Forum • Non-Gaming • News and Politics

Alternative Vote: yes or no?

  • Page

    of 88 First / Last

    Previous
  • Tom_Servo 13 Apr 2011 10:50:26 13,413 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    The referendum is on the 5th of May, so it's soon approaching. A lot of people on here are politically aware, so I assume many of you will be voting.

    I'm interested to see which way people are voting, and why. I'm guessing a lot of people on here will be ticking "yes", but I'd like to hear why (or why you'll be ticking "no"!).

    I was talking about this with someone the other night, and they're voting no. The main reason they gave was that it would give smaller parties more power. The problem with this is that parties with more extreme beliefs, such as the BNP, could end up with a say in parliament. But surely that's society's problem and isn't a great reason to vote no?
  • consignia 13 Apr 2011 10:51:24 1,430 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    My first choice is yes, but second choice will be no.
  • mcmonkeyplc 13 Apr 2011 10:52:06 35,991 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yes, not cause AV is the best system but because it's a stepping stone to PR which is much better in my opinion. Tiny shit holes shouldn't get a bigger say in how my country is run than bigger shitholes.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • disusedgenius 13 Apr 2011 10:52:39 4,936 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Yes, because hopefully it will change the way people approach voting. It means that you can vote for the person you actually want first, and then vote tactically after that.
  • MetalDog 13 Apr 2011 10:53:58 23,448 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Yes.

    Status quo is shit. This isn't great, but better than first past the post and may pave the way for more genuinely proportional representation. If more extreme parties get a bigger cut, maybe we'll face the issues that make people like that instead of just forking the sign of the evil eye at them.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • thedaveeyres 13 Apr 2011 10:54:30 8,340 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The great irony of the AV debate is that Cameron is publically backing "No" but wants a "Yes" as otherwise Clegg will be shot at dawn by his party for making so many concessions for absolutely nothing in return, and hence the coalition will collapse sooner rather than later forcing a General Election.

    Milibrand is publically backing "Yes", but wants a "No" for the reasons outlined above.

    Clegg needs a "Yes" or he's fucked.

    I'm undecided. I'm trying not to let my vindictive streak towards Clegg and Cameron influence my decision, but it's hard not to...

    D****** ******r

  • CosmicFuzz 13 Apr 2011 10:55:06 18,966 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Definitely yes. It's annoying that it's not the PR the Lib Dems said at the start, but it's better than FPTP.
  • Psychotext 13 Apr 2011 10:55:40 49,606 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Which vote pisses off Cameron most? I'll do that one.

    This post is sponsored by Apple and the iPhone 4S. Think different.

  • Tom_Servo 13 Apr 2011 10:56:30 13,413 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I saw a No campaign advert on Channel 4 yesterday, and it was absolutely bloody awful. Rik Mayall was in it as Alan B'stard (so that's The New Statesman ruined for me), and its main point seemed to be "It's too complicated for you unwashed masses". Very poor, and did nothing to convince me of the merits of a no vote.
  • Dougs 13 Apr 2011 10:57:29 59,501 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yes. Runs the risk of more hung parliaments and minority governments but FPTP is fundementally unfair imo
  • disusedgenius 13 Apr 2011 10:59:06 4,936 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    its main point seemed to be "It's too complicated for you unwashed masses".
    I've never really understood this argument anyway, we use AV for other elections without any bother - the Mayor of London and whatnot.
  • consignia 13 Apr 2011 11:01:16 1,430 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    thedaveeyres wrote:

    I'm undecided. I'm trying not to let my vindictive streak towards Clegg and Cameron influence my decision, but it's hard not to...
    Surely this one of the things were you should really ignore what politcians behind this, since it's an important consitutional change. I'm really pissed off with the Lib Dems in general, but I won't let it affect my vote on perhaps one of my key issues.

    I'm hoping that due to general voter apathy, only people with an interest in change will take to the polls, and it gets through that way. I don't know the reality of how much support this has.

    Did anyone that horrendous No Campaign ad with Alan B'stard? Not only was just terrible in general, the problems it presented were from the ones that occured due to FPTP.
  • Grunk 13 Apr 2011 11:01:25 4,718 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    As didusedgenius says AV allows you to vote for who you want first, but allows you (by not assigning your alternative) to also say who you don't want.

    So it gives your vote a bit more power, i.e. it doesn't get discarded if someone else gets more in the first pass.

    PR would probably be a fairer representation, although I don't really see how it would work without creating a load of extra MPs or having them work part-time.

    TBH the whole thing will remain broken until parties are disbanded and the MP chosen represents their constituents without the bias of a party manifesto.
  • andytheadequate 13 Apr 2011 11:01:36 7,149 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I'm going to vote yes because of the shitty gutter advertising that the No vote has used.


    "If you vote yes then you are killing Our Brave Boys In Afghanistan tm"

  • Load_2.0 13 Apr 2011 11:02:37 15,003 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    There is a huge lack of information being passed to the public regarding how this works and a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude to overcome.

    They really need to have some clear, concise adverts explaining what this change will mean running at prime time to get through to the public.

    They interviewed a few "people on the street" and they had no idea or simply contradicted themselves "we like the new system, but will vote for the old."

    I suspect it will be the extremes on the left and right that vote with large numbers abstaining due to apathy or lack of awareness.


    Edit - Masses makes me sound like a twit, sorry.
  • thedaveeyres 13 Apr 2011 11:03:21 8,340 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Why do you think the Tory-sponsored "No" campaign is so ridiculously over the top? Hmmmm?

