Shrimpsvoices

Don't do it Darren. By voting against AV you would be doing the Tories and David Cameron's bidding. Progressives have dominated British politics since the war in terms of votes won, yet the Tories dominate government.

Read and tell me you don't agree http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... rect=false

P.S. I said doing Tories and Cameron's bidding. What electoral system did rhe Tories use to elect Cameron as leader of their party?

Yup. AV. Even they like it. When it suits them. Don't do their work and don't listen to dinosaurs like Reid and Prescott who never had to work for their constituency vote.

I think AV is okay - but it wouldn't be my first choice!

Don't like the Red Lion or the Castle.

Both the YES and NO campaigns in this referendum have continually treated people like fools. But none more so than the rather condescending "don't vote the same way as cameron" line that is presently being peddled by some. It's not some "sell out" to happen to agree with someone you might be diametrically opposed to on everything else, just a sign that you're not so dogmatic as to vote with your party leadership all the time.

Moreover, your graphic is clever but unfortunately wrong. In politics, as in many other things, it's not some broad coalition of lager drinkers vs coffee, it's a broad choice of different flavours of different drinks. You've used the example of the Heysham South By-Election as an example on more than one occassion. so lets do a re-run:

Tory 499
Labour 493
England First 191
MBI 143
Lib Dem 37
Green 20

in the next round the Green voters second preferences all go to me, though as someone who campaigned for the by-pass I find that hard to believe but lets do it anyway. In the third round the Lib Dems split between me and the tory (having seen Nick Clegg in action over the last year that may be wildly optimistic too). Then comes the next round and the MBI's split 50/50 too.

so with one round to go:

LAB 603
CON 588

Do you really think that the 191 votes from England First are coming my way? A party expelled from the the BNP for being "too openly racist". Result: the third party decides the outcome of the election.

Many argue that AV is good enough to elect both leaders of the main parties, and they have a point. except of course that all the people running broadly agree on most issues.

and lastly. some argue that the outcome of the general election would be decided by as little as 100,000 people. well that 99,999 more than under AV when it would be decided by:

Posh wrote:

It is a clever graphic, but of course it is also a complete load of bollocks! It assumes that 'everything that isn't coffee, is beer'. In reality, the 'preferred beverage' would include tea (Queen's Head), water (Red Lion) and orange juice (The Castle). The beer drinker (The Green Man) would like a cold drink so his second choice is an orange juice. Still no clear winner. So the water drinkers are asked what their second choice is and they also plump for a fellow 'cold drink'.

Eventually, you end up with a situation where it's cold drinks no matter what. The 'first past the post' coffee drinkers are stuck with orange juice because they most successfully harvested the second choice of the extremists.

As I say, a clever graphic, but it is designed to mislead, not inform.

It is a misleading graphic but then, so are the "She needs nurses, not a new voting system" style posters that have been the mainstay of the no campaign from the very start.

marky wrote:It is a misleading graphic but then, so are the "She needs nurses, not a new voting system" style posters that have been the mainstay of the no campaign from the very start.

So what are we supposed to believe?
Both camps are spinning crap.
The lager/coffee graphic is stupid, inplausible, and insulting.
The only intelligent material I've seen are leaflets giving us the basics of AV.
I hope the turn-out is so low that the whole referendum is discredited.

Clifford has just had one almighty chomp!

Isn't a condescending argument to vote against the Conservatives. The Conservatives are hypocrites. Happy to elect their leader using AV, happy to back it in other elections but against it when it benefits them.

The beer v coffee image isn't bollocks it just simplifies an argument. Yes the Greens, Lib Dems and Labour hold different views but they all stand on the left and share more wi each other than the Conservatives. Together they poll the most votes but they have to kow-tow to the right to get power.

Posh wrote: The Conservatives are hypocrites.

What does that make your lot then?

Posh wrote:The beer v coffee image isn't bollocks it just simplifies an argument.

