Yes or No -AV referendum May 2011

[butchersapron]

But currently under FPTP votes are already funneling to those candidates (tactically) OR else part of an unnecessary split in the left votes that potentially benefits the right.
AV allows for a proper disaggregation of preferences allowing the real extent of left support to emerge without it harming the lesser evil candidate. This is a tactical advantage from where we are now (left barely on the map) - if the left is regularly getting 30%+ of the vote without winning seats at the very least there's going to be a hell of a lot of pressure for reform if not more than that. But we aren't at that stage.

Well other shit aspects of FPTP do you want to incorporate into AV (which still is FPTP anyway)? Saying that system you're attacking does something shit so the system you're proposing should do it too is not much of an argument.

Your adoption of lesser evilism (a lesser evilism that still bizarrely places ther lib-dems on 'our' side) is a total admittance that AV will produce results which favour the established parties. And i think you have it wrong on your last point - those established parties will get the first votes not the second.

 

[Streathamite]

I'm finding this thread depressing because I've for so long wanted to see real reform, real PR - and yet, every word i'm reading here is driving me to voting 'no'.
Thank you very fucking much for bottling this, libdems, you fucking wimps!

 

[kabbes]

I'm undecided.

I think I'll give my first choice to "no" and my second choice to "yes".

 

[articul8]

Well other shit aspects of FPTP do you want to incorporate into AV (which still is FPTP anyway)? Saying that system you're attacking does something shit so the system you're proposing should do it too is not much of an argument.

I've been quite clear from the beginning that AV is not the best system. But it is the better system, because the "split" element of FPTP needn't kick in, while the "funnel" element is delayed until the 2nd round leaving the possibility for disaggregation in the first.

Your adoption of lesser evilism (a lesser evilism that still bizarrely places ther lib-dems on 'our' side) is a total admittance that AV will produce results which favour the established parties. And i think you have it wrong on your last point - those established parties will get the first votes not the second.

I'm not "adopting" lesser evilism, I'm starting by acknowledging the reality that it exists and acts as a constrain on the size of the left vote. The worse case scenario is that disaggregation of 1st prefs is v limited, but then at least we'd know the reality of how little support the left actually has, rather than the current tendency to explain it away "we had loads of support on the doorstep but people wouldn't vote for us" etc.

 

[articul8]

I'm finding this thread depressing because I've for so long wanted to see real reform, real PR - and yet, every word i'm reading here is driving me to voting 'no'.
Thank you very fucking much for bottling this, libdems, you fucking wimps!

If it helps (and partly to annoy Butchers) a reminder of who is campainging against it.

Tory Party
Tax Payers Alliance
Young Britons Foundation
Boris JOhnson's PR guy
BNP
John Prescott
Respect in Manchester
A small faction of green unable to persuade their own members
a few odds and sods like anarchists

 

[kabbes]

And in the interests of balance -- who is campaigning for it?

 

[articul8]

oesn't in any way do what you suggest needs to be done - the mainstream parties have easily managed to maintain their dominance and that of the interests they represent. Any challenges to them have come from the economic struggles outside of those systems. The electoral system isn't the question. It's the shadow of the question.

It's not either struggle over economic demands or political struggle - they are both necessary. How does capitalism sustain itself? By reproducing its hegemony at the level of consciousness. Of course there are many facets to this, and electoral politics is only one constituent part. But it helps to mediate the way political ideas are represented as legitimate. Getting socialist ideas into the mainstream discourse without accommodating to the limits of parliamentary democracy is important - we can argue about whether AV is productive or counter-productive tactic.

But you are going further, and saying even the best possible PR electoral system would in itself be to legitimise electoral politics and therefore is politically suspect. I don't think many would agree with you there,

 

[butchersapron]

...and for it, Nick Clegg. If you want to play such a stupid game.

 

[articul8]

And in the interests of balance -- who is campaigning for it?

The "Yes" camp is an obvious LD front consisting as it does of

the democracy orgs
Compass
Billy Hayes
John McDonnell
Green Party
Greenpeace
(likelihood of) PCS
Large parts of Labour
...etc

 

[kabbes]

The "Yes" camp is an obvious LD front consisting as it does of

the democracy orgs
Compass
Billy Hayes
John McDonnell
Green Party
Greenpeace
(likelihood of) PCS
Large parts of Labour
...etc

Greenpeace? To be fair, what the fuck has it got to do with them?

To be honest, your "yes" list is hardly more inspiring than your "no" list, even if I happen to be more politically aligned with more of them.

 

[articul8]

who would you find inspiring out of interest?

 

[Streathamite]

If it helps (and partly to annoy Butchers) a reminder of who is campainging against it.

Tory Party
Tax Payers Alliance
Young Britons Foundation
Boris JOhnson's PR guy
BNP
John Prescott
Respect in Manchester
A small faction of green unable to persuade their own members
a few odds and sods like anarchists

Oh ffs that really is utterly shit debating!
who is campaigning for/against is completely fucking irrelevant - all that matters to me is what I think of the idea itself.
You really are not doing a good job of selling this to me.

