How will you vote if you want neither FPTP nor AV

[butchersapron]

You tried to associate this great change you had with AV and NO votes with opposition to your great system.

Edit: the first associated with the crusty old system - the second with the hey we love good things like Nick Clegg

 

[danny la rouge]

[...] If I vote for FPTP I am saying "I am happy with this system, lets not bother changing it ever" , which I is not my opinion.[...]

You don't have an option to vote for FPTP. The question is "Do you want AV, yes or no?"

 

[joustmaster]

You don't have an option to vote for FPTP. The question is "Do you want AV, yes or no?"

undoubtably no will be taken to mean the above.

 

[butchersapron]

undoubtably no will be taken to mean the above.

What above? By who?

 

[killer b]

coz they tried it out in Scotland and it worked God forbid anything that works should go national!!

in what way does it 'work'?

 

[danny la rouge]

in what way does it 'work'?

We don't have AV for Holyrood elections; we have a version of what the Jenkins Commission subsequently recommended for Westminster.

 

[killer b]

i know it isn't AV... i was wondering what she meant by it 'working' though - is there a high voter turnout? are people satisfied with the electoral system for the scottish parliament?

 

[butchersapron]

i know it isn't AV... i was wondering what she meant by it 'working' though - is there a high voter turnout? are people satisfied with the electoral system for the scottish parliament?

But why - to link any answer to anything is wrong.

 

[killer b]

eh?

 

[butchersapron]

eh?

Sounded good.

 

[joustmaster]

What above? By who?

a vote for no to av, will be taken to mean yes to fptp by the media et al

 

[lighterthief]

"Look, everyone voted yes, so now it's AV, that's all they're going to get - I hope they're happy with the system!"

But better that than being stuck with fptp for evermore. Translating a 'no to av' vote into an attempt to undermine the current coalition strikes me as being very short-sighted. It's very unlikely we'll get another opportunity.

 

[butchersapron]

But better that than being stuck with fptp for evermore. Translating a 'no to av' vote into an attempt to undermine the current coalition strikes me as being very short-sighted. It's very unlikely we'll get another opportunity.

To do what?

 

[butchersapron]

a vote for no to av, will be taken to mean yes to fptp by the media et al

Then make sure it's not.

 

[stethoscope]

But better that than being stuck with fptp for evermore. Translating a 'no to av' vote into an attempt to undermine the current coalition strikes me as being very short-sighted. It's very unlikely we'll get another opportunity.

Personally, I think the following is short-sighted...

1) Taking the first alternative you're offered when its a 'miserable compromise';
2) Not using any mechanism available that might de-stabilise the coalition and their ideological cuts and marketisation agenda, especially that far from the Lib Dems softening the damage of the Tories, they are actually helping them push this stuff through.

 

[Athos]

Surely, at the moment, there's bigger issues i.e. the cuts. Didn't we ought to focus our efforts on talking them? And voting accordingly? That means using no vote to undermine the lib dems, and, thereby undermining the coalition.

 

[danny la rouge]

Surely, at the moment, there's bigger issues i.e. the cuts. Didn't we ought to focus our efforts on talking them? And voting accordingly? That means using no vote to undermine the lib dems, and, thereby undermining the coalition.

This is a perfectly respectable position.

(I am frankly amazed, by the way, at the amount of bandwidth spent on the topic here. Out in meat space, I've scarcely come across the topic. The one time I did hear it discussed, several people involved in the discussion had been unaware there was a referendum in the offing, far less what it was about).

 

[Lord Camomile]

The one time I did hear it discussed, several people involved in the discussion had been unaware there was a referendum in the offing, far less what it was about).

That's why we have to come on here to discuss it

It's a fair point though, for me it's just trying to get my head round it as, if I'm voting for anything I like to try and understand what I'm voting for, and what my vote will mean. Edgoocatin' the ignorant, innit?

 

[Onket]

I've not spoken to anyone in person about it apart from my missus.

But I'm going to today. And it's a 'No' vote I'll be suggesting.

 

[butchersapron]

Is that on the possibility of messing up the cuts agenda by a NO Onket? Or is there something else that's swayed you?

That's a question to everyone who was undecided or voting YES originally whose changed their mind i suppose.

 

[Onket]

Yes, it's the cuts issue.

Sore head today?

 

[butchersapron]

Nah, i'm immune - gotta plough right through it

 

[Onket]

Good lad.

 

[kabbes]

Is that on the possibility of messing up the cuts agenda by a NO Onket? Or is there something else that's swayed you?

That's a question to everyone who was undecided or voting YES originally whose changed their mind i suppose.

It was messing up the cuts agenda that was by far and away the biggest issue for me.

But it was also the realisation that AV is just the same as FPTP but with a slight rearrangement of seats. I want big changes and I see PR as a pathway to these changes -- it became clear to me that voting for AV would remove the chance of PR for the rest of my life.

There were other issues. Arguing with a8 made me put all my thoughts into a coherent and consistent* order. And doing that hardened my line, made me realise what was really important here.

That's a beautiful irony underneath this, of course -- the man employed by the ERS to argue in favour of AV was actually instrumental in leading to me arguing against it to others.


*at least as much as is allowed by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. One for maths fans, there.

 

[boing!]

Surely if a No vote had any real chance of destabilising the coalition, and therefore the program of cuts, the Tories would not have campaigned so vigorously for it. Or am I missing the point here?

 

[Orang Utan]

don't think either option will make any difference.
i won't be voting cos i will be 200 miles away from the polling station.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Surely if a No vote had any real chance of destabilising the coalition, and therefore the program of cuts, the Tories would not have campaigned so vigorously for it. Or am I missing the point here?

Hmm, fair point. The classic double bluff? Or would that be a triple?

Dammit, I'm confused again!

 

[cliche guevara]

 

[butchersapron]

Surely if a No vote had any real chance of destabilising the coalition, and therefore the program of cuts, the Tories would not have campaigned so vigorously for it. Or am I missing the point here?

They didn't campaign vigorously for it - they first insured themselves against a YES vote by fiddling the boundaries then did what they were expected to. Nothing else. What other options did they have? Their gamble is that the lib-dems are tied to them no matter what the outcome.

 

[kabbes]

They have not campaigned vigorously at all. They've barely broken sweat.

On the whole, they would prefer to retain the status quo. Not to mention that backing a winner always looks good and they were smart enough to see who would win and who would lose this race.

Don't mistake that for thinking that they are really that bothered either way, though.