AV - whats the crack?


Status
Not open for further replies.
The information is out there, you can lead a horse to water and all that.

Though the No campaigners are doing a fine job at making it seem complicated and scary. Politics of fear, the old faithful.

Strange how you thought the fact it wasnt was the one factor in your argument that the decision the Irish made in a democratic vote regarding the EU and its wonderful constitution necessitated a second go to ensure the " correct " decision was eventually made......
 
No but we should. IIRC the system in Australia is that voting is compulsory but there's a fairy low standard fine for those that don't.

I was going to say they could make it easier by giving everyone who votes £5, but then do I really want to encourage the scumbags of this country to vote just to get a fiver?

Oh so funny, however i never said that before. I'm the first to admit there's a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

What i do say is once provided with the facts on how it works rather than a scare story to attempt to stop people voting for it it's not complicated in the slightest. :roll:

Why campaign on lies instead of the truth? Because the truth might be popular.

There is no explanation why the NO campaign are running such a cynical campaign other than the fact they think confronted with the truth voters might think it's a good idea.




Aye a rather hilarious stance to take, proving he doesn't really care what AV is all he knows is he is against it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0

Charlie Brooker made a good point on 10pm Live or whatever its called.

There are posters saying that you can't have AV AND have bullet proof vests for soldiers - its a choice, you can only have one.

Then they have another poster saying you can't have AV AND emergency care for premature babies - its a choice, you can only have one.


But wait a minute, I can only pick on - damn, that means either them babies, or them soliders are going to die! :lol:

I want to vote for one candidate and thats it. I don't want people to have the option to vote for more than one. It would be unfair.

They only get 1 vote - just that this vote may change. Its still only one vote.

Will this actually make any practical difference?

I think it would shit up Labour and the Tories massively.

Their vote shares will drop massively, as people today are forced to vote for one or the other, as they are worried that the opposite might get in.



I keep making this point, but here goes again:

How many areas of the country have superb local people who could really make a difference, but nobody beleives they will get in over Lab/Tor - so then they are worried into voting for their 2nd preference.

The miniority candidates never get a fair chance - but AV would let everyone vote for who they really want to. And if they don't get in, you have your "insurance" in place.
 
Strange how you thought the fact it wasnt was the one factor in your argument that the decision the Irish made in a democratic vote regarding the EU and its wonderful constitution necessitated a second go to ensure the " correct " decision was eventually made......

I agree that the decision to proceed with the second vote was absurd, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

It's quite funny, one of those three countries so often claimed as being desperate to get rid of AV - Fiji - is actually under the yoke of a military dictatorship.

:lol:

I dunno if this thread is a fair sample of the mood of my mother country, but if it is then it seems that the No votes is basically made up of Tories and BNP voters - people who would actually welcome being under a dictatorship, if they were really honest with themselves.
 
Here's AV in 10 simple steps...

1. Let's suppose we are living in a country with just 50 voters.

2.There are 4 candidates;

Mr Brown
Mrs White
Mr Green
Mrs Purple

3. You number them in order of preference e.g.

Mr Brown 3
Mrs White 1
Mr Green 2
Mrs Purple 4

4. If 25 people (half the voters) put Mrs White as their number 1...she wins!

5. If only 24 voters put her as number 1, the candidate who had the least number 1s stuck next to their name is out of the election and their name is crossed off all ballot papers.

6. Lets say only one person put Mr Green as their number 1...Mr Green is then out of the race!

7. Lets say the only person who put Mr Green as number 1 is called John Smith

8. You then look at who John Smith put as his number 2 and then that number 2 effectively becomes his number one.

9. Let's suppose John Smith's number 2 was Mrs White...she then becomes his number 1.

10. 24 marked Mrs White as number 1 add to that the new number 1 vote from John Smith and she now has 25 votes...50%...Mrs White wins the election!!
 
Still none the wiser.

Following the last election Clegg was telling the Labour Party who should be their leader with a third of their seats.

If AV gives more power to people like Clegg Im voting No even if it means Im agreeing with smarmy Cameron and Gideon Im afraid.
 
Cosmos Rocks said:
Still none the wiser.

Following the last election Clegg was telling the Labour Party who should be their leader with a third of their seats.

If AV gives more power to people like Clegg Im voting No even if it means Im agreeing with smarmy Cameron and Gideon Im afraid.

The situation you describe happened under FPTP.
 
Still none the wiser.

Following the last election Clegg was telling the Labour Party who should be their leader with a third of their seats.

If AV gives more power to people like Clegg Im voting No even if it means Im agreeing with smarmy Cameron and Gideon Im afraid.

And thats the point mate.........

No sod in the world has it
The couple who do want shot of it
The vast majority of the electorate dont understand what it is let alone how to use the vote if its comes in..

Its the latter the folk who want it totally miss.................

Lets bring in something you understand and want regardless..............
 
the streaker said:
And thats the point mate.........

No sod in the world has it
The couple who do want shot of it
The vast majority of the electorate dont understand what it is let alone how to use the vote if its comes in..

Its the latter the folk who want it totally miss.................

Lets bring in something you understand and want regardless..............

And let's ignore those who experienced both systems first hand.
 
And let's ignore those who experienced both systems first hand.

Post 149............

Why change then................

And both systems..............who has this at the moment and what percentage of them want shot of it..

And yes you did want a second vote to get the "correct " result from the population of Ireland and you argued long and hard over it.........

Shows what you think of the present day value of democracy mate.................
 
I'm voting no.

If you're not confident enough to decide the one person you want to represent you then you should have your vote taken off you.

It's not a case of that though, it's a case of if my first choice doesn't win, i think this bloke is the next best choice, or alternatively, he wouldn't be as bad a choice as another alternative who is running. Surely a vote against someone is relevant as a vote for someone?
 
It's not a case of that though, it's a case of if my first choice doesn't win, i think this bloke is the next best choice, or alternatively, he wouldn't be as bad a choice as another alternative who is running. Surely a vote against someone is relevant as a vote for someone?

I'd prefer the most popular candidate, not the least most unpopular candidate to represent the constituency.

It seems only fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top