Do you really think if the country votes yes to AV, parliament is going to bother touching the subject of electoral reform again within the next 20 years? The Labour party is supporting AV. You say that AV will lead to PR but that Labour don't want PR. So why are they supporting AV? Because they know it won't lead to PR...marksi wrote:Under what circumstances, presuming a "no" vote, do you believe the question of electoral reform would be asked again?
It won't be for at least 20 years.
Vote yes and even if it is decided in 10 years that it needs replacing, I suspect that first-past-the-post won't ever be an option again.
The Alternative Vote
Regardless of which way the vote goes, we're not going to get an option to change again for at least 20 years. And for that reason, you need to be asking is AV better than FPTP, not is AV better than PR. The only way that we will be given the option of PR is if we lose our current two party system, which we will not do by keeping FPTP, but AV may give us that chance.Chie wrote:Do you really think if the country votes yes to AV, parliament is going to bother touching the subject of electoral reform again within the next 20 years? The Labour party is supporting AV. You say that AV will lead to PR but that Labour don't want PR. So why are they supporting AV? Because they know it won't lead to PR...marksi wrote:Under what circumstances, presuming a "no" vote, do you believe the question of electoral reform would be asked again?
It won't be for at least 20 years.
Vote yes and even if it is decided in 10 years that it needs replacing, I suspect that first-past-the-post won't ever be an option again.
Officially, the Labour Party is. Some in the party aren't.Chie wrote:Do you really think if the country votes yes to AV, parliament is going to bother touching the subject of electoral reform again within the next 20 years? The Labour party is supporting AV. You say that AV will lead to PR but that Labour don't want PR. So why are they supporting AV? Because they know it won't lead to PR...marksi wrote:Under what circumstances, presuming a "no" vote, do you believe the question of electoral reform would be asked again?
It won't be for at least 20 years.
Vote yes and even if it is decided in 10 years that it needs replacing, I suspect that first-past-the-post won't ever be an option again.
I'm as yet undecided on which way to vote. But I do have a view on some of the arguments put forward.
Argument 1 = "Do (/Don't) vote for AV because it will/won't let in Tories/Lib Dems/BNP"
This argument irritates me massively but it keeps coming around (most typically in the form of "it'll harm the Tories"). Voting for/against a voting system based on who it will/won't "let in" is obviously terribly silly.
Argument 2 = "It will be expensive to implement"
This irritates me even more because people who buy into that may vote "no" when they mean "not now".
Argument 3 = ANY argument that criticses AV using sporting analogies
Plainly apples and oranges.
Argument 1 = "Do (/Don't) vote for AV because it will/won't let in Tories/Lib Dems/BNP"
This argument irritates me massively but it keeps coming around (most typically in the form of "it'll harm the Tories"). Voting for/against a voting system based on who it will/won't "let in" is obviously terribly silly.
Argument 2 = "It will be expensive to implement"
This irritates me even more because people who buy into that may vote "no" when they mean "not now".
Argument 3 = ANY argument that criticses AV using sporting analogies
Plainly apples and oranges.
No campaign should hang them-self for this, I have not decide which way I will vote but that is disgrace that there are pushing out utter crap, and lies. So 1, 2, 3 cost lots more money than X? how its. Its the same ballot papers, the same people counting, its the same systems used for EU electionscdd wrote:
Argument 2 = "It will be expensive to implement"
.
Lib dems should have just stuck to there guns and demand Referendum on the voting system to included PR, not forcing any change but a proper quest to the people.
-
Lorns
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: Thu 24 Mar, 2005 22.48
- Location: A room with a view. 15 Hookey street, the Edge.
- Contact:
Thankyou Mark. I am swaying towards the Yes vote. I have and will always use my right to vote. Whether it be a right or wrong decision or makes a change for better or worse. I would be ashamed of myself if i did not cast my vote.marksi wrote:Excellent. It's obvious what my opinion is - yes to AV - not because I think it's great, but because it is slightly better than what we have now, and a no vote will result in no progress to any form of PR for at least a generation.Lorns wrote:See this place is giving me more of an educated decision towards which way to vote. I have so missed you metropol the local elections also take place on the same day as the AV referendum round my neck of the woods.