 

[articul8]

Hardcore PR people are in danger of acting like spoilt little brats who scream the place down because they can't buy the whole shop and want it now. Well I hope on mature reflection people who really want "real reform" are capable of seeing the benefit of a small step forward over against none at all.

 

[Streathamite]

Hardcore PR people are in danger of acting like spoilt little brats who scream the place down because they can't buy the whole shop and want it now. Well I hope on mature reflection people who really want "real reform" are capable of seeing the benefit of a small step forward over against none at all.

there's no small step forward. It's a fob off that preserves the same old system, the same old party hegemony, and preserves it ever stronger becuase it can be spun as 'progress'.
The ONLY way top do this is the whole shebang

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Hardcore PR people are in danger of acting like spoilt little brats who scream the place down because they can't buy the whole shop and want it now. Well I hope on mature reflection people who really want "real reform" are capable of seeing the benefit of a small step forward over against none at all.

All you have done is continue to assert that this is a small step forward without providing any evidence for that.

 

[articul8]

AV was on the table in the early 1930s - the Liberals blocked it in the Lords in the name of full PR. Result - another 80 years of FPTP and 2 or 3 party hegemony. And no PR.

So let's not make the same mistake again, eh? Have this, and then come back for more.

 

[Streathamite]

AV was on the table in the early 1930s - the Liberals blocked it in the Lords in the name of full PR. Result - another 80 years of FPTP and 2 or 3 party hegemony. And no PR.

So let's not make the same mistake again, eh? Have this, and then come back for more.

but this WOULD block real PR for 'another 80 years', given the tortuously slow pace of political reform in the UK. You've produced nothing, as spanky said, to show this as a real step forward

 

[articul8]

All you have done is continue to assert that this is a small step forward without providing any evidence for that.

none so blind as those that won't see - it stops the broader anti-coalition vote from being needlessly split, and delays the effect of funneling which otherwises squeezes left votes altogether due to tactical voting. Yes only a step forward in the sense that it wouldn't directly improve left represenation. But it stops the Tories from benefitting if lefts take votes from Labour, and stops Labour using that as a stick to minimise the left vote.

My UNITE example shows this - Hicks is already getting his vote squeezed, but insofar as he does claim votes, he could help the very right wing Bayliss by taking votes of Mccluskey (who the SP are backing). Under AV Hicks could campaign in good faith without any danger of splitting the left. AV would avoid the split between UUL and Bannister handing Prentis an easy win in UNISON too...

I really don't see why this isn't screamingly bloody obvious.

 

[articul8]

but this WOULD block real PR for 'another 80 years', given the tortuously slow pace of political reform in the UK. You've produced nothing, as spanky said, to show this as a real step forward

depends - reform in Scotland led in short order to reform of voting system for Scottish local councils. Don't see why the same wouldn't apply - if you vote 1,2,3 in generals why not in locals too - and the multi-member seats mean you'd have STV. I think AV+ would be back on the agenda within a decade too

 

[Streathamite]

depends - reform in Scotland led in short order to reform of voting system for Scottish local councils. Don't see why the same wouldn't apply - if you vote 1,2,3 in generals why not in locals too - and the multi-member seats mean you'd have STV. I think AV+ would be back on the agenda within a decade too

becuase the political system of the whole Uk effectively = westminster, and that's where the problem lies. Labour, for various reasons, were happy to let the scots go and do their own thing. changing the sytem for the whole UK to full PR is a far, far harder task

 

[ViolentPanda]

Still the same shit analogy - needs rephrasing
If you've been made to eat shit sandwiches for years, you don't need to be persuaded that the meal on offer is a delicious banquet to think it's a good idea to switch, just that it contains much less shit.

Except that, for all your caviling, your insistence that AV represents a better deal than FPTP and your pooh-poohing (pardon the pun) of opposing points, you haven't actually substantiated your claim that AV contains "much less shit".

 

[ViolentPanda]

so what? are we all just meant to tug our forelocks and sign up because a few think tanks are? I'm quite capable of forming my own opinion, thank you.

Some of us don't have forelocks to tug, 'cos of the Rabbi!

 

[Santino]

I really don't see why this isn't screamingly bloody obvious.

People often say this on here and it usually means something other than they think it means.

 

[articul8]

deal with the points at #408 then. why doesn't that argument stand?

 

[love detective]

are you being paid to campaign for a yes vote articul8?

 

[articul8]

not on here!!! Like it will be won on u75. ...

 

[Refused as fuck]

Same shit, different name.

 

[love detective]

not on here!!! Like it will be won on u75. ...

but you are being paid to campaign for a yes vote?

 

[articul8]

would that make the arguments @ #408 any less valid?

 

[Santino]

Did you threaten to over-rule him?