Do you want AV for the UK? Cast your vote here!

[butchersapron]

I'm not sure this would fuck up the libdems. It would hurt the 'left' wing of the party far more than the right, and since the right wing is in complete control of the leadership, what damage would be done to them?

It doesn't matter whose in control of the party if the MPs careers are seen as tied to a series of policies that hurt them electorally. In fact, it's better. Stop the thing putting me out of a job - no but the leadership with their safe seats support it. Conflict.

Politics.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I don't like that voters who vote for the least popular candidates get their second preferences counted while everyone else does not!

that makes me lean further towards a "no"

The current FPTP is pretty hard to defend, but AV seems only moderately less of a pile of shite. In my (Wokingham) constituency (John Redwood - and no i bloody well didn't vote for him) he's still going to win and my vote is still worth sod all.

I wish I could believe that the LD's believe in electoral reform for the sake of democracy rather than for the sake of the LD's.

Having said that, I can't see them being the second choice of labour voters at the next election, so I'm less sure than I was about the "AV will give the lib dems the balance of power forever" argument. I can't see labour touching them with a barge-pole after the next election, and if they were suddenly to cosy up to labour, I'm not sure anyone would take them seriously again (not that i'm sure anyone will anyway...)

 

[redsquirrel]

Whether the tories like it or not isn't really the main issue, but the vast majority of them don't want a yes because they know they won't be able to rely on big fat majorities ever again. Only fptp gave them that.

OK then post some evidence to back up this claim. AV can result is even larger majorities than FPTP.

a8s continual claims that AV hurts the Tories have repeatably shown to be somewhere between doubtful and total bollocks.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I do understand that, yet I also genuinely think that AV is marginally less bad as a system than FPTP without AV (as was pointed out on the other thread, we will still have a fptp system with AV).

I will probably do what I usually do and not vote, but I will not rejoice at a no vote.

I've got a feeling the yes camp are going to win this one. Most people I know are voting yes. Not decided myself yet.

 

[butchersapron]

I've got a feeling the yes camp are going to win this one. Most people I know are voting yes

Come on...don't make it too easy

 

[Brixton Hatter]

This referendum is simply a vote about whether to polish a turd. It's utterly pointless.

A YES vote is a vote for the current system, which is bollocks.

A NO vote is a vote to the polish the turd (Or perhaps roll it in glitter!) leaving us with another undesirable, unrepresentative system.

There's little point voting either way really. It's a distraction from the main issues. The tories have stitched it up by insisting the vote is about AV only. If the question was something like "do you want to change to some form of PR" then clearly there'd be a 'yes' vote.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

OK then post some evidence to back up this claim. AV can result is even larger majorities than FPTP.

a8s continual claims that AV hurts the Tories have repeatably shown to be somewhere between doubtful and total bollocks.

I can't because we haven't tried it yet. Can you prove it won't??

There are more centre left voters than there are centre right voters, the centre right hasn't managed to get more than 50% of the vote at a general election since 1935. The tories will get their usual 30 to 40% first preference votes but their vote is likely to dry up when it comes to second preferences.

But as I said before, whether or not it helps the tories is not the main issue, it's which system out of the two on offer can most fairly reflect the wishes of the electorate, and for me there's no question that it's AV.

 

[butchersapron]

I can't because we haven't tried it yet. Can you prove it won't??

There are more centre left voters than there are centre right voters, the centre right hasn't managed to get more than 50% of the vote at a general election since 1935. The tories will get their usual 30 to 40% first preference votes but their vote is likely to dry up when it comes to second preferences.

But as I said before, whether or not it helps the tories is not the main issue, it's which system out of the two on offer can most fairly reflect the wishes of the electorate, and for me there's no question that it's AV.

This only works if you count the extreme right lib-dem party as of the centre left.

Why would you do that? Oh. yeah, i remember. Vote lib-dem

 

[redsquirrel]

I can't because we haven't tried it yet. Can you prove it won't??

Well you made the claim, but this shows that the Tories were likely to have achieved majorities if past elections had been AV. Add to that the fact that a large proportion of those LD voters that would give their 2nd preference to Labour before last year are now likely to vote Labour first I'd say that AV is at least as likely to benefit the Tories as Labour.

There are more centre left voters than there are centre right voters, the centre right hasn't managed to get more than 50% of the vote at a general election since 1935. The tories will get their usual 30 to 40% first preference votes but their vote is likely to dry up when it comes to second preferences.

