Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[Proper Tidy]

Odd piece on the Pro AV site saying just why the Yes campaign is fucked.

The pattern is this. Voters are more likely to back the Alternative Vote when they are asked, cold, which side they are on, and to favour First Past The Post when they are warmed up with questions or information about the proposed change.

The pattern is this. Voters are more likely to back the Alternative Vote when they don't really know what it is but naturally assume it must be fairer than the current shit system, and to favour First Past The Post when they are actually told what the proposed change means.

 

[butchersapron]

Which is why the Yes campaign is to present it as just general progress - and keep zipped about the reality.

 

[butchersapron]

Anymore articula8 or just browsing your history - lot of ground to cover eh?

 

[articul8]

The pattern is this. Voters are more likely to back the Alternative Vote when they don't really know what it is but naturally assume it must be fairer than the current shit system, and to favour First Past The Post when they are actually told what the proposed change means.

On what basis could you conclude FPTP is "fairer" than AV?

Kellner's company YouGov is being employed by both the No campaign and News International - which have framed the question to get themselves the most positive possible results in the polls. He's keen to justify their methodology. But I don't doubt that we face a challenge to secure a Yes vote - partly because the Taxpayers Alliance and their chums will throw all kind of sand into the eyes of the voters like the bogus £250m claim.

Key polls are those which are weighted by likelihood to turn out.

And can you point to one - just one - instance where I have argued for positive support for the Lib Dems (except to say that their victory in LD/Con marginals is the least worst outcome?).

 

[Santino]

On what basis could you conclude FPTP is "fairer" than AV?

It can produce less proportional governments than FPTP. What definition of "fairer" does that meet?

 

[kabbes]

I'm not sure I care which system is "fairer", on the grounds that:

* "Fair" is ill-defined. There are many ways of interpreting it and as many possible voting system that maximise each. There is even a branch of mathematics devoted to this.

* Either way, the system is still set up to entrench power and wealth. To quote froggy on another thread, "choose whether to be stabbed or shot".

* Neither system even begins to address the true problems that are at the heart of our democracy.

Given that, my focus has to be on political tactics and strategy. Here and now, which vote will result in the best chance of ceasing as quickly as possible the extraordinary attack on the welfare state that is happening right now? That's got nothing to do with voting "fairness" and everything to do with social equality.

 

[Random]

Given that, my focus has to be on political tactics and strategy. Here and now, which vote will result in the best chance of ceasing as quickly as possible the extraordinary attack on the welfare state that is happening right now? That's got nothing to do with voting "fairness" and everything to do with social equality.

Good points, well put. Of course articul8 will now accuse you of wanting to tongue tories.

 

[Santino]

Good points, well put. Of course articul8 will now accuse you of wanting to tongue tories.

Well, he does want to tongue Tories, but that is beside the point.

 

[butchersapron]

On what basis could you conclude FPTP is "fairer" than AV?

Kellner's company YouGov is being employed by both the No campaign and News International - which have framed the question to get themselves the most positive possible results in the polls. He's keen to justify their methodology. But I don't doubt that we face a challenge to secure a Yes vote - partly because the Taxpayers Alliance and their chums will throw all kind of sand into the eyes of the voters like the bogus £250m claim.

Key polls are those which are weighted by likelihood to turn out.

And can you point to one - just one - instance where I have argued for positive support for the Lib Dems (except to say that their victory in LD/Con marginals is the least worst outcome?).

Guess who used to argue that AV "might make the result of an election even more unfair." I give yoi seven gpes at it.

 

[kabbes]

I give yoi seven gpes at it.

It's totally unfair to give yoi seven gpes.

 

[butchersapron]

That's one.

 

[Santino]

The Lib Dems signed a pledge to give yoi eight gpes.

 

[Random]

look at moi gpes, just look at them

 

[butchersapron]

Comrades, the enemy is over there --->

liberals on a settee - legs crossed

 

[Streathamite]

Kellner's company YouGov is being employed by both the No campaign and News International - which have framed the question to get themselves the most positive possible results in the polls. He's keen to justify their methodology. But I don't doubt that we face a challenge to secure a Yes vote - partly because the Taxpayers Alliance and their chums will throw all kind of sand into the eyes of the voters like the bogus £250m claim.

