referendum says no

[rynnor]

I can sort of see why dictatorships happen .

Because you adopt Proportional Representation - its the perfect system for extremist groups to build a powerbase - it worked for the Nazi party - Germany only adopted PR in 1920...

 

[nath]

Only if people actually vote for more than 1 candidate - I bet most people would put the same candidate x5 which renders this voting system a useless extra complexity.

I bet you've just come out with a completely baseless assumption. "Has anyone asked for your top 5 favourite films? Yeah, it's like that, except with currently available politicians." There really was no good reason for people to vote no for this - or if there is, I've yet to hear one.

Because you adopt Proportional Representation - its the perfect system for extremist groups to build a powerbase - it worked for the Nazi party - Germany only adopted PR in 1920...

So basically you're against the main principle of democracy then - asking for people to vote on who they want in charge, and then getting it. I don't want PR as I think having local MPs is a good thing - but being against it because you might not like how people vote is... absurd.

 

[rynnor]

There really was no good reason for people to vote no for this - or if there is, I've yet to hear one.

In your opinion - I thought it was a terrible idea and luckily the overwhelming majority thought likewise.

As to people voting 5 times for the same candidate - thats what my South African mate says people end up doing in practice - your assumption that they wont is based on what exactly?

You just sound like a bad loser to me - you lost - to say that people were too stupid to vote for the better system is insulting to 70% of the electorate and un-democratic.

So basically you're against the main principle of democracy then - asking for people to vote on who they want in charge, and then getting it. I don't want PR as I think having local MPs is a good thing - but being against it because you might not like how people vote is... absurd.

I like mainstream politics - extremists are no good to anyone and our system has given us centuries of stability and stops the rise of extremist parties - sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Chilly]

I like mainstream politics - extremists are no good to anyone and our system has given us centuries of stability and stops the rise of extremist parties - sounds pretty good to me.

True enough. Except they've fucked it up so badly in the last 50-100 of those years it's not funny. Perhaps after the third huge world war comes we'll realise our systems of government do not serve the interest of the common man.

 

[rynnor]

True enough. Except they've fucked it up so badly in the last 50-100 of those years it's not funny. Perhaps after the third huge world war comes we'll realise our systems of government do not serve the interest of the common man.

There are important constitutional matters we could vote on rather than this AV nonsense.

We could actually adopt a proper written constitution, we could seperate the executive and legislative arms of government - these would make real meaningfull changes to our country.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

So because there are other things we could vote for, fuck this one eh?

Baffling.

 

[nath]

As to people voting 5 times for the same candidate - thats what my South African mate says people end up doing in practice - your assumption that they wont is based on what exactly?

I'm not making any assumption. "That's what my south african mate says" is a great way to build an opinion though, kudos.

In your opinion - I thought it was a terrible idea and luckily the overwhelming majority thought likewise.

Not so much my opinion, the arguments I've seen so far have been categorically false. I'm sure there are legitimate arguments to be made against AV, I'm sure there are even some that suggest FPTP is better than AV, I've just not seen any. It all seems to be "meh, why bother?".

You just sound like a bad loser to me - you lost - to say that people were too stupid to vote for the better system is insulting to 70% of the electorate and un-democratic.

I'm not at all a bad loser, I didn't lose anything - without wanting to sound too pretentious - democracy lost. Yeah OK, that sounded pretentious.

I don't see why me calling people stupid is un-democratic, it's some guy on the internet calling a lot of people stupid, nothing more. The evidence for that is just how many people have bought the no-to-AV campaigns bullshit. Bullshit that was demonstrably false/made up.

So because there are other things we could vote for, fuck this one eh?

Baffling.

Don't forget Wazz, we don't need AV - we need bulletproof vests for our soldiers.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

It's scary agreeing with nath this much :/

 

[nath]

It's scary agreeing with nath this much :/

Trust me the feeling is mutual. I'm having a shower with a scouring pad later.

 

[Moriath]

nath = brain washed by yes campaign ..

Too many ppl wanted to vote yes for just something new ..

Even Clegg said it was a miserable little compromise

Nath seems to be on a vendetta against anyone who said no ..

