Don't forget the Electorial Reform Vote 5th May

[pooroldcodger]

That's probably what the other 30 wanted to do but couldn't be bothered to ask

Correct! So if they don't get drunk and "pull" then it must have been the wrong destination, but it's not their fault because they didn't vote to go there anyway!
Just like real politics.

 

[Venters]

Scotland has a strong Government ?
By what measure does Scotland have a strong Government?

There was a SNP whitewash up here last week.

 

[Focus Owner]

how about instead of voting who we want vote for who we don't want the most?
and one person we want.
person A like labour hates con / libdem but likes bnp
so his choice for the job is pm.
then bnp.
then the middle selection.
then con / lib dem so his vote removes 1 vote from con / libdem.

person2
pm = con
just hates
libdem

person 3
labour
hates con

person 4
con
and hates labour

labour 0.75 +1 1.75
bnp 0.25 0.25
con - .5 +1 -1 +1 1.5
lib dem -.5 -1 -1 -2.5

so labour win and everyone gets a vote equally. not your vote is gone so we will use your second.

 

[Argonought]

One man one vote.
So with AV I vote for this candidate, then that candidate, then the bloke I have frankly never heard of, and then I draw the line, because I can't bring myself to vote for that party (this works for any affiliation). So by my reckoning I have given my one vote to 3 candidates.
So that would be one man three votes then?
Yes of course I realise that this is not what you mean, but what you will get is lots of second and third choices eventually getting over 50%.

No that's not right. You only get one ballot (and that means you only get one vote - but I'm sure you know that ).

1st choice preferences always count so it's impossible for 2nd or 3d preference to achieve 50% on their own (they can only be added to the 1st choice to count)

All you have to remember is that AV is a preference system which simply means the person elected is ALWAYS the person most people prefer.

In practice it's most often the same person that would be elected under FPTP but in cases where that person is not so popular (as in most people don't like him) then it can often be the person that came 2nd in the 1st round that wins. It's actually quite rare for anyone who comes 3rd in the 1st round to win (less than 5% in Australia) contrary to the big fuss the NO campaign made about it.

You might even get "fringe" parties winning seats such as UKIP, BNP,etc.

That's possible under FPTP but very unlikely under AV (remember the winner must be popular with at least 50% of the voters). The idea that the BNP could win easier under AV was an outright lie put about by the NO campaign - and in fact - is the complete opposite of the truth

Obviously any party can win (wouldn't be very democratic otherwise) but they have to be popular with most people to do so.

....and it's this idea that leads to the notion that AV is fairer system

I will agree with you on one thing though. AV is pretty much dead and buried so I don't think there's much to be gained by discussing it.

If we ever do get reform in the country then I think it's almost certainly going to be something PR based :spin:

By what measure does Scotland have a strong Government?

Best ask Alex Salmond that question

 

[pooroldcodger]

No that's not right. You only get one ballot (and that means you only get one vote - but I'm sure you know that ).

1st choice preferences always count so it's impossible for 2nd or 3d preference to achieve 50% on their own (they can only be added to the 1st choice to count)

All you have to remember is that AV is a preference system which simply means the person elected is ALWAYS the person most people prefer.

In practice it's most often the same person that would be elected under FPTP but in cases where that person is not so popular (as in most people don't like him) then it can often be the person that came 2nd in the 1st round that wins. It's actually quite rare for anyone who comes 3rd in the 1st round to win (less than 5% in Australia) contrary to the big fuss the NO campaign made about it.

That's possible under FPTP but very unlikely under AV (remember the winner must be popular with at least 50% of the voters). The idea that the BNP could win easier under AV was an outright lie put about by the NO campaign - and in fact - is the complete opposite of the truth

Obviously any party can win (wouldn't be very democratic otherwise) but they have to be popular with most people to do so.

....and it's this idea that leads to the notion that AV is fairer system

I will agree with you on one thing though. AV is pretty much dead and buried so I don't think there's much to be gained by discussing it.

If we ever do get reform in the country then I think it's almost certainly going to be something PR based :spin:


Best ask Alex Salmond that question

It is a confusion of who is popular with who is less unpopular. Not quite tyhe same thing.
And it was your statement that Scotland has a stronger Government that was why I asked. Do you mean a bigger majority, or more authority, clearer mandate or what?
Anybody who manages to promise everybody more of everything, without any sacrifices, and if he then can't deliver it has somebody else to blame (in Salmond's case Westminster) is going to do well at the polls. That is not strong Government - that is out and out deceit.

 

[sludgeguts]

The 'no' campaign put a spin on plenty of lies.

The AV is only used by three countries - does that automatically make it a bad thing then? Perhaps it is because these three countries are very forward thinking?

The AV will result in lots of coallition governments - so not like the one we have now under FPTP then? I searched the 'NO' website and they didn't offer up any evidence to support this.

