Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[butchersapron]

I have and at great length. I've responded to everyone of your fantasies over the course of this thread. It's all there. I notice you gloss over your misrepresentation of my position.

You are living in a bubble of self-produced constitutional hot air.

Can you feel it slipping away?

 

[articul8]

you really haven't. Why would a NO make life difficult for the coalition? It would make LD members a bit more restless but they are powerless in comparison to MPs desire to avoid a GE at all costs.

Slipping away? Well, it's early days. I hope that prolonged exposure to pro NO Tories will change things somewhat

 

[butchersapron]

No, i really have - and as i said, at great length too.

Prolonged exposure to the coalition means that from this already fucked position it's only going to get worse. It's already gone.

 

[articul8]

well as I say it's early days. The question will ultimately be not about specifics of electoral systems but "do you think politics needs to change?" YES or NO. If this is the context, I wouldn't bank an a no.

 

[frogwoman]

well as I say it's early days. The question will ultimately be not about specifics of electoral systems but "do you think politics needs to change?" YES or NO. If this is the context, I wouldn't bank an a no.

How is this minor and largely cosmetic reform going to change politics though?

 

[articul8]

well if the last election was under AV we might not have a LD/Con coalition. That not make you think twice?

 

[butchersapron]

Or it might ensure we did. That make you think?

 

[articul8]

I was talking about what difference it would have made at the last election - namely made a Lab/Lib coalition feasible.

Given that most LD MPs are fighting Tories for their seats I don't see how AV will lead to closer co-operation for the coalition parties. But I can see how the anti-Tory vote will help Cameron et al.

 

[frogwoman]

well if the last election was under AV we might not have a LD/Con coalition. That not make you think twice?

so you lot would be in poiwer - and then what? the cuts would still be carried out, but "at a slower pace"! So that's OK then!

 

[articul8]

it's not just that (though slower is better than faster) - there would be scope for voters to show their support for more radical anti-cuts candidates before transfering to the best placed anti-coalition one (usually but not necessarily Labour - eg. Wyre Forest). At the moment all more radical candidates will have their votes squeezed by desire to punish coalition.

 

[butchersapron]

I know you were, and i was giving another potential outcome. You asked FG if your potential outcome made her think again. I was asking you if another potential outcome make you think - esp as you've been selling the near impossibility of that potential outcome as a reason ti vote for AV.


The 2nd recommends in the 57 lib-dem MPs seats are neither here no there- it's the recommends in 500 other seats that will make a difference. The lib-dems and the tories have realised that the logic of their situation means they must recommend the tories or lib-dems for the 2nd vote. Come on, catch up with these people at least.

 

[butchersapron]

it's not just that (though slower is better than faster) - there would be scope for voters to show their support for more radical anti-cuts candidates before transfering to the best placed anti-coalition one (usually but not necessarily Labour - eg. Wyre Forest). At the moment all more radical candidates will have their votes squeezed by desire to punish coalition.

Amazing, it's an anti-coalition enabler

 

[Belushi]

I was talking about what difference it would have made at the last election - namely made a Lab/Lib coalition feasible.

Given that most LD MPs are fighting Tories for their seats I don't see how AV will lead to closer co-operation for the coalition parties. But I can see how the anti-Tory vote will help Cameron et al.

 

[articul8]

The 2nd recommends in the 57 lib-dem MPs seats are neither here no there

They would be for Clegg - that's his entire parliamentary party could be wiped out!

it's the recommends in 500 other seats that will make a difference. The lib-dems and the tories have realised that the logic of their situation means they must recommend the tories or lib-dems for the 2nd vote. Come on, catch up with these people at least.

Except even if Clegg wanted to do this he couldn't deliver it - because far too many of his MPs would lose their seats (how many Labour voters in Twickenham will transfer to Cable if the LDs nationally call for a Tory 2nd pref?) None. So it won't happen.

 

[butchersapron]

Amazing, it was not even ever close to being on the agenda last week, totally impossible - then it was placed very firmly on the agenda. Not going to be trusting your forecasting on this - esp when the logic means there is no other position available. It's also easy enough to make an exception in those what 10-15 seats where the lib-dems need help. You're very naive in many ways.

 

[articul8]

it was only apparently put "on the agenda" because the Tories talked it up to scare Labour off. Which just goes to show how far off the real agenda it is!!