I said no because i believed it .. i dont think i watched one Party political broadcast.

I made my mine up that I wanted first past the post rather than the alternative .. live with it .. not everyone who said no was bashed by the so called negative press .. thats from a losers point of view.

Winners make history not losers.

Ask Adolf Hitler

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Fucking hell, A+ in retardation for you.

 

[ECA]

The amount of retardation from plebs on both sides makes me want to stab puppies.

Jeezuz.

 

[nath]

nath = brain washed by yes campaign ..

Too many ppl wanted to vote yes for just something new ..

Even Clegg said it was a miserable little compromise

Nath seems to be on a vendetta against anyone who said no ..

I said no because i believed it .. i dont think i watched one Party political broadcast.

I made my mine up that I wanted first past the post rather than the alternative .. live with it .. not everyone who said no was bashed by the so called negative press .. thats from a losers point of view.

Winners make history not losers.

Ask Adolf Hitler

I didn't actually see any of the yes campaign. I read about the differences between the two and AV was obviously a better way to represent peoples views.

Clegg saying it's a miserable little compromise is utterly meaningless. Even if I were to fall on my head and consider his opinion relevant - miserable little compromise but better than FPTP is still better than FPTP.

The comments you made earlier on pointed out that you didn't actually fully understand AV, so your belief that FPTP was a better system was based on misinformation.

Winners make history? That's so meaningless to this conversation that I don't even know how to respond to it.

 

[rynnor]

I'm not making any assumption. "That's what my south african mate says" is a great way to build an opinion though, kudos.

Its called evidence rather than assumption and its a key piece of evidence because if people do end up voting like that then AV is completely pointless.

Not so much my opinion, the arguments I've seen so far have been categorically false. I'm sure there are legitimate arguments to be made against AV, I'm sure there are even some that suggest FPTP is better than AV, I've just not seen any. It all seems to be "meh, why bother?".

It is still just your opinion - its nice to see you think you know better than the electorate - have fun in your dictatorship

I'm not at all a bad loser, I didn't lose anything - without wanting to sound too pretentious - democracy lost. Yeah OK, that sounded pretentious.

Bollocks - a referendum is the purest form of democracy - you ask the electorate what they want and in this case get an unequivocal result - you dont like it - tough - thats democracy.

how many people have bought the no-to-AV campaigns bullshit. Bullshit that was demonstrably false/made up.

I didnt see any of the yes or no campaign - I thought it was a shit idea and I imagine most people were oblivious to the campaigning as far more important things were going on.

We dont need AV full stop.

 

[rynnor]

So because there are other things we could vote for, fuck this one eh?

I'm saying this was bollocks but there are important constitutional changes we could consider.

 

[georgie]

Oh dear Moriath, oh dear. Proof of how good the no campaign was, right on these here boards.

Or how poor the Yes campaign was...

 

[Moriath]

I understand how both systems work

that i could win with 30% of the vote .. in FPTP

but i also understand that Labour voters are unlikely to vote for Con as a second preference and Con for Labour

Most likely the second votes for both would be Lib Dem being the third party.

this would mean that it would be more likely that the uk would be 3 major partys rather than 2

And im happy with 2 tbh

Not that i dont understand how it works

Just that i prefer how it is.

Just because you prefer something different doesnt mean that its wrong or right .. just that you lost and for some reason seem to want to put blame somewhere rather than accepting the loss and moving on

 

[nath]

Just because you prefer something different doesnt mean that its wrong or right .. just that you lost and for some reason seem to want to put blame somewhere rather than accepting the loss and moving on

I dunno why you keep sticking to that script, it's really not the case (for me at least), very much doubt it is for the others.

Either way, a system that gives a better idea of the opinion of the electorate - in a democracy, is right for a democracy. That's not an opinion.

The opinion comes in when you ask if you think FPTP gives a better representation of the voters wishes than AV. My opinion is that AV is much better in this regard, and it's hard to see how someone could think FPTP gives a better idea. AV is really not that different - it just gets a more rounded idea of what people want.

