Daft Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Politics is rotten to the core. It doesn't matter how we vote when the only options are either shit or a slightly nuttier shit. The end result will always be shit. Politicians are completely disconnected from the society they are attempting to represent and understand.
MoogleViper Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 What is STV? It's what you get if you don't use protection.
Supergrunch Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 What? No Cat video. I can't understand that. Will a suspiciously young John Cleese do? He doesn't explain the actual calculation though...
The Mad Monkey Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 You think it's better? I'm suprised given your recent crusade on our apparent lack of civil liberties(I have nothing against you btw, but that was a pretty crazy thread). I'd have imagined you to be more a supporter of AV than FPTP given that, though. I don't think either is better, that's why I said it probably wouldn't make any difference. And given that, it's just a waste of money to change systems.
Rummy Posted May 4, 2011 Author Posted May 4, 2011 So neither is better than the other? They're definitely 100% absolutely equivalent to each other? Interesting, I beg to differ, but I'm no scientist so meh. ALSO FOR EVERYONE! This is quite a cool little shindiggy someone posted on my wall, see how voter power will change in your area with AV; http://www.voterpower.org.uk/ Politics is rotten to the core. It doesn't matter how we vote when the only options are either shit or a slightly nuttier shit. The end result will always be shit. Politicians are completely disconnected from the society they are attempting to represent and understand. I'm not going to be voting either way. All it is is an empty gesture of appeasement. You too? I'm not saying this is going to super magically fix everything, but it is going to do more than leaving the system as it is. To say that what you currently have is so bad, but not even want to try something else just strikes me as silly! Besides, as I said before, this encourages politicians to try and appeal to a wider range of people now too in places where they haven't been reaching over 50%. Or maybe in places where their support is declining because they are shit? (Ok, this'll be a flawed argument following but; Imagine women never got the vote, I doubt we'd be contemplating a whole system reform.)
Mr-Paul Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 I don't think either is better, that's why I said it probably wouldn't make any difference. And given that, it's just a waste of money to change systems. 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.
Platty Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Voting No. Don't think it's the right system to bring in.
Tissue Town Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Won't bother voting because nothing will change. I predict that AV won't get passed, and everyone will point and laugh at Nick Clegg. It will be funny for all of 2 minutes.
Mr-Paul Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Won't bother voting because nothing will change. I predict that AV won't get passed, and everyone will point and laugh at Nick Clegg. It will be funny for all of 2 minutes. Well that's a fine attitude to have. Nothing will change if no-one bothers.
Platty Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Why though? Why is the current system better? I didn't say the current system was better. I just don't think AV is any better and I don't think you should replace a bad system with another bad system.
Rummy Posted May 4, 2011 Author Posted May 4, 2011 Really, Platty? Not you too Don't make do with David! (tho actually you're probably in a totally different constituency to be fair) Something WILL change. The point that change could occur is amazing. Changes lead to further changes. I can't believe how apathetic people are being, defeated by our...oh, our CURRENT system. Bet before last election you were all saying Lib Dems would never get into government, either. This isn't just a voting reform, it's opening a door to change. It's a referendum that works, if it works, it opens the door for more in future. It's not just affecting the voting system, I honestly believe it will set a benchmark for people to refer to when our politics are disagreed with, and the ones in high and safe power know it. Now, I'm going to go stand in the corner and stop being so crazy. Also as much as that cat video seems silly, I think it does quite a good job of summing it up in a simple/extreme way.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Also as much as that cat video seems silly, I think it does quite a good job of summing it up in a simple/extreme way. It did. I hadn't understood it entirely before I watched that video.
Debug Mode Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Voting 'Yes' here. The amount of votes that are essentially wasted through the current system doesn't sit right with me. Now, hopefully I can convince some friends tonight to actually think about what they would agree with and vote accordingly tomorrow as some of these lazy fuckers never even bother voting. I doubt the system will change, but like hell am I going to let that stop me voting. I still can't understand the attitude of non-voters..
Platty Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 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.
ipaul Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Yeah but AV will allow terrorists to enter the government. It will also remove our liberties. It doesn't ensure that all votes are counted it actually removes 90% of all votes, and the existing government gets to choose where to allocate the votes. Obviously you and your close mind can't see this, as you've been brainwashed and will listen to the lies and propaganda that has been spread by the YES campaign. I went to the effort of signing in to thank this :P
Mr-Paul Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Think about it. AV will give MPs more legitimacy. They'll have over 50% support of their constituency. The cat video explains it extremely well. If you don't understand how it goes into politics from the cats, let's put it into political terms. In the constituency there are four candidates. Conservative: 37% Labour: 23% Lib Dem: 23% Green: 20% So under our current system the tory would win, although they only have the support of just over one in three of their constituents. 63% of the constituency are more left leaning and are not having any of their political views represented. Under AV, the elected MP will have a level of support of over half of their electors. It may not be perfect, but can you really tell me that it isn't fairer than the current system?
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 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 only one vote from each person will be counted. At least this way a lot of votes won't get wasted. Still, I'll never understand the logic behind the British and American voting systems. The Danish system makes so much more sense to me, and that isn't even due to me being Danish!
Daft Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 You too? I'm not saying this is going to super magically fix everything, but it is going to do more than leaving the system as it is. To say that what you currently have is so bad, but not even want to try something else just strikes me as silly! Besides, as I said before, this encourages politicians to try and appeal to a wider range of people now too in places where they haven't been reaching over 50%. Or maybe in places where their support is declining because they are shit? (Ok, this'll be a flawed argument following but; Imagine women never got the vote, I doubt we'd be contemplating a whole system reform.) 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.
Recommended Posts