sandie Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I am with the film about Brewster where he advocated None Of The Above. So if we vote for AV lets have a box at the bottom of the sheet NOTA, What does the forum think, because if that was the case I would vote to show the idiots in power what we think of them. All the party's are the same and this student common room politics is stupid. We expect them to run the UK I would not trust them to run a bath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Brewster's Millions, such a good film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The vote on AV what is the point Yep, let's stick with our tried and tested system, after all, it's served us so well! First-Past-The-Post: the ‘safe seats’ system that breeds lazy, corrupt MPs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcrust Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 The vote on AV what is the point Yep, let's stick with our tried and tested system, after all, it's served us so well! First-Past-The-Post: the ‘safe seats’ system that breeds lazy, corrupt MPs What's that got to do with AV? AV wouldn't change a thing in many safe seats. For example, second preferences wouldn't have counted in Sheffield Hallam in 2005 and 2010 because Mr Clegg got more than 50% of the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I suppose he's arguing that any change would be better than no change. The breeding of corrupt lazy MPs, though, is not limited to just one electoral system. It's endemic to just about all of them, as long as people vote for a party and not for specific people. How many times have you heard it said that a donkey could stand with a blue rosette and get elected in some seats - or a filing cabinet with a red one in others? (And perhaps, llike me, you've thought to yourself "well in some seats, they already have been." ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcrust Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I suppose he's arguing that any change would be better than no change. That's an argument that I just don't get. Why change to a system that doesn't solve the problems associated with the existing system? Those in favour of the change to AV have a tendency to put forward arguments that apply to proportional systems, but not to AV. AV can produce results that are much less proportional than AV, safe seats will remain safe, and don't kid yourself that every vote will count! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 there are ways to protest at the election if you want them, if you do a quick search for "election" posted by me you should find at least two, however they both require you to do something rather than talk about it and there are risks you might not succeed, but hey nothing is certain except death and taxes we need electoral reform, we've had the current FPTP system since we were first allowed to vote, society has changed out of all recognition since then, I can't find exact dates but the earliest I did find is in the early 1800's so that's around 200 years we've had FPTP, with no attempt at a review ever, are we to believe we got the solution 100% correct straight out of the box, first time, that would cater for any future changes in society, even ones that were not envisaged at the time now the AV system is far from perfect, what happens is if an election in a constiuency fails to produce a winner who has more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the least votes is discarded and the next choice of the people who voted for them is added to the remaining candidates, this is repeated until there is a clear winner with more than 50% support yes it has it's flaws, it's possible to elect a candidate who wasn't anyone's first choice for example however it also means an end to safe seats and the practice of parachuting a favoured MP into a safe seat because the party wants them in government, MP's would actually have to work for their seats and most likely actually live in the constituency they are supposed to represent but the politicians are not allowing us any other choice of system, it's either FPTP or AV, they say they don't want to confuse us, I'm touched by their consideration for our low intelligence however I suspect the real reason is that they don't want any hint of PR in the vote because they are terrified we'll vote for it the politicians really want FPTP to stay because the system currently suits them down to the ground FPTP has a tendency to produce majority governments, as would the AV system since there's not that much difference between the two This basically means that the members of the cabinet make all the important decisions about the country amongst themselves and the rest of the party dances to the tune of the party whip, this small handful of people then steamroller any legislation they want through parliament if FPTP wins in the referendum then the politicians will say "the people have spoken" and any and all attempts to reform the system in the future will be dismissed with the excuse that "the people don't want change" if AV wins then they at least have to entertain the suggestion that further changes are possible if the system doesn't begin to change with this vote, we will never get the chance to change it again, you can kiss goodbye to electoral reform and say hello to at least another hundred years of two and a bit party politics where the will of the people is ignored and MP's regard themselves as above the system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcrust Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 however it also means an end to safe seats and the practice of parachuting a favoured MP into a safe seat because the party wants them in government, MP's would actually have to work for their seats and most likely actually live in the constituency they are supposed to represent How does AV end safe seats?! The safest seats are the seats that won't be affected by the change to AV in any way. And how will AV prevent parachuting? Any why would AV mean that MPs might have to live in the constituency, or work for their seat? All of what I've quoted above is pure fantasy, not backed up by even a shred of evidence. Barnsley Central would as labour under AV as it will be under FPTP. Even with a donkey standing, and an out of town parachuted one at that. Your only other argument for AV seems to be that a move to AV would open up the path to future changes. That's flawed. We're not about to change the voting system on a regular basis. In the event of a move to AV, the fact that we have already changed to a new system with the support of a referendum will be the most compelling argument for not moving to a truly proportional systems for generations to come. A brand new system that the public has voted for is infinitely more defendable than FPTP. We will only get one shot at changing the system, and I hate to think we would waste it on AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 How does AV end safe seats?! The safest seats are the seats that won't be affected by the change to AV in any way. . I'm trying to find a full list of results by constituency from 2010, so that we could point out exactly how many seats had a majority of 50% or more and would, indeed, "not be affected in any way." Sadly I can't find one unless I trawl through all 649 seats one by one and tally the results, and I don't really care as much as all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 fair enough shortcrust, I could be wrong in my assertions there but given that you don't want to waste your chance to change the system and the MP's are only giving you this one chance and they are dictating what choices you can select what do you propose we do ? you don't like my reasoning, that's fine, please suggest an alternative though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.