ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier.
Just because you're hungry doesn't mean you have to eat the shit sandwich when it's offered to you.
Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier.
Just because you're hungry doesn't mean you have to eat the shit sandwich when it's offered to you.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
aren't you ignoring the fact that formal constitutional/electoral change happens in the UK at the pace of an extremely lethargic tortoise? on past form, If we get AV now, they'll still be fidgeting over whether to introduce AV+ in 10 years time.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
AV is FPTP - the post being 50% and you only get to that 50% by squeezing anything non-mainstream. It's a surefire guarantee that the big three will continue to dominate and block off examples likes the Greens winning in Brighton on 31%. In that sense, it's a step backwards. (In the sense of if you think how the state and capital organises its legitimacy is really the burning issue of the day.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
They won't. This is it for the next century.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
yep.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
SHit, sorry, typo!! MEANT 100, sticxky PC keys!
@ self
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
People may, for whatever reason, be wedded to the idea that they have to use their vote, to make a point, or a difference, or to make a stand on an issue, in which case a "no" vote is as understandable as a "yes" vote: It's a manifestation of "the right to vote", combined with their own appreciation of the arguments and their implications.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The "yes" argument appears to be broadly divided between "yes, because it's change", and the slightly more nuanced "yes, because AV is a transitional phase on the road to PR".
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University and an electoral specialist, argues today that AV would benefit the tories and lib-dems and punish labour and so the tories might well think about dropping their opposition. For me that's not a reason to oppose it in itself - however, for those arguing it will produce an anti-tory majority it should make them question at least two of their founding assumptions.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yeah, it's most unlikely.
Tories and Lib Dems discuss bold election pact
This surely puts yet another serious question mark about the arguments you've put forward for AV. The logic you've used thus far would now lead to opposition to AV.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
who is putting this idea of an informal pact under AV forward? The Tories (who are opposing AV). Why are they going public with this stuff now? because they fear the effects of Labour joining up with the pro-AV campaign and actually delivering it. Neither side of the coalition can really do this - although Clegg and Cameron would be no doubt quite happy with it - but there is no way that Clegg will get people like Kennedy and Hughes to agree to calling on LDs to vote Tory 2nd. And in without the LDs arguing that way, the Cameron couldn't get the Tories doing it the other way.
Re Curtice, his analysis shows what would happen *if* LD voters in areas where they have historically constituted the main opposition to the Tories and whose vote last time depended on a fair chunk of anti-Tory tactical voters had done a 180 degree turn as a result of the coalition. Labour's problem, ironically, is that under FPTP these people have no chance of casting an effective vote (ie one which could influence the outcome) if they choose to express political opposition to the turn the LDs have made. Curtice is a psephologist not a political strategist.
BTW - speaking of expertise are you aware of any reputable democracy sector organisation that is calling for a NO vote? ERS, Unlock Democracy, OpenDemocracy, Rowntree Reform Trust, Power 2010, Democratic Audit... all YES.
Re Curtice, his analysis shows what would happen *if* LD voters in areas where they have historically constituted the main opposition to the Tories and whose vote last time depended on a fair chunk of anti-Tory tactical voters had done a 180 degree turn as a result of the coalition. Labour's problem, ironically, is that under FPTP these people have no chance of casting an effective vote (ie one which could influence the outcome) if they choose to express political opposition to the turn the LDs have made. Curtice is a psephologist not a political strategist.
BTW - speaking of expertise are you aware of any reputable democracy sector organisation that is calling for a NO vote? ERS, Unlock Democracy, OpenDemocracy, Rowntree Reform Trust, Power 2010, Democratic Audit... all YES.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
do you have any thoughts of your own or do you just get your poms poms out to cheerlead others?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
sexist - toi?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
so what? are we all just meant to tug our forelocks and sign up because a few think tanks are? I'm quite capable of forming my own opinion, thank you.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Still the same shit analogy - needs rephrasing
If you've been made to eat shit sandwiches for years, you don't need to be persuaded that the meal on offer is a delicious banquet to think it's a good idea to switch, just that it contains much less shit.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
i dont really have any thoughts of my own, nah.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
er yeah, there's so many male cheerleaders out there.....
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
of course and rightly so. I was merely pointing out that practically all of the organisations who have members committed to democratic reform all think that AV is a step worth taking.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
A) Brighton Pavillion (according to modelling) would still have gone Green under AV in 2010
How the state and capital engineers its hegemony is very much the issue of the day. Of course this is only one aspect of it. But it's not a negligible one.
You really are fucking stupid aren't you? This illustration actually helps the anti AV position.
The left would be able to cast a symbolic vote for Hick's, but a real vote for McClusky to keep Bayliss out. McClusky wins the same as he will under fptp.
