butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I am a proud communist.There are only 6 of us on here. In what way is what you call yourself not part of your ideas?
Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
I am a proud communist.There are only 6 of us on here. In what way is what you call yourself not part of your ideas?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
OK, in that sense, I'm not a proud anything, and I don't say that as a good thing because it isn't. It is better to be clear and proud about exactly where you stand.
And I'm not a communist in the same way that you are, so I probably shouldn't use that as a label for myself as it is to claim to be something that I'm not. That doesn't mean I can't agree with you about a lot of things, or stand with you when push comes to shove.
But what you call yourself is only a small part of your ideas, because they are your ideas. You're not a communist because someone told you to be one. You're a communist because your thinking has led you to think that this is what is right.
Lots of people on here call themselves lots of things. It doesn't count for much to me. What you say and do counts for a lot more.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
err..yes, exactly.
You subscribe to a particular ideology.
Or you don't.
What am I missing?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
err..yes, exactly.
You subscribe to a particular ideology.
Or you don't.
What am I missing?
Actually, I try to work out my own ideology.
And in terms of on here, I am only what I post. I know you irl, St, but I've never met Butchers or lots of other people who I talk a lot to on here. Best just to judge by the ideas in the posts.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Are you a marxist lbj?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Good question. Mostly. Yes. Or no. Depending on what you think being a marxist is.
I have only read bits of Marx, but I suspect that there are parts of Marx's theory of capital that I disagree with. They are 'technical' points, specifically to do with the way that money is introduced into an economy and the consequences of that. I don't completely subscribe to, or at least I haven't completely been convinced by, the marxist theory of value. I suspect that he misunderstands the importance of the fact that money is borne of debt and that this is how money gets into the system, and that money never fully achieves the status of representing real commodities.
That's why it depends who I'm talking to. To disagree with some of Marx's analysis is not to disagree with many of his basic points. Is he right about the nature of exploitation and ownership? Basically, absolutely yes.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
I'd say you were a marxist tbh, certainly in terms of seeing historical development as the result of class struggle. Marxism isn't an ideology, it's a framework innit, so it fits the bill.
Personally I always define myself as a socialist, although I don't object to being labelled a communist. I'd be a bit put out to be called an anarchist though!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm happy to be called a marxist in general terms. The marxist way of looking at history is a very powerful one. Non-marxist historians tend to talk a load of guff and look in all the wrong places for the causes of change.
Butchers doesn't like being complimented much, but he is a Marxist historian, and a very good one. He talks a lot of sense most of the time.
Butchers doesn't like being complimented much, but he is a Marxist historian, and a very good one. He talks a lot of sense most of the time.
Get a room
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
STV is just AV in multi-member seats. The general principle in the same.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
But by voting to keep the current system, you are keeping a system where people find themselves voting for 1 of the big 3 to keep out the other 2 *without their first preference even being registered*.
So people who might otherwise vote Green or anti-cuts will vote Labour to stop the Tories. At least with AV you see that they are doing this out of necessity rather than choice.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
You really think that the liberals will be unable to "continue to play a role in government" if there is a NO vote? In any case, if their support is collapsing no electoral system - AV included - will save them from their fate. In fact they could be wiped out even faster in Scotland and Wales if it does come in and their fortunes don't change.
Actually, anti-cuts single issue candidates could do very well indeed under AV. The Kidderminster hospital guy wouldn't have lost his seat to the Tories if there was AV in place last time. If you really want to open up the system why vote to keep it locked down?
But of course you don't really want to change fuck all. You want to whine on the sidelines like every other two-bit sectarian cunt.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Is it fuck. You've got a pretty warped idea of PR, if you think I'm going to buy that nonsense.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
STV is proportional dependent on the number of members per seat; i.e. multi-member seats are a principle of STV as a PR system. Your employer recognises this difference of principle
There are many systems of PR. STV is just one of them. Most PR systems are designed to give each party representation that reflects how many votes have been cast for that party. (ERS 2011)
AV is not, however, a proportional system. In some elections it could even produce more distorted results than our present first-past-the-post system. AV would not guarantee a more representative parliament or one better able to hold the government to account. (ERS Feb 2010)
Stop lying.
Louis MacNeice
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
How close can you get to saying AV really is PR without lying? Bars been set pretty low.
fractionMan
Custom Title
"if I post it often enough people might believe it" coupled with "I get paid to post this and they'll give up refuting before I give up posting".
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
I haven't said that AV is a proportional system. I said that it is based on the same fundamental principle as AV - in the specific sense that parties that are unpopular choices with voters of other parties suffer.
