To AV, or not to AV?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

There is no "national pool" of votes, as you put it. In a general election we all elect a local representative to a national assembly. The weakness that exists in our system lies in the strength of political party machines which seek to ensure that once at Westminster, your local representative adheres to a Party line.

Proportional systems exacerbate this problem by weakening, if not entirely eliminating, the link between an individual MP and an individual constituency. AV seeks to avoid that problem but at the same time, because it is not electing one person to one post, but simultaneously many people to many posts, it is not remotely proportional either.

that link is a myth?

my MP was hand picked by labour, and guarantueed success in election, she has yet to even respond to any queries from me. what link? the only way she is not getting reelected next election is if she doesnt stand. I dont give a rats ass about towing party line and is what they should do really anyway. But MP's not in safe seats are likely to work harder for their people, ie. not ignore requests and in turn the leading party has to think about the entire populace rather than just the marginal seats.

STV has the same sort of links as FPTP by the way. But is a PR system rather than the silly one now that has guarantueed results.

I will remind you again, under FPTP the majority of the country that is more than 50% is undemocratic and has the same result every general election.

I never said AV was proportional as well. In fact its almost as poor as FPTP which makes the referendum a mockery anyway. Another example of an illusion of democracy, even if the tories lost the referendum the system in place would not be too different. So here it is either poor voting system A or poor voting system B, cannot vote for good voting system A.

You're reminding me of your *opinion* chrys, but there's no need, I understand where you're coming from. Your *opinion* is that safe seats are undemocratic. I disagree. A majority is a majority. A settled majority is a settled majority. If you don't like it, then get out on the stumps and campaign to change the views and voting habits of your neighbours. Anything else is just gerrymandering by other means.

A common whinge from the 'yes' campaign is the existence of a so-called 'progressive majority' in British politics, which is locked out of power by the rotten, nasty electoral system that we have in the UK. Well, guess what, the problem isn't the system, it's the Left's basic inability to put narrow ideological squabbles to one side in order to work effectively as a Party. They like AV because it would allow them to have their cake and eat it, squabbling to their hearts' content about the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead and then expecting still to win the vote come election day.

Changes to long-held political allegiances can and do happen - Scotland has spectacularly ditched its addiction to Labour over the last few years and now the SNP is going to come very, very close to getting an outright majority at Holyrood - some projections say they might actually achieve it.

That's how we do things in a stable democracy. We turn over the issues, we examine the pros and cons, we don't quickly change our minds but we as a people are not closed to it and we are well able to do it when it is warranted.

We do not need to import unstable, European methods for rigging elections so the minority pressure group of the hour gets to call the tune or else bring down the government.

[Chrysalis]

you do realise scotland isnt using FPTP now right?

Your blinkered view and faith in FPTP is scary, you really dont understand the true nature of the beast. Yes safe seats will ocassionaly change it doesnt change the fact tho that votes above the winning margin are wasted and votes for the loser are wasted. Leading to a result that isnt proportional to the votes cast, the 2010 election showed this greatly when the lib dems had almost as much votes as labour but got way less seats.

http://www.yorkforvotingreform.org.uk/fair.htm

check the bottom graph on that page. In 2010 the lib dems needed almost 3 times as many votes to win a seat than the 2 main parties. Yet you posting rubbish saying every vote is equal.

Incidently I think elections shouldnt have any leaflet posting, the only campaigning should be candidates knocking on doors speaking to voters personally, the only tv coverage should be live debates.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you do realise scotland isnt using FPTP now right?

About 1/2 the seats are allocated using FPTP and overnight a lot of 'safe' seats have changed from Red to Yellow against all expectations.

I never said i get more then one vote i said that my one vote could be counted more then once that is how it was explained by numerous people on numerous programs dealing with AV and i personally find that unfair and therefore oppose AV.

[Chrysalis]

Thinking of an election as a system that just votes in individual leaders for constituences vs as a system that elects parties to run the country it does a poor job. I think this is how me and chris are looking at it differently.

Also think of the costs saved with campaigns with no tv adverts, no printed press adverts and no leaflets. This reduces dependencies from parties to rich individuals who fund campaigns and increases the relation between the voter and their candidates as they are forced to knock on more doors.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

you do realise scotland isnt using FPTP now right?

I was writing newspaper features on the system used in Scotland and Wales before the devolution referendums were held so yes, I know what manner of election I have just participated in and I'm pretty confident I have a better grasp of the precise calculations used to make the results proportional than most bystanders.

The really remarkable thing about the results in Scotland today is the number of constituency seats they have swiped, mostly off Labour in supposedly safe labour areas like Glasgow.

Your blinkered view and faith in FPTP is scary, you really dont understand the true nature of the beast.

I assure you, I do. Please don't assume that the only people who disagree with you are the ones that don't understand. Some people - I believe we are about to discover a majority of people - believe that whatever its flaws, FPTP's benefits are ultimately of greater value.

Yes safe seats will ocassionaly change it doesnt change the fact tho that votes above the winning margin are wasted and votes for the loser are wasted. Leading to a result that isnt proportional to the votes cast, the 2010 election showed this greatly when the lib dems had almost as much votes as labour but got way less seats.

http://www.yorkforvotingreform.org.uk/fair.htm

check the bottom graph on that page. In 2010 the lib dems needed almost 3 times as many votes to win a seat than the 2 main parties. Yet you posting rubbish saying every vote is equal.

No, the Lib Dems did not need three times as many votes to win a seat. For each seat won, only the votes within that constituency counted. The votes from elsewhere in the country did not contribute and were not 'needed'.

This is one of the problems with the pro-PR argument: in order to make its argument it has to describe British parliamentary elections in terms other than what they actually are. When you vote at a General Election you do not vote in a national referendum on which Party you want to win. You vote for your local representative to the Commons.

