Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[articul8]

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

1867. Your tone clearly suggests you were saying that this is when universal manhood suffrage was granted.

 

[kabbes]

Not many of the current population were alive back in 1867 though. And they didn't even have Facebook back then, let alone Twitter.

 

[Santino]

Not many of the current population were alive back in 1867 though. And they didn't even have Facebook back then, let alone Twitter.

Poor bastards were stuck with MySpace.

 

[kabbes]

There's just something about articul8's arguments that reminds me of football pundits dredging up what happened between Aston Villa and Liverpool in 1968 as an actual argument for how the result might go next Tuesday.

 

[Santino]

I'm well confused about which thread I'm on.

 

[Streathamite]

1867. Your tone clearly suggests you were saying that this is when universal manhood suffrage was granted.

never mind

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes, but universal manhood suffrage at 18?

What? My manhood also has a vote?

The word you're looking for is "male".

 

[Louis MacNeice]

What? My manhood also has a vote?

Only if it can hold a pencil and make a cross.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[nino_savatte]

Only if it can hold a pencil and make a cross.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I'm sure that with a little practice...

 

[gosub]

Thing in the Spectator

largest donator to 'Yes' campaign is Britain's no1 vendor of ballot papers and vote counting services

 

[Santino]

Thing in the Spectator

largest donator to 'Yes' campaign is Britain's no1 vendor of ballot papers and vote counting services

From that link:

The [Electoral Reform] Society turns out to be the majority shareholder in Britain’s leading and highly profitable supplier of election services, and its dividends are funding the campaign. The business, which is called Electoral Reform Services Ltd, turns over £21m.

 

[Random]

It's all true, but let's face it, the Spectator can fuck off.

 

[Lo Siento.]

it doesn't matter, none of the countries with different voting systems are any more or less democratic than the UK

 

[Santino]

The Electoral Reform Society on AV:

However, as AV is not a proportional system, the Society does not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament, council, committees, etc

http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

 

[butchersapron]

It's all true, but let's face it, the Spectator can fuck off.

Of course they can, but it's pretty clear that what the ERS are up to with their claims of AV ushering in a new era is pretty similar to the lib-dems claim about a new politics before the general election. Pretty easy to use this to attack the spectators crusty conservatism and the outright shadiness of the ERS/lib-dems.

 

[gosub]

good find Santino.


given

The Society has long argued that AV is the best system when you're out to elect a single winner.

As a membership organisation, we've asked our members whether we should offer our full support to winning the referendum on AV. The result was an emphatic YES! You can join the Society online today.

 

[Streathamite]

a list of the ERS's clients:
Anglo American
Automobile Association
Aviva
Barclays
BBC
BP
British Airways
BSkyB
Cadbury Schweppes
Channel 5
Coca Cola
Diageo
GlaxoSmithKline
HSBC
ICI
ITV
InterContinental Hotels
Lloyd's of London
Lloyds TSB
Marks and Spencer
Merrill Lynch
Nestlé
News International
Odeon and UCI Cinemas
Prudential
Royal Bank of Scotland
Royal Mail
Shell
Starbucks
Tesco
Unilever
United Utilities
Virgin Media
Visa
Vodafone

 

[gosub]

other clients isn't the point:

"So, should Britain decide to hold more complex elections as with the Alternative Voting system, ERSL could be well-placed to receive the contracts."

So the company in charge of administering the referendum on AV is itself funding one side of the campaign AND ENDORSING A YES VOTE. As the internal documents from the Society state, “it is possible that ERSL will profit as a result of a YES vote (increased business opportunities).” And if ERSL profits then so will the Electoral Reform Society, which is currently straining its resources to persuade Britain to vote Yes. This is a financial conflict of interest of the very gravest kind.

 

[butchersapron]

I think they've messed that up - i'm pretty sure that the ERSL are not running the referendum, the Electoral Commision are. Expect that to be the ERS attack point if wrong.

 

[Streathamite]

other clients isn't the point:

"So, should Britain decide to hold more complex elections as with the Alternative Voting system, ERSL could be well-placed to receive the contracts."

