Finnegan Posted 7 April 2011 Author Posted 7 April 2011 The BNP have political motives... you (and the rest of sensible people) just don't agree with them. Almost the entire BNP ideology is based on hate, prejudice and bigotry. How is that in any way comparable to a desire for broad, economic equality? I can understand people disagreeing with socialist politics because they think it doesn't reward ambition, motivate true graft, etc, but I'm sure we can all at least appreciate that in a Utopian parallel world it's a fairly nice idea to think we could all live in a fair and balanced society where nobody lives beneath the bread line?
Alexikokopops Posted 7 April 2011 Posted 7 April 2011 Sorry, Alex, I forgot. I'll edit the poll just for you. THANKS! I Fucking love me some soft cheese. I'm such a perfumed ponce. As an aside, my own mother called me a poofter tonight. This country.
Fosse Boy Posted 7 April 2011 Posted 7 April 2011 Getting AV would mean we'd never get the chance of using a true form of PR or an STV system in future. This is a poor compromise on when Cleggy Boy and his cohorts promised to me and countless others daft enough to vote for himin 2010, so I'll be voting no to AV. Plus, how exactly does this ensure each continuency returns a majority? Second, third and fourth preferences are just what people stick down because they don't want a certain party to get in, not because they genuinely feel they'd be represented by said preference should their number one choice not win. Really is a sad reflection on our political spectrum how any parties left of centre* are geared towards a "keep the Tories out" mindset to scaremonger their core voters rather than actually wanting to earn their votes genuinely through engaging more and being representive of their heartland communities. Like I say though, unless we get proper proportional represantation this negative way of thinking will continue to be employed. *I use that term loosely with New Labour and the Lib Dems
Libertine Posted 7 April 2011 Posted 7 April 2011 Getting AV would mean we'd never get the chance of using a true form of PR or an STV system in future. This is a poor compromise on when Cleggy Boy and his cohorts promised to me and countless others daft enough to vote for himin 2010, so I'll be voting no to AV. You could also say that with a No vote, they could claim there is no appetite for electoral reform and we won't get another chance for generations.
Fosse Boy Posted 7 April 2011 Posted 7 April 2011 You could also say that with a No vote, they could claim there is no appetite for electoral reform and we won't get another chance for generations. That's a fair point and no doubt that's line the Tories will push in future ad infinitum if No prevails, but like I say I don't particularly see the merits of AV over FPTP anyway. The complexity of it will most likely turn more people off voting, whereas STV/PR is a piece of piss (vote for a party, fi enough others vote for them they get a seat) as is FPTP (vote for the bloke you like best, if he gets more than everyone else he wins).
Ultra Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 AV would at least ensure that MPs would have to secure the support of a majority of voters. I remember a Tory being elected in Leicester East (before the arrival of KV) back in the 80s on about 35% of the vote due to the opposition vote being split. Under AV that couldn't happen. And yes, I realise it would also stop Labour or LibDem MPs being elected on similarly flimsy mandates.
Finnegan Posted 8 April 2011 Author Posted 8 April 2011 I don't really buy into the "complexity" of AV, either, really. It sounds a little long winded when explained but actually in practice, all the voter has to do is go "I want that one.. or that one if I can't have that one." We do that every fucking week down the pub!
Phube Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 I don't really buy into the "complexity" of AV, either, really. It sounds a little long winded when explained but actually in practice, all the voter has to do is go "I want that one.. or that one if I can't have that one." We do that every fucking week down the pub! But I don't go down the pub anymore ... How will I cope?
Finnegan Posted 8 April 2011 Author Posted 8 April 2011 To be fair, Phube, any system would be too complex for you. :sge:
Libertine Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 The weird thing is, it can actually be less proportional than FPTP when there's a landslide victory (not that that's very likely to happen again for a while). Research showed that in '97 the Tories could've ended up with about 70 seats under AV.
Finnegan Posted 8 April 2011 Author Posted 8 April 2011 Surely all such research is purely speculative?
Libertine Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 Surely all such research is purely speculative? Of course. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8506306.stm
Houdini Logic Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 Almost the entire BNP ideology is based on hate, prejudice and bigotry. How is that in any way comparable to a desire for broad, economic equality? Are you still talking about 'any party with legitimate political motives' or just the SLP? If it's the former then I can see this quote coming back to haunt you.
Houdini Logic Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 I'm not voting because I don't understand. He don't understand.... He don't understaaaaaaaaaannnnd.... He's DB11.. He don't understand!
The Doctor Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 I'm not voting because i'm not quite old enough - However i didn't realise there was a referendum coming up so i probably wouldn't have voted even if i could.
Benji Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 Stick with what we've got. Modern politics has evolved into more than a 2 party stage (based on actual number of votes) and so whatever we do, there's bound to be plenty more coalitions in the upcoming elections, regardless of the method. Make the vote a legal requirement, then whatever the result is people can put up with it and not jump on the "well that's not what I voted for" bandwagon.
Babylon Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 I don't really buy into the "complexity" of AV, either, really. It sounds a little long winded when explained but actually in practice, all the voter has to do is go "I want that one.. or that one if I can't have that one." We do that every fucking week down the pub! It's not hard, but we are talking about a country where 35% of the population currently find it too taxing to cross one box and vote. Anyway I couldn't care less about it.
Phube Posted 8 April 2011 Posted 8 April 2011 Stick with what we've got. Modern politics has evolved into more than a 2 party stage (based on actual number of votes) and so whatever we do, there's bound to be plenty more coalitions in the upcoming elections, regardless of the method. Make the vote a legal requirement, then whatever the result is people can put up with it and not jump on the "well that's not what I voted for" bandwagon. Couldn't agree more. As long as there was a "None of the above" box to cross number... etc.!
Benji Posted 9 April 2011 Posted 9 April 2011 Couldn't agree more. As long as there was a "None of the above" box to cross number... etc.! Who is this "none of the above" party you speak of, they sound interesting.
Fosse Boy Posted 9 April 2011 Posted 9 April 2011 Oh the irony of coercing people to exercise their democratic right... Nothing irks me more than apathy but forcing people into the booths isn't going to cure it. Besides, how would you punish those who refused to participate?
ACF Posted 9 April 2011 Posted 9 April 2011 Oh the irony of coercing people to exercise their democratic right... Nothing irks me more than apathy but forcing people into the booths isn't going to cure it. Besides, how would you punish those who refused to participate? Well they do over here, I think it's a $250 fine if you do not vote.
Sly Posted 9 April 2011 Posted 9 April 2011 They should make it online as well, or open up booths where people can go and vote online. Cut out the needless couting. We live in a modern age, lets adopt a modern approach. AV for me.
Filbert_Ross Posted 9 April 2011 Posted 9 April 2011 nope, will get wrecked the night before seeing Pete Doherty at leic 02
Stevosevic Posted 9 April 2011 Posted 9 April 2011 Meh. We are only voting for two main parties that are so similiar anyway. I will vote, but not particularly bothered.
Phube Posted 9 April 2011 Posted 9 April 2011 Oh the irony of coercing people to exercise their democratic right... Nothing irks me more than apathy but forcing people into the booths isn't going to cure it. Besides, how would you punish those who refused to participate? Quite simply... Death!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.