AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK

AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyEllen -> AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/5/2010 12:12:58 PM)
http://fairervotes.org.uk.gridhosted.co.uk/ We now have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to right the wrongs of the archaic First Past The Post system. A system which hands power to the lucky few who live in marginal constituencies and sucks it away from the vast majority of us who do not. Over the next ten months the Fairer Votes Campaign from the Liberal Democrats will be fighting hard for a ‘yes’ vote in the coming referendum, to sweep away the current system and replace it with the Alternative Vote. Working alongside activists from many other parties, we will be campaigning for a new system which will deliver fairer votes. We need you to be part of this campaign. It will not be easy to win, defeating the voices of conservatism who want to keep the status quo because it protects them from the will of the masses. But with your help we can do it. We need you to inspire, enthuse and persuade your friends, family and neighbours to come out on May 5 and cast their ballot for fairer votes. In the long term, the Liberal Democrats’ Fairer Votes Campaign will feed into the wider voting reform movement, with political parties and pressure groups alike coming together to fight this referendum. E

Moonhead -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/5/2010 12:42:17 PM)
One would almost suspect that Cameron had been deliberately discrediting Clegg and the Libdems to try to nobble this, if one was a rotten cynic.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/5/2010 4:01:45 PM)
You could probably achieve the same fairness through better political awareness. This argument of safe seats versus swing seats would be a nonsense if those in the 'safe constituencies' were better educated as to what the options are and what the record of each party shows. I don't see how AV makes things better? The political reality is those Lib Dems had the least votes ever but now hold the most power, that'll be the situation every time with AV. The only people pushing for this are the people with the most to gain from its implementation, WAKE UP I'd shout if it would do any good. I'd rather know who to blame than have the US system where blame goes around in circles.

Politesub53 -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/5/2010 4:12:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen We now have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to right the wrongs of the archaic First Past The Post system. A system which hands power to the lucky few who live in marginal constituencies and sucks it away from the vast majority of us who do not. This is nonsense, since those that live in a marginal constituency cant be sure how other constituencies will vote. The Lib Dems need to make clear what exactly they are proposing, and how it will operate. Proper propertional representation wouldnt give them an outright victory. Its also wishfull thinking to blame the voting system as to why they dont get elected, as I recall the share of the vote the achieved at the last election actually decreased.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/5/2010 4:17:16 PM)
There was a good policy presented on safe seats recently where if a seat with a historical majority became available those in that constituency would be able to vote for each candidate of each party rather than party officials moving one of their Chess pieces onto that square.

DCWoody -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/6/2010 5:28:58 AM)
"that'll be the situation every time with AV" Rubbish. AV finds the candidate the majority can agree on, rather than the candidate with the highest number of supporters. Just this year, an MP was elected by ~19% of the electorate (29% of the vote).

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/7/2010 3:29:18 PM)
If there were four candidates then what's the problem with that? Someone has to lose. The idea that we can all agree on someone is a nonsense, you are just inventing a more complicated way for us to not agree and dressing it up as consensus. I don't have a second choice and I don't want to put numbers next to names. Goodbye quick results that's for sure.

