Yes
No
Not sure
Don't care
We want representatives that put our best interests before their expenses claimsOriginally Posted by MadduckUK
.
AV is Mr Clegg's 13 pieces of silver; you know, the pledge-signing bloke who sold his soul for a share of power that is too hot for him to handle. Now he wants to nip in on the sly more regularly with his pet referendum. I won't support a change that gives oxygen to his type of selfish, personal ambition politics. Meh.
0iD (05-05-2011)
Will it mean you don't vote tactically, though? Surely it depends what your primary objective in voting is?
If your objective is to do the best you can to get a nominally acceptable candidate elected, then you'd vote a different way to how you'd vote if it was to try to prevent, in every way possible, someone you object to getting elected.
Suppose, for example, you want to keep the Tory out, no matter what, but were actually a Green-leaning Labourite supporter. Further suppose that the seat is effectively a very close two-way Tory/LD dominated seat. If you stick to the principle of AV, you'd vote green first, and then perhaps Lab, then LD.
Now suppose the result of the first round is that the Tory guy almost has 50%. Almost, but not quite. If you vote in favour of who you do want, rather than to prevent the Tory getting in, you run the risk that the UKIP vote gets knocked out before your Green one does, and that the transfer of UKIP voters to Tory means the election is over before the third round, when you're Green vote would have been transferred to the LD. But, had you voted LD in the first place, as a protest to keep the Tory out, it may never have gotten the the point where the UKIP votes transferred.
If that seems far-fetched, it's actually not entirely so. All it needs is a situation where the vote between Tory and LD is very evenly matched, and both are very close to the magic 50%. It could be that either party will be tipped over the winning line, depending on which party loses most badly, if the 3rd and 4th placed parties both have votes, and that could be as little as a few hundred, to make the likely recipient hit 50%.
AV might make the likelihood of protest votes less, and it certainly makes to harder to call as to what to do if you're split between a positive vote for someone you do want that you know will lose or a protest vote to keep out someone you definitely don't want.
Oh, and while the above scenario is deliberately pretty artificial, the blend of parties and who is in which position could be numerous. You also run the risk that, for example, as lot of people vote for an extremist party, like the BNP, as a protest vote not expecting them to get elected, but if enough people do it, there could be a shock outcome.
As for the poll, I'm not sure what I'll do, yet. I've got what I feel is my natural inclination, but I;m waiting for the detailed, intense, passionate arguments that we should expect to be forthcoming from both camps prior to a huge change to our electoral system, but so far, I'm hearing pretty much a deafening silence from both sides. It's as if they can't really get motivated to get our there and actually convince us. Where are the campaign leaflets? Where are the door-knockers? Where are the interminable talking heads boring our knockers off for months with the same meaningless drivel, like they do before general elections?
So far, I rather get the impression none of them can really summon up the energy to bother actually making the arguments. And if that doesn't change, big-time and soon, my vote will be for the status quo.
But for the record, I think our system does need a serious kick in the pants, and I've moaned on here many times about the anomalies and level of misrepresentation in the Commons between the percentage of the vote the parties get and the percentage of power in the commons they get, with Labour doing really well out of that in recent years, and the LDs getting shafted big-time.
Our system sure needs change, in my opinion. I'm just not sure this is the change it needs, or even a step in the right direction. It is, in fact, more like a "miserable little compromise". Now where have I heard that opinion before? Oh yeah.
And, while we're all still dreaming, can I have a lottery jackpot win three weeks running, a cure for cancer and peace on earth in our time, please?We want representatives that put our best interests before their expenses claims
Yes, I will sign a pledge to provide all of those if you'll vote for AV.And, while we're all still dreaming, can I have a lottery jackpot win three weeks running, a cure for cancer and peace on earth in our time, please?
Nick Clegg
Deputy PM
House of Cards
London
But Mr Clegg, I'm the one that actually read your manifesto promises (I couldn't get Punch that week and needed a good laugh), and then saw what we got. So I know what pledges (student fees, I presume) and promises mean to you.
Tell you what. You provide all those first, and then I'll vote for AV.
I'm only the deputy not the sherriff you know and I never make a promise I can't keep.
David runs the Country and I put the bins out at no 10. We want to adopt now we've established our roles.
But if you only put out the bins, Mr Rt Hon Deputy Sheriff, perhaps you shouldn't be making promises that involve anything more than precisely when the bins will be put out. Maybe I should be talking to the hand, not the puppet, to get my promises before I commit my vote. I wonder what the hand will want me to vote?
You want to talk to the hand?
Vodka
I think you'd find a hand directed at the whole AV idea in a famous two-fingered gesture.
The duplicitous puppet still doesn't realise who is pulling his strings. Here's a recent photo of Mr Cameron explaining policy to Mr Clegg in Cabinet:
The problem with discussions about voting (and there is nothing new with the AV idea in british politics) is I find it akin two too fatties sitting around on the couch after eating a whole KFC bucket each saying that they are worried about the kids who smoke a little bit of pot.
People often have little idea of what they want, and when they do even less of an idea of how to implement it. They are often very blind to their own shortcomings which they perceive as normal which are often more damaging than whatever it is they were told to feel about in that days guardian.
Quite a few people will merrily say they want large firms to pay more tax than they legally have too, despite the fact that would be illegal on the firms party due to the shareholder obligations and such. But I bet not one of those who are vocally complaing has 'donated' extra tax to HMRC.
The similar thing is true with voting, quite a few idoits voted lib dem without even reading their manifesto as if it was a just protest at the expenses scandal. A talented phd resercher I know did this despite then going on to moan about housing despite the lib dems having some views on the matter which would make it harder for him to get his own flat, which he claimed to want.
This is often the issue, we have these macro level deciesions between parties. If we ignored those who would be excluded and brought in a micro level voting system online then we'd be no better off because half the time people aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Then we also have the school yard pack bullying syndrome. Most of us figured out that if your actively engaged in bullying someone as part of the mob, you yourself will be fine. Some politics follow this same pattern. An example would be some of those who are shouting for a tax on 'bankers' as if every banker was responsible for the crisis. Due to the low number of bankers who are eligible to vote, this could easily be carried through by a truly democratic populist agenda. When these things have happened in the past we've seen economic flight, the 50p tax for instance cost quite a bit as many companies such as hedge funds were left thinking "at most only half our staff are british cits anyway, why not go to CHF".
I suppose this is why I find it hard to be motivated by talks of AV and such, to me democracy is so imperfect, all this debate is just about what angle we should piss against the tide at.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
It amuses me the people that think it'll make any difference anyway.
The only thing that does more u-turns than politicians is a rowing boat with one oar.
I loathe every single one of them, as far as I'm concerned wanting to hold office should be grounds for exclusion.
The minute their arses hit the seat, if not before, the lobbyists are over them like flies round dung and the next thing you know <lobbyist agenda #151> is suddenly passed.
Power indeed corrupts but I've never seen anything corrupt as fast as being in government.
did anyone get a booklet through the post explaining av?
With fptp you can change the boundaries to benefit your party and changed the outcome , with AV you can't,that itself is one major reason to vote yes, among many others.
HD 5850
ddr3 4gig
ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3
phenom ii x6 1055t
http://trust.hexus.net/user_profile.php?user=78910
http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...ml#post2076430
I will be voting yes
If some parties are so against it how come they can't define it for the public, make you question the no campaign, and self interest.I will be voting yes
HD 5850
ddr3 4gig
ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3
phenom ii x6 1055t
http://trust.hexus.net/user_profile.php?user=78910
http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...ml#post2076430
Erm you can do this with AV thou?
The AV proposals are still voting for a 'seat' are they not?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