In any case there is no direct relationship between how proportional a voting system is and how effective it is - I wouldn't recommend the most proportional system (A single national list - as used in Israel), so there is always a degree of trade off between proportionality and other advantages.
In any case there is no direct relationship between how proportional a voting system is and how effective it is - I wouldn't recommend the most proportional system (A single national list - as used in Israel), so there is always a degree of trade off between proportionality and other advantages.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
I don't get paid by the post! Otherwise I might reach apronesque post counts.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Nonsense. Your whig overlords know full well that their only hope of votes is second preferences from the other centrist parties.
Whilst the far left isn't a particular threat, then you may be correct that in certain cases AV could help (and in other cases wouldn't btw). But that couns for shit if, the moment the far left is a threat, the capitalists gang up and form a bloc. You shortsighted dick. Mug.
Vote Labour! Like you can fucking lecture anybody you sad liberal left meaningless hack wanker.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
You tried to say that they were the same in principle, but could only do so by removing the principle of STV (i.e. proportionality). You are a liar. I very quickly was able to find a couple of quotes from your employer to show that you are a liar.
Stop lying.
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
The general principle of STV if PR. The general principle of AV is majoritarian.
Stop lying.
Louis MacNeice
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
So, let me get this straight, you don't favour a proportional system but are willing to accept AV? Why? I don't think you've put forward a coherent argument as to why AV will lead to PR or that it is in any way superior to FPTP. Why bother with a system that won't deliver real PR? What is in it for you and your colleagues?
One thing that you have failed to get to grips with is the Tory's desire to redraw the boundaries to make it easier for them to win more seats.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
No, I DO favour a proportional one, but not a purely proportional one. Very few PR advocates Do. A no vote would embolden the hand of Tories to reverse their commitment to PR for the 2nd chamber. It would also be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the political system (including but not only FPTP).
I am perfectly well aware of the Tory boundary proposals and their effects, and - if I were an MP (god forbid) I would have voted against the bill as a whole as a result. But a NO vote would not reverse the effect of the boundaries. In fact, their impact will be felt more severely under FPTP than under AV.
I am perfectly well aware of the Tory boundary proposals and their effects, and - if I were an MP (god forbid) I would have voted against the bill as a whole as a result. But a NO vote would not reverse the effect of the boundaries. In fact, their impact will be felt more severely under FPTP than under AV.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Yes, because we're just waiting for that moment when the far left surge onto the scene under FPTP and start making gains left, right, and centre. It'll happen any day now. Mug. The whole point is breaking the logjam. Yes, I accept there could conceivably come a certain point in time when AV will not favour the development of a left alternative. But it will be an obstacle on a different scale becuase by this stage left parties would have demonstrably greater support - and there would be nothing to prevent a further reform of the system.
We can keep trading invective and abusive epithets. But like it or not I am a socialist, and believe that breaking the logjam of FPTP would be advantageous for the longer-term development of a left alternative.
You're adolescent (or should that be infantile - as in Lenin's phrase) vitriol towards Labour and Labour voters just confirms the sad irrelevance of your position on the political sidelines. You will probably end up a dyspeptic geriatric UKIP member.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
What a load of waffle. FPTP does not allow capitalist parties to form loose blocs. If they want to form an electoral bloc then they will have to come out and explicitly say so.
Lol.
You're either not, or a very dim one.
Now fuck off back to your pluralistic Labour Party you reformist shit journo.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I have to say that your first paragraph smacks of emotional blackmail. It's also a pretty nasty smear; "You don't vote for AV and you're just like the Tories" is the subtext to all of this.. That's simply dishonest. Your thesis that a vote against AV will "be a vote of confidence in the political system" is simply a matter of ideological interpretation and nothing more.
I've this before and I'll say it again: AV is not proportional nor will it lead to PR. The argument that AV will eliminate tactical voting, gerrymandering and other political ills is not borne out by the evidence. Conversely a YES vote will not reverse the "effect of boundaries" as you put it. In fact, a vote for AV is a vote of political naiveté.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Each of the big capitalist parties is already a loose bloc - held together, in part, by the fact that the left vote is squeezed in order to keep out the Tories. The FPTP certainly didn't help the British CP to emerge as a mass party. In defending FPTP you are endorsing the political status quo.
Proper Tidy
Arsed
The British CP didn't help the British CP to become a mass party. You've got no arguments you fucking hack.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
The existence of a mass Labour party, with affiliated trade unions, which the CP was initially barred from joining and latterly became proscribed, might have had rather more to do with it, or the cold war, or the machinations of the Soviet party...but you keep grasping at straws in your own thoroughly disingenuous way.
Louis MacNeice
Similar threads
