Yes/No to AV - Urban Votes

[littlebabyjesus]

Go on then - cut the psychology of middle class entitlement away from the supporting social conditions that produce it.

But no, of course, you're too busy being a twat tonight.

What's this bullshit about 'sense of entitlement'. I don't think I do have that 'middle class sense of entitlement' at all. I wish I did, though. I think a sense of entitlement is a good thing.

 

[butchersapron]

What's this bullshit about 'sense of entitlement'. I don't think I do have that 'middle class sense of entitlement' at all. I wish I did, though. I think a sense of entitlement is a good thing.

What do you mean what is this bullshit? I mean the sense that you have a right to tell other people how to act and to say how and why their acts can be and are justified. The same sense that won't leave an election lost until they get to say how their lost vote should impact on others.

And, yes, you fucking reek of it.

 

[ernestolynch]

What do you mean what is this bullshit? I mean the sense that you have a right to tell other people how to act and to say how and why their acts can be and are justified. The same sense that won't leave an election lost until they get to say how their lost vote should impact on others.

And, yes, you fucking reek of it.

Like the losing tossers in Belarus demanding that the popular pro-Lukashenko vote be overturned....another LibDem campaign.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Fantastic, I've only just found this thread and I've just put the yes vote into the lead.

Up yours Cameron, Urban75 says yes to fairer votes!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What do you mean what is this bullshit? I mean the sense that you have a right to tell other people how to act and to say how and why their acts can be and are justified. .

Sorry, but you're just making stuff up now. Point to one post of mine that has done this. From my whole time on Urban.

 

[ymu]

Your argument is well stated. PR by itself would not have prevented the cuts, but other systems might have (e.g. potential recall of candidates, but citizen-initiated referenda are another possibility).

But that wasn't the point of my post. I was just pointing out how superficial and baseless the "No. The end" statement was.

Here's the thing: Anyone who categorically states that they *know* defeating AV at this referendum will have good longer term consequences is peddling exactly the same sort of unproven, speculative BS as the folks who *know* it is a stepping stone to a more representative system. The only certainty in this choice between two crappy alternatives is that the consequences of a No are about as difficult to predict as the consequences of a Yes. Maybe a No brings down the government, maybe it leads to renewed efforts for more proportional voting reform. But maybe the Lib Dems, seeing a thrashing at the polls should the government collapse, figure that the only option is to cling on and hope things get better. And maybe the pro-FPTP spin machine (e.g. Tories, most of Labour, all of big business including most media) convinces the overwhelming majority of the public that the people have voted for FPTP. Same thing goes for possible outcomes of a Yes.

It's a shitload more complicated than "No? The end."

Of course it's more complicated than that. That's why there are scores of pages on urban rehearsing the arguments over and over and over again.

None of us can predict the future, but we are all expected to use our best judgement to do just that every time we vote, when we decide which lot of self-selected candidates will screw us over the least badly if we put them into office.

The Lib Dem collapse means AV is no threat to the Tories any more. They'll get the yellow Tory second preferences and do well out of it, now that the Lib Dems are surely not going to win more than a small handful of parliamentary seats for the foreseeable future.

So we're on a no-win, unless you use your vote to try and speed the implosion of the Lib Dems so that this government collapses sooner rather than later.

The NO vote will win, so we can get a test of sorts of these predictions. It's not a perfect test - it's not against the alternate universe where the YES vote won - but it's summat.

Now, can you point me to the history of British electoral reform where:

- we made significant changes every few years, just as the previous changes were bedding in?

- failed attempts to achieve electoral reform led to a permanent blocking of those proposals?

You're right about the uncertainty - but that's the whole fucking point of analysing it. Properly - not through a series of ungrounded what-ifs that bear no relationship to reality.

 

[doddles]

Agreed. I just can't help responding to shitty, unreasoned posts. I can see that there are good arguments for either Yes or No (but not for FPTP or AV), so as long as people make an informed choice, I can disagree with them but can't call them stupid for doing so. I can call people stupid who rehash all the reactionary crap (yes or no) that's been circulated.

 

[joustmaster]

my brother just sent me a photo of his voting slip. He had drawn a big cock and balls on it.

 

[Santino]

my brother just sent me a photo of his voting slip. He had drawn a big cock and balls on it.

Lib Dems are coming fifth, below the Green Party and Cock and Balls in some wards.

 

[8ball]

my brother just sent me a photo of his voting slip. He had drawn a big cock and balls on it.

Was the cock pointing at the 'Yes' box or the 'No' box?

