Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[flicy]

my main reason for being against AV or PR is that they almost certainly result in a coalition government. The only way voters can judge which party to vote for, is by their manifesto pledges. In a coalition those pledges cannot be met or held to account. Therefore no one would get what they thought they were voting for. I think it would put people off voting & put our democracy in danger. The only party likely to gain from AV is the Liberals, who may permanently end up as king makers & prevent the big parties from honouring their manifesto's as to a large extent they are doing now.

 

[flicy]

some people where i work who are in their mid twenties (i don't know their exact age, but i'd say 24 to 26), all of them think that they absolutely must vote 'yes' in May, and they don't need any ads. they simply say that they were teenagers when labour came to power, so they could not vote, they are in the voting age now and they are adamant that the FPTP system is undemocratic, which is why they will vote for AV. in other words, they don't care who introduces the AV (lib dems or labour) and they don't mind that the AV brings the end of the single party governments, they just say that AV is more democratic and that's a good reason to vote 'yes'.

I don't agree that FBTP is undemocratic. Democracy is about the majority vote & that is what FBTP is. It is not perfect but it is the best we have. All other systems result in coalition's which I find undemocratic because none of the parties in a coalition can honour their manifesto pledges. So what would be the point in voting for the party that pledges to do the things you approve of.

 

[greenman]

I think you are wrong in a number of cases there, Flicy.

they almost certainly result in a coalition government

Not according to John Curtice, electoral expert on the news the other night - AV not really much more likely to result in coalitions than what we have got. And we got the current coalition through FPTP.

Therefore no one would get what they thought they were voting for. I think it would put people off voting & put our democracy in danger.

As someone who doesnt support either of the big parties I, and many many more, never "get what we vote for". Get used to it.

The only party likely to gain from AV is the Liberals

If the coalition crash the economy, the Lib Dems are toast, AV or not. The coalition is crashing the economy.

permanently end up as king makers & prevent the big parties from honouring their manifesto's as to a large extent they are doing now.

You are following this current government? Which Tory major policies are the Lib Dems blocking? It is the Lib Dems who have ditched all their policies for power. They needn't have - they could have done "confidence and supply". And do you have a problem with a possible block to Tory extremism?

Democracy is about the majority vote & that is what FBTP is

I am afraid you are wrong - most British governments in living memory have only attracted the votes of a minority or voters, let alone the population as a whole!
In the end democracy, for me, is in the streets, the workplaces, the schools and colleges - not Westminster. For me the chief reason for electoral reform is about legitimising a broader range of views rather than expecting major power shifts immediately. At the moment we have two corporate-captured parties with corporatist policies arguing over who is a more "competant" manager of capitalism. The voting system allow this to happen by empowering middle class marginals that are then targetted by the corporatist captured parties and the corporatist media. They will find it far harder to fight a propaganda war across the whole population. This structural difference is one of the reasons why British political discourse is so narrow compared to the rest of Europe.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I don't think even the most obsessed electoral reformer would say this is as big an issue as the cuts etc - but still, we finally have a chance to move on from the FPTP system that works to exclude the emergence of new forces to challenge the two (or two-and-a-bit) party system.

Few people think AV is the best alternative. But it's likely to be the only one on offer. It means that people can vote for a green or left/independent candidate without that meaning their vote is "wasted" and won't help to keep out the Tory (or Tory/Lib).

Let's 'AV it?

NO!

 

[articul8]

Check out derek greens scathing view of av

Yes, but he's in a small minority and couldn't even persuade his own party colleagues.

Sparky - no, the Greens have officially voted to campaign for a Yes vote.

 

[articul8]

Jesus. Work for socialism by lobbying the Lords. Why hasn't your brain crawled out of your nose in order to get away from your ideas yet?

i wasn't talking about lobbying the Lords - i was talking about keeping up the pressure for them to be replaced with a second chamber democratically elected under a PR system.

 

[Streathamite]

i wasn't talking about lobbying the Lords - i was talking about keeping up the pressure for them to be replaced with a second chamber democratically elected under a PR system.

so if PR is good enough for the Lords, why not for the Commons?

 

[ViolentPanda]

NO!

Shut it, Paisley!

 

[articul8]

so if PR is good enough for the Lords, why not for the Commons?