So the company in charge of administering the referendum on AV is itself funding one side of the campaign AND ENDORSING A YES VOTE. As the internal documents from the Society state, “it is possible that ERSL will profit as a result of a YES vote (increased business opportunities).” And if ERSL profits then so will the Electoral Reform Society, which is currently straining its resources to persuade Britain to vote Yes. This is a financial conflict of interest of the very gravest kind.

Umm, I take your point entirely,but I was thinking from the POV of ripping the piss out of that uncompromising socialist and ERS employee, Articul8

 

[fractionMan]

The Electoral Reform Society on AV:



http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55

Funny how they've changed their tune eh?

 

[articul8]

Thing in the Spectator

largest donator to 'Yes' campaign is Britain's no1 vendor of ballot papers and vote counting services

Regular reader of the Spectator are we? Wonder what political interests they are advancing?

I'll c&p here since the same shit has been daubed over two threads. This is a deliberate smear. It does NOT run public elections or provide ballor papers/poll cards etc for them - that is the electoral commission. Insofar as the election will drum up business for them it is simply because electoral reform will be in the news quite a bit, and people who hear the democratic case for using AV to elect people might want to employ the same system in their own *private* ballots.

There is absolutely no conflict of interest. That you are falling for this Taxpayers Alliance funded crap is telling in itself.

 

[articul8]

Funny how they've changed their tune eh?

AV is less unsuitable as a system for electing a Parliament than FPTP.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is slightly odd, though, that you're campaigning for something you don't think is right. Why aren't you out there explaining that AV is not good enough and that STV, or whatever, is the change we should be being offered?

 

[Red Faction]

a few years ago id have advocated STV or AV

currently- no fucking chance
means the lib dems would never leave power
fuck. that.

 

[articul8]

It is slightly odd, though, that you're campaigning for something you don't think is right. Why aren't you out there explaining that AV is not good enough and that STV, or whatever, is the change we should be being offered?

We've existed since 1884 with the principle aim of changing the way MPs are elected. Our judgement is that the argument that best should be the enemy of the better is tactically self-defeating and would lead to no progress whatsoever. We have the chance to make some progress. Not enough, you're right. But some.

 

[gosub]

Regular reader of the Spectator are we? Wonder what political interests they are advancing?

I'll c&p here since the same shit has been daubed over two threads. This is a deliberate smear. It does NOT run public elections or provide ballor papers/poll cards etc for them - that is the electoral commission. Insofar as the election will drum up business for them it is simply because electoral reform will be in the news quite a bit, and people who hear the democratic case for using AV to elect people might want to employ the same system in their own *private* ballots.

There is absolutely no conflict of interest. That you are falling for this Taxpayers Alliance funded crap is telling in itself.

I think I've bought one copy of the spector in my life, the week after the "we are all jihadists" protests, actually had some reasonable articles but not a regular reader. Do look at coffeshop, coz its free and has a number of journos that will give some scope on a wide variety of subjects, some from perspectives that irritate the fuck out of me. part of a reasonably wide surf, and urban helps in that as its membership is full of people that do same. Don't think I'd ever buy a copy of the morning star, but if its relvent to a thread I've bothered reading, I will read a link. And I don't think I've ever sneered at a link purely on the basis of where it comes from. I've left that form of blind bigotery to others. I wasn't aware of Pressholdings funding by the taxpayer alliance, but then I also had to look up who printed the Spectator, coz I didn't know. I stricks me as odd the Barclay Brothers are tied up with taxPpyers alliance given they don't pay tax.

Falling for this crap....tis the first bit of news on AV thats made any sense to me. How anyone can enthuse about it has puzzled me. If there was a AV vote of voting reform AV would, for me behind PR, and then FPTP

Wasn't planning on voting, am now. Will be NO

 

[fractionMan]

AV is less unsuitable as a system for electing a Parliament than FPTP.

AV is not a proportional system and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP

 

[Wolveryeti]

How do you tell whether AV is more or less proportional without using a completely arbitrary way of weighting first and second choice preferences?

 

[Streathamite]

How do you tell whether AV is more or less proportional without using a completely arbitrary way of weighting first and second choice preferences?

You can't-it's completely pot-luck