If I pointed out to you that what you'll end up with is something like we have here in Australia then which way would you vote?! I would generally agree that any change from FPTP is good but at the moment we're not a good advert for the alternative. No, the pun was not deliberate!
...there seems to be a problem with an unrepresentative senate as a result of the voting system. What are the key points for/against the alternative system in your opinion?
Also, Jasper and Slackline tend to have similar, sensible views to mine regarding these sort of things be appalling bullies so I am just going to do what they tell me. ...Jasper almost makes sense on Twitter and I have seen pictures and he has good hair.
Was it this:http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/file/0005/109877/Eng-web.pdf?
Also, what with being rather busy and all, I'm currently an undecided. Is anyone here pro FPTP? Or is that just too much political controversy for one thread...
The BNP want proportional representation as they would get some MPs that way. They see AV as an "even less fair" system than FPTP for what they call "smaller parties" (but mean themselves) as it wouldn't actually increase the likelihood of them gaining a seat.I would much prefer that we had PR despite the fact that the BNP would get a few MPs. As we've seen before, the more rope you give them the quicker they hang themselves anyway.
How on earth can anyone quantify how the last election would have panned out if AV had been used? Exit polls ask who you voted for, not to rank them.
The 2010 BES conducted a three-wave national internet panel survey with nearly 17,000 (16,816) respondents. The survey was in the field immediately before, during and immediately after the official election campaign. In addition to being asked how they actually voted, respon- dents in the post-election wave were asked to complete an electronic ballot form that mimicked an actual AV ballot
The results suggest an outcome for the three main parties of Conservatives 284, Labour 248 and Liberal Democrats 89. This outcome would have radically changed the arithmetic of post-election coalition building, with the Liberal Democrats being able to form a majority coalition with either Labour or the Conservatives.
Would you swap Clegg for Nick Griffin?Just askin'.
Come on people, what are we all doing to deliver the "Yes" vote?** Those of us voting "no" - what are you doing?
Quote from: Lund on April 19, 2011, 11:32:24 pmWould you swap Clegg for Nick Griffin?Just askin'.That's not a very good example as Tom Elliott isn't the deputy Prime Minister and I might just not have noticed but the 8 Ulster Unionist MPs don't appear to have any great sway on government policy.
My point is that with PR you have to accept that extremist politicians gain a measure of power, credibility and a platform on which to enlarge their position. This means having your tax money paying Griffin's expenses at the very least. I for one don't like the idea of that. Nor do I like the idea of the other problems with PR when you have a divided electorate - and for better or worse, that is the kind of society we have in the UK; we're never going to vote on merit for one party massively over the other. We'd have coalition after coalition.This isn't an argument against AV. It makes a coalition slightly more likely, but I can live with that as a compromise for my vote being a bit more useful.In any case, a more interesting question is what are the chances of the no campaign because of self-selecting bias. The people who go to vote in the referendum value their vote more and are more likely to vote yes because of that?
Griffin is a massive cat