I'd prefer to see PR for the Commons. But that's no reason to turn down the step forward that is on offer at the refererednum. A No vote would retard the chances of getting PR far more seriously

 

[Streathamite]

Democracy is about the majority vote & that is what FBTP is. It is not perfect but it is the best we have. All other systems result in coalition's which I find undemocratic because none of the parties in a coalition can honour their manifesto pledges.

except usually it isn't. Never in my life have a UK party got 50%+...

 

[Streathamite]

I'd prefer to see PR for the Commons. But that's no reason to turn down the step forward that is on offer at the refererednum. A No vote would retard the chances of getting PR far more seriously

Yes it is and no it wouldn't-not necessarily,anyway

 

[articul8]

Not only would a NO make it harder to get electoral reform of any description back on the agenda for donkeys years - it would risk PR for Lords because the Tories would use it as a convenient excuse to say the public likes the simplicity of FPTP.

 

[Santino]

Not only would a NO make it harder to get electoral reform of any description back on the agenda for donkeys years - it would risk PR for Lords because the Tories would use it as a convenient excuse to say the public likes the simplicity of FPTP.

Why is AV on the agenda now? Because of a grass-roots movement that gained sufficient popularity to pressurise Parliament into doing something, or because it's the hobby-horse of a few Tory apologist scum who saw an opportunity to get their pet policy an airing?

 

[Streathamite]

if the mass pressure and desire is there,it will happen

 

[articul8]

Why is AV on the agenda now? Because of a grass-roots movement that gained sufficient popularity to pressurise Parliament into doing something, or because it's the hobby-horse of a few Tory apologist scum who saw an opportunity to get their pet policy an airing?

A mixture of the two - a referendum on AV was inserted into the Labour manifesto as a result of the pressure of the MPs expenses scandal and the campaigning pressure that they came under. There was significant pressure at the time of the coalition negotiation to address reforming FPTP. The Tories conceded AV because otherwise they would have been left in an insecure minority position.

 

[articul8]

if the mass pressure and desire is there,it will happen

and you say I'm ignorant of British history! How long did it take to achieve universal manhood suffrage!!

 

[Streathamite]

and you say I'm ignorant of British history! How long did it take to achieve universal manhood suffrage!!

was there mass pressure,back then?

 

[frogwoman]

There was the first world war.

 

[articul8]

It was a core demand of the Chartists who applied "mass pressure" - didn't actually happen for nearly another 100 years or more though

 

[Streathamite]

It was a core demand of the Chartists who applied "mass pressure" - didn't actually happen for nearly another 100 years or more though

I'll answer for you:There wasn't

 

[frogwoman]

There was a petition with c. 60 000 signatures handed in for womens suffrage, in 1867. Nothing nhappened ... Petitions, lol.

 

[Streathamite]

There was a petition with c. 60 000 signatures handed in for womens suffrage, in 1867. Nothing nhappened ... Petitions, lol.

exactly-petitions

 

[Streathamite]

It was a core demand of the Chartists who applied "mass pressure" - didn't actually happen for nearly another 100 years or more though

err, sorry, just when do you think the 2nd Great Reform Bill was?

 

[nino_savatte]

It was a core demand of the Chartists who applied "mass pressure" - didn't actually happen for nearly another 100 years or more though

Yes, in 1848 while the rest of Europe was gripped by revolutionary fever, the Chartists hand in a petition that is practically laughed out of parliament.

Not trying to take anything away from the Chartists, but petitions don't work.

 

[articul8]

err, sorry, just when do you think the 2nd Great Reform Bill was?

It most certainly wasn't *universal* manhood suffrage - it was an extension to the franchise but retained a basic property entitlement - such that even after 1867 half of adult males still couldn't vote.

 

[articul8]

Not trying to take anything away from the Chartists, but petitions don't work.

I think the Chartists did slightly more than put a petition together.

 

[Streathamite]

It most certainly wasn't *universal* manhood suffrage - it was an extension to the franchise but retained a basic property entitlement - such that even after 1867 half of adult males still couldn't vote.

Yes,I know that,and about the '84 bill-it's your basic numeracy I'm questioning!

 

[nino_savatte]

I think the Chartists did slightly more than put a petition together.

I wasn't saying that they didn't. Perhaps you imagined it?

 

[Streathamite]

There was the first world war.

tbf,that helped get women the vote;A8 specified manhood suffrage

 

[articul8]

Yes, but universal manhood suffrage at 18?