Metropol

DVB Cornwall wrote:It's wholly incomparable, if you extend the concept to a Parliamentary election the individual party selections for candidature would need to be open to the electorate as a whole and not within the selecting body.

Given that our system is - in theory - meant to involve us electing a representative whom we feel will best represented our local area surely it matters not whom the parties put forwards as parties should be irrelevant.

That is not to say I disagree on the concept of more public say in who gets put forward. I completely disagree with the parachuting in of party favorrites into safe seats or affirmative action style women only shortlists, however I fail to see why a tweak to the final stage would necessitate this?


Out of curiosity, given yourpreviously stated preference for a two part run off within constituencies that failed to gain a 50% victory why exactly do you feel that AV - which whilst not perfect is surely closer than raw FPTP - is such a poor idea?

I'll be utterly honest and admit I don't think AV is brilliant. It is as someone once said a miserable little compromise. I've always preferred your constituency + others system like AMS or AV+. However I feel the current system needs a kick, and if AV is the only option then AV it is.

i think main problem whichever voting system you implement is that it will still be the same cunts you've got to choose from.

i used to be really into politics, but the libdems have shown that in power they are all the same. i don't think it matters in the end.

DVB Cornwall wrote:Not in LD heartlands, their hatred for Labour is underestimated.

That doesn't seem to be the tune I hear most Lib Dem voters sing. And I used to be one of those annoying people who knocked on your door with a Lib Dem clipboard.

LD Heartlands being the SW of England and non Urban Scotland, the areas where Liberalism survived in the 1930s - 1980s. You're more likely to see the Liberal Voter, as opposed to the D side of the party support the Conservatives when selecting a second preference rather than Labour, the distaste for collectivism being the main driver of the anti Labour sentiment. Modern LD territories might well be different, and rebalance the argument slightly.

Pete, my proposal as outlined was the absolute limit of my change tolerance, and would require a subsequent visit to the polls, which I think is infinitely better than giving an automated second chance.

AS I said there using the concept to piss of the Tory vote yes....

Here is the state its truth....

No thanks.

There are many reasons to vote yes, tbh, that isn't one of them. Nor is annoying Nick Clegg a reason to vote no. I had really hoped this debate (and I mean in real life, not specifically on the forum) wouldn't descend into such childishness.




Voting yes to annoy Caroline Flint however is perfectly acceptable in my view.

Pete wrote:There are many reasons to vote yes, tbh, that isn't one of them. Nor is annoying Nick Clegg a reason to vote no. I had really hoped this debate (and I mean in real life, not specifically on the forum) wouldn't descend into such childishness.

Alas it is to late, many people think its a good reason, personnel I also believe that AV would help improve our election system and may lead to enhance PR, and will engage more voters to take part,

I have finally thought of a massively compelling argument in favour of voting "Yes".

You see, the best part of elections - by far! - are all the silly gimmicks that accompany them.

A change to AV will involve lots and lots and lots of silly news articles - explaining the vote to people who say they don't get it, people getting it wrong and saying they've been cheated out of their vote, scandle, contention over the results, swingometers, pundits' commentary, silly little CGI diagrams and heaven knows what else.

All the disadvantages announced by the No campaign - expensive, unproven, complicated - are all actually massive advantages in this regard!

Yes yes yes. I can hardly wait.

Way ahead, it happened in scotland in 2007, and there were no new counts, and there were a number of places where Maj was lower than the number of reject papers

cdd wrote:I have finally thought of a massively compelling argument in favour of voting "Yes".

You see, the best part of elections - by far! - are all the silly gimmicks that accompany them.

A change to AV will involve lots and lots and lots of silly news articles - explaining the vote to people who say they don't get it, people getting it wrong and saying they've been cheated out of their vote, scandle, contention over the results, swingometers, pundits' commentary, silly little CGI diagrams and heaven knows what else.

All the disadvantages announced by the No campaign - expensive, unproven, complicated - are all actually massive advantages in this regard!

Yes yes yes. I can hardly wait.

BEST ARGUMENT EVER!