AV leads to more hung parliaments, backroom deals and broken promises like the Lib Dem tuition fees U-turn. Completely forgetting that every labour and tory government in living memory have reneged on their election promises and also conveniently forgetting just how corrupt many members of these parties are (claiming for duckponds, toothpaste etc)

The change to AV will cost up to an additional £250 million. Local councils would have to waste money on costly electronic vote counting machines and expensive voter education campaigns - unlike the current system where we rely solely on manual counting, how would AV be any different?
(and this is money that could be used for NHS and education - yet the tories are already talking about slashing funding to the nhs!)

On the other hand, FPTP is fair (they give lots of piddly reasons) yet completely fail to mention that the winning party had less than a third of the votes - Seeing as how only approx half the electorate CBA to vote, the winning party is only wanted by about 15% of the electorate!

And the saddest things of all? More people will vote for the winner of the X factor or big brother or Britain's got talent than who they want running their lives AND I have actually heard women saying that they vote for that nice Mr. xxx

The people of this country needed to go to the polls and ignore the tory & labour parties, give them no votes at all, they should also have voted an overwhelming YES to AV. It would have delivered a clear message that we, the electorate, are sick and tired of being constantly squeezed by successive lab & con governments and we demand a change - the AV might not be the right change but we had a chance to change and we should have taken it.

 

[ChrisUK]

Sure it is, wages in Scotland are terrible compared to England and don't give me 'the cost of living is lower' crap, you've given 2 examples of things but just about everything else essential is on a par - petrol, food, energy, insurance, rental/mortage costs, couple that to rural areas where the nearest city is 30+ miles away and there are hardly any dual carriageways, and no motorways north of Perth. And don't get me started on these narrow sighted courier companies who consider the Highlands to be on a whole other continent and feel they can charge double the cost of the item being shipped ... rarrrgh [/rant]

I have to say I disagree. I've spent a fair time in Edinburgh which is apparently the most expensive part of Scotland. It is still however considerably cheaper than my home area in England "Darlington - Durham". The salaries are on average higher than here too . I'm seriously considering moving

I agree about the roads though.... They suck!.

On the opposite end of the scale it was £1.25 for a can of Coke in the local 'corner' shop where I was staying in London, £0.65 here even though the shop is part of the same chain.

 

[pooroldcodger]

I am not sure what alternative there is to being as you put it "squeezed" by successive governments.
Governments have a duty to govern, and that often means making unpopular decisions.All successive governments in the last 20 years have done so far is openly tinker around the edges of policy, although covertly there have been major policy changes that have never been voted on by the public.
However if there had been a clear way of sending a message that we are all sick of :
Career politicians only interested in their own wallet
Non-entity politicians who wouldn't survive 1 week in the commercial world
then I would vote for it tomorrow. But because of the intrusive modern media, the sort of people we should have running the country (I mean ones that have a record of achieving something tangible and could re-vitalise our country if they had the support) will never put themselves and their families in the firing line. We are all guilty of that to a point. here we are moaning about it, but how many of us would wnat to enter politics?

 

[Argonought]

It is a confusion of who is popular with who is less unpopular. Not quite tyhe same thing.

If you rationalize that viewpoint to it's logical conclusion then what you're really saying is you prefer lack of compromise (only wishing to see your parties policies put forward whilst ignoring other viewpoints) to politics of compromise (being prepared to consider other peoples views)

This reminds me of a question I heard in one of the YES/NO meetings. "But if I have to make a 2nd choice then that means I'll need to know something about the other parties and not just the one I'm voting for."

Now that really is a classic head in the sand attitude which this country can well do without!

And it was your statement that Scotland has a stronger Government that was why I asked. Do you mean a bigger majority, or more authority, clearer mandate or what?

I meant in the literal sense of majority of votes AND majority of seats which naturally gives him a strong mandate. What he does with it is of course another matter.

I am not sure what alternative there is to being as you put it "squeezed" by successive governments.
Governments have a duty to govern, and that often means making unpopular decisions.All successive governments in the last 20 years have done so far is openly tinker around the edges of policy, although covertly there have been major policy changes that have never been voted on by the public.
However if there had been a clear way of sending a message that we are all sick of :
Career politicians only interested in their own wallet
Non-entity politicians who wouldn't survive 1 week in the commercial world
then I would vote for it tomorrow. But because of the intrusive modern media, the sort of people we should have running the country (I mean ones that have a record of achieving something tangible and could re-vitalise our country if they had the support) will never put themselves and their families in the firing line. We are all guilty of that to a point. here we are moaning about it, but how many of us would wnat to enter politics?

For starters we need a true democracy that encourages people to take part in the process rather than discourage them.

...and please don't tell me we already have one We may have one of the oldest but it's also one of the most primitive and we need to move on and catch up with the rest of the world. That we're now behind both NI and Scotland is beyond a joke

...and the reason; pure self interest from both the major parties (with due exception given to those who are prepared to put higher ideals above self interest) and an electorate where the majority remain too dumb (or indifferent) to see through it