Totally unfair- YouGov's explanations were 100% reasonable

 

[butchersapron]

I note that when YG were reporting a lead for YEs A8 wasn't having such problems. I can smell the desperation from here.

 

[kabbes]

Smells like... victory.

 

[articul8]

Guess who used to argue that AV "might make the result of an election even more unfair." I give yoi seven gpes at it.

Talking Bristolian again?

It can make the outcome even more unfair is not the same as saying that on balance elections under AV will *generally* lead to less fair outcomes. So the fact that AV isn't PR is no basis for saying it is less fair than FPTP - because proportionality is not the only index of fairness.

 

[kabbes]

Fuck me, now you're arguing that AV might be better than PR itself.

 

[butchersapron]

So you agree then that AV "might make the result of an election even more unfair." I like how this actually means in your mental world that "will not make the result of an election even more unfair." You literally cannot keep your lies straight can you? So many audiences, so many faces. Not surprised you get sometimes get the wrong ones.

 

[butchersapron]

Fuck me, now you're arguing that AV might be better than PR itself.

All depends on who he's talking to. To the lib-dems it's sure fire winner, to leftists it's a chance to kick the tories, to pro-PR people it's a step forward...and so on. To himself? A rope dangling from the rafters.

 

[Streathamite]

proportionality is not the only index of fairness.

HUH? Clarify,please

 

[Random]

To himself? A rope dangling from the rafters.

If you want to know the future, imagine a fat cheque paying into a bank account, forever.

 

[articul8]

HUH? Clarify,please

Well, for example, a national party list system (like the Israeli) one is more proportional than STV. But does it thereby follow that it's fairer? Not necessarily - depends what you mean by fairness.

Any pro-PR person whose criterion was only proportionality would also have to condemn STV, AMS, AV+. etc.etc.

 

[articul8]

So you agree then that AV "might make the result of an election even more unfair." I like how this actually means in your mental world that "will not make the result of an election even more unfair." .

Again, I never said that. I said that an individual election may turn up less fair results under AV. But that doesn't make AV *generally* less fair than FPTP.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Well, for example, a national party list system (like the Israeli) one is more proportional than STV. But does it thereby follow that it's fairer? Not necessarily - depends what you mean by fairness.

Any pro-PR person whose criterion was only proportionality would also have to condemn STV, AMS, AV+. etc.etc.

You're a pro PR person aren't you; I only ask because it's difficult to tell from the above?

Loui MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

Again, I never said that. I said that an individual election may turn up less fair results under AV. But that doesn't make AV *generally* less fair than FPTP.

Yes you did - there's a reason why i used quotes.

I like how individual results don't count as well, despite it being your argument that AV will make individual results impossible.

 

[articul8]

You're a pro PR person aren't you; I only ask because it's difficult to tell from the above?

Loui MacNeice

Yes I think proportionality is one important aspect in an electoral system. But it isn't the only one - and very few PR supporters would ever say that.

 

[articul8]

Yes you did - there's a reason why i used quotes.

*might* (ie conditional - it also might not) make the result of *an election* (ie. singular not elections in general) even more unfair.
What I said in no way means it couldn't be an improvement on FPTP in the round

I like how individual results don't count as well, despite it being your argument that AV will make individual results impossible.

come again?

 

[butchersapron]

'Yes to AV' messages fail to resonate with public

Campaigners for electoral reform have been advised to rethink their comms tactics following in-depth research showing that their arguments are falling flat.

With the Alternative Vote referendum drawing closer, PRWeek turned to BritainThinks – the research firm set up by Gordon Brown’s former pollster Deborah Mattinson – to test the messages on either side of the debate.

BritainThinks polled 2,064 people and found a surprisingly strong lead for the ‘No’ campaign, suggesting that its negative campaigning may be paying off.

After the poll, the research firm exposed participants to the key messages put out by the two sides’ campaign messages (see below) before conducting a second survey of the same voters. Crucially, the final exercise found the ‘Yes’ campaign was failing to win over any undecided voters.

BritainThinks director Ben Shimshon said: ‘Currently, it seems that the No campaign has a more powerful set of messages, tapping into the public sense that electoral reform might be an expensive distraction. The Yes campaign has a bigger challenge because it needs to convince people both that this issue matters, and that what is needed is a change to AV.’