av voting system

[thetank]

Tank, are you really that stupid or are you just on a wind up?

I'm not on a wind-up. If you think I have said something that is stupid then I would be happy for you to point it out and explain why you think it's stupid.

I don't think I'm stupid but that doesn't mean to say I can't sometimes think and say stupid things.

If you simply say that everything I've said on this subject is stupid and offer no explanation as to why then I'll confess that I probably won't take this criticism too seriously.

[highmile]

Tank, are you really that stupid or are you just on a wind up?

I'm not on a wind-up. If you think I have said something that is stupid then I would be happy for you to point it out and explain why you think it's stupid.

I don't think I'm stupid but that doesn't mean to say I can't sometimes think and say stupid things.

If you simply say that everything I've said on this subject is stupid and offer no explanation as to why then I'll confess that I probably won't take this criticism too seriously.

Just my personal opinion but, if anyone can see the fairness in a party getting 40% of a vote and claiming that they have a mandate or a majority, then claim that they represent the peolple..........sounds stupid to me!

[Jon MW]

Tank, are you really that stupid or are you just on a wind up?

I'm not on a wind-up. If you think I have said something that is stupid then I would be happy for you to point it out and explain why you think it's stupid.

I don't think I'm stupid but that doesn't mean to say I can't sometimes think and say stupid things.

If you simply say that everything I've said on this subject is stupid and offer no explanation as to why then I'll confess that I probably won't take this criticism too seriously.

Just my personal opinion but, if anyone can see the fairness in a party getting 40% of a vote and claiming that they have a mandate or a majority, then claim that they represent the peolple..........sounds stupid to me!

So if 40% support Party A
and 30% support Party B
and 17% support Party C
and 6% support Party D
and 4% support Party E
and 3% is spread between a few independents

Party's B, C and and E form a government.
B in control, C with quite a bit of influence and E getting a few pieces of legislation through to keep them on side.

Is that fair?
Is that fair that a party that 70% of the country didn't vote for gets to run the country?
And that a party with only 4% of the vote get's to have legislation they want passed?

And FPTP does regularly see a government elected with about 40% of the vote - but it also regularly results in the winning party having gained over 50% of the vote, i.e. is it really worth changing it when it regularly gives the party with the most votes overall the most power overall?

[Acidmouse]

I listened to Eddy Izzard and he seemed very passionate about it.  A change seems good, anything it better then the current system we have.

You know the Conservatives are fuked when they bring out their chairman Baroness Wars to claim the BNP would get more power with AV, gg you utter useless unelected *****.

[Acidmouse]

Tank, are you really that stupid or are you just on a wind up?

I'm not on a wind-up. If you think I have said something that is stupid then I would be happy for you to point it out and explain why you think it's stupid.

I don't think I'm stupid but that doesn't mean to say I can't sometimes think and say stupid things.

If you simply say that everything I've said on this subject is stupid and offer no explanation as to why then I'll confess that I probably won't take this criticism too seriously.

Just my personal opinion but, if anyone can see the fairness in a party getting 40% of a vote and claiming that they have a mandate or a majority, then claim that they represent the peolple..........sounds stupid to me!

So if 40% support Party A
and 30% support Party B
and 17% support Party C
and 6% support Party D
and 4% support Party E
and 3% is spread between a few independents

Party's B, C and and E form a government.
B in control, C with quite a bit of influence and E getting a few pieces of legislation through to keep them on side.

Is that fair?
Is that fair that a party that 70% of the country didn't vote for gets to run the country?
And that a party with only 4% of the vote get's to have legislation they want passed?

And FPTP does regularly see a government elected with about 40% of the vote - but it also regularly results in the winning party having gained over 50% of the vote, i.e. is it really worth changing it when it regularly gives the party with the most votes overall the most power overall?

None of the systems are 100% fair but we can all create scenarios where flaws are highlighted.

[thetank]

The Tories don't really want the AV referendum to return a no. Not really really.

Not seeing as how it would likely result in the collapse of the coalition which would likely result in the collapse of the government and governments tend not to like that so much.

The token campaign will be funny/maddeningly infuriating.

[thetank]

Just my personal opinion but, if anyone can see the fairness in a party getting 40% of a vote and claiming that they have a mandate or a majority, then claim that they represent the peolple..........sounds stupid to me!

