Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[love detective]

would that make the arguments @ #408 any less valid?

that's not the question i asked though

It was a simple question - are you being paid to campaign for a Yes vote?

If you are - It's not up to you to decide on behalf of others whether that makes any difference to the arguments you are putting forward - give people all the information in an open & honest manner and let them decide that for themselves (instead of sidetracking the question into whether or not it makes a difference - if it doesn't make a difference for example why the reluctance in answering the simple question posed?)

 

[articul8]

No reluctance whatsoever - I am employed by the Electoral Reform Society which is campaigning for a YES vote. But if I didn't agree with that position I wouldn't work there.

 

[love detective]

No reluctance whatsoever

well only on the third time of asking did I get an actual answer

 

[love detective]

if I didn't agree with that position I wouldn't work there

I don't agree with anything that any of the companies I ever work for do

turning wage-labour into some kind of moral endevour isn't really that endearing

 

[kabbes]

I disagree with my company so much that I secretly work against them. Bwahahaha!

 

[Santino]

I disagree with my company so much that I secretly work against them. Bwahahaha!

By making them so profitable that you hasten the inevitable revolution of the proletariat?

 

[kabbes]

By making them so profitable that you hasten the inevitable revolution of the proletariat?

Shush. Let me have my dreams.

 

[Random]

I am employed by the Electoral Reform Society which is campaigning for a YES vote.

Bloody hell. No wonder you keep on blowing the importance of electoral reform out of proportion.

 

[Streathamite]

delays the effect of funneling which otherwises squeezes left votes altogether due to tactical voting.

how on earth would it 'delay the effect' of funnelling, and how could/would this alter results in a GE? I'm really baffled by your logic here

 

[articul8]

The funnel is already in place under FPTP - people have to think "do I vote for the party i most agree with" (even if they stand no realistic chance of winning my seat) or do I vote for the least bad one who has a chance of winning and keeping out worse ones.
So the votes of small parties get squeezed as people think they have eg. to vote Labour to try keep out the Tories.

OK, the element of funneling (as votes transfer) kicks in only after small parties are eliminated under AV. But at least it's clear that people are transferring to Labour under sufferance rather than putting an X by Labour because they are pro-leadership zealots.
In some areas it probably would have made a difference to the outcome in individual seats (eg the Independent hospital guy in Wyre Forest) who would have benefitted from transfers from Labour and LdS to keep out the Tory.

 

[kabbes]

OK, articul8 -- you are a fan of proper PR, I believe, and you are part of the society for electoral reform.

So let me ask you -- if this AV vote gets a "yes", how long, sensibly, can you really expect for any kind of movement for a change to true PR to get off the ground? If we change to AV, there will have to be a decent test-run of it. That has to be a few general elections at least. Surely at least ten years before anybody can even begin to talk about another change. Probably 20 years is more realistic. Either way, it's definitely off the agenda for a good, long while.

Doesn't seem like a great timescale to me.

 

[articul8]

It's not a great timescale. But AV was on the table in 1931 - and it got blocked by liberals who said know we don't want this we want PR. And yet the result was not PR but 80 more years of FPTP.

Yes I think AV would be in for 10 years or so before PR came back onto the agenda. But if there is a NO vote to AV I think the whole topic of electoral reform will be kicked out into the long grass for decades to come.

Neither is ideal - but we are where we are. No point simply saying we should be somewhere else.

 

[kabbes]

To be fair, unless you think that World War 3 is just around the corner, I don't think you can really compare the situation now with 1931.

 

[Streathamite]

It was a simple question - are you being paid to campaign for a Yes vote?

ahhh...thanx for spotting that LD!
articul8....really NOT cricket to have kept that one under your hat.

 

[Streathamite]

OK, the element of funneling (as votes transfer) kicks in only after small parties are eliminated under AV. But at least it's clear that people are transferring to Labour under sufferance rather than putting an X by Labour because they are pro-leadership zealots.
.

No that WOULDN'T be clear. You get 'X' only in a ballot, not 'X' plus a 2 page A4 explanation of why you've cast your votes in a particular way. That's how ballots work.

 

[Streathamite]

The funnel is already in place under FPTP - people have to think "do I vote for the party i most agree with" (even if they stand no realistic chance of winning my seat) or do I vote for the least bad one who has a chance of winning and keeping out worse ones.
So the votes of small parties get squeezed as people think they have eg. to vote Labour to try keep out the Tories.

one HUGe problem with this argument, right now: the Libdems argument to vote for them "cos our candidate is the only way to keep out the tories/labour' is right now blown into a thousand tiny pieces. Not a single voter won't think "If I vote for you I'm getting the tories anyway". The libdems were the single biggest proponents of that type of tactical voting. Now that line will only work in the Celtic fringes

 

[articul8]

You get 'X' only in a ballot.

the whole point is that how ISN'T how AV ballots work. You can see exactly how votes transfer and which votes are 1st preferences and which only transfer across at later stages.

In terms of your second point, even if you're right how isn't it an advatange to prevent anti-coalition votes from needlessly splitting (eg between Labour, Green, TUSC etc) - by allowiong votes to transfer?

 

[Streathamite]

the whole point is that how ISN'T how AV ballots work. You can see exactly how votes transfer and which votes are 1st preferences and which only transfer across at later stages.

oh that totally misses the point ffs! I never said how many 'X's, simply that all you get is 'X's - ALL ballots are blunt instruments.
You said:

it's clear that people are transferring to Labour under sufferance rather than putting an X by Labour because they are pro-leadership zealots.
.

the point is, no balloting system alive fully relects on people's mindsets and motivations for why they are voting the way they do, as you claim there.