    D****** ******r

  • Tom_Servo 13 Apr 2011 11:03:57 13,413 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    consignia wrote:
    Did anyone that horrendous No Campaign ad with Alan B'stard? Not only was just terrible in general, the problems it presented were from the ones that occured due to FPTP.
    Yeah, posted about it a few posts above you. What was B'stard saying again? I remember it being terrible too, but the bit that stuck in my mind was the massively insulting section in the classroom.
  • mcmonkeyplc 13 Apr 2011 11:07:01 35,991 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I can see the lack of information working in favour of the Yes campaign.

    I just asked my collegue if he's going to bother voting and he said no cause he doesn't know anything about it and he doesn't care. Normally that would annoy me. This time it doesn't cause I think it'll work in favour of the people that care and the people that care enough seem to be the people that want change.

    I might be wrong, the conversative group might all strike out at once.

    Yes we can!

    /voms

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • consignia 13 Apr 2011 11:07:47 1,430 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    consignia wrote:
    Did anyone that horrendous No Campaign ad with Alan B'stard? Not only was just terrible in general, the problems it presented were from the ones that occured due to FPTP.
    Yeah, posted about it a few posts above you. What was B'stard saying again? I remember it being terrible too, but the bit that stuck in my mind was the massively insulting section in the classroom.
    Yeah, you posted while I writing mine. He was basically promising loads of stuff, and then saying he doesn't have to deliver (which is what happens now), and that under AV it makes the situation worse somehow. I turned off during the classroom section, it was too infuriating, but it also had terrible situation where the voting system was compared to a horse race, an analogy flawed at so many levels.
  • consignia 13 Apr 2011 11:09:49 1,430 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    I can see the lack of information working in favour of the Yes campaign.

    I just asked my collegue if he's going to bother voting and he said no cause he doesn't know anything about it and he doesn't care. Normally that would annoy me. This time it doesn't cause I think it'll work in favour of the people that care and the people that care enough seem to be the people that want change.

    I might be wrong, the conversative group might all strike out at once.

    Yes we can!

    /voms
    Yeah, I reckon there is considerable voter apathy on this, so hopefully it will get through, just like the recent Welsh reforms that no-one gave a toss about.
  • X201 13 Apr 2011 11:10:53 13,443 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    I saw a No campaign advert on Channel 4 yesterday, and it was absolutely bloody awful. Rik Mayall was in it as Alan B'stard (so that's The New Statesman ruined for me), and its main point seemed to be "It's too complicated for you unwashed masses". Very poor, and did nothing to convince me of the merits of a no vote.
    The Yes one was just as bad, painting every MP as self-serving, idle and not bothered about their constituents.




  • Tom_Servo 13 Apr 2011 11:10:57 13,413 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Load "$" wrote:
    They really need to have some clear, concise adverts explaining what this change will mean running at prime time to get through to the masses.

    They interviewed a few "people on the street" and they had no idea or simply contradicted themselves "we like the new system, but will vote for the old."
    Like I said, I saw a No advert during primetime on C4. That's it though, I haven't seen any TV adverts for Yes or billboards for either campaign. The No advert seemed to be utter bollocks though, I wouldn't be surprised if its points were exaggerations, or flat-out fabrications.

    I haven't really looked at this since secondary school, so I'm having to refresh a bit. Both campaigns are doing a poor job, I don't know any more now than I did when the referendum was announced. Both sides might think that only those with an interest will vote anyway, so there isn't much point (I'd disagree). The turnout is poor enough at a General Election, so I dread to think what it'll be like for this.
  • LetsGo 13 Apr 2011 11:13:40 4,603 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    No.

    The person with the most votes should get elected.

    Not the person with the second most 'first' votes.
  • Tom_Servo 13 Apr 2011 11:14:50 13,413 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    consignia wrote:
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    consignia wrote:
    Did anyone that horrendous No Campaign ad with Alan B'stard? Not only was just terrible in general, the problems it presented were from the ones that occured due to FPTP.
    Yeah, posted about it a few posts above you. What was B'stard saying again? I remember it being terrible too, but the bit that stuck in my mind was the massively insulting section in the classroom.
    Yeah, you posted while I writing mine. He was basically promising loads of stuff, and then saying he doesn't have to deliver (which is what happens now), and that under AV it makes the situation worse somehow. I turned off during the classroom section, it was too infuriating, but it also had terrible situation where the voting system was compared to a horse race, an analogy flawed at so many levels.
    Haha, I forgot about the horse race! That was amazing.

    Here's the advert, if anyone's curious.
  • Grunk 13 Apr 2011 11:20:48 4,718 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LetsGo wrote:
    No.

    The person with the most votes should get elected.

    Not the person with the second most 'first' votes.
    So if you don't vote for the winner you don't get representation?

    Not very democratic really.

    Bear in mind that the last majority government had ~35% of the votes, not really a majority.
    If you add in the people who didn't vote (not that I think you should) then it's more like ~20% of the voting population.
  • Psychotext 13 Apr 2011 11:21:12 49,606 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Here's the advert, if anyone's curious.
    Ow iz it wiv votez an tings blud?

    This post is sponsored by Apple and the iPhone 4S. Think different.

  • X201 13 Apr 2011 11:21:43 13,443 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Here's the Yes one

    Lovely harking back to the "All MPs are..." tar and feathering hysteria that went on during the expenses scandal.
  • Tom_Servo 13 Apr 2011 11:22:56 13,413 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    Here's the advert, if anyone's curious.
    Ow iz it wiv votez an tings blud?
    From the description:

    Governments would be selected through backroom deals

    That's awf - HEY WAIT A MINUTE

  • Page

    of 88 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply