ozleicester Posted 20 April 2011 Posted 20 April 2011 Not read the whole thread so apologies if im being repetitive, however as someone who has no bias at all in this (eg Labour/Conservative/dems) i thought id give my opinion here. We have AV in Australia and to me it makes perfect sense. With first past the post... 35% of people vote Fred, 34% vote Joe, 31% vote Bill, so Fred is elected, however what this vote really shows is the 65% of people (those that voted Joe and Bill) did NOT want Fred in power. So two thirds are unhappy with the outcome which leads to whinging.
The Doctor Posted 20 April 2011 Posted 20 April 2011 Fortunately that doesn't happen in a civilized country not founded by criminals Oz - over here you need to have won at least 50% of the seats in the houses of commons, hence those that voted for the current government are in the majority of those that actually voted.
Libertine Posted 20 April 2011 Posted 20 April 2011 Fortunately that doesn't happen in a civilized country not founded by criminals Oz - over here you need to have won at least 50% of the seats in the houses of commons, hence those that voted for the current government are in the majority of those that actually voted. But how often does that happen? Usually around 40% of the vote ends up with over 60% of the seats.
The Doctor Posted 20 April 2011 Posted 20 April 2011 well i'm " a soft-cheese-eating, Mockney bohemian" and couldn't give two shits about politics so i don't know.
DB11 Posted 20 April 2011 Posted 20 April 2011 When did you become 18!?!?! Christ I'm getting old... January 2011
Libertine Posted 21 April 2011 Posted 21 April 2011 This says it all really. Don't like Boulton generally but anyone sticking it to Warsi is alright in my book.
Webbo Posted 21 April 2011 Posted 21 April 2011 Why should I be happier because instead of my first or second choice winning the seat my third choice wins it instead?
Jon the Hat Posted 21 April 2011 Posted 21 April 2011 No. There is sod all basis on which to waste millions changing the system for something which would give the same result.
ousefox Posted 21 April 2011 Posted 21 April 2011 Fortunately that doesn't happen in a civilized country not founded by criminals Oz - over here you need to have won at least 50% of the seats in the houses of commons, hence those that voted for the current government are in the majority of those that actually voted. Don't think that's right as Labour got 41% of the seats in 2005 and remaining in power. Think i've changed my mind on AV though, thought it would be a good idea but not so sure now. Don't like how some people will effectively get more votes than others. I think it should just be one vote for one party. Would definitely like to see a more proportional system than FPTP but not sure if this is a stepping stone towards a more proportional system, or whether there will be little chance of ever getting a more proportional system after this comes in.
ozleicester Posted 21 April 2011 Posted 21 April 2011 Im not sure how the system here works, but im pretty sure it wasnt a simple 51% majority last time? Re the compelling people to vote, i couldnt agree more with the feeling that its wrong (and stupid), interestingly they dont actually compel you to VOTE in OZ, they compel you to go to the voting booth and croos your name off, so technically once youve crossed off.. you can just walk out... (sadly a lot more people dont do this). edit, Just realised i may have oversimplified this. Edit, edit, just checked.. seems that Cons got 36% of the vote in 2010
Guest Bilo Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 FPTP is far from perfect but it's better than AV where the voters for the least popular candidate can ultimately end up deciding the winner of the election. Personally I'll be voting No, I'd rather see PR if we have to have election reform in the future.
Haydos Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 Changed my mind back to FPTP. Just decided the logic of it is much more sound. Also this vid is funny
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 3 May 2011 Posted 3 May 2011 The key in this vote will be how many will be bothered to turn up and vote. It could well be that the 'yes' people have more reason to actually go out and vote than what I would guess is the majority of people that don't really understand what is being offered and so wouldn't be too bothered if they don't register their 'no'. For me there is one simple reason why I feel compelled to vote 'yes' and that is due to no one party wanting to have an open and informed debate about a number of different voting methods. I sense that no party really wants AV to be sucessful (i've heard very little from the yes campaign) BUT if I want the proper informed debate, I have to vote yes to force the issue.
Jimothy Posted 4 May 2011 Posted 4 May 2011 Was always voting yes anyway, but agree with Marcus Brigstocke here, the no campaign has really pissed me off.
Fosse Boy Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13278050 The party broke a 1997 manifesto pledge to hold a referendum because it had "too big a majority," he admitted, but he had pushed for one in cabinet. Yeah sure Ed...
acooling08 Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 Under FPTP I vote for Conservative. Under AV I'd vote 1 Conservatives 2 BNP 3 Lib Dem 4 Labour Which would you lefties rather have me do?
lcfcadam Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 Under FPTP I vote for Conservative. Under AV I'd vote 1 Conservatives 2 BNP 3 Lib Dem 4 Labour Which would you lefties rather have me do? Normally I'm an advocate of freedom of speech / freedom of beliefs, but to be honest I don't understand how you can post something like that on a public forum and not expect mountains of (entirely reasonable) abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Brit being one example amongst many, many reasons why the BNP is not to be accepted as a genuine political party, and rather as a point-blank statement of racism.
acooling08 Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 Normally I'm an advocate of freedom of speech / freedom of beliefs, but to be honest I don't understand how you can post something like that on a public forum and not expect mountains of (entirely reasonable) abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Brit being one example amongst many, many reasons why the BNP is not to be accepted as a genuine political party, and rather as a point-blank statement of racism. Listen mate, I genuinely don't want the BNP to be in a position power. I and many other BNP 'supporters' are just trying to alert the mainstream parties that we do not like such mass immigration and want to scare them into tightening it up. I'm sure at least 50% of BNP voters at the last election would not be happy if they gained a substantial amount of power.
The Doctor Posted 5 May 2011 Posted 5 May 2011 Under FPTP I vote for Conservative. Under AV I'd vote 1 Conservatives 2 BNP 3 Lib Dem 4 Labour Which would you lefties rather have me do? Not be a massive **** by giving any sort of vote to the BNP and not be a slightly smaller **** by voting for the tories. Also not give labour 4th when the last labour regime was a disgrace with unjust invasions of iraq and afghanistan which was then defended by bullshit about WMD's, terrorism and democracy.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.