What a bizarre point, the centre-left hasn't managed to get 50%+ of the vote for donkeys years either (or, depending of what definitions you're using, ever?) and the Labour vote at recent general elections has been in a similar range.

 

[Plumdaff]

I was all for voting "No" until recently. I think it will have a ridiculously low turn-out and the "Nos" will win it, but I am concerned about the following;

In many ways I'm much more concerned about the constituency boundary changes than AV, although every government seems to gerrymander in office.

I don't believe for a second a "No" vote will hurt the Lib Dems half as much as people say. They're expecting it, they know electorally they are fucked, and if anything they may cling even more tenaciously to the coalition agreement and try and get through a full-term. Seeing as the Hughes wing of the party couldn't even muster a proper revolt on student fees what will change?

I also hate the fucking "No" propaganda. It's right wing UKIP style bullshit and my hackles rise every time I see it.

I'm also concerned that a "No" vote will be used by all major parties as a reason to sit on the status quo for another 25-30 years. So we're stuck with FPTP my entire adult life, possible.

So I'm currently a "frying pan and fire" voter, tbh.

 

[gentlegreen]

It's costing a mint to hold the referendum, so might as well give it a go.

 

[articul8]

So, while you "stand in that tradition", your ethics aren't theirs. You're prepared to shill for the piss-weak "alternative to FPTP", rather than having the courage of your convictions. Neither Hardie nor Miliband have a record of selling out, let alone so cheaply.

Neither Hardie nor Miliband (Ralph!) had such a crass, bone-headed stupidity when it comes to the question of reform. Opposing real but limited reforms in the name of some unachievable perfect scenario is totally alien to the genuine tradition of socialism. If that attitude had prevailed then we would have no welfare state and no NHS.

Pragmatic realism isn't equivalent to selling out - the fact that I am supporting a Yes vote in this referendum doesn't mean I've stopped thinking we need to go further, achieving PR and building a viable left alternative. It means I think that the best way of achieving radical reform isn't to turn your nose up at even the most moderate reform.

 

[articul8]

fuck the already fucked, bring on a Tory majority, keep going with the cuts.

Vs

Fuck the Tories, get rid at the next election, stop these cuts

 

[stuff_it]

I didn't know there was a 'move to mercury' option

*books tickets*


Clearly it is a bit of an odd and funny made up way of doing things, so I voted no. Half way made up system fail imho.

 

[Streathamite]

No.

It is less democratic that FPTP, it will punish small parties, and encourage centrist vote chasing, do nothing to remove the problem of safe seats, and voting no will cause problems for the coalition.

/\/\/\/\/\
This.
Or,as Mr Apron puts it, rather less elegantly:

Fuck the lib-dems up -vote NO!

 

[Streathamite]

There are more centre left voters than there are centre right voters, the centre right hasn't managed to get more than 50% of the vote at a general election since 1935.

A winner!Most Brain Damaged Statement of The Year!
a) when did the "Centre-Left" get 50%+? b) Libdems = "Left?" Yeah, RIIIIGHT!!!
C) any proof of that centre-left adavantage? Thought not.Next!

 

[Streathamite]

I'm not sure this would fuck up the libdems. It would hurt the 'left' wing of the party far more than the right, and since the right wing is in complete control of the leadership, what damage would be done to them?

It would cause a massive conflict between the grassroots and the leadership- in the LibDems, that matters

 

[Streathamite]

Good question, was it the 73 Euro one? I was 8 so didn't vote.

'75, Marty

 

[Streathamite]

But I don't think it is obvious that damaging the libdems only - ie and not the tories - damages the tory govt. I don' think it's obvious that it does.

It does, in that it adds another reason to a growing list of doubts for their backbenchers, activists and ordinary members-people who are extremely unhappy already

 

[butchersapron]

I was all for voting "No" until recently. I think it will have a ridiculously low turn-out and the "Nos" will win it, but I am concerned about the following;

In many ways I'm much more concerned about the constituency boundary changes than AV, although every government seems to gerrymander in office.

I don't believe for a second a "No" vote will hurt the Lib Dems half as much as people say. They're expecting it, they know electorally they are fucked, and if anything they may cling even more tenaciously to the coalition agreement and try and get through a full-term. Seeing as the Hughes wing of the party couldn't even muster a proper revolt on student fees what will change?

I also hate the fucking "No" propaganda. It's right wing UKIP style bullshit and my hackles rise every time I see it.

I'm also concerned that a "No" vote will be used by all major parties as a reason to sit on the status quo for another 25-30 years. So we're stuck with FPTP my entire adult life, possible.

