|
|
With the referendum on changing the way we decide our future governments, what will you be voting for?
I've already voted and gone for yes.
TAKEN
BY
A
STRANGAH
|
|
|
I would vote yes if I had the chance.
AV would still be a fairly flawed system, but the current one is just completely fucked up.
Proportional representation would be ideal.
And quite frankly I think we should get rid of party politics altogether, it turns democracy into a joke.
13/11/09
11/09/10
last.fm
|
|
|
If I had to vote for it I'd say no, and that's coming from a country with AV in place. There are a few reasons why, none I can be overly bothered going into.
British politics is a clusterfuck as it is, PR is what you should be voting on and then cutting down the numbers of representatives. Maybe worry about the voting system later.
|
|
|
AV is better than FPTP, but it's still a long way from the Proportional Representation the country - and every country - needs.
Still, I'll be voting Yes. Anything to get away from FPTP.
|
|
|
I have no idea what any of this means.
...And then I said; Oatmeal, are you CRAZY?!
Last.fm
Bass covers!
|
|
|
Quote
Fritz92 :
I have no idea what any of this means.
Long story short, we're having a vote in Britain to decide whether the method by which MPs (including the Prime Minister) are elected should be changed. Right now we use First-Past-the-Post, which basically means the most votes wins. Seems fair, but then you can get MPs elected with as little as 30% support in their area. Alternative Vote allows people to put second/third/fourth etc. choices, which to me is infinitely fairer.
This video highlights the clear advantages of AV over FPTP. It's basic logic, to me.
|
|
|
I have always failed to see how it's fairer when a person who gets less of the first choice vote can still end up winning. Preferences are bollocks, they are not proportionate to the voters actual feelings. When you vote you don't vote partially for one person and then partially for another, at least I don't. No logic in that at all.
I would take offence to the Tories being voted in on the back of the ukip, bnp vote. You vote once, for th party of your choosing.
Still...
You are being swindled with this vote, at the end of the day it honestly will mean fuck all. It's just pedantics to make it look like actual reform when everyone knows that it really doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Quote
no-name :
Quote
Fritz92 :
I have no idea what any of this means.
Long story short, we're having a vote in Britain to decide whether the method by which MPs (including the Prime Minister) are elected should be changed. Right now we use First-Past-the-Post, which basically means the most votes wins. Seems fair, but then you can get MPs elected with as little as 30% support in their area. Alternative Vote allows people to put second/third/fourth etc. choices, which to me is infinitely fairer.
This video highlights the clear advantages of AV over FPTP. It's basic logic, to me.
Ah, yeah. I've heard about this. I'll check the video tomorrow when I am more awake. Right now sleep calls, however!
...And then I said; Oatmeal, are you CRAZY?!
Last.fm
Bass covers!
|
|
|
Quote
paztopia :
I have always failed to see how it's fairer when a person who gets less of the first choice vote can still end up winning. Preferences are bollocks, they are not proportionate to the voters actual feelings. When you vote you don't vote partially for one person and then partially for another, at least I don't. No logic in that at all.
There's plenty of logic in it. Tell me, have you ever voted in an election thinking 'I only want this guy/woman. I hate everyone else and don't want them to win' ? No, probably not. Most people don't agree 100% with any one candidate, and so being able to say 'I want candidate number 1 in as my first choice, but I know it's unrealistic that they'll get in. I don't mind if candidate number 2 then gets in, because it's a compromise I think is fair.'
Just like in that video I posted, when you decide something as a group you don't go with whatever has the majority vote, especially not when the vast majority are not in favour, even if the consensus is split among them. You come to a compromise.
What's illogical is a party having a safe seat for decades and winning on 30-40% support among the people of that area. If parties really have as much support as FPTP suggests and as the parties claim, then AV will change nothing. The results will be the same. But we all know that's not how it is.
Quote
paztopia :
Still...
You are being swindled with this vote, at the end of the day it honestly will mean fuck all. It's just pedantics to make it look like actual reform when everyone knows that it really doesn't matter.
Probably. But if it makes this country 1% better, then why not? Full proportional representation is obviously the main goal, but that's not realistic.
|
|
|
Quote
There's plenty of logic in it. Tell me, have you ever voted in an election thinking 'I only want this guy/woman. I hate everyone else and don't want them to win' ?
