| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ This website and forum has been living on borrowed web server time for years. At the end of this month silsden.net in it's present form will cease to exist, BUT there is a new silsden.net in the making, and a new forum, and lots of exciting new things coming to this space. Peter |
back
to General Forum | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 25
Author |
Topic : well what do we think of the AV then? |
|
| jonno |
After reading up on it quite a bit I'd have to say I'm in favor of it by and large, at least I think it's an improvement over the current system. |
|
| gazzer |
183 candidates who came 3rd at the last election would have won. It would almost guarantee a coalition everytime so instead of parties implementing their policies a couple of parties would get together behind closed doors and cobble together dodgy deals behind the backs of the people who voted for them. |
|
| PeterJS |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) Not entirely true. The problem with the current system is candidates don't need the majority of constituents votes to win a seat, they need more votes than any other candidate! With AV votes are "re-allocated" until one candidate has more than 50% of votes or all other candidates have been "eliminated". The point of this is to elect an MP who is more widely accepted by constituents. @gazzer That may well be very true, but how many candidates who one last election may have ranked least favourite on more than 50% of their constituents votes under AV? |
|
| jonno |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) quote It would almost guarantee a coalition everytime Gazza, I would be interested in seeing your proof for this, other than "it says so in the [insert your favorite newspaper here]". Everything I've read, and I've read a lot, indicates that a coalition is no more likely under AV than FPTP. |
|
| old_miner |
Unless one is a devoted party loyalist it is possible to see some good points from most parties. Consequently when voting it would be nice to put them in order of preference; or leave off completely. So I am all in favour of the AV system. Some of the anti AV propaganda has been a bit wierd. Take horse racing. Surely an each way bet is a form of AV? |
|
| Fred |
The reason we are having this debate and need to vote in a referendum on Thursday is because the LIB DEMS WANTED POWER. The referendum on AV was one of their conditions of forming a coalition government. Now you have to ask yourself why are the Lib Dems so keen on AV, a miserable compromise to proportional representation? It's because they see it as the only way they will ever get power, but they will never win a majority to form a government. The conclusion to this is, if we get AV we will be doomed to coalition government's in the future because it will be extremely difficult for any one party to form a majority government. So you may think a coalition government is a good thing, but think it through! Because the Lib Dems didn't stand a chance of being in power Clegg promised the students no tuition fees.... but they are in power and that was one VERY BIG broken promise. Of course the coalition provides a very big excuse to break promises but what of the future under AV the parties could promise the earth and the blame another party when they are in a coalition. The rotten coalition which results from AV - who are they responsible to.... the people that voted for the individual MP or the POWER OF GOVERNMENT. Under AV when the government doesn't proform, because all coalitions must be a compromise, how will you get rid of them? With AV you vote for one thing and get something else. When we voted for joining the EU it was for a common market, but it has become the state. Be very careful if you are thinking of voting YES to AV on Thursday you may get something different to what the YES campaigners say. One last thought..... you must vote! There is no 50% of the vote for this referendum - it's first past the post...... but first past the post on a turnout of 20% - 30% ($) of the electorate is hardly a ringing endorsement of this very important issue. ($ typical turnout for a local election) |
|
| gazzer |
quote Some of the anti AV propaganda has been a bit wierd. Take horse racing. Surely an each way bet is a form of AV? In horse racing the horse that comes first is the winner if it wins by 20 lengths but if it just won by a neck it would still be the winner.You wouldnt expect the second or even third horse to be promoted to winner because the people who backed the couple of horses who finished at the back of the field had the 2nd/3rd horse as a second choice. |
|
| jonno |
AV does not automatically lead to hung parliaments and coalitions. The UK has had 5 hung parliaments in the 20th century using FPTP. Australia introduced AV in 1919. Since then they've had 2 hung parliaments. AV DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO HUNG PARLIAMENTS AND COALITIONS. It does have faults but this is not one of them. |
|
| jonno |
Comparisons to horse racing are completely pointless. No-one is voting on which horses should win and the horses aren't going to represent anyone's views when the race is finished. |
|
| PeterJS |
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who view elections as games. Voting for their favourite team instead of who best represents their views. A representative should represent the majority of their community (the ones who vote?), in my opinion anything less is undemocratic! Until party's are abolished MP's will continue to "play for their team" and voters will still vote for their "teams player" regardless of the persons actual qualities that would make them a good/bad MP. If you and your friend were deciding were to go for the day and you liked place A but also weren't bothered if you went to place B but your friend wanted to go to place B or C surely you would compromise and settle with the option that best suited you both? Am I saying AV is a compromise? Possibly, BUT shouldn't your representative be someone the majority of people wouldn't mind if they were elected? |
|
