Av Referendum

[Walsingham]

For those who don't know, the UK is about to vote on May 5th as to whether to change its system of voting to 'Alternative Voting'. Where you rank order your preferences.

 

I thought it was, you know, worth having a thread about a massive upheaval to the constitution of the World's longest running democracy*.

 

~~

 

Labour, of course, are as usual quite prepared to f*** the country if it scores them a small tactical advantage. Vote no, just to annoy Cameron!

 

~~

 

My own view, which I welcome challenging on, is that AV rewards indecisive people who know nothing about politics. I don't think we should listen MORE to those people. I think politics should be about making concrete decisions, because government is about concrete decisions.

 

 

 

*If I'm wrong on this please post in new thread.

[Nightshape]

For those who don't know, the UK is about to vote on May 5th as to whether to change its system of voting to 'Alternative Voting'. Where you rank order your preferences.

 

I thought it was, you know, worth having a thread about a massive upheaval to the constitution of the World's longest running democracy*.

 

~~

 

Labour, of course, are as usual quite prepared to f*** the country if it scores them a small tactical advantage. Vote no, just to annoy Cameron!

 

~~

 

My own view, which I welcome challenging on, is that AV rewards indecisive people who know nothing about politics. I don't think we should listen MORE to those people. I think politics should be about making concrete decisions, because government is about concrete decisions.

 

 

 

*If I'm wrong on this please post in new thread.

 

I disagree sir.

 

FPTP means people don't vote for what they want, they vote for the most likely to defeat what they don't want.

 

AV while not perfect, I'd prefer PR, is far better than FPTP. It allows for one to make a preferance, 1st choice as say greens, but I want to make sure the troy scum don't get in so I'll have 2nd as labour, and 3rd as lib-dem. Or whatever.

 

Where I live in Guildford, a vote for anyone other than the Lib-Dems or Tory(scum) is a wasted vote. As a result I vote for the non-Tory option - and not the option I want. This kind of tactical voting isn't democratic its desperate.

 

I also believe a vote of no, will mean I'll never see a change to PR or AV in my lifetime, as a no vote will be percieved as a yes vote for FPTP. This is the one chance to make the country more democratic, I imtend to to vote yes as a result.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Nightshape

[Humodour]

Preferential voting is the system Australia has used in the lower house for around 100 years, and it has worked very, very well. It certainly prevents certain very illogical situations. The country that perhaps needs preferential voting even more than the UK or America is Canada (although all 3 of them dearly need it).

 

As for you not wanting certain people to have their voice properly heard at the ballot box, Wals, what the **** is that all about? Indecisive? You think somebody is indecisive if they vote for their favourite party (say Libertarian Party) but want to make sure that if the Libertarians don't win the seat that their vote for the Libertarians doesn't lead to a weakening of the vote for a party they'd otherwise also prefer, leading to the party they least prefer winning the seat (which is what happens under first-past-the-post)? Screw your small-minded elitist attitude.

 

And yes, you're wrong. There are a few countries which can lay claim to being the worlds oldest continuous democracies (including Iceland, IIRC), but the UK is definitely and pretty obviously not one of them.

[Nightshape]

Preferential voting is the system Australia has used in the lower house for around 100 years, and it has worked very, very well. It certainly prevents certain very illogical situations. The country that perhaps needs preferential voting even more than the UK or America is Canada (although all 3 of them dearly need it).

 

As for you not wanting certain people to have their voice properly heard at the ballot box, Wals, what the **** is that all about? Indecisive? You think somebody is indecisive if they vote for their favourite party (say Libertarian Party) but want to make sure that if the Libertarians don't win the seat that their vote for the Libertarians doesn't lead to a weakening of the vote for a party they'd otherwise also prefer, leading to the party they least prefer winning the seat (which is what happens under first-past-the-post)? Screw your small-minded elitist attitude.

 

And yes, you're wrong. There are a few countries which can lay claim to being the worlds oldest continuous democracies (including Iceland, IIRC), but the UK is definitely and pretty obviously not one of them.

 

I thought Greece was democratic also... Anyways, its a moot matter.

 

I still think PR is a better system.

[Walsingham]

Thanks for a moderate and reasonable first response!

 

Having worked on a local campaign for a friend, I confirm your point about people voting for NOT something. This would seem to be the opposite of the notion that one votes FOR something. And hence the whole point about a democratic mandate for action.

 

Two rejoinders to this:

 

1. I'd put

[Raithe]

On that long running Democracy.. well it kind of depends on what elements you qualify as democracy... and whether interruptions to said democracy count.

