Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

AV referendum, May 2011

  • Total voters
    144
Just so that I know whether to bother subscribing or not -- this thread is going to be an exact carbon copy rerun of the other one, yes?
 
ViolentPanda said:
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.
Click to expand...
REALLY? Lambeth, aren't you?I'm getting the same in Haringey-even in the "leafy" bits they're fed-up
e2a:I mean fed-up with all the hatred
 
kabbes said:
Just so that I know whether to bother subscribing or not -- this thread is going to be an exact carbon copy rerun of the other one, yes?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. A8 has already forgot the posts he made at the start of this one, and do we go round and round. The tories support a no vote - are you a tory? Etc
 
butchersapron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is there any point voting by trying to 2nd guess the effect it may have on LDs or Tories?

I'm hoping that whatever the result, the LDs will see less point in hanging around post referendum.
 
butchersapron said:
Yes there is. To inform yourself of how AV might work if introduced.
Click to expand...

A report I read yesterday commented that in recent elections the tories would have done worse under AV. I suppose it must be that visceral hatred of them is more than visceral hatred of labour. It is hard to know how AV might work because there aint a huge number of countries that run it in this form. The idea that it will do some good for smaller parties is pretty spurious. The BNP would be very unlikely to do better, such extremists wont get enough "2" or "3" votes. The big winners probably would be the LDs and that is reason to be skeptical for sure. But 2 party tribalism will be entrenched further with a "no" vote. As is so often the case under "democracy" we are looking at the lesser of 2 evils here. I'm still persuadable. Only political hacks, nerds and geeks could begin to claim to understand the full implications. Don't know if you count yourself in that bracket Butchers.
 
butchersapron said:
he doesn't really care if his position loses. .
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence for this? Wouldn't he tip the wink to the Cameroons to at least start equivocating about backing AV? He has given a setpiece speech to launch the NO vote. The Tory press are united behind a NO. ConHome and others have already started speculating about the damage that would be done to his standing if there is a Yes.

Cameron wants to protect the interests of the Tories. He is campaigning actively for a No vote. If anyone doesn't care about the result it is Clegg, who is already on record as attacking AV anyway.
 
articul8 said:
Where's your evidence for this? Wouldn't he tip the wink to the Cameroons to at least start equivocating about backing AV? He has given a setpiece speech to launch the NO vote. The Tory press are united behind a NO. ConHome and others have already started speculating about the damage that would be done to his standing if there is a Yes.

Cameron wants to protect the interests of the Tories. He is campaigning actively for a No vote. If anyone doesn't care about the result it is Clegg, who is already on record as attacking AV anyway.
Click to expand...

He can't lose - that's the point, he can do all this tory party cheerleading without caring. He has to because of the grassroots in fact. But he doesn't care. He doesn't care what the outcome is - beyond allowing him to do as much damage as possible. That's looking like propping up the lib-dems for as along as possible. A ye vote does that propping up.

Why can't you remember any posts that you've made or posts that have replied to your posts btw?
 
butchersapron said:
3 party tribalism now!


What is you people's problems with loyalty and principles btw? Why invent a term to smear them?
Click to expand...

Because they've made the mistake of thinking that they are necessarily disguises for bigotry and intolerance? Or because they are recognised as potentially serious challengers to the attempted liberal status quo?

Take your pick - Louis MacNeice
 
articul8 said:
You haven't dealt with why helping the Tories achieve their goals is a good idea.
Click to expand...

You haven't established that voting NO will do this. In fact, the results seem to show that people understand it will do the opposite.

3 threads now - each thread you argue, the tories vote no, to vote no makes you a tory - are you a tory? You've been hammered on each one. You're paid to come up with arguments to vite yes. I think you may be a saboteur though.
 
Voting is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Tories' goals don't include any kind of voting system whatsoever.
 
kabbes said:
Voting is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The Tories' goals don't include any kind of voting system whatsoever.
Click to expand...

For the people a8 is paid to represent voting is an end in itself. Get a fairer system in (one that just happens to reflect their political interests) by voting for it. Voting for them is good.

The rest?The other stuff? Politics? Well we're apolitical (which allows them to take money from every piece of shit going).
 
butchersapron said:
For the people a8 is paid to represent voting is an end in itself. Get a fairer system in (one that just happens to reflect their political interests) by voting for it. Voting for them is good.

The rest?The other stuff? Politics? Well we're apolitical (which allows them to take money from every piece of shit going).
Click to expand...

A position which, I have to admit, appeared far less unreasonable to me before the rude awakening of the last election and its fall-out. Boy, has that been an eye-opener.
 
Why would the Tories invest time, money and resources - as well as breath - on campaigning for a No vote if it didn't bother them one way or the other, or they would actually rather see a Yes to futher their interests via the coalition?

It doesn't make sense unless as a bizarre conspiracy theory (they really want a yes but know they are unpopular so shout loudly for a No.)

Of course, they want to fight off electoral reform as a means to more important (for them) ends. But that makes it all the more questionable why anarchists and their fellow travellers should be making common cause with practically every Tory MP in Westminster.
 
Another thing..

Supporters of AV say that this way you will never again get someone elected without a majority of the electorate voting for them, but that is only with a mixture of first and second preference votes, it does not count. There is nothing wrong with fptp in producing a winner which is what is required of the electoral system. AV is cheating.

And, has anyone done the maths, is it not possible under AV that still no one might emerge with more than 50% of the combined first and second preferences? or perhaps third preferences as well, it is just a joke...
 
weltweit said:
Another thing..

Supporters of AV say that this way you will never again get someone elected without a majority of the electorate voting for them, but that is only with a mixture of first and second preference votes, it does not count. There is nothing wrong with fptp in producing a winner which is what is required of the electoral system. AV is cheating.
Click to expand...

err the whole point of having preferences is that they transfer when the relevant candidate is *eliminated* - the voter who has preferences transferred has the opportunity to cast *one* effective vote, just as does the voter who gives a 1st preference to the leading candidate. Otherwise you are assuming that the significant % of voters who don't vote for candidates in 1st or 2nd posiion under FPTP have absolutely no preference over which one takes the seat.

AV just means the candidate who is most popular with the whole electorate wins.
 
articul8 said:
Why would the Tories invest time, money and resources - as well as breath - on campaigning for a No vote if it didn't bother them one way or the other, or they would actually rather see a Yes to futher their interests via the coalition?

It doesn't make sense unless as a bizarre conspiracy theory (they really want a yes but know they are unpopular so shout loudly for a No.)

Of course, they want to fight off electoral reform as a means to more important (for them) ends. But that makes it all the more questionable why anarchists and their fellow travellers should be making common cause with practically every Tory MP in Westminster.
Click to expand...


Because they have to, whilst not caring that much.
 
why the subterfuge then? They could just say "AV essentially keeps and reinforces FPTP" (that's what you argue?). But they are actually opposed to it, because they know it makes life harder for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mojo pixy
Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?
74 75 76 77 78
Replies
2K
Views
64K
Elpenor
E
editor
  • Poll
Do you want a separate sub forum for the General Election 2024?
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
ska invita
  • Poll
Do you support the UK increase in the military budget?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
7K
weltweit
weltweit
RubyBlue
Who to vote for?
Replies
14
Views
465
dessiato
dessiato
Humberto
Heroin Addiction in the UK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
181
Views
5K
BristolEcho
BristolEcho
Back
Top Bottom