| gazzer |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) quoteAV does not automatically lead to hung parliaments and coalitions. The UK has had 5 hung parliaments in the 20th century using FPTP. Australia introduced AV in 1919. Since then they've had 2 hung parliaments. AV DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO HUNG PARLIAMENTS AND COALITIONS. It does have faults but this is not one of them. Do you agree there have been so few hung Parliaments in Australia because there are only two choices of who to vote for ie Labor and an alliance of Conservatives. It is in fact true that prior to 1910 there were 2 Labor parties which split their vote causing constant coalitions that even changed during the Parliamentry term. You can not compare Australia with the UK. |
|
| Fred |
More facts about the Austrailian voting system. Voting is compulsory and by law you HAVE TO put in your preference for all the candidates standing. |
|
| old_miner |
quoteposted by old_miner Some of the anti AV propaganda has been a bit wierd. Take horse racing. Surely an each way bet is a form of AV? In horse racing the horse that comes first is the winner if it wins by 20 lengths but if it just won by a neck it would still be the winner.You wouldnt expect the second or even third horse to be promoted to winner because the people who backed the couple of horses who finished at the back of the field had the 2nd/3rd horse as a second choice. But you can still have an ALTERNATIVE bet by placing each way, just in case!! |
|
| jonno |
What causes hung parliaments is lots of voters being fed up of the two main parties and instead casting their votes for other parties, in a FPTP system this then leads to coalitions because no party has a majority on it's own. This is precisely what happened in the last election. In an AV system if votes are cast in the same way you eventually end up with a candidate who is the most acceptable to most of the people. One benefit of this is that some "safe" seats become not so safe and the MPs have to work harder to gain and keep the votes of the constituents. Incidentally the Tory party use AV to select their party leaders, but it's not a good enough system for the general hoi polloi is it? (if you can't be bothered looking up hoi polloi it means commoners) |
|
| ilyama |
That's a fair point - assuming that parties would actually always stick to their manifesto. I think in the case of the tory government they were always going to say "what a mess we have been left - worse than we thought..." and then do whatever they wanted... regardless of any coalition with the lib-dems. quote183 candidates who came 3rd at the last election would have won. It would almost guarantee a coalition everytime so instead of parties implementing their policies a couple of parties would get together behind closed doors and cobble together dodgy deals behind the backs of the people who voted for them. |
|
| ilyama |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) Look at it another way - at the end of the day, politicians will choose the scheme which is most likely to keep them in power. Whether it be from a personal or party political point of view. A few rare ones are going to go for the "greater good". So, it's like getting turkeys to vote between Christmas and Thanks-giving. Choose which set of turkeys you like least and go for the other lot. Probably not the best way to look at historical electoral reform but I kind of trust one set of them much more than the other. For what it's worth, I wouldn't trust Cameron if he told me I was on fire ~ "aye" it is then... |
|
| Dave |
With AV you don't have to vote for more than one candidate. if you only like one then only vote for one - if you like more than one then vote for them in order of preference. Simples  |
|
| jonno |
Well, yes you can do that Dave but if the one you like has no chance and you don't rank any others then your vote is pretty much wasted, unless it was only a protest vote anyway. If you really like one then rank them 1st but then think what you would prefer if Joe Bloggs doesn't win, you might not care much about Sid Snot but hate Sam Spleen, so you could rank them 2nd and 3rd and then at least you still have some say in who is elected if your 1st choice isn't popular enough. |
|
| PeterJS |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) @ilyama That is politicians for you. Say anything to get elected, once elected under false premises they can do what they like. In my opinion when they do this it is very undemocratic causing the minority (MP's) to dictate to the majority. Unfortunately in this country we have to wait until the next election to "try" and kick them out. On lib dems and tuition fees, yes they don't hold the minority of seats BUT their MP's were elected on the basis of their manifesto so when given the option shouldn't they protest when tuition fees were increased and the amount of state money funding universities decreased? |
|
| GAMEKEEPER |
If it means we have an honest government in place, I am all for A V. Local government in particular seriously needs sorting! |
|
| PeterJS |
AV alone will not help our government to be more honest. I don't think honest and politician go well together! |
|
| carliol |
The ad for the "Yes" people tonight on TV about the students voting whether to go for a coffee or go to the pub was hilarious. Firstly, it didn't mean anything sensible at all..and secondly, the students would have gone to the pub anyway! By the time this is over, we'll all need a drink |
|
| PeterJS |
Personally I prefer PR (Proportional Representation) BUT when (not if) AV is rejected PR will be one step further away. |
|
| PeterJS |
AV was defeated, something like 12.6 million against and 5.2 million for. Not surprised with such a poor sales pitch for a poor alternative to First Past the Post. Even though numbering candidates would seem easy to some their are a lot who it would confuse! |
|
| jonno |
shame it got so badly defeated. all the pundits I've heard are saying it was a way for people to give lib dems a good kicking, pity we can't vote in a more reasoned, thought out way. |
|
| PeterJS |
They deserved it. Back tracking on tuition fees would have killed off the majority of their student vote. Hopefully Cleggy will see that if they continue going along with tory's without being more vocal they will be lucky to get one seat in the next election! I'm not the least bit surprised by the Lib Dems selling out, which is why I didn't and have never voted for them. They can say what they like as they are unlikely to get in power! Well they are now and they didn't do what they promised! |
|
| Replies in this thread : 25 |
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > General Forum > well what do we think of the AV then? |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
02/05/2011 : 21:46:25 
03/05/2011 : 10:10:44