PMM
|
|
I thought my mind was made up about this, and I think overall I'm likely to vote yes, but I've heard valid arguments made the other way too.
The people in the working class heartlands are always going to vote Labour. There would be safe Labour seats in certain parts of the country, even if Labour were to have policies that make the lives of the people in those areas far worse. Similarly, the Conservatives could announce that they intend to nationalise everything and legalise heroin and the good people of Surrey would still vote for them. So all the parties are chasing the votes of the marginals, and these marginal voters seem to be somewhere on the centre right.
The result is that only parties that set their policies to appeal to this tiny minority can ever gain power.
So I think electoral reform is a prerequisite to any other change.
That's not to say I think it will usher in a new golden age, but without it, nothing will ever change.
I voted Liberal in the last election (ironically my vote was wasted because Labour got in in my constituency) But I wasn't really voting Liberal. I was voting for a party that was calling for electoral reform.
I get the feeling that the Lib Dems, by being horrible right wing dipshits, have effectively killed the campaign for reform. Certainly their performances in recent by-elections have shown that they've fucked themselves over in spades.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/landells/5562683478/in/set-72157626359669648/#/photos/landells/5562683478/in/set-72157626359669648/lightbox/
|
stray
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 04, 2011, 09:10
|
Just vote no to damage the coalition further. There are plenty of angry grass roots Lib Dems out there, and a fair few of their MPs too. They can't see the point of being in this government. Underline it for them, massage the schism and vote no. Who knows, people may start crossing the floor.
As a clear conscience bonus AV isn't as especially fairer as FPTP. People vote for who they want to win, we currently have a government that none of us voted for, switching to AV will make that a more common occurrence. We'll just go from one coalition to another, and each will work about as equitably as the one we currently have now. As in, not at all.
|
stray
|
Edited Apr 04, 2011, 09:30
Re: A/V?
Apr 04, 2011, 09:28
|
|
Not only but also, the way our government functions (creating acts, appointing cabinet ministers etc) is built on FPTP principals. Voting MPs in using AV will result in coalitions that function as badly as this one does. The arm twisting only works in one direction, its not actually a numbers game in the house. It has to be or the government could not actually govern, it would end up being dissolved with alarming regularity if MPs didn't accept the way it works. For AV to actually work, or for any form of proportional representation to work for that matter, we would have to change the entire way that government works.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 04, 2011, 10:53
|
Don't you think the trouble is, you can only say yes or no, it's put too simply. If you say yes, it sounds like you want AV as it is, but I don't think that system goes far enough. If people vote yes, then the powers that be will let us have AV as a sop but not push it any further, and nothing will probably really change. But if you say no, you look like you're agreeing that first past the post is best. Thus you align yourself with the big parties who know it suits them fine, even if that's not what you intend at all.
So you're kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't. But I think at least if you vote yes you're indicating you want something to change? So I think I'll vote yes, what the hell.
We've got to have a system where idiots like me aren't tempted into voting tactically like they did at the last election (curses, never again).
|
mojojojo
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 04, 2011, 18:02
|
A change to AV will be Clegg's reward for all the damage he is doing to this country. Fuck that - I'm voting no and I hope a defeat will mean that the spineless cunts in his party finally turn on him.
x
|
sanshee
|
Edited Apr 04, 2011, 22:04
Re: A/V?
Apr 04, 2011, 21:58
|
To me it's the thought of having to rate a 'tory' anywhere in any list.
Can I rate 'raging syphilis' above any of those c*nts?
If not I ain't intereted.
Also, seems a bit dodgy and easily tweaked to me.
All this stuff about 'it'll make mps work harder' sort of comes across as shpeel too.
x
|
PMM
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 04, 2011, 23:01
|
|
You don't have to rank all the candidates.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 05, 2011, 06:07
|
this is nice and clear I thought
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5
I can see why people say they don't want to reward nick clegg. But he won't benefit from AV if no=one votes for his party any more anyway?
|
sanshee
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 05, 2011, 10:22
|
Ah, I see we're not being asked to consider the 'Australian' model.
Thing is, it took a hell of a lot of people to get off their bum and vote for just the one candidate (for which I don't blame 'em really), so who knows the effort they'd make otherwise...coincides with our Scottish elelctions too, where the choice is between a 'raving bigoted shortbread tin' or someone who makes Father Stone come across as one of the chuckle brothers.
Just seems to me the more 'representative' things may look, the less they are, sort of.
x
|
drewbhoy
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 05, 2011, 10:39
|
|
sanshee wrote: Ah, I see we're not being asked to consider the 'Australian' model.
Thing is, it took a hell of a lot of people to get off their bum and vote for just the one candidate (for which I don't blame 'em really), so who knows the effort they'd make otherwise...coincides with our Scottish elelctions too, where the choice is between a 'raving bigoted shortbread tin' or someone who makes Father Stone come across as one of the chuckle brothers.
Just seems to me the more 'representative' things may look, the less they are, sort of.
x
What can you mean :-)
|