 

[kabbes]

I think at long last I may have decided. In May I was leaning heavily to a "yes" vote. But I'm pretty sure now that I'm going to vote "no".

 

[Streathamite]

I think at long last I may have decided. In May I was leaning heavily to a "yes" vote. But I'm pretty sure now that I'm going to vote "no".

so, probably, am I.but may I ask why, in your case?

 

[kabbes]

Lots of little things really. I think it will take reform off the table until I'm an old man. I think it's just another FPTP and so not worth it in and of itself. I think it will endorse and help stabilise the coalition, which isn't a price I want to pay for just a slightly different FPTP. Lots of things against and pretty much nothing for except "at least it's a change, even if the change is slight."

If the change came from a government I was happy to endorse I might view things differently. But you have to take the whole picture into account.

 

[articul8]

A NO vote is the outcome that stabilises the coalition - because LDs need it to be seen to have bought them some kudos despite them losing out on the reform side. The Tories think they've played a blinder - actually offering reform whilst tying it to a context that puts people off it. They think we're stupid. I hope they're wrong.

 

[Streathamite]

A NO vote is the outcome that stabilises the coalition - because LDs need it to be seen to have bought them some kudos despite them losing out on the reform side.

HUH? That's barking. Nothing is more likely to destabilise the coalition than a 'no' vote - simply because their big prize from the condem deal WAS the referendum. Wer're 6 months into govt, and the length and breadth of the country is riddled with libdem MPs terrified of the longerm implications of their current polled unpopularity, and getting incredibly restive about the size and nature of the cuts. Take AV away and there's zero reason for them to stay on board other than to hope and pray the polls magically improve in the runup to the next GE, with no reason to believe they will. The most likely outcome of a 'NO' vote is a) open civil war in the libdems and b) the libdems, whoever the leader is, disbanding the coalition (pretending it's on 'principle') and hook up with Labour to bring the govt down.
A 'no' vote will certainly make the coalition impossible to defend to LD conference.

 

[butchersapron]

A NO vote is the outcome that stabilises the coalition - because LDs need it to be seen to have bought them some kudos despite them losing out on the reform side. The Tories think they've played a blinder - actually offering reform whilst tying it to a context that puts people off it. They think we're stupid. I hope they're wrong.

More of that agree with me or you're stupid/immature/intelligent prop - keep it up! They'll huddle together no matter what. The question is on what basis. You have option a) one in which it happens on the basis of weakness, of one component of the coalition having been very publicly defeated and underlying contradictions being accentuated or b) one of strength, in which coalition politics is seen to deliver on it's promises. I want a). I don't want b).

 

[articul8]

a) involves the Tories having got exactly what they wanted from the coalition - reduction in no. of MPs without electoral reform. This would be the outcome that leaves them best placed to form a majority government.
b)means a defeat for Cameron at the same time Clegg will already have taken a pounding at the locals - and also delivering better prospects for keeping Tory and marginal LD constituencies competitive - making it harder for them to effectively contest marginals v Labour. As a by-product it will harden LD activists to believe they don't need to hold hands with the Tories and weaken Clegg's position.

You want a? Really?

Streathamites - your scenario is the mad one. LD MPs - with the party at their lowest ebb- will pull the plug forcing another GE. At precisely the moment they are virtually guaranteed to lose? How on earth is that likely?

 

[butchersapron]

a) involves the Tories having got exactly what they wanted from the coalition - reduction in no. of MPs without electoral reform. This would be the outcome that leaves them best placed to form a majority government.
b)means a defeat for Cameron at the same time Clegg will already have taken a pounding at the locals - and also delivering better prospects for keeping Tory and marginal LD constituencies competitive - making it harder for them to effectively contest marginals v Labour. As a by-product it will harden LD activists to believe they don't need to hold hands with the Tories and weaken Clegg's position.

You want a? Really?

Streathamites - your scenario is the mad one. LD MPs - with the party at their lowest ebb- will pull the plug forcing another GE. At precisely the moment they are virtually guaranteed to lose? How on earth is that likely?

a) only involves that to the constitutionally obsessed. The tories wanted cuts and attacks and they got them. That's what they wanted. They care not for your obsession. There is an opportunity to block or slow their real aims by voting no. It seems the thickos and the immature amongst us have realised this placed it at the top of our priorities. Catch up with the politics of the situation, the bigger picture that kabbes mentioned, and you might too.

Beyond the desperate vote lib-dem or labour outdated maps that form the basis for your mature intelligent pluralistic and reflexive approach of course.

 

[articul8]

Of course the tories want cuts. But they also want to stay in power so they aren't reversed. a) delivers what they wanted. You admit yourself that a NO wouldn't end the coalition.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course the tories want cuts. But they also want to stay in power so they aren't reversed. a) delivers what they wanted. You admit yourself that a NO wouldn't end the coalition.

It would deliver them nothing except headache in imposing their real aims, not this constitutional frippery. Your obsessions aren.t there's. And no, i said a successful no vote might not bring about the *immediate* end of the coalition. What it *will* do is heighten the contradications to the benefit of the anti-cuts agenda.

 

[butchersapron]

You're living in a bubble you really are.

 

[articul8]

And no, i said a successful no vote might not bring about the *immediate* end of the coalition. What it *will* do is heighten the contradications to the benefit of the anti-cuts agenda.

You've said so but not justified your claim in any way. In fact the arguments suggest the opposite is true - a weakened LD party desparately clinging to Osborne's coat-tails. The Tories aren't interested in what will sustain their party interests beyond the life of the coalition?! And you say I'm living in a bubble!