this important referendum is nearly upon us and i thought it would be interesting explore the views held by this BB

after much thought, i have decided to vote against AV
i do not dispute that "first past post the post" is in some ways unfair - so is life and golf! - but i am far from convinced that AV is intrinsically much better

i would rather have a stronger gov't of some hue than a weak coalition or mps (and parties) who have felt obliged to trim their sails to offend the least number and thus gain a few more secondary votes

full-blown PR is at least "fair", but even then, there are many examples of horribly weak and unstable gov'ts, which is also pretty disastrous

finally, and of greatest concern, i suspect the turnout for this referendum will be +/-35% at best and probably a lot lower in many parts of the country
it follows that those who vote in this will be (relative) "activists" for lack of a better word, for the run-of-the-mill voter will find the whole thing too complicated and voting on it all, too much of a fag
thus, if there is a change in our voting system, then it is very likely to have been pushed through by <20% of the electorate - is that fair?

Tank,

Not quite right enough, just move along the bench a little more please.

==================

Aids, the oracle, writes again with amazing insight and wit.

----------------------

PS. How did you escape TA little list?

excuse me guys, but may we keep this thread sensible .... undoubtedly this is a singularly important issue, but to my mind it should not be bound by "party political lines" as seems to be happening here as well as in the big outside world

a Q for the "yes" camp .... do you think it democratically fair if 20% of the electorate win the day by voting for a change in the system, and if so, why?

Interesting that the question of AV is being decided by a first past the post system.

My vote is a definite NO.

Australia was held to ransome for several weeks by three MPs from very rural constituencies virtually in the bush who could not decide which party to make the government after their last election because of AV. Italy has had an average of one government a year because of its election system that causes endless coalitions. It is so bad that the public are prepared to put up with Berlusconi to get a stronger government. Israel has a coalition of four or more parties most of the time with extreme right wing religious parties holding the balance of power. Religion should have no place in government including Iran, Pakistan etc. Germany is one of the few countries that manages to make coalition governments work.

I believe that AV will produce more coalitions and that means more deals done behind closed doors and the public only getting a watered down version of what they voted for. It means minority parties have a disproportionate voice and the possibility of extreme parties being elected and possibly holding the balance of power.

We all know why LIB/LAB want to change the voting system, keep them out vote

NO!!!

Haystack, that is a very amusing point most have missed re.the first past the post
vote for AV-if the YES vote wins will there be another vote using AV-just to waste another couple of hundred millions?

i still await fred, stan or any others from the "yes camp" to answer my question in post 83

cynic if a yes means 50% to get elected does that mean if a party does not get 50% then we should have enough election that would be good but then that would go on for ever so . keep to what we have . coalition is no good to many cooks soil the food .
VOTE NO NO NO

YES TANKER,

oh I mean

NO!!!!!

Cynic,

If all the possible electorate, is a true representation of the of the public, then a total vote of only 5%, 10% or 20% of possible electorate whether the outcome of the election is yes, or no, then that result can be assume to be democratic.

This is an assumption that there are no "impediments" placed in the way of those who wish to vote Yes or No.

(Where propaganda, coercion, education, media, PR etc. influences the information provided for the public is another consideration,)

Those who don't vote are showing no concern, or are indifferent and are prepared to accept the consequence of their "non-participation" .

The total vote can be seen as a poll and representative of the people.

(That is an assumption that the "electorate" is a true representation of the populace. In this country it is reasonably correct, but it could be open to review and possible tinkering.)

what you say has its merits (and open to different interpretation) - would one expect otherwise! - which is a good argument as to why voting should be obligatory as it is in oz

Not voting has its merits and also influences actions.

(As you might guess, in general I tend not to vote.)

in that case you should be ashamed of yourself

Often!

And often it is fun!

8-)

Fred's wit is as sharp as a rubber ball

ComRes has released a new poll on the AV referendum commissioned by the NO2AV campaign. Topline figures, weighted by likelihood to vote in the referendum and excluding dont knows have the NO campaign ahead by 60% to 40%, the biggest lead the NO campaign have recorded so far.

There is also a new poll by a company called ICD Research in the New Statesman, which shows NO ahead by 14 points: NO 53%, YES 39%, undecided 9% (repercentaged to exclude dont knows it would be a 16 point lead for NO).

Support for AV collapsing, according to Guardian/ICM poll

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/18/support-av-collapsing-guardian-icm-poll

let's hope that those polls are reasonably accurate ...... i confess i am amazed how few i know, both here and in the outside world will be voting for AV

Fred and Stan won't be posting this morning, they have camped out overnight in one of those twin sleeping bags to catch a sight of the happy couple, no one as told them that Tony and Gordon wasn't invited. Shame it would have been such a gay day for them.

Once again, I see the anal retentive is trying to be noticed.

--------------

Cynic,

(Not you! Sometimes you have your good points. Difficulty is recognising them.)

Right. the offensive parts have been dealt with.
---
I can't see how a government is seen to be a democratic ruling body when it is elected by less than 50% of those who cast their vote.

(Even though the constitution rules that an new election has to be called, either after 5years period, or when the present governing body can not fulfill its responsibility. However there is tremendous weakness on relying on the constitution to protect the rights of the populace, as the ruling body is often more concerned with protecting its own "rolls" and "rights" to be members of the governing body.

I think, even if it is probably just outside your living memory, you can remember how Hitler and other dictators have risen to power.

The argument put forward that in "first past the post" that each vote is equal, is ludicrous. It is representative of each "voter", but not the overall "opinion" or "wishes" of the "electorate" as a whole.

(I can explain that by example, but won't.)

I think the present state in the argument can be seen as "I have the ball" and therefore it is mine until I lose it and then of course we will change the rules, which allow me to have it back.

What is been played out at the moment by government is a form of political gerrymandering. (Consider the unspoken changes of boundaries reform.)

AV. is possibly not the best change, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

Proportional representation would seem a "fairer" and "genuinely" representative of the "voters".

What i would like to see is;

An appointed "body" to consider:-

1) the constitution and its protection,
2) to review the House of Lords in order to remove the hereditary portion and those granted membership on political patronage.
3) to consider movement to an elected second chamber. or a body form from representatives of representative bodies of society as a whole. (This was suggested in the 1930s in some parts of Europe without any real acceptance.)
3) a written bill of rights.



I am unlikely to get the above.

I vote BNP so no problem.

AV in action:

Auf Wiedersehen Pet