Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
i.e. permanent coattail politics with Labour 'you give me your second prefs and i'll give you mine'! lord have mercy!
I would support Irish style STV based on constiuencies with 4 - 5 seats, and as long as it didn't come with a reduction in the number of MPs or councillors, because it would genuinely open up space for the left, and for more independently minded mainstream party candidates* - but that is not on the cards.
*Obviously I don't think it would be a panacea or even worth fighting for, but if it was on offer it might be worth the small effort of going out and voting for it.
*Obviously I don't think it would be a panacea or even worth fighting for, but if it was on offer it might be worth the small effort of going out and voting for it.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
We could look at what's happened to Ireland even with this system - the Irish Greens achieve some political representation and start betraying every single meaningful promise.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
In any case where is this fantasy scenario of a radical working class candidate getting 40% coming from?! See TUSC votes at the last election - hopelessly squeezed by people wanting to keep out the tory so having to vote Labour. Under AV you can start to see what people really think without such a lesser evil thing going on.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
sihhi - who is arguing that STV (or any electoral system come to that) would instantly solve all our political problems and lead to a great socialist government?! The question is whether it would open up opportunities, not whether it would guarantee they would be taken.
I think there should be two "no" options one for too far and one for not far enough, I think I'll vote yes only if we're given a vote on an Act that contains a requirement for local councils with all multi-member wards to switch to stv and for other councils to submit to a (fairly rapid hopefully, given the the fact that it could be done by combining three one-member wards) boundary review to impliment it
as are the british libdems under first past the post, what about the irish labour party?
past caring
The Cathars were right
The IWCA's experience in Oxford is that NuLabour will pull out all of the stops to prevent a radical candidate getting elected, even to the extent of preferring a victory for the LibDems or Tories. This isn't to say people won't ever cast their second preferences differently to that asked by the established parties, but to my mind, those that are prepared to resist such calls - especially in the face of no holds barred NuLabour propaganda - are people that a radical party would, in any event, be hoping to persuade into giving first preference votes.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
You prove past caring's side of the argument.
I hate the first past the post system - it leads to monstrosities such as the nightmare of our past dozen governments.
What about Irish Labour? We're waiting for your point.
Yes of course, and any "radical" party especially one without a coherent critique of class and state is going to turn to shit once they get a snifter of power. However I was thinking more of the chance of getting some IWCA or SP type councillors or even an MP elected who could at least get widespread publicity for socialist/pro working class ideas.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
Maybe but I don't think that NuLab or another other party can mobilise their voters in that way (and can you produce evidence that NuLab did tell people to vote LibDem or Tory rather than IWCA -- I take it IWCA councillors got elected because the "main party" vote was split 3 ways?)
Anyway, how do you explain the 39,678 2nd preference votes (as opposed to 9542 1st preference) that the IWCA candidate received in the 2004 London mayor elections?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Maybe our theoretical 'radical workers party' could work on drawing it support from the 30%+ of people who don't bother voting ever. They the goal of getting 50%+ from mainstream voters is much reduced.
No thank you. AV fails the simplicity test in that it means that you have to think how other people will rank the candidates. I prefer Approval Voting.
I agree that would make the most political and strategic sense.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
As if FPTP didn't involve tactical voting, ie thinking about how others might be voting. I can't see how anyone can defend this system. Which those who vote "no" will be doing.
Just realised that AV does apply to some UK elections, ie assembly and local by-elections in N. Ireland and to local by-elections in Scotland. Here's the latest. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.
True, but I didn't discuss FPTP, did I?
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
No, but the choice is going to be between AV and the staus quo (FPTP) only. That's the problem with referendums: it's a yes or no to a single question. On the other hand, perhaps there could be a multi-choice referendum between FPTP, AV, STV and PR using AV to decide . . .
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
On this idealistic reasoning, you'd never vote through any political change, ever.
In this case, it doesn't benefit most of the government in power. The Tories would prefer FPTP, and accepted the AV referendum as a lesser-evil, & price of coalition. The Lib Dems would like PR, but thought something was better than nothing.
I've not made up my mind about AV in isolation, but as its adoption would likely open the door for PR, which would wreck adversarial government, I'll likely vote for keeping FPTP.
AV will help the liberals most it will not be that important to labour and the tories in fact most of them will be against it.but come next many of the voters may not feel so ready to support the tory lapdogs the liberals so don,t put money on it being passed
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think they're going to have big big problems getting a yes vote on this. Prior to the elections polls indicated there was a clear majority in favour of some form of electoral reform. Post election that majority has been eaten away pretty rapidly. Some info on early polls on AV:
So a failed vote, a lib-dem internal revolt, coalition collapse, constitutional crisis an government stasis, unable to push through further cuts or implement parts of the planned ones etc would be very nice.
And for you PR supporters, a yes vote on AV will kill the chances of that forever, it's won't be a first step towards that golden day but the last - at least in your lifetime.
So a failed vote, a lib-dem internal revolt, coalition collapse, constitutional crisis an government stasis, unable to push through further cuts or implement parts of the planned ones etc would be very nice.
And for you PR supporters, a yes vote on AV will kill the chances of that forever, it's won't be a first step towards that golden day but the last - at least in your lifetime.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
Sounds like another good reason to vote yes to AV.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
With the attendant boosting of the lib-dems and the coalition? I think not.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
I agree that this shows that referendums are not the best way of deciding issues. People will vote against a proposal just because it has been proposed by a government they oppose or to cause difficulties for it. I suspect that this may well happen this time, with many people voting "no" in the hope of bringing the coalition down. Which would mean that Labour's original proposal to hold the referendum on the same day as a general election made more sense. The Liberals are going to have to live with their choice.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Labour's proposal was to hold it by October 2011 wasn't it? I'm sure that's what it was before the election anyway.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That was a suggested tactical move for the last election. I just checked and the manifesto commitment was a to a ref by Oct 2011. They may well have offered more in the post-election negotiations with the lib-dems, in fact i'm sure they did, i think it was a later referendum on full PR but i'm not 100% sure right now.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
apparently there was a split in the lab negotiating team. LDs demanded AV immediately (no referendum) inc. for all by-elections and next GE - and then further referednum on PR.
Adonis (ex SDP) would have gone for this - Balls said no way, our MPs wouldn't necessarily even vote for a referendum on AV.
Adonis (ex SDP) would have gone for this - Balls said no way, our MPs wouldn't necessarily even vote for a referendum on AV.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Be more interested in this early next year but, in the mean time, the important question is will my second pref on the Referendum get transferred . . .
Similar threads