But how you vote Lorns, is entirely up to you. The important thing is that you have a think about the issues and decide for yourself what YOU think is best... and that you vote one way or the other rather than not at all.
I do love reading the differing opinions on here. It makes things so much clearer.
The arguement against the AV vote will lead to the BNP gaining more seats in westminster really gets on my tits though.
Mental anxiety, Mental breakdowns, Menstrual cramps, Menopause... Did you ever notice how all our problems begin with Men?
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
I think its worth considering the statement that, "this will be the last time to vote for a different voting system for a generation/20 years/a lifetime".
That pre-supposes that we will return to solid results returning either of the main parties to power in the next few elections - and yet all of the evidence of elections around Europe would suggest its more likely we will have a succession of coalitions.
That being the case, the minority parties within these coalitions may push a full PR agenda in each parliamentary term.
So perhaps this isn't the last we'll hear of an alternative to FPTP.
That pre-supposes that we will return to solid results returning either of the main parties to power in the next few elections - and yet all of the evidence of elections around Europe would suggest its more likely we will have a succession of coalitions.
That being the case, the minority parties within these coalitions may push a full PR agenda in each parliamentary term.
So perhaps this isn't the last we'll hear of an alternative to FPTP.
The biggest problem I have with AV is that it will exaggerate swings. The Thatcher landslides in the 80's and the Blair landslides in 1997, 2001 and his almost-landslide (in terms of seats) in 2005 would have been even bigger. Some research figures suggest that if AV were in operation in 1997, Labour would have had over two-thirds of the seats in the Commons, which would have meant a majority of well over 200 seats and the Conservatives could have been reduced to double figures in terms of seats. No party of any colour should have a majority as large as that. If an election is close, AV will probably be slightly more proportional than FPTP, but not by a great deal. Research on the 2010 election result has shown that around 20-30 seats could have had a different result if it was conducted under AV.
That will probably depend what happens to the Lib Dems at the next election in 2015. If they manage to re-build their support and hang on to a decent number of seats, it may be possible. Otherwise, they will be reduced back to a rump like the old Liberal Party used to be, and it will be back to two-party politics - Labour vs. Conservatives, and with the Conservatives dead against any reform, and Labour split down the middle as it is with AV, the issue is dead for the foreseeable future.Gavin Scott wrote:I think its worth considering the statement that, "this will be the last time to vote for a different voting system for a generation/20 years/a lifetime".
That pre-supposes that we will return to solid results returning either of the main parties to power in the next few elections - and yet all of the evidence of elections around Europe would suggest its more likely we will have a succession of coalitions.
That being the case, the minority parties within these coalitions may push a full PR agenda in each parliamentary term.
So perhaps this isn't the last we'll hear of an alternative to FPTP.
AV gives me the opportunity to vote Green without any fear of my vote being 'wasted'.
I reject the argument that AV means we wont get PR - voting yes in this referendum goes some way to articulating my disapproval of FPTP. It's hard to see a No vote leading to any further electoral reform discussion.
I find "the loser can win" argument to be a complete red herring, and with it go any comparisons as to how many seats x would have won in n seeming disproportionate - these are directly comparing how the electorate voted in an election which was not running under AV; crucially voting habits will change.
I want to object to DVB Cornwall's argument too, except he doesn't really seem to have one, other than he's happy happy having no electoral control over the government which strikes me as being a strange position but one tough to argue against.
I reject the argument that AV means we wont get PR - voting yes in this referendum goes some way to articulating my disapproval of FPTP. It's hard to see a No vote leading to any further electoral reform discussion.
I find "the loser can win" argument to be a complete red herring, and with it go any comparisons as to how many seats x would have won in n seeming disproportionate - these are directly comparing how the electorate voted in an election which was not running under AV; crucially voting habits will change.
I want to object to DVB Cornwall's argument too, except he doesn't really seem to have one, other than he's happy happy having no electoral control over the government which strikes me as being a strange position but one tough to argue against.