Honestly though, I'm not a sore loser. I'm generally not affected by who's in power, I don't live that close to the redline that changes in the economy mess with my lifestyle. My work doesn't seem to be affected by the economy, I've had a constant stream of business irrespective of what's been going on over the years. I just genuinely believe AV to be a better system. As I said before, it's not my loss - it's everyone's. IMO.

 

[Chilly]

I think being coerced into voting for someone you dont want in power is a bit shady.

 

[dysfunction]

I dunno why you keep sticking to that script, it's really not the case (for me at least), very much doubt it is for the others.

Either way, a system that gives a better idea of the opinion of the electorate - in a democracy, is right for a democracy. That's not an opinion.

The opinion comes in when you ask if you think FPTP gives a better representation of the voters wishes than AV. My opinion is that AV is much better in this regard, and it's hard to see how someone could think FPTP gives a better idea. AV is really not that different - it just gets a more rounded idea of what people want.

Honestly though, I'm not a sore loser. I'm generally not affected by who's in power, I don't live that close to the redline that changes in the economy mess with my lifestyle. My work doesn't seem to be affected by the economy, I've had a constant stream of business irrespective of what's been going on over the years. I just genuinely believe AV to be a better system. As I said before, it's not my loss - it's everyone's. IMO.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[rynnor]

The opinion comes in when you ask if you think FPTP gives a better representation of the voters wishes than AV. My opinion is that AV is much better in this regard, and it's hard to see how someone could think FPTP gives a better idea. AV is really not that different - it just gets a more rounded idea of what people want.

Unless people actually put different parties into their voting preferences it makes no difference.

If they do put different parties you can get the situation where a party that was only the first choice of 25% of the electorate beats one that was first choice of 45% of the electorate and other nonsense.

I cant say I see that as an improvement.

 

[Chilly]

The thing with elections is that there are no fair systems, really. It's all one big compromise and we as a society have to decide which bits we favour over other.

Do you like local representation? Then AV or FPTP are candidates.

Do you prefer exact representation? Then PR is what you want, it's the most "fair" in pure terms when you exclude factors such as local accountability.

Maybe you want voters to be able to tell a government exactly how they feel? So use a rating based election system.

At the end of the day, people will feel differntly about these different systems, but each is fair. Personally, I think local representation is bullshit these days and would much rather go PR - but others may feel differently because they have a good relationship with their MP. Who am I to say that's meaningless?

 

[ECA]

Why not have a voting box installed on the TV and you get to login and vote on bills.

DIRECT DERPMOCRACY.

 

[Chilly]

derp derp

 

[MYstIC G]

There wasn't an option of "Stop screwing us over and do what we want you to do you fucking *****" so I didn't vote.

 

[Wij]

Why not have a voting box installed on the TV and you get to login and vote on bills.

DIRECT DERPMOCRACY.

*shudder*


Kent Brockman: [Rounding out a news story on Homer's sexual harassment scandal] Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll: 95% of people believe Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding. Unless proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will.

 

[nath]

If they do put different parties you can get the situation where a party that was only the first choice of 25% of the electorate beats one that was first choice of 45% of the electorate and other nonsense.

I cant say I see that as an improvement.

Well that would happen because the majority of the population *didn't* want that 45%er getting in so actually it'd still be representative of the majority opinion.

 

[rynnor]

Well that would happen because the majority of the population *didn't* want that 45%er getting in so actually it'd still be representative of the majority opinion.

Only indirectly - its more the election of the least disliked and ignores the fact that 75% wanted someone else to win.

 

[nath]

I'd agree that would be the case if people were forced to come up with a certain number of choices but they're not. So in theory whoever gets in has a mandate as they've been voted in by the most people, even if they weren't most peoples first choice. It's the highest common denominator to a certain extent - the party with the most votes across the board.

 

[Wij]

I'd blame it more on the fact that the Yes campaign was fronted by Ed Miliband and Eddie Izzard.

1.) Any Labour success at the minute is definately DESPITE Ed M not because of.
2.) The public may like Izzard's comedy but those who bother to vote won't have forgotten he was still trying to convince us to like Gordon Brown a year ago.

A poor campaign all round.