The left would be able to cast a symbolic vote for the SP and a real vote for Labour to keep the Tories out. Result. Labour get in. which is different in what way?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Er... yes, the tories - it doesn't matter why they're doing it. You can speculate that they're fearful of a lab getting behind AV if you like. I don't think they're in the slightest bit scared of AV at all - most models have shown they're going to quite well out of it (undermining the logic of one of your arguments - i say one because you've thrown so many, often contradictory or incoherent ones at us). I think it's far more likely that this being put out into the open right now is a simple recognition that the tories and the lib-dems no longer have any choice in an AV election but to to hang together or be hung separately. To refuse to endorse your coalition partner of 5 years, to refuse to endorse the party you've joined together to attack the poorest with, to refuse to endorse the party whose policies are substantially your own is to invite ridicule and attack and to effectively refuse to endorse yourself and your own party. That's what all this is about.
We all heard the same arguments before the coalition btw - Kenendy, Hughes, Ashdown etc would never ever countenance a coalition with the tories, if it happened there's be mass dissent - MPs crossing the floor and so on. Never happened. And it won't happen when the reality of the situation -that they must endorse each other if they are to retain any credibility - becomes formalised. You can't see this because you're living in a fantasy world that still sees the lib-dems as somehow on the left and retaining a substantial left wing vote. They're not and they don't. Really, you need to catch up with reality.
Yes, his analysis shows what would would happen if what looks pretty likely to happen does happen. That's a strength of his analysis not a weakness. You're confusing an anti-tory vote with a pro-lib-dem vote here. An anti-tory vote is now not going to be a lib-dem vote - a lib-dem vote is now seen as a pro-tory vote. This, like the above, is where you need to get up-to-date. You're going to see the seats in the south-west where the lib-dems were fist or second have large falls in the lib-dem vote no matter what system. And no, the lib-dems trying to look left-wing for 18 months isn't going to fool anyone.
Not bothering to reply to this in any detail beyond saying that i'm not surprised that a group of professionally and personally inter-locked lib-dem and soft-left types (the constitutionally obsessed - it's never economics with them) support something that they can pretend is their own long held dream - despite it actually selling out their formal objective, despite it being a 'miserable compromise'. As for your 'reputable'...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Which modelling?
How you can undermine it is the order of the day - not how you can bloody help it!
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
@ Spanky. Jesus wept. Under FPTP the size of Hicks's vote *could* be the key factor that hands the job to Bayliss. Under AV this couldn't happen unless his voters really had no prefence over who won.
Same with a GE - in a hypothetical scenario that the SP or TUSC or whatever did quite well and drew lots of votes from Labour this *could* be the difference between the seat being won by a coalition partner and it being won by Labour. If you think there is no difference between those outcomes I think you're way out of touch. Under Labour votes could vote for you to indicate they aren't happy with Labour buying into the cuts agenda, but still switch to stop someone worse. Of course in reality under FPTP most voters will conclude the left has no chance and stick with Labour. Which helps you how exactly?
Yes AV isn't the best system possible and will need reforming in its turn. But the idea it is an anti-left system in these circumstances is plain wrong.
Same with a GE - in a hypothetical scenario that the SP or TUSC or whatever did quite well and drew lots of votes from Labour this *could* be the difference between the seat being won by a coalition partner and it being won by Labour. If you think there is no difference between those outcomes I think you're way out of touch. Under Labour votes could vote for you to indicate they aren't happy with Labour buying into the cuts agenda, but still switch to stop someone worse. Of course in reality under FPTP most voters will conclude the left has no chance and stick with Labour. Which helps you how exactly?
Yes AV isn't the best system possible and will need reforming in its turn. But the idea it is an anti-left system in these circumstances is plain wrong.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You've just shown that AV funnels votes to the centre and to the established candidates with that argument. Cheers.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Modelling by Prof David Sanders - the most sophisticated of its type I've so far seen. Don't have a link - but will see if I can find it.
It's not so surprising though - Greens would have picked up preferences from both Labour and Cons (younger, vote blue go green ones). Greens less likely to transfer to Con, and Lab not getting Con transfers)
How you can undermine it is the order of the day - not how you can bloody help it![/QUOTE]
Of course!! But part of undermining it is making space for smaller parties of the left acting as a pull/counterweight to the narrow media discourse set by the big 3. If you have a plausible strategy for doing this under FPTP, when the evidence of the last 100+ years suggests it won't happen, please do share. Or don't you think it desirable.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
But currently under FPTP votes are already funneling to those candidates (tactically) OR else part of an unnecessary split in the left votes that potentially benefits the right.
AV allows for a proper disaggregation of preferences allowing the real extent of left support to emerge without it harming the lesser evil candidate. This is a tactical advantage from where we are now (left barely on the map) - if the left is regularly getting 30%+ of the vote without winning seats at the very least there's going to be a hell of a lot of pressure for reform if not more than that. But we aren't at that stage.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's not undermining it - that's seeking to put it on a modernised footing - whilst not actually doing the stuff that you claim for it. And what's more, it back to the cart before the horse position of earlier in the thread, the constitutionally obsessed position that focuses politics exclusively on the electoral system. BTW the evidence of the last 50 years has shown that AV (or other electoral systems) doesn't in any way do what you suggest needs to be done - the mainstream parties have easily managed to maintain their dominance and that of the interests they represent. Any challenges to them have come from the economic struggles outside of those systems. The electoral system isn't the question. It's the shadow of the question.
Similar threads