 

[xenon]

I read most of that massive thread in P&P, the salient points at least and thought about them over the last few weeks. In the end though, I voted Yes. I wasn't convinced by anything said about PR in relation to this referendam. For some a Yes vote, would mean the possibility of profound reform kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable future. Opposite to that I tend to see a No victory, will mean the political establishment backing NO, can claim and have been claiming that there's no apetite for reform. These points seem to cancel each other out, making any issue of PR irelevant to this vote as far as I'm concerned.

Besides the sort of reform we need to have effective representation for the bennefit of the majority, isn't gonna come about by what poxy system you choose to elect people to Westminster anyway. Since this system is what's being discussed though AV's a sticking plaster. FPTP is a gaping wound. I also wasn't in the end, convinced by the various speculative scenarios that suggest AV would be a worse system than FPTP for smaller parties. The latter already favours 2 main parties. AV may favour the Libdems. Maybe they're beyond redemtion and someone else can grow into the vacume anyway. Clegg's finished regardless and we'll see what happens for this administration. Voting to retain the status quo with no definite positive effect on destroying the coalition didn't feel right to me.

 

[joustmaster]

the cock was "aimed" at the no.
but the word "nonsense" was more towards the yes

 

[treelover]

Well, I wasn't going to vote for the status quo and FPTP is definitely that...

No Quo pictures please...

 

[toblerone3]

Ooh nearly exciting nearly neck and neck. Come on a couple of people who support AV come on and vote on this poll!

 

[Wolfie Smith]

Now, can you point me to the history of British electoral reform where:

- we made significant changes every few years, just as the previous changes were bedding in?

- failed attempts to achieve electoral reform led to a permanent blocking of those proposals?

- Representation of the People Act 1918 followed by Representation of the People Act 1928? Reform Act of 1867 followed by Reform Act of 1884?

- Failure of Labour's 1930 Bill to bring in AV was followed by 80 years where electoral reform was pretty much off the political agenda?

 

[ymu]

- Representation of the People Act 1918 followed by Representation of the People Act 1928? Reform Act of 1867 followed by Reform Act of 1884?

- Failure of Labour's 1930 Bill to bring in AV was followed by 80 years where electoral reform was pretty much off the political agenda?

Interesting-looking paper (.pdf):

Abstract: This paper investigates the justifications for electoral reform cited by supporters of a change to the alternative vote (AV) for British parliamentary elections, arguing that some of these reasons are inconsistent with the larger goals proclaimed by these reform advocates. The idea that AV is ‘a step in the right direction’ – proportional representation (PR), in the eyes of most of the supporters of change – is highly questionable, both in empirical and theoretical terms.

AV is a majoritarian, not a proportional, electoral system and fits well within Arend Lijphart’s majoritarian model of democracy, promoting two-team political competition. Small parties face a higher threshold to entry into Parliament than under the single-member plurality (SMP) system, meaning that there could be fewer of them actually winning seats under AV.

The only country with a significant experience of AV, Australia, has used the system for nearly a century, and there is currently little interest in replacing AV with PR (though a recent opinion poll showed support for SMP among the public). While the Electoral Reform Society in Britain argues that AV could be a stepping-stone to PR, its Canadian counterpart rejects this view. The Liberal Democrats, who are pressing for AV, might find that they are forced into a difficult position if AV is implemented.

Paper presented to Political Studies Association conference, London, 21 April 2011[/URL]

 

[gentlegreen]

AV or not, I'm back to voting for who I actually like and who haven't the slightest chance of getting elected and revealing podalic extremities of an alluvial nature.

 

[kabbes]

What I can't stand is the hypocrites telling us we shouldn't be voting no on the grounds of smashing the coalition, because "you should vote on the actual question" but then tell us they are voting yes because they actually want PR in the future.

 

[Maggot]

WTF? Your claim wa that an election under AV would return less tories. I said there's no grounds for believing this - that the opposite may well happen because the tories insured themselves by making a gerrymandering deal with the lib-dems as part of the coalition agreement and because the logic of that agreement leads inevitably to the lib-dems and tories reaching some form of informal or informal electoral pact - as is already happening around the country, from the Oldham by-election where the tories voted lib-dem to local wards where lib-dems have decided not to stand in order not to split the anti-labour vote. That was my argument (edit: which you now seem to agree with!). Your response to this was some time-travel nonsense . Can you show where my argument above is wrong or why AV means less tories will be elected. Just make the argument at the very least.

Because there are a huge number of seats with a Tory majority where the anti tory vote is split.

What assertion? Tell me what i've asserted and where i've failed to support it.

That's the problem. You don't make assertions, you're too busy criticising other people's.

If you don't think AV is fairer than FPTP, then by default you must think that FPTP is fairer. Yet you haven't backed it up.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

If you don't think AV is fairer than FPTP, then by default you must think that FPTP is fairer. Yet you haven't backed it up.

You haven't even defined by what you mean by 'fair'; have a go at that one first and then you can have a go at arguing that it's fairer than FPTP. Here's a hint don't equate fairness with proportionality.