 

I mean, the Polish had that sort of democracy where all the nobles had a vote around 600 years back. Of course, that screwed them because bugger all decisions could be made in that situation since each noble pretty much had a veto to the whole government. Part of the reason they kept getting invaded and made the whipping boy of Europe for a few hundred years...

 

England has had Parliment and certain elements of constitutional monarchy for about as long, although not everyone counts that as a valid "democratic" form of government, but that came about with the Magna Carta back in the late 1200's (I can never remember the exact year).

 

The Allthing was in Iceland, which from what I understand was pretty much the morphed results of early Norse popular support for leadership. (Same with the Scandinavian Things).

 

Although the key thing for all of those "democratic" forms during the middle ages were that they were only democratic for strict minority groups.

 

I think Wals might have an edge with his view, because the UK's government has pretty much run uninterupted from that form for nearly millenia. Even when Charles lost his head in the civil war, they kept parliment ticking along (well, at least the people who could vote on it).

[Oerwinde]

As for you not wanting certain people to have their voice properly heard at the ballot box, Wals, what the **** is that all about? Indecisive? You think somebody is indecisive if they vote for their favourite party (say Libertarian Party) but want to make sure that if the Libertarians don't win the seat that their vote for the Libertarians doesn't lead to a weakening of the vote for a party they'd otherwise also prefer, leading to the party they least prefer winning the seat (which is what happens under first-past-the-post)? Screw your small-minded elitist attitude.

 

Thats an issue we're having here now in our election. We currently have 3 major left aligned parties(four if you count the Bloc, but they only matter in Quebec) and one right aligned party. Because the vote is split amongst the left aligned parties the right aligned party wins the most seats and forms the government despite the majority of the population being left aligned. And now the NDP (The furthest left) have seen a massive upswing in popularity, reducing the Liberal vote and instead of being a major victory for the NDP, it will most likely translate to more seats for the Conservatives instead. Latest polls put the NDP at 28%, Liberals at 24% and Conservatives at 34%, with the Greens at 7% and the Bloc at 6%(Only runs candidates in Quebec, so numbers for the Bloc are wonky). What that means essentially is 65% of Canadians vote for a leftist party, but the Conservatives could end up with a majority government. Majority government meaning the Conservatives could pass whatever legislation they want without needing the approval of the opposition parties. So while 65% of Canadians want more government spending on social programs, more focus on the environment, etc, etc. Instead we get corporate tax cuts and a move towards US style deregulation, move towards privatised health care, etc.

[Nightshape]

1. I'd put

[Raithe]

Maybe I'm jaded or too cynical, or just weary of it all.. But the trouble I have is there just doesn't seem to be that much different in the various leaders and main people in the parties these days.

 

They all seem to be from the same cookie-cutter mold.

[Nightshape]

Maybe I'm jaded or too cynical, or just weary of it all.. But the trouble I have is there just doesn't seem to be that much different in the various leaders and main people in the parties these days.

 

They all seem to be from the same cookie-cutter mold.

 

I hear that.

[Bos_hybrid]

Maybe I'm jaded or too cynical, or just weary of it all.. But the trouble I have is there just doesn't seem to be that much different in the various leaders and main people in the parties these days.

 

They all seem to be from the same cookie-cutter mold.

 

It's the same all around the world, it takes a 'special' person to be a politician.

[Nightshape]

Maybe I'm jaded or too cynical, or just weary of it all.. But the trouble I have is there just doesn't seem to be that much different in the various leaders and main people in the parties these days.

 

They all seem to be from the same cookie-cutter mold.

 

It's the same all around the world, it takes a 'special' person to be a politician.

 

A certain kind of psychopathic liar.

[Raithe]

It's kind of scary isn't it. We wouldn't buy a used car from most of these people, but we still end up voting for them to run the country...

[pmp10]

Maybe I'm jaded or too cynical, or just weary of it all.. But the trouble I have is there just doesn't seem to be that much different in the various leaders and main people in the parties these days.

 

They all seem to be from the same cookie-cutter mold.

 

It's the same all around the world, it takes a 'special' person to be a politician.

 

A certain kind of psychopathic liar.

I know that abusing politicians is a crucial privilege of every democratic society but don't you think that's going a bit too far?

[Enoch]

This all gets to whether one wants to have a lot of political parties in one's democracy, or only a few.

 

My theory is that a democracy with a lot of parties makes people generally feel better. People are generally unreasonable absolutists-- they want to get their way, and they don't want to compromise about it. And if there are a lot of parties to choose from, they can probably find one that they feel pretty good about voting for-- one with candidates who take absolutist positions on the issues that they care about. On the other hand, with fewer, larger, "big tent" parties in the system, it's unlikely that a voter is going to find a party or a candidate whose policy hobbyhorses line up particularly closely with their own. So, instead of having the parties up in the legislature work out the compromises necessary to run the country, the voters themselves are the ones who have to compromise. They don't like that (see, e.g., Nightshape's complaint above).

