

perhaps we can prove how pointless AV is by creating an AV poll for the next manager...

I suspect that would largely prove how pointless polls for the next manager are :)

Jeremy Corbyn got 55% of the vote at the last election. There's not an electoral system in the world that could dislodge him.

You're forgetting Zimbabwe.

Or indeed how pointless appointing a new manager will be as there will be some minority somewhere opposed to his (or her) appointment that will voice their discontent and argue that there was a better alternative.

So... if AV doesn't succeed today the board should give the vote to the fans to appoint a manager using AV system.  That way whoever is appointed will at least have been a first, second or third (or tenth) choice of the majority of the fans and the minority who didn't vote for them can fuck off and support the scum.

First declaration in from Scilly Isles comes in at around 2/3 no, 1/3 yes. So that's the two blokes voting no and the dog voting yes. Reckon that will probably be similar nationally.

Up to 7 constituencies and 70% no so far. Ah well, that's Cleggy Weggy nailed to a wall then.

The Lib Dems generally last night took the kind of thrashing most politicians would pay good money for

Excuse me - we are quick off the mark here & I was involved  :D :D
ps it's the Isles of Scilly or Scilly

Lib Dems have conceded already. Ones in the cabinet no less.

Knives will be out.

Slightly off thread but it was good to see that bumbling baffoon Montaut finally resign from being Labour leader in Swindon.....

Some good definitely came of last night :)

My apologies. Please forgive my Scilliness

Yes, whatever your views as to who you want to see holding the reins of the council, we need an effective opposition. Slightly surprised to see you hoping for a Labour revival though Monsieur Shagger

I'm not really Paul - but I cannot face reading more diatribe by the man....

He never had anything to say unless it was simply slagging off something the council did

At least if they vote in someone decent there could be an effective opposition - and lets face it even the most ardent Tory (which I'm not .... quite ...) would like to see some checks and balances locally

However the last thing I would like to see is a Con/Lib government and a Labour local council - that didn't work so well before the last general election when Labour were holding the power centrally, and the Tories had power locally - Swindon was overlooked for funding time and time again....

 :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Derek Montaut Labour leader! Fuck me I thought it was as bad as it could be when Sue Bates was bringing the council to its knees. Who's next up Kevin Small? (If his mum lets him)

Montaut replaced Small. It's been a right old talent-fest in the Swindon Labour group the past few years :)

Word is Bob Wright could be next up, he's pretty decent, so hopefully as ss said we'll get some effective opposition

Montaut and Wright are both Central councillors. I've had to put up with Montaut's ramblings at the monthly Broadgreen residents meetings, but at least he does turn up. Bob Wright cannot be bothered, and the other Central councillor, Junab Ali, wouldn't probably know where Central is even if it was pointed out on a map to him !!!

Like in most wards, they work as a team, just like the MPs do. So one will cover one event, the others will cover others. It means they can get more done collectively than if they all have to turn up at everything. It's something all the political parties do including, as I say, our two Tory MPs. The idea that Bob Wright can't be bothered is nearly as laughable as your failure to understand the basic mechanics and Junab Ali is very active in the ward from what I hear. But please don't let any of that get in the way of your one-eyed spin.

All of which is hilarious and apparently it was all Thatcher's (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/245208/Nick-Clegg-blames-Thatcher-for-poll-disaster) fault (if in doubt, blame...) Anyway the 'good natured' Lib Dem leadership issues continue to be resolved in that lovely lentil-munching (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384707/Chris-Huhne-asked-speeding-points-Ex-wife-Climate-Change-Secretary-claims-pressurised-people.html) way which they excel in.

The Express and the Daily Mail as sources? Come on!

I had a quick look at both and I can't see anywhere in the first one where Thatcher is mentioned except for the headline and this paragraph:

Yesterday the Lib Dem leader invited ridicule after claiming that many voters in local elections in the North had deserted his party because they feared a return to “Thatcherism” as a result of his coalition alliance with the Tories.

....which is an isolated word which has been twisted into Express propaganda.

And the Daily Mail one is all based on quotes from his bitter ex-wife from whom he split only a year ago. Perhaps she has some other motives for her comments? Its all allegations too.

I'm all for making politicians look like twats and am not aligned with any of the main parties, but the Daily Mail and the Express are always going to struggle to do that when they're such bellends themselves. And sloppy journalists.

Clegg clearly blamed his party's woeful showing on a fear of Thatcherism and a return to the '80s - that is blaming Thatcher - interview here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8497437/Election-results-analysis-bitter-Nick-Clegg-tries-to-blame-Margaret-Thatcher.html).

Re: the Mail, I wasn't using it as a 'source', my point was that Nick Clegg is in the sticky stuff, Chris Huhne is clearly on leadership maneuvers so it's interesting that the Mail on Sunday go big on a Chris Huhne smear story. Perhaps you think it's a coincidence - I don't.

the lib dems jumping into bed with the tories is clearly why voters have deserted them.

I think the broken promises and rank hypocrisy have played their part as well.

true dat

"I agree with arriba" :)