DCWoody -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/7/2010 4:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 If there were four candidates then what's the problem with that? Someone has to lose. The idea that we can all agree on someone is a nonsense, you are just inventing a more complicated way for us to not agree and dressing it up as consensus. I don't have a second choice and I don't want to put numbers next to names. Goodbye quick results that's for sure. What on earth are you talking about? One of the 'someones' who lost in that case could have been prefered by the majority to the one who won, that's what's wrong with that..... Mainly objecting to your other claim though: "The idea that we can all agree on someone is a nonsense, you are just inventing a more complicated way for us to not agree and dressing it up as consensus." Utter bollocks, such bollocks I'm thinking to concisely refute it. Person A wants candidate A, hates candidate C. B wants B, hates C. C wants C, hates A. D wants D, hates C. There are 100 person As, 100 person Bs, 100 Person Ds, 101 person Cs. Of course that example is just the basis of the FPTPvAV argument and doesn't address your point. Griffin, is an excellent example. If he had won a seat with ~30% of the vote, your claim is that the other 70% couldn't have agreed on a preferable candidate to Griffin? It is nonsense, consensus is not some abstract magical concept, it is a reality....AV is specifically designed as a method to find a consensus candidate when one does not get a majority...assuming 'scenario wankers', which I'll come to later, does not occur, it's mathematically certain under AV that the winner is the prefered choice of at least 50%+1 of the electorate, to whoever would have won under FPTP....assuming the winner is not the same under both systems, in which case it doesn't matter. Where the winner under AV is different to the winner under FPTP it is guaranteed that the AV winner is prefered by the majority to the FPTP winner. Ignoring things such as people lying on their ballot papers etc, and defining 'the electorate' as people who voted. Scenario Wankers: All the candidates are wankers, nobody much wants ANY of them, let alone to put them into rank order. This scenario obviously defeats AV, but it equally defeats FPTP....where all candidates are horrible, you get a horrible winner.

Aneirin -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/7/2010 4:56:15 PM)
I look at it this way, those in government are far removed from the poor in this country, they have not a clue viewing the world from their ivory towers, therefore they are of no use to many. I see the election system as largely a waste of time as whatever party gets in, they are just the same, they speak on the whole the same words, therefore for many they are useless. The referendum on the alternative vote I will vote for, and that simply because change is needed and any change albeit it being the voting system is change and change is good, a change for the sake of change from a past of no change in real terms, the poor are still poor as they have always been indicating in reality nothing has changed yet and we, the poor need change.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/8/2010 6:57:29 AM)
It doesn't work because you have to pick a second and third choice and with a three party system who will people's second choice be? Your example is unrealistic because it assumes there are an infinite number of candidates not just three. So in a situation with three mainstream parties you just end up giving more weight to people's second choice than their first (not many will put Labour as their first and conservative as their second, not many will put conservative as their first and Labour as their second). If you think you are magically going to get rid of undesirable candidates with AV then you are mistaken because there is no reason an extremist would not pick Nick Griffin as their first choice and the Conservatives as their second. It's not a statistical anomaly that may have almost got Griffin elected it's people voting for him. It's a bit silly to try and reinvent the voting system because you don't like the way people are voting, in the end he didn't get elected so it's of no real relevance. It's a fantasy, you think you are getting more say but in the end people will still walk away with the same disappointment because only one MP can be elected for each seat. It's not like anyone that votes for a second choice will cheer that their second choice gets in over that of their first . Their third choice was never going to win that seat. People want their first choice not their second and there is no mechanism to stop them from voting tactically to get it. People who vote tactically will just fill their other choices with insignificant parties, it'll be about how much you want to gamble others not doing the same and that small party getting in). quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody One of the 'someones' who lost in that case could have been prefered by the majority to the one who won, that's what's wrong with that..... I didn't know humans had the ability to read minds and know who the majority would have preferred? If they prefer someone then they should vote for them, simple. i.e. is it the other guys fault that the other side of the political spectrum is fragmented with special interest parties? You have it backwards because it's not about who you least want to be in power it's about who you want to be in power.

Moonhead -> RE: AV Campaign Starts - Fairer Votes for UK (7/8/2010 12:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 If you think you are magically going to get rid of undesirable candidates with AV then you are mistaken because there is no reason an extremist would not pick Nick Griffin as their first choice and the Conservatives as their second. It's not a statistical anomaly that may have almost got Griffin elected it's people voting for him. It's a bit silly to try and reinvent the voting system because you don't like the way people are voting, in the end he didn't get elected so it's of no real relevance. As a matter of fact, that how's Boris "the peroxide Spode" Johnson won the last Mayoral election in London: all of the BNP lot put him down as their second choice while nobody who wanted Livingstone was willing to vote for anybody else. Then the idiots have the nerve to whine about the situation. Pathetic, really.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125