drewbhoy
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 12, 2011, 09:45
|
|
Perscription charges have gone away as well.
|
toasted-whippet
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 12, 2011, 10:14
|
|
PMM wrote:
very interesting PMM, thanks.
I think I have changed my mind.
|
ratcni01
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 12, 2011, 13:26
|
|
Vote yes 8^)
|
Popel Vooje
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 12, 2011, 14:44
|
|
toasted-whippet wrote: PMM wrote:
very interesting PMM, thanks.
I think I have changed my mind.
I'm voting yes, as I don't think a majority vote against A/V will do Clegg's career any more damage than his decision to sup with the devil and the subsequent perception of his as Cameron's fag already has, both insaide and outside of his own party. The current Co-alition will be finished after the next election, even if the Conservatives hang on to power.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 12, 2011, 19:13
|
|
Popel Vooje wrote: The current Co-alition will be finished after the next election, even if the Conservatives hang on to power.
I'm not sure about that. AV may change everything. The Liberals have been grossly under represented for a hundred years. Even if there are a lot fewer Lib Dem votes next time if the remaining Lib Dem votes are more fairly reflected they are quite likely to be in a king making position again.
Is that unfair, as the third party will have a disproportionate influence? Yes. But IMO better than having a Tory party that most people won't have voted for getting first past the post and running completely riot, as has happened before and as Cameron looks to me to be set to do if the chance arises
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 12, 2011, 23:28
|
No. If AV looks like the answer, you are asking the wrong question
IMO
|
Moon Cat
|
Edited Apr 13, 2011, 16:42
Re: A/V?
Apr 13, 2011, 16:39
|
This has been a really interesting thread and there's valid points on boths sides. However, my vote was going to be 'yes' before reading this and remains 'yes' after. Much as giving Clegg the Betrayer (and the Cuntilition) a bloody nose does appeal, ultimately that's too short term a goal for me when considering the potential for changing a system not just for the 'now' but for generations to come. As reforms go, it probably doesn't go far enough, but I think it's going the right way.
I don't want to be a position of always having to vote tactically, or at least for that to be the primary consideration - I want to vote for the person/party I want and feel its counted towards a result I'd actually, ideally like.
|
Popel Vooje
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 13, 2011, 18:34
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Popel Vooje wrote: The current Co-alition will be finished after the next election, even if the Conservatives hang on to power.
I'm not sure about that. AV may change everything. The Liberals have been grossly under represented for a hundred years. Even if there are a lot fewer Lib Dem votes next time if the remaining Lib Dem votes are more fairly reflected they are quite likely to be in a king making position again.
Is that unfair, as the third party will have a disproportionate influence? Yes. But IMO better than having a Tory party that most people won't have voted for getting first past the post and running completely riot, as has happened before and as Cameron looks to me to be set to do if the chance arises
When I said "the current Co-alition" I was referring specifically to the Cameron/Clegg axis. Clegg's already virtually kamikazed his role as Lib Dem leader - both the lib Dems' recent by-election defeats and the animosity towards him from within his own party will make sure of that. Even if he manages to remain party leader, his divisive presence means there's likely to be a split in the Lib Dem camp that will lead to the creation of another party. Therefore, if the Lib Dems want to remain a significant presence in any future election - whether determined by A/V or not - they'll have to get rid of him.
|
ratcni01
|
Re: A/V?
Apr 14, 2011, 13:05
|
|
It's better than fptp and may put a stop to the idea of ever having a full on tory government again, that's good enough for me for the time being. Its just one evolutionary step, and who knows how many more there may be.
|
stray
|
Edited Apr 14, 2011, 15:53
Re: A/V?
Apr 14, 2011, 15:52
|
|
ratcni01 wrote: It's better than fptp and may put a stop to the idea of ever having a full on tory government again, that's good enough for me for the time being. Its just one evolutionary step, and who knows how many more there may be.
But, but.. but it isn't better is it ? Think about how it will play out, statistically. Its a horrible fudge. If tactical voting bothers you now how much of a mindfuck will it be choosing your second and third preferences in a marginal seat. Coalition governments will be more likely, and more likely to be as full on tory as this one is. In order for it to work our whole method of government has to change to reflect A/V. It's not an evolutionary step, in order for a step to be evolutionary it has to have a further rational, determinable goal. A/V doesn't have one.
|