Every time, if not I wouldn't even bother. Unfortunately though I don't have that choice.
Quote
Most people don't agree 100% with any one candidate, and so being able to say 'I want candidate number 1 in as my first choice, but I know it's unrealistic that they'll get in.
True but most people don't agree 100% with anybody let alone a politician.
As mentioned, I would vote for one person/party no matter how realistic or not their chances were. I certainly don't want to have any percentage of a responsibility of voting in any of the(in most cases/countries) two major party's unless I choose to.
What AV does is effectively force you to vote for one of the major parties.
Quote
Just like in that video I posted, when you decide something as a group you don't go with whatever has the majority vote, especially not when the vast majority are not in favour, even if the consensus is split among them. You come to a compromise.
My compromise is in being human and realising that what another person chooses, regardless of my own choice, matters as well. I can live with the fact that I'm not in the majority all the time. No reason I should be soft about it and try and soften the blow. It also doesn't mean I have gave up my right to moan about it. A vote should be counted just once, as I mentioned it wont look so good when the tories are getting elected on the back of the bnp, ukip vote or vice versa.
It's not a fix to the situation at all. If the vast majority can't see eye to eye then they are not the majority anymore unless they decide to unite but I don't see that happening atm.
Mind you I'm not entirely sure what is a fix. It's all much of a muchness. Maybe AV is more appropriate for a system which doesn't have proportianal representation.
edit: I'll add I'm not saying AV is a bad thing at all. But after living with it I can see an argument to change it.
Dennis has the best system:
We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting-- By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,-- But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major affairs....
|
Tře
7908 posts
 - Brisbane, Australia
|
I like the Danish system. Each area has a certain amount of MP posts. These MP posts are given depending on the votes in that area. Some only have 1 post and therefore in that case a lot of the votes are "lost". In total 138 MP posts are given this way. To make up for this there's another 40 MP posts which are given depending on how many posts each party already has and how many of the total national votes that party got. So in the end every party gets a percentage of MPs equal to the percentage of national votes they got. No alternative voting or anything. Just a system to make things fair.
If I was to vote on something like this though I'd have to read more about advantages and disadvantages before making my mind up. But my initial reaction would be that it seems pretty fair.
|
|
|
Quote
no-name :
AV is better than FPTP, but it's still a long way from the Proportional Representation the country - and every country - needs.
This is basically my thoughts, and would be voting yes if i was able to. I'm travelling just now so unable even to do a postal vote. I'm more annoyed at missing out on the Scottish elections though, which are held on the same day.
Matt Bellamy nose best.
|
|
|
I was in a bit of a toss up between yes or no, but then I got a Vote No leaflet in the post on Thursday that was so intelligence insulting that I've decided to vote Yes.
|
|
|
AV isn't ideal but it's better than FPTP and besides, if I vote 'no' the government will *not* take it as "oh, he doesn't want AV" they will take it as "oh, he wants to keep FPTP".
PR is where it's at, but until then anything that gives fairer votes is fine by me. Last election the Lib Dems got 8 million votes and 57 seats, whereas Labour got 10 million votes and 258. Our democracy is shit.
Incidentally I cast my vote by post from Shanghai so y'all have no excuse not to vote.
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present
http://www.ahsstudents.org.uk - for all non-religious uni students!
|
|
|
Well, after watching that video and reading through the thread I'll have to agree with most of you. AV doesn't sound ideal, but definitely far better than the FPTP. Proportional Representation really is the way to go though.
...And then I said; Oatmeal, are you CRAZY?!
Last.fm
Bass covers!
|
Doos
6961 posts
 - Nijmegen
|
I quite liked this column by Charlie Brooker about the AV campaigns: click.
And I would vote Yes, coalition governments are good.
“I swear that if I hear anyone calling us Holland instead of the Netherlands, I kill him!” ~ Angry Dutch on calling the Netherlands Holland (Uncyclopedia)
Come on sucker lick my battery
|
|
|
its said to be fairer. but it allows parties like the bnp a real chance to get in. which is bullshit. and i dont buy that its more ideal at all, a party with much less votes could potentially win? im voting no and holding out for pr
|
|
|
Quote
Devii :
its said to be fairer. but it allows parties like the bnp a real chance to get in. which is bullshit. and i dont buy that its more ideal at all, a party with much less votes could potentially win? im voting no and holding out for pr
Just because it will allow smaller parties a better chance of getting into Parliament does not mean the BNP will get enough support to get in themselves. They are too extreme and people will either put them for first choice as if it was still FPTP, or they would not bother ranking them and will be eliminated very quickly.