 

IMO, a "few parties" system works better. When legislatures contain lots of little parties, you get a whole lot of single-issue extremists talking past each other, forming and breaking unpredictable coalitions, and generally being daft. Big-party systems tend to get somewhat more reasonable people into office-- people who understand that they're representing a broad swath of the population, not all of whom agree with them on every issue. (Although unrelated trends in the American electoral landscape-- gerrymandering, increasingly partisan media, etc.-- are 'extremisting' the major parties, too.)

Edited April 26, 2011 by Enoch

[Nightshape]

This all gets to whether one wants to have a lot of political parties in one's democracy, or only a few.

 

My theory is that a democracy with a lot of parties makes people generally feel better. People are generally unreasonable absolutists-- they want to get their way, and they don't want to compromise about it. And if there are a lot of parties to choose from, they can probably find one that they feel pretty good about voting for-- one with candidates who take absolutist positions on the issues that they care about. On the other hand, with fewer, larger, "big tent" parties in the system, it's unlikely that a voter is going to find a party or a candidate whose policy hobbyhorses line up particularly closely with their own. So, instead of having the parties up in the legislature work out the compromises necessary to run the country, the voters themselves are the ones who have to compromise. They don't like that (see, e.g., Nightshape's complaint above).

 

IMO, a "few parties" system works better. When legislatures contain lots of little parties, you get a whole lot of single-issue extremists talking past each other, forming and breaking unpredictable coalitions, and generally being daft. Big-party systems tend to get somewhat more reasonable people into office-- people who understand that they're representing a broad swath of the population, not all of whom agree with them on every issue. (Although unrelated trends in the American electoral landscape-- gerrymandering, increasingly partisan media, etc.-- are 'extremisting' the major parties, too.)

 

There is a massive problem in the UK with voter apathy, this is because the only options are the big parties, they don't feel represented at all, so they don't vote. They should, but... Well the last election was, you can have cuts now, or cuts later. The fact that these damn politicians couldn't come out and say that really does tell me alot about these liars.

 

Now I wouldn't exactly call Mr Cameron a reasonable person either, but that's another conversation.

[Enoch]

I get that a high interest and turnout in elections has some beneficial side-effects (people feel more invested in civic goings-on, are less cynical and less tolerant of disgraceful actions, etc., etc.). But addressing such nebulous voter apathy concerns by changing the whole structure of election system seems to me to be like taking a howitzer on a duck hunting trip. Yeah, you'll probably bag some mallards, but that pond sure isn't going to be the same afterwards.

 

Putting together a government that is both representative and actually functional is, to me, a more important goal than making people feel warm and fuzzy about the process.

[Nightshape]

Putting together a government that is both representative and actually functional is, to me, a more important goal than making people feel warm and fuzzy about the process.

 

I don't believe that the current system is represetative, infact, if you look at the numbers it most certainly IS NOT representative. Functional, well that's another debate.

[Moose]

My own view, which I welcome challenging on, is that AV rewards indecisive people who know nothing about politics. I don't think we should listen MORE to those people. I think politics should be about making concrete decisions, because government is about concrete decisions.

 

I dunno - you gotta admit it feels better living under a weakened tory government than a strong one. Nutters on both sides tend to cancel each other out.

[Nightshape]

My own view, which I welcome challenging on, is that AV rewards indecisive people who know nothing about politics. I don't think we should listen MORE to those people. I think politics should be about making concrete decisions, because government is about concrete decisions.

 

I dunno - you gotta admit it feels better living under a weakened tory government than a strong one. Nutters on both sides tend to cancel each other out.

 

I think Wals may be a Tory(scum)... Real shame, but politics is personal and I would never say its right to impose.

[Enoch]

Putting together a government that is both representative and actually functional is, to me, a more important goal than making people feel warm and fuzzy about the process.

 

I don't believe that the current system is represetative, infact, if you look at the numbers it most certainly IS NOT representative. Functional, well that's another debate.

Well, of course you don't think the system is representative-- the candidates you would prefer to support don't have a chance of winning.

 

Every system is going to have winners and losers. If you want to be on the other side of that line, convince more of your neighbors to vote in the manner you would prefer.

[Nightshape]

Putting together a government that is both representative and actually functional is, to me, a more important goal than making people feel warm and fuzzy about the process.

 

I don't believe that the current system is represetative, infact, if you look at the numbers it most certainly IS NOT representative. Functional, well that's another debate.

Well, of course you don