 

[frogwoman]

it's not just that (though slower is better than faster) - there would be scope for voters to show their support for more radical anti-cuts candidates before transfering to the best placed anti-coalition one (usually but not necessarily Labour - eg. Wyre Forest). At the moment all more radical candidates will have their votes squeezed by desire to punish coalition.

Why is it better if the same cuts are going to be carried out over two years or three instead of one year (and can it even be guaranteed that labour would do it slower at all)? "Scope for voters to show their support"? i mean how they lied so much over the years so how do you expect them to be telling the truth now? really??

If there are five candidates in an election and all of them get exactly the same share of the vote, under AV, then if everyone puts labour (or whatever) as a second pref, then labour will get in right, despite the fact that nobody really wants them to get in? and people will still vote tactically

 

[articul8]

well if everyone puts them 2nd pref - that would mean they were actively choosing them above the other 3 candidates they could also have chosen - so that the winner is still the one with broadest support.

I'm not defending Labour's stance on the cuts. But at the same time, at least in emphasing need to avoid choking of growth they would be doing less damage than condems. But I would hope a sizeable left/green/anti-cuts vote would draw Labour to the left to attract 2nds preferences.

Under FPTP the logic is the other way - to compete for swing voters in marginals who might go for Cleggeron or might not.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you think clegg bashing is going tp help? It's insulting. Esp as your cse is based on him being part of an anti-tory anti-coalition bloc. Insulting is the right word.

 

[articul8]

Amazing, it's an anti-coalition enabler

It's a democratic enabler - if voters want to say "anyone to the left of the coalition" they could. If the majority of voters are saying we support "one or other of the coalition parties" the anti-cuts movement has a problem.

 

[articul8]

Do you think clegg bashing is going tp help? It's insulting. Esp as your cse is based on him being part of an anti-tory anti-coalition bloc. Insulting is the right word.

Not at all - it's based on the argument Clegg is out of touch with his own voters, let alone the rest of the country. Under FPTP the LD vote is flattered by the fact it incorporates so many tactical votes. AV would allow them to disaggregate at the 1st round stage showing this up.

 

[kabbes]

Given the readiness with which Clegg and co have supported the ideological and systematic dismantling of the welfare state, I have to wonder how they *could* have gone into coalition with Labour, actually.

Either it was never on the cards in the first place or the LDs really are that idealogically empty, in which case they have no business being in politics at all.

Either way, the appeal of any system at all that supports them is rapidly fading.

 

[Quartz]

And this is why I prefer Approval Voting. Simply select all the candidates you like and the one with the most votes wins. No worrying about order or anything.

 

[frogwoman]

It's a democratic enabler - if voters want to say "anyone to the left of the coalition" they could. If the majority of voters are saying we support "one or other of the coalition parties" the anti-cuts movement has a problem.

Are they saying that though?

 

[butchersapron]

Not at all - it's based on the argument Clegg is out of touch with his own voters, let alone the rest of the country. Under FPTP the LD vote is flattered by the fact it incorporates so many tactical votes. AV would allow them to disaggregate at the 1st round stage showing this up.

So let's give them a system where their coalition partners can prop them up with 2nd prefs and vice versa! Genius. Mature genius. You think the lib-dems support this because it'll hurt them! you're running out of cake here.

 

[Random]

By the time of the referendum in May there's going to be such anti-government anger that this will in no way be fought 'on the issues' of abstract electoral reform. It'll be seen as a government referendum and so people who hate the government will, if they vote, will vote no. Unless they're paid to vote yes by a think tank, of course.

 

[articul8]

you are misreadng/overlooking the gap between the ideological project of the LD leadership, and the historical reasons people have found themselves voting LD. It doesn't at all follow that there will be a preference swapping agreement. In fact if there was that would eliminate the chances of a fair section of the LD MPs in Parliament.

 

[Streathamite]

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?

oh, jesus wept. Right, i'll explain simply. Individual MPs, and local parties, will see a lost AV vote as the final straw, as their party haemorrhages popularity, and will either jump ship, or at least call to change the captain, in an attempt to save their own skins. You know, like the Tories did with Maggie?

 

[articul8]

The referendum might be a product of the "government" but the leader of the coalition and the biggest faction of it are totally and unremittingly opposed. Voting NO would be effectively a pro- status quo position not slap in the face for the coalition per se.

 

[kabbes]

The referendum might be a product of the "government" but the leader of the coalition and the biggest faction of it are totally and unremittingly opposed. Voting NO would be effectively a pro- status quo position not slap in the face for the coalition per se.

I disagree. So I'll be casting my vote accordingly.