TAKEN
BY
A
STRANGAH
|
|
|
It will concieveably allow smaller parties a better chance but in practice it really is just business as normal, it's not like the Australian government is awash with smaller parties because of it. It will only really be noticeable on extremely marginal seats. But he is right, it can give the opportunity for bnp and the like to stumble over the line. But more likely it will be the tories getting over the line on the back of the lunatic fringe vote, same can be said for green/labour etc.
And you wouldn't just be able to not mark them in, that would either make your vote invalid or it would revert to the parties of your first choices preferences.
This is my biggest beef over it, it makes you choose the lesser of two evils whether you want to or not. It gives more power to the two main parties if anything, Australia has had 2 hung parliments in over 100 years and that was thanks to just 2 independants, it definitely does not make for more coalition governments.
One man, one vote I say.
|
|
|
In my eyes, the electoral system shouldn't stop any party getting in. It's called democracy because it's supposed to allow the people to decide. If the people decide they want to elect a BNP candidate, fine. I won't like it but if the candidate wins enough votes then, in my eyes and by the definition of democracy, they should be allowed to be represented.
'I don't approve of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Also this:
Quote
Doos :
And I would vote Yes, coalition governments are good.
...if parties stop petty bickering and work to a compromise. Then I see no better way of running things than with a mix of all views being represented.
|
|
|
It doesn't really offer the BNP a greater chance to get in. That's just toss that the Conservatives churn out to try and scare people into a No vote.
Chances are, the vast majority of BNP voters will have them placed as their first vote. They're a fringe party and most people who don't tend to vote for them, dislike them. Not many people think, "I can't decide between Lib Dem and BNP". Obviously if everyone in the country had BNP as their second vote, they could potentially get in power, but in all likelihood, parties like BNP will be the first eliminated from the running, and then their voters second choices will be taken instead.
|
|
|
Quote
Tře :
I like the Danish system. Each area has a certain amount of MP posts. These MP posts are given depending on the votes in that area. Some only have 1 post and therefore in that case a lot of the votes are "lost". In total 138 MP posts are given this way. To make up for this there's another 40 MP posts which are given depending on how many posts each party already has and how many of the total national votes that party got. So in the end every party gets a percentage of MPs equal to the percentage of national votes they got. No alternative voting or anything. Just a system to make things fair.
If I was to vote on something like this though I'd have to read more about advantages and disadvantages before making my mind up. But my initial reaction would be that it seems pretty fair.
An example of how far ahead of the rest of the world some countries are.
13/11/09
11/09/10
last.fm
|
|
|
Elections should be decided by a game of Musical Chairs. Make election night far more interesting.
|
|
|
Quote
deadstar666 :
Quote
Tře :
I like the Danish system. Each area has a certain amount of MP posts. These MP posts are given depending on the votes in that area. Some only have 1 post and therefore in that case a lot of the votes are "lost". In total 138 MP posts are given this way. To make up for this there's another 40 MP posts which are given depending on how many posts each party already has and how many of the total national votes that party got. So in the end every party gets a percentage of MPs equal to the percentage of national votes they got. No alternative voting or anything. Just a system to make things fair.
If I was to vote on something like this though I'd have to read more about advantages and disadvantages before making my mind up. But my initial reaction would be that it seems pretty fair.
An example of how far ahead of the rest of the world some countries are.
I sometimes think the Scandinavians just look at us and either laugh or 
|
|
|
In Sweden we have pretty much proportional voting. You decide which party you want to vote for, and then each party has a list of people that you can choose to tick a little box for. You can only tick the box of one person, and then the person can either move up or down on the list depending on the amount of ticks they get. When the votes have been counted and each party has acquired their proportional amount of seats they see what the list looks like. The person at the top gets the first seat, and then it moves down like that until the seats are all taken.
Then the parties can forge alliances with other parties (unless of course they got over 50% of the votes so they could be solo, but that doesn't really happen) which will then form a government.
That's pretty much it. Oh, and you need over 4% of the votes to get in at all. It's fair to me!
...And then I said; Oatmeal, are you CRAZY?!
Last.fm
Bass covers!
|
