Alternative Vote, please vote!

[chairdriver]

 

My point is that there is something very deeply wrong with the current state of politics and politicians. Changing the way we vote will have no affect on this whatsoever.

 

In fact, one could argue that this referendum detrimental in that it produces the illusion of meaningful change.

 

That's why we need a revolution.

[ipaul]

That's why we need a revolution.

 

Or this guy back:

 

 

Sigh.

[chairdriver]

Or this guy back:

 

 

Sigh.

 

[Know that's Harold Wilson, because I'm great, and have sat in the Harold Wilson room at college loads, but don't understand what you mean.]

[The fish]

I also don't like the fact that a persons 2nd, 3rd or 4th vote could be counted towards someone winning when someone elses 2nd, 3rd or 4th vote who voted differently has no effect what so ever on the outcome. Therefore some people's voting choices have more power. I don't think it is that fair. You could also end up with a lot of weird parties getting more seats.

 

But your 2nd, 3rd, or 4th preferences don't matter only if your 1st preference is winning, and you want that to happen...because they're you 1st preference...

[ipaul]

[Know that's Harold Wilson, because I'm great, and have sat in the Harold Wilson room at college loads, but don't understand what you mean.]

 

[Like it would be nice if he was alive and well and could be PM again. And that he was fairly revolutionary/changed a lot of important things - as PMs go.]

[Nicktendo]

Democracy is a lie.

[ipaul]

Democracy is a lie.

 

Tell that to someone who doesn't have it.

[Nicktendo]

Tell that to someone who doesn't have it.

 

And there-in lies the beauty

[ipaul]

And there-in lies the beauty

 

A wheyyyyyy.

[Rummy]

 

My point is that there is something very deeply wrong with the current state of politics and politicians. Changing the way we vote will have no affect on this whatsoever.

 

In fact, one could argue that this referendum detrimental in that it produces the illusion of meaningful change.

 

Changing the way we vote = changing the way they are elected. Having no effect/affect whatsoever? I honestly believe you are not that naive. Current does not necessarily equal how it will be after AV, in fact I thoroughly believe it does not, though again it'll be something that'll take time and a few elections to be noticeable.

 

 

I just think if AV is passed we will end up with more coalition governments which I do not want. I hate what's happening to our country at the moment. I would rather see a strong Labour government in power all day long and the current system is the best way to achieve this and not through AV IMO.

 

I also don't like the fact that a persons 2nd, 3rd or 4th vote could be counted towards someone winning when someone elses 2nd, 3rd or 4th vote who voted differently has no effect what so ever on the outcome. Therefore some people's voting choices have more power. I don't think it is that fair. You could also end up with a lot of weird parties getting more seats.

 

The current system is not the greatest but I would rather stick with it than bring in AV.

 

Stick with it why? Fish already addressed your point about 2d, 3rd, 4th etc choices. Do you prefer the fact that because you don't share the majority opinion, that you have no opinion?

 

Also, I'm fairly convinced that if we had AV in the last elections we'd not have a hung parliament because second choice votes will have counted. Sure, it may not be the government you wanted but neither is the one we have now. Also apparently canada is constantly having hung parliaments all the time, and I may be mistaken but I also believe they use the FPTP system.

 

 

Let's not forget another big point unless I've misread, but do the parties themselves not already use AV for electing members?

Edited May 4, 2011 by Rummy

[Dyson]

Voting yes for great justice.

[Tissue Town]

Well that's a fine attitude to have.

Nothing will change if no-one bothers.

 

I'm just being realistic. AV won't be voted in. Everything will be the same.

[Platty]

Let's not forget another big point unless I've misread, but do the parties themselves not already use AV for electing members?

 

Yeah that worked really well.

 

Wrong Milliband anyone?

[EEVILMURRAY]

Oh, and this is the best poster:

Whoever suggested spending the NIGHT drinking coffee deserves to be shot, thus their vote null and void.

How much money would it realistically cost to change to AV though?

The voting slips will pretty much be the same, just with numbers instead of crosses.

It'll just take a bit longer to count, which I think is a fair trade off for a fairer democracy.

Is that assuming the first load of counting makes a result, or the masses of potential counting after that?

Stick with it why? Fish already addressed your point about 2d, 3rd, 4th etc choices. Do you prefer the fact that because you don't share the majority opinion, that you have no opinion?

But that's the point. Alternative voting doesn't give the majority opinion, it keeps giving second and third prizes until someone has enough of a predetermined limit. The fact remains that the Prime Minister may be of a party many people voted as their second choice and had a different party as their first choice.

 

It applies with the bullshit image Supergrunch posted, it implies that the majority want beer but in different factions, this is not how political parties operate, unless they have the same policies under a different name.

 

Let's try it with Eurovision, see how it pans out.

[Paj!]

That's why we need a revolution.

 

[Daft]

Changing the way we vote = changing the way they are elected. Having no effect/affect whatsoever? I honestly believe you are not that naive. Current does not necessarily equal how it will be after AV, in fact I thoroughly believe it does not, though again it'll be something that'll take time and a few elections to be noticeable.

 

The word you are looking for is 'cynical'.

 

My logic is undeniable. The means by which we choose doesn't matter when every option suffers from the same issue, that of a political class that is too far removed from society.

 

It is in fact naive to think that any change to how we vote is anything other than superficial. Westminster belongs to the elites, not the people. Case in point, this is the second referendum ever.

 

"Changing the way we vote = changing the way they are elected." This is true but it is the "they" that is the real issue here; what really needs to be changed.

[Jonnas]

My logic is undeniable. The means by which we choose doesn't matter when every option suffers from the same issue, that of a political class that is too far removed from society.