The pro-PR argument relies on the view that the Party make-up of the chamber is ultimately the most important thing (even STV, the ERS's preferred method, ultimately is about balancing representation of Parties rather than assuring that each area of the country has a locally accountable representative).

I fundamentally disagree with the view that a homogenized Commons chamber made up of blocs of different colours is the prsim through which we should view our election process. I acknowledge that this is pretty much where we have got to in our present political life, and I acknowledge that this feeds the argument in favour of adopting an electoral system better matched to that situation.

But I still contend that those who seek change would do better to engage with the political process and seek to support independently-minded candidates rather than campaigning for an electoral system that would merely serve to lock the worst aspects of the anonymous party machine into our political life forever.

Incidently I think elections shouldnt have any leaflet posting, the only campaigning should be candidates knocking on doors speaking to voters personally, the only tv coverage should be live debates.

I would like to have been doorstepped during this election, but as I live in a fairly remote location I'm not surprised that all I got was leaflets, and I'd rather have leaflets than nothing.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

because the votes for anyone but the winner are discarded ....

Which, of course, is exactly the same under FPTP. The difference being that, should there be no clear - majority - winner, at least with AV you end up with someone who you can at least tolerate rather than you one vote being completely wasted.

[Chrysalis]

Chris you are niave sorry to say.

How does a referendum which has no PR option prove that people dont want PR?

The lib dems had a 3rd of the seats they would have got under a fair voting system, that is a fact. You can merry gand round this all you want, likewise independents also faired poorly in terms of seats to votes. You simply cannot understand the concept that votes are locking into per area but bring a party into national power. There is nothing fair about disregarding millions of votes that can manipulate the result of who runs the country, this is about more than electing someone to represet in parliament as it decides which party runs the country.

eg.

Area A has 120k votes cast for party A and 20k votes cast for PArty B, Party A gets one seat for 120k votes.
Area B has 19k votes for Party B and 18k votes for party A, Party B gets the seat.

In this example the 19k voters in Area B have a bigger voting power than the 20k voters in Area A. the 99k or so voters in Area A are votes essentially thrown away as majority already achieved and has no account on other seats. It is quite possible for a party to get in power under FPTP with less votes than a losing party.

Leaflets allow people to lie and not be questioned back about those lies, and they cost money, that money has to come from rich individuals or in labours case unions, these people then have too much influence over govenrment policy should that party win, and you want that?

But your example would never happen, as there are not constituencies of those extremes (140k and 39k) - the range (at the moment) is 61k to 86k....

You are also comparing apples with housebricks, when you, on one hand, use constituency figures to support your argument, and then use national voting figures to also support it.

We vote for a local representative to a national parliament - if you want to parliament to reflect the national voting figures, we would need to completely change the way we select and vote our governments (and local and area councils, to ensure democratic evenhandedness).

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Chris you are niave sorry to say.

You think that if you need to. No need to apologise. I'll survive.

How does a referendum which has no PR option prove that people dont want PR?

Ah, the excuses begin. So, when the referendum results are announced, you plan to answer the likely 'no' vote by claiming that if it had offered a full PR system, such as the additional member system used in Scotland or full-on STV, then we would have had a 'yes'?

Much as I agree that people who are in love with PR should have voted 'no' in this referendum, I don't for a moment believe that most 'no' voters have rejected the specific system on offer. Rather, people simply see no imperative for change.

---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Referendum results are starting to come in now - very convincingly on the 'NO' side so far.

[Derek]

Seems to be about a 70% / 30% split in favour of the current system. Bit of a kicking for the yes camp IMO.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

Possibly the most truthful sentence ever to come from the Guardian.

No one ever claimed that Guardian readers were representative of the wider population, but compare the referendum result with the views you expressed in our own survey a couple of years ago, and you could be forgiven for thinking that planet Guardian exists in an entirely different universe.

---------- Post added at 18:13 ---------- Previous post was at 18:13 ----------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...eferendum-lost

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

You think that if you need to. No need to apologise. I'll survive.



Ah, the excuses begin. So, when the referendum results are announced, you plan to answer the likely 'no' vote by claiming that if it had offered a full PR system, such as the additional member system used in Scotland or full-on STV, then we would have had a 'yes'?

Much as I agree that people who are in love with PR should have voted 'no' in this referendum, I don't for a moment believe that most 'no' voters have rejected the specific system on offer. Rather, people simply see no imperative for change.

---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 16:31 ----------

Referendum results are starting to come in now - very convincingly on the 'NO' side so far.

Wrong I am saying no such thing.

I am simply saying you cannot say the people have rejected PR because a PR voting system was never offered.

Now I have put that to you in very simple terms, I really hope you dont manage to twist that.

As to the current results, I put down to 2 things. 1 - People for whatever reason dont like AV compared to FPTP, I dont like AV myself but if the polling card did arrive I would have voted yes as I see it as a way of saying FPTP is bad. 2 the campaign for NO simply been much better than the campaign for YES, one reason I hate things like leafleting as it allows smear campaigning which is what the NO campaign was all about, smearing the YES campaign calling it over complicated and expensive.

End of the day if people want a system where only a minority of the country decides every election then so be it but I wont take part in such a mockery of a voting system.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well you're not going to get any say in any government that we get. I hope that you won't be moaning about the performance of the government for the next deacde or so.

I dont have a say now. I have made that point in multiple posts.

I am really banging my head against a brick wall.

Here is the point again.

"FPTP means millions of people including me have no say in the election result"

Hope that makes it clear.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

"FPTP means millions of people including me have no say in the election result"

Hope that makes it clear.

It may be clear, its also complete nonsense. Every vote has a say.