So I'm currently a "frying pan and fire" voter, tbh.

A yes vote is guaranteed not to hurt them, in fact to help them.

If you're putting hour faith in politicians to deliver whatever your holy Grail is you'll have a long wait. Those who want pr need to understand it'll only come when there's a powerful threatening extra-parliamentary movement advancing on a range of fronts, not when a bunch of self serving careerist scumbags decide that that's what the people really want and after all, we're here to represent them aren't we guys?

This vote has nothing to do with that needed campaign.

 

[Santino]

Failure in the referendum (allied to the realisation that they've fucked the PR movement for a generation) plus disastrous local election results could well cause panic in some Lib Dems. And panicked people could do anything.

I still think there's a good argument for some of them to try to save their own hides/seats by splitting the party. They're not going to get another sniff of power for several decades so they might as well preserve the tatters of their careers.

 

[butchersapron]

/\/\/\/\/\
This.
Or,as Mr Apron puts it, rather less elegantly:

Fuck the lib-dems up -vote NO!

Inverse also true.

Want to help the lib-dems - vote YES.

 

[Streathamite]

Inverse also true.

Want to help the lib-dems - vote YES.

absolutely- in fact, to rescue their leadership

 

[butchersapron]

...and by extension:

Want to help the coalition- vote YES.

 

[butchersapron]

Can't see 21% being enough no mater how the lib-dems try and twist it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Neither Hardie nor Miliband (Ralph!) had such a crass, bone-headed stupidity...

Ah, so people who oppose your view are crass, bone-headed and stupid?

Good to know that you hold those who don't agree with you in contempt!

....when it comes to the question of reform.

So you've investigated their personal histories and found no such incidents recorded, have you?
Nah, you just co-opted them in an attempt to bolster your argument, didn't you?

Opposing real but limited reforms in the name of some unachievable perfect scenario is totally alien to the genuine tradition of socialism.

By whose definition of socialism?
Yours appears to mean taking anything offered, even if it's functionally the same as what we already have.
Now, democratic socialism may at heart be about reform, but wishing your turd to be replaced with a gilded turd isn't even reformism, it's magical thinking.

If that attitude had prevailed then we would have no welfare state and no NHS.

Please stop co-opting history to support your arguments when your understanding of that history is obviously shallow. It makes you look desperate.
Any reasoned analysis of history shows us that we would have had a national health service and a welfare state. What a Labour government contributed was to the shape of the system.

Oh, and trying to spin an analogy between voting on electoral "reform" and the situation at the creation of the welfare state? Piss poor.

Pragmatic realism isn't equivalent to selling out - the fact that I am supporting a Yes vote in this referendum doesn't mean I've stopped thinking we need to go further, achieving PR and building a viable left alternative. It means I think that the best way of achieving radical reform isn't to turn your nose up at even the most moderate reform.

Thing is, "pragmatic realism" on this issue can take you down one of two paths. You, being partisan and a shill to boot, refuse to see that voting "no" is an act every bit as "pragmatically realistic" as your position.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A winner!Most Brain Damaged Statement of The Year!
a) when did the "Centre-Left" get 50%+? b) Libdems = "Left?" Yeah, RIIIIGHT!!!
C) any proof of that centre-left adavantage? Thought not.Next!

Even when Blair and Roger Liddle were mutually masturbating each other pre-'97, it was accepted by the people talking about a "permanent coalition" between Labour and the Lib-Dems that a) the wibs would lose about a third of their number to the Tories, and b), even a "permanent coalition" couldn't guarantee a majority, so even the Lib-Dems have never sen themselves as primarily a "centre-left" party (an artifact mostly of Kennedy's more overt leftward stance), but rather as a "party of the centre" per se.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It would cause a massive conflict between the grassroots and the leadership- in the LibDems, that matters

From what I've gathered, talking to the LD "grass roots" round here, the massive conflict has already started. A loss on the electoral reform front will light a fire under activists who're already pissed off about Clegg grasping at the "miserable little compromise" straw in the first place.

 

[articul8]

...and by extension:

Want to help the coalition- vote YES.

David Cameron wants to damage his own coalition?. Idiocy.

 

[butchersapron]

No he doesn't. That's why he doesn't really care if his position loses. That's because keeping the lib-dems on board so that they can force through as much destruction as possible is his/their larger aim. That will be helped by a lib-dem victory on the referendum.

If you vote YES you help them achieve this.