Louis MacNeice

 

[MellySingsDoom]

If you don't think AV is fairer than FPTP, then by default you must think that FPTP is fairer.

Utter bullshit, and shows how desperate the Yes to AV argument has become. Yes to AV is NOT YES TO PR. And No to AV is not an either/or option either. Plenty of people (in the real world, not just on here) have argued the case that PR is not going to be delivered by a Yes to AV vote - a no vote amply shows this. It's up to us Yes to PR types to fight the case from now - hard long-term work, but the fight is there to be won.

And please spare us the "No to AV means you're a Tory/Nazi" stuff. Yes to AV was supported by the Tory Lib Dems - it was their baby.

 

[Wolfie Smith]

You haven't even defined by what you mean by 'fair'; have a go at that one first and then you can have a go at arguing that it's fairer than FPTP. Here's a hint don't equate fairness with proportionality.

Louis MacNeice

I suppose by increasing the marginality of seats AV would have increased the number of voters who actually have a say in deciding which party wins an election - it would have increased the number of people with democratic clout. I suppose there is an arguement that it's not 'fair' that some people have more say than others, and by increasing the number with some say you woould have increased fairness. Maybe?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I suppose by increasing the marginality of seats AV would have increased the number of voters who actually have a say in deciding which party wins an election - it would have increased the number of people with democratic clout. I suppose there is an arguement that it's not 'fair' that some people have more say than others, and by increasing the number with some say you woould have increased fairness. Maybe?

it's a pretty large supposition (that AV would have increased the number of voters who have a say) on your part, given that we have absolutely no data (not even informed supposition) to indicate that AV would stimulate a greater proportion of the electorate to vote.

 

[Wolfie Smith]

it's a pretty large supposition (that AV would have increased the number of voters who have a say) on your part, given that we have absolutely no data (not even informed supposition) to indicate that AV would stimulate a greater proportion of the electorate to vote.

It's nothing to do with the amount of people turning up to vote - I agree there is no evidence that AV would have increased this. I'm talking about the fact the marginality of seats would have increased and hence the number of people who have a real say would have increased. In most UK elections the only people who really count are a few hundred thousand in the marginal constituencies and AV would have at least inreased that number. Looking at the results of Australian elections compared to UK ones, more seats change hands on a given swing - hence the increase in marginality.

 

[Fingers]

Bloody hell, the yes vote has taken the lead!

 

[MellySingsDoom]

It's nothing to do with the amount of people turning up to vote - I agree there is no evidence that AV would have increased this. I'm talking about the fact the marginality of seats would have increased and hence the number of people who have a real say would have increased. In most UK elections the only people who really count are a few hundred thousand in the marginal constituencies and AV would have at least inreased that number. Looking at the results of Australian elections compared to UK ones, more seats change hands on a given swing - hence the increase in marginality.

But looking at the Australia example, where do the swings go to. Either Liberal to Labour, or Labour to Liberal. One Green MP gets in. That's it. So AV throws up a slight "game of chance" to select two parties with near-identical policies. Some choice!

 

[Maggot]

Utter bullshit, and shows how desperate the Yes to AV argument has become. Yes to AV is NOT YES TO PR. And No to AV is not an either/or option either. Plenty of people (in the real world, not just on here) have argued the case that PR is not going to be delivered by a Yes to AV vote - a no vote amply shows this. It's up to us Yes to PR types to fight the case from now - hard long-term work, but the fight is there to be won.

I voted on the relative fairness of each system, not on the chances of something which may or may not happen in the future.

And please spare us the "No to AV means you're a Tory/Nazi" stuff. Yes to AV was supported by the Tory Lib Dems - it was their baby.

So it's ok to criticise one side because of a party which supports it, but not ok to criticise the other side for exactly the same reasons.

 

[MellySingsDoom]

So it's ok to criticise one side because of a party which supports it, but not ok to criticise the other side for exactly the same reasons.

It would have been better if both sides of the whole AV thing had laid off the factionalising, tbf. Nick Clegg's article in the Evening Standard where he made the snide claim that a vote against AV is a pro-BNP/racist vote I thought was a pathetic and desperate smear. So fuck him.

 

[danny la rouge]

It would have been better if both sides of the whole AV thing had laid off the factionalising, tbf. Nick Clegg's article in the Evening Standard where he made the snide claim that a vote against AV is a pro-BNP/racist vote I thought was a pathetic and desperate smear. So fuck him.

And a stupid tactic, too. The BNP supports PR. Does that mean Clegg's calling generations of Liberal PR supporters fascists?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I voted on the relative fairness of each system, not on the chances of something which may or may not happen in the future.

What do you mean by fairness?

Louis MacNeice