Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

AV referendum, May 2011

  • Total voters
    144
Andrew Hertford said:
I didn't say they couldn't, I said they wouldn't be able to rely on it like they have in the past under fptp. Parties will still be able to achieve majorities in parliament with av, but if they do, it'll be a fairer reflection of the electorate's wishes instead of just being handed to them on a plate after achieving a mere 30 to 40% of the vote.
Click to expand...
What does this garbage even mean? AV will give parties big majorities on 30-40% of the vote just like FPTP (Aus 2007 election, Labour 44% vote, majority of 16) or even give larger majorities (BBC link I previously posted).

I don't agree that lib dem second prefs will go to the tories at the next election, why do you think that? If the coalition makes it that far then only their own diehards will probably vote for them anyway and traditionally they're far closer to Labour than the tories.
Click to expand...
Because any LibDem voters that would have voted LD 1st, Lab 2nd are likely to be among those LibDem voters who have already jumped ship. There was some polling done by YouGov which backed this up.
The effect av might have on the tory vote is only a side issue in the debate anyway.
Click to expand...
Then why do you and a8 keep bringing it up.
 
articul8 said:
True enough - but given that they are nowhere near the threshold under FPTP in 99% of the seats that's not much of an immediate concern.
Click to expand...

It is if they can't hold onto the seat they have and takes them further away from the few seats they are now just within a chance of contending.
 
articul8 said:
You misunderstand what I was saying - the point is not that the Greens would get their due share of representation under AV (they wouldn't) but they would at least get to see how much support they actually have (they don't at present as the turnout is so low at the Euros, and their vote gets squeezed from tactical voting at GEs).
Click to expand...

So your new argument is that the point of AV is not to get them a due share of representation but to see how many people support them. That's it? That's your argument? That's how smaller parties will be "rewarded with its true degree of 1st preference support"?

Whoop-de-do! That's me convinced. :facepalm:
 
articul8 said:
Remember that the next GE is probably 4 years away. By then the LDs will have begun to re-establish their "equidistance"
Click to expand...
How the FUCK did you manage to come to that conclusion?
The LDs are a neo-lib-led party.They're where they're gonna be - right now.
 
articul8 said:
D'oh :facepalm: The whole point is that they haven't had a first "bite of the cherry" because their candidate has been eliminated before their vote counts.
Click to expand...

FPTP does not eliminate any candidates. But the candidate with the most votes wins.

Surely that is a basic requirement for fairness, that - the candidate with the most votes wins ..

But in the case of AV that does not apply because the losing candidates get another bite of the cherry, they may even overturn the will of the electorate and cause a candidate who DID NOT get the most votes to win.

How is that fair or even logical?
 
weltweit said:
Surely that is a basic requirement for fairness, that - the candidate with the most votes wins ..
Click to expand...

why should one third of voters be able to elect a candidate opposed by two-thirds of the electorate. This can happen under FPTP.

AV means every voter can both a)vote for the party of their choice and b)influence the outcome.

Why is this not fair?
 
Streathamite said:
How the FUCK did you manage to come to that conclusion?
The LDs are a neo-lib-led party.They're where they're gonna be - right now.
Click to expand...

Neo-lib led certainly. But there are more LDs facing Tories in 2nd, than needing to win by beating Labour. Appealing only to Tories is a suicidal position for them to take. They aren't that stupid.
 
redsquirrel said:
What does this garbage even mean? AV will give parties big majorities on 30-40% of the vote just like FPTP (Aus 2007 election, Labour 44% vote, majority of 16) or even give larger majorities (BBC link I previously posted).

Because any LibDem voters that would have voted LD 1st, Lab 2nd are likely to be among those LibDem voters who have already jumped ship. There was some polling done by YouGov which backed this up.
Then why do you and a8 keep bringing it up.
Click to expand...

I only "keep bringing it up" in response to others responding etc...etc...

I realise that it's an inconvenient truth for those on the left who support fptp to deal with, but the tories are clearly more likely to be worse off with av. Your own link backs that up.
 
articul8 said:
why should one third of voters be able to elect a candidate opposed by two-thirds of the electorate. This can happen under FPTP.
Click to expand...

The FPTP means that the candidate who gets the most votes wins. It is simple an effective, the more candidates there are the smaller the majority it is likely that the winner will achieve but still it harks to the simple fair rule - the candidate who gets the most votes wins.

articul8 said:
AV means every voter can both a)vote for the party of their choice and b)influence the outcome.

Why is this not fair?
Click to expand...

Because they get two bites of the cherry, while others do not. Fundamentally unfair. Can you really not see that?

Plus AV can overturn the choice of the first preferences, how can that possibly be fair?

Why do you think UKIP the Greens et al don't get many / any MPs? it is because they are not popular choices amongst the electorate, not because the voting system is unfair.
 
Andrew Hertford said:
I have this delicious image of you standing over your laptop, screaming and waving your arms about and yet still able to type your posts at the same time. Keep it up mate! :D
Click to expand...
I have this undelicious image of you as a complete,braindamaged moron.
Unfortunately, it closely reflects reality.:rolleyes:
 
Because it's the surest indicator that the political effect of a No vote is likely to benefit the Tories.
 
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
466
dessiato
dessiato
Humberto
Heroin Addiction in the UK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
181
Views
5K
BristolEcho
BristolEcho
Back
Top Bottom