If you believe it's as black and white as that and that there is no room for nuance then I heartily recommend a life of reading tabloid newspaper editorials and columns, watching BBC's Question Time with David Dimbelby and harumphing in the pub that all those bastard politicians are as bad as each other.

You'll have a good time.

Just one question, why do you think the previous 27 generations have put up with this unfairness in this first past the post system?

Were they all as stupid as me, were they not as politically aware, or not as politically active perhaps, did they not have twitter, was the unfairness never applicable before, is it the leadership of Clegg that they lacked, was endemic corruption stopping them turn this first past the post dictato (a dictato is ~60% of a dictatorship) into a 'country where all people get an equal say in making desicions' ('country where all people get an equal say in making desicions' is my 3rd preference way of saying 'democracy')

[Acidmouse]

Just one question, why do you think the previous 27 generations have put up with this unfairness in this first past the post system?

Lots of reasons, most of which don't mean switching is not the ideal solution now though.

[Bongo]

And if AV is so good why have the Western Provinces of Canada switched back to FPTP from it? Did they decide having used both that they wanted the lesser system?

[thetank]

The reason the libdems aren't a bigger force in UK politics is not because the voting system is unfair, it's because they're shit.

That Nick Clegg their leader has turned out to be such a bald arsed liar should not be a shock. For a long time they've been saying whatever the hell they think will win them votes with no regard to actually having to do it.

They've never had a problem with producing localised election literature thats says one thing in some part of the country and the opposite thing somewhere else.

It's as if there's a culture within the libdems whereby whatever you say before an election doesn't really matter, that it's all a game. (Of course you could argue that this is true for all politicians, but the libdems take it to another level)

The end result is that when they do win a seat, they can't hold on to it. Voters have memories and they aren't always idiots.

A lot of the reason there are so many 'safe' Tory and Labour seats is that people sort of know what they're getting and then they sort of get it.

Say what you mean before an election and sort of mean it is the key. We as voters don't mind so much if you say before the election that you're going to deliver a dozen eggs and then you end up only delivering three and one of them has a bit of a crack in it. We understand that's just how it works.
What we object to is the promise of a dozen eggs being followed up with no eggs and a vote in the House of Commons to eradicate chickens thus eliminating the prospect of all future eggs.

The LibDems lost 12 seats in 2010 (net of 5) and held onto another 4 by the skin of their teeth. That’s 25% of their seats gone or almost gone, they weren't all marginals either. All this despite the Cleggomania sparked from the televised debates where we all gazed on with wonder as he remembered the people's names.

The party is like a broke ass corporation that goes chasing after new customers with fluff and doesn’t care a jot for it’s existing customers. With that kind of strategy is it any wonder they never break the monopoly of the 2 market leaders?

I say again, the reason the libdems aren’t a bigger force in UK politics isn’t because the voting system is unfair, it’s because they’re shit.

[George2Loose]

The reason the libdems aren't a bigger force in UK politics is not because the voting system is unfair, it's because they're shit.

That Nick Clegg their leader has turned out to be such a bald arsed liar should not be a shock. For a long time they've been saying whatever the hell they think will win them votes with no regard to actually having to do it.

They've never had a problem with producing localised election literature thats says one thing in some part of the country and the opposite thing somewhere else.

It's as if there's a culture within the libdems whereby whatever you say before an election doesn't really matter, that it's all a game. (Of course you could argue that this is true for all politicians, but the libdems take it to another level)

The end result is that when they do win a seat, they can't hold on to it. Voters have memories and they aren't always idiots.

A lot of the reason there are so many 'safe' Tory and Labour seats is that people sort of know what they're getting and then they sort of get it.

Say what you mean before an election and sort of mean it is the key. We as voters don't mind so much if you say before the election that you're going to deliver a dozen eggs and then you end up only delivering three and one of them has a bit of a crack in it. We understand that's just how it works.
What we object to is the promise of a dozen eggs being followed up with no eggs and a vote in the House of Commons to eradicate chickens thus eliminating the prospect of all future eggs.

The LibDems lost 12 seats in 2010 (net of 5) and held onto another 4 by the skin of their teeth. That’s 25% of their seats gone or almost gone, they weren't all marginals either. All this despite the Cleggomania sparked from the televised debates where we all gazed on with wonder as he remembered the people's names.

