Av

[ghanimah]

At least you beat the Animal Protection candidate then.

And Greens 

[pauld]

Exactly the point.

Or you just explained it appallingly badly

[sheepshagger]

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.....

[flammableBen]

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.

[BANGKOK RED]

Thai politics is easy.

Rule #1) The Democrats always win.

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

[sheepshagger]

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

[pauld]

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

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

[sheepshagger]

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

[pauld]

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.

[Iffy's Onion Bhaji]

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?

[donkey]

Tried to answer your points as best I can.

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? Because some/most will express a preference, meaning (for example) Ardiles' vote may mean a bit more.
- 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. Fair enough, but keeping FPTP does the same but for Tories
- 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. Well, I've moaned for years about it, as have many others.  The fact we now have a coalition makes no difference.  I don't believe winning 35% of the vote should be enough to gain a majority in parliament.
-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? AV isn't actually that good, just better than FPTP.  I think the Aussies are wanting to replace AV with PR.  Personally, I wish we were going to PR.

[iffy]

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.

[ghanimah]

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

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.

[pauld]

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.

[pauld]

2010, general election in Oxford West as a UKIP candidate (and am standing in the local elections for tomorrow).

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