 

It is in fact naive to think that any change to how we vote is anything other than superficial. Westminster belongs to the elites, not the people. Case in point, this is the second referendum ever.

 

"Changing the way we vote = changing the way they are elected." This is true but it is the "they" that is the real issue here; what really needs to be changed.

 

Then I bring you a different brand of logic: which system is the most likely to, in the long run, change who "they" are? The one that has been in place for decades, or the one that brings something new and perhaps unpredictable to the table?

 

By choosing the current system you are saying "everything is fine by me, please keep treating us like you have always done", while by changing the system, you say "I am unhappy. Please change". As minor as it may seem, simply showing insatisfaction is a step. A baby step, but a step.

 

The current system wins, the current situation stays, that's for sure. A new system is brought, something might change, or not. But it might.

 

 

That said, I don't know much about British politics, but the AV system sounds alluring. We could use something like that around here.

[Daft]

Drastic change needs drastic measures, and that change needs to come from outside.

 

Changing how we vote is nowhere near disruptive enough to have the necessary effect. AV doesn't challenge any of these structures. The Tory party will always be full of old boy Etonians and the other parties aren't much better.

[dwarf]

I'm not really sure what you're expecting from a voting system Daft, that's not the point of this referendum, at least I don't see it in that way.

 

I agree with the bleak situation, and the fact that voting is nigh on pointless, but I disagree with the overall attitude and reasoning.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Fuck it. Russian Roulette.

 

It's win-win.

 

Kinda.

[Daft]

I'm not really sure what you're expecting from a voting system Daft, that's not the point of this referendum, at least I don't see it in that way.

 

I agree with the bleak situation, and the fact that voting is nigh on pointless, but I disagree with the overall attitude and reasoning.

 

I'm not expecting anything from a voting system.

 

All I'm saying is politics is a joke (an absurd one we've all be naturalised to not suspect). It's an old boy network filled with self-serving cunts, for the most part.

 

Are there actually any working class MPs? I have no idea.

[Jonnas]

Drastic change needs drastic measures, and that change needs to come from outside.

 

Changing how we vote is nowhere near enough to have the necessary effect. AV doesn't challenge any of these structures.

 

A quick drastic change is a revolution. And those don't necessarily end well.

 

The big change that is in your reach is change in the longterm, achieved by minor changes over time. Maybe with the AV system, someone completely different manages to achieve a good place in the next elections, allowing them to gain more support with the public and eventually winning the ones afterwards, and then they'll move on to change what the old parties wouldn't.

Of course, this scenario has what, a 1% chance of happening? Maybe there are other 1% scenarios that can happen? I don't know, nobody does.

 

With the current system, you just know that whatever has happened for the last 30 years will keep happening for the next 30. There's 0% chance of any different scenario happening.

 

I understand why you are cynical, but if you refuse to at least attempt to change something, anything, I don't see how you have the right to complain about stagnation at all.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Depends what you consider working class.

 

I know our local MP (I don't believe he's been voted out yet) used* to come down the pub where I worked quite frequently. He was addicted to whatever fruit machine we had. Not something upper class.

 

*I believe he still does, he just came in when I worked. I don't go when I used to work anymore.

 

The big change that is in your reach is change in the longterm, achieved by minor changes over time. Maybe with the AV system, someone completely different manages to achieve a good place in the next elections, allowing them to gain more support with the public and eventually winning the ones afterwards

So basically overall second place wins the election and people think "They did alright", not knowing what their first choice could've achieved, because let's face it - manifestos mean fuck all, meaning they'll vote for them next time.

With the current system, you just know that whatever has happened for the last 30 years will keep happening for the next 30. There's 0% chance of any different scenario happening.

See this is where I'm not sure where you're going:

A] People who vote for their main party but have their second choice voted in and find their experience enjoyable, thus voting them again next time.

B] People who find the current Parliament enjoyable and voting them again next time.

 

There's not really much difference. More than likely people will vote for the name only. At this moment in time it's just a simple battle of spite. People voted Conservative because they couldn't stand Gordon Brown (Who, in my opinion never got a chance to get going himself), and now people are considering voting something other than Conservative just to spite David Cameron.

Edited May 5, 2011 by EEVILMURRAY

[Daft]

A quick drastic change is a revolution. And those don't necessarily end well.

 

The big change that is in your reach is change in the longterm, achieved by minor changes over time. Maybe with the AV system, someone completely different manages to achieve a good place in the next elections, allowing them to gain more support with the public and eventually winning the ones afterwards, and then they'll move on to change what the old parties wouldn't.

Of course, this scenario has what, a 1% chance of happening? Maybe there are other 1% scenarios that can happen? I don't know, nobody does.

 

With the current system, you just know that whatever has happened for the last 30 years will keep happening for the next 30. There's 0% chance of any different scenario happening.

 

I understand why you are cynical, but if you refuse to at least attempt to change something, anything, I don't see how you have the right to complain about stagnation at all.

 

I have no faith in the system. My choice not to vote is a perfectly valid response. Either way, I've already stated I don't think AV will make a difference.

 

No one different is going to magically emerge. That's utterly bizarre wishful thinking. It won't happen because of the issues that is making this referendum pointless. That is what needs to change first. And ONLY then will we have real choices worth voting for.

 

I'm just repeating myself now so I'm not going to carry on. Y'all go vote. It's your right. I'm proud of you.

[MoogleViper]

Are there actually any working class MPs? I have no idea.

 

Proportionately very few, but there are some.

 

Where I'm from (ex mining communities) a lot of the MPs are working class, and some of them are ex miners themselves (Dennis Skinner for example).