The party is like a broke ass corporation that goes chasing after new customers with fluff and doesn’t care a jot for it’s existing customers. With that kind of strategy is it any wonder they never break the monopoly of the 2 market leaders?

I say again, the reason the libdems aren’t a bigger force in UK politics isn’t because the voting system is unfair, it’s because they’re shit.

*Question time style applause*

[Bongo]

That Nick Clegg their leader has turned out to be such a bald arsed liar should not be a shock. For a long time they've been saying whatever the hell they think will win them votes with no regard to actually having to do it.

It's odd though because it seemed clear from what was said before the election that a Tory-LD coalition was more likely than a Lab-LD one.

Also think that the LDs have a pretty wide range of views from people who are left of Labour to people right of Labour and libertarian.

In short a LD candidate/MP could have any beliefs and thus you never really know what you're going to get (without engaging with that person in some way).

[thetank]

Also think that the LDs have a pretty wide range of views from people who are left of Labour to people right of Labour and libertarian.

Very true, and why Mr. Milliband may not benefit as much from AV as people suspect.

LibDems on the left denying Labour their second preference because they're still bent on foreign policy desicions Blair made.
LibDems with the right leaning libertarian stance denying Labour their second preference because Labour do tend to belive the state should be in control of more of our lives.

[Jon MW]

That Nick Clegg their leader has turned out to be such a bald arsed liar should not be a shock. For a long time they've been saying whatever the hell they think will win them votes with no regard to actually having to do it.

It's odd though because it seemed clear from what was said before the election that a Tory-LD coalition was more likely than a Lab-LD one.

Also think that the LDs have a pretty wide range of views from people who are left of Labour to people right of Labour and libertarian.

In short a LD candidate/MP could have any beliefs and thus you never really know what you're going to get (without engaging with that person in some way).

The Liberal Democrat administration itself is basically comprised of the previous Liberals - who are pretty much liberal Conservatives, and Social Democrats - who are pretty much very left wing Labourites. It's support is mainly from old Liberals, but it's grass root activists are mainly Social Democrats. So it's not really surprising that it's hard to figure out exactly where they stand, the only surprising thing is that their system seems to work well at local government level.

Also think that the LDs have a pretty wide range of views from people who are left of Labour to people right of Labour and libertarian.

Very true, and why Mr. Milliband may not benefit as much from AV as people suspect.
...

The polling and statisticians have suggested that generally speaking AV would provide LD seat gains LAB losses and CON about the same

[Jon MW]

Tank, are you really that stupid or are you just on a wind up?

I'm not on a wind-up. If you think I have said something that is stupid then I would be happy for you to point it out and explain why you think it's stupid.

I don't think I'm stupid but that doesn't mean to say I can't sometimes think and say stupid things.

If you simply say that everything I've said on this subject is stupid and offer no explanation as to why then I'll confess that I probably won't take this criticism too seriously.

Just my personal opinion but, if anyone can see the fairness in a party getting 40% of a vote and claiming that they have a mandate or a majority, then claim that they represent the peolple..........sounds stupid to me!

So if 40% support Party A
and 30% support Party B
and 17% support Party C
and 6% support Party D
and 4% support Party E
and 3% is spread between a few independents

Party's B, C and and E form a government.
B in control, C with quite a bit of influence and E getting a few pieces of legislation through to keep them on side.

Is that fair?
Is that fair that a party that 70% of the country didn't vote for gets to run the country?
And that a party with only 4% of the vote get's to have legislation they want passed?

And FPTP does regularly see a government elected with about 40% of the vote - but it also regularly results in the winning party having gained over 50% of the vote, i.e. is it really worth changing it when it regularly gives the party with the most votes overall the most power overall?

None of the systems are 100% fair but we can all create scenarios where flaws are highlighted.

Both of which are true points.

And the scenario I've put is a proportional representation one rather than an AV one (as I think nobody really actually wants AV other than as a stepping stone to full PR)

But a coalition like we have of only two parties is a pretty rare occurrence in any country where they've been needed; FPTP resulting in a government with less than 50% of the vote, whilst fairly common, is still a much less likely scenario than PR resulting in a government which gives a tiny party a place in government.