No need to simplify the argument.
Every address in the country has been issued with the principles of AV, and how it works. Seemed simple enough to me to make a decision.
You'll find that the insulting propaganda that's followed will result in one mega switch-off.

bigreddog wrote:Do you really think that the 191 votes from England First are coming my way? A party expelled from the the BNP for being "too openly racist". Result: the third party decides the outcome of the election.

No. It's decided by 191 citizens of Heysham South (typically former Labour voters) who you had failed to convince to vote for you and, of you had won would have represented as equally as any other citizen. The vast majority of those votes would have gone to you.

P.S. Using the Clegg image is far more patronising as an argument than trying to stop Conservative rule.

TBH I thought that image looked like a good night out

Posh wrote:Isn't a condescending argument to vote against the Conservatives. The Conservatives are hypocrites. Happy to elect their leader using AV, happy to back it in other elections but against it when it benefits them.

So you suggest changing the system for electing governments for the next hundred years, not because it is the 'right thing to do' but because it will potentially damage the current government (as Mandelson suggested)? Short-termist agenda rather than for the good of the country? And if it is genuinely 'the right thing to do', then why didn't Labour introduce the opportunity for change when they were in power for almost a decade?

Posh wrote:The beer v coffee image isn't bollocks it just simplifies an argument. Yes the Greens, Lib Dems and Labour hold different views but they all stand on the left and share more wi each other than the Conservatives. Together they poll the most votes but they have to kow-tow to the right to get power.

Of course it is bollocks! It suggests that everyone who doesn't want coffee, wants beer! In reality, that is never the case. You mention the Greens, Lib Dems & Labour but conveniently leave out the BNP, UKIP, England First etc who are all to the right and share more in common with the Tories.

I think there are strengths & weaknesses to both systems, however the disingenuous arguments of Mandelson et-al (as demonstrated by this graphic) suggest to me that the argument for change is a weak one, based upon causing damage (to a government I dislike) rather than for the long term good. For that reason, I would vote against it.

Posh wrote:

bigreddog wrote:Do you really think that the 191 votes from England First are coming my way? A party expelled from the the BNP for being "too openly racist". Result: the third party decides the outcome of the election.

No. It's decided by 191 citizens of Heysham South (typically former Labour voters) who you had failed to convince to vote for you and, of you had won would have represented as equally as any other citizen. The vast majority of those votes would have gone to you.

P.S. Using the Clegg image is far more patronising as an argument than trying to stop Conservative rule.

so all people who now vote for extremist parties are working class former Labour voters who we've just "failed to convince"? the evidence from the marked register was they were people who hardly ever voted in the first place, which in itself says quite a bit about politics are how people see it being a positive effect in their lives. But the suggestion that the vast majority would have gone to me is firstly baseless, and secondly no reason to change the electoral system. If I can't win using my own arguments and my own values, I'm not prepared to win pandering to other peoples. just because people I disagree with will find it harder to win, doesn't make a system better, that's more about tactics than it is about democracy.

Keith wrote:So you suggest changing the system for electing governments for the next hundred years, not because it is the 'right thing to do' but because it will potentially damage the current government (as Mandelson suggested)? Short-termist agenda rather than for the good of the country? And if it is genuinely 'the right thing to do', then why didn't Labour introduce the opportunity for change when they were in power for almost a decade?

That's the opposite of what I suggested. The current system has favoured the Tories for a hundred years. I want something that more favours the people. Giving Cameron a bloody nose is an added bonus.

Why has every new country including all those in Eastern Europe not chosen FPTP as it's favoured system? Because on evaluating their fairness and representation FPTP was regarded as not good enough. Why should we continue to accept a fundamentally unfair system?

marky No.1 wrote:Clifford has just had one almighty chomp!

clifford.gif

bigreddog wrote: If I can't win using my own arguments and my own values, I'm not prepared to win pandering to other peoples. just because people I disagree with will find it harder to win, doesn't make a system better, that's more about tactics than it is about democracy.

That's nonsense. Pandering to other people's views rather than stick to principles is precisely what FPTP forces parties to do. Labour and the Lib Dems ditch certain principles to occupy the centre ground and to a degree the Tories have to (we won't cut the NHS and then trying to destroy it was lies to appeal to Labour and swing voters). Meanwhile job for life dinosaurs like Reid and Prescott can do what they want because the system will keep them forever. FPTP is all about tactics. The tactics of appealing to a tiny minority in a tiny number of seats. That has to end.

So if theres 15 candidates standing as there can be when there are raving monster loony party and green party etc (the greens could amalgamate with the raving monster loony party!) and I only want to vote for one party as I dont like the other 14 , supposing the party I voted for receive 49% of the first preference votes. It then goes to subsequent further votes where the 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 5th preference votes of all these people who originally voted for all the barm cake parties end up deciding who will be their M.P. And the candidate I voted for who received 49% of first preference votes ends up not elected.

It would appear that A.V. would make the U.K. as democratic as Zimbabwe !

Posh wrote:

Keith wrote:if it is genuinely 'the right thing to do', then why didn't Labour introduce the opportunity for change when they were in power for almost a decade?

That's the opposite of what I suggested. The current system has favoured the Tories for a hundred years. I want something that more favours the people. Giving Cameron a bloody nose is an added bonus.

I refer you back to the part of my post you ignored. It appears to me that the bloody nose is paramount otherwise Labour would have introduced it when they were in power.

Keith wrote:I refer you back to the part of my post you ignored. It appears to me that the bloody nose is paramount otherwise Labour would have introduced it when they were in power.

There's a lot of people in the Labour Party who favour FPTP because they stood in constituencies where no one else stood a chance. These dinosaurs became incredibly proud of their own self-importance that they could get away with anything including robbing the public via expenses. That's why Labour wouldn't bring in PR because of some people's own self-interest.

Meanwhile others in the Labour Party, predominantly young MPs, trade unionists and younger members have fought a strong campaign for PR, plus MPs like Peter Hain, Ed Milliband and many others. PR is used for local, regional and European elections as well as for all elections in the Labour Party.

Keith wrote:

Posh wrote:

It is a clever graphic, but of course it is also a complete load of bollocks! It assumes that 'everything that isn't coffee, is beer'. In reality, the 'preferred beverage' would include tea (Queen's Head), water (Red Lion) and orange juice (The Castle). The beer drinker (The Green Man) would like a cold drink so his second choice is an orange juice. Still no clear winner. So the water drinkers are asked what their second choice is and they also plump for a fellow 'cold drink'.

Eventually, you end up with a situation where it's cold drinks no matter what. The 'first past the post' coffee drinkers are stuck with orange juice because they most successfully harvested the second choice of the extremists.

As I say, a clever graphic, but it is designed to mislead, not inform.

I don't think that graphic is complete bollocks.

Replace the beers with the phrase "I generally have centre-left views" and the coffee's with the phrase "I generally have centre-right views" and it makes some sense.

Here's another image...

The beer example is absolute bollocks and about right for you posh using your usual way of treating us all like idiots. The question for that example is where would you like to go for a drink and using fptp the answer as you suggest is for a coffee. Some of the pubs might serve shit beer, be rough or full of people you dont want to be with. To use the example that 70% of people want a beer is just plain wrong and misleading. Why can't you leave the left wing tunnel vision behind and try and argue that something is best for the country or is that beyond you?

Here is an example of how av might work.

Imagine our club has decided to ask the fans who they wanted to manage the club next season. The options were Sammy mac, John Coleman, Mark Wright, Graham Westley or Aidy Boothroyd. Using fptp whoever won could still not be the choice of say 50% of fans. However using av we could (and I stress the could here) end up with a majority choice.

Seems to me that AV will result in more "No outright winner" out comes, and as a result every Party proceeds to rip up their Manifestos as they sell out their supporters in the vain hope that they can carve out some share of power. This time round the Lib Dems have abandoned their student support (saddling them with enormous debt for the future in direct contradiction to the platform on which they stood).
Let’s have honest elections fought with each party telling us where they stand and being accountable for this when in office.

This will no doubt wind up Posh no end, but couldn't resist it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQ0gw11_MY

Besides, go into most modern pubs and if you ask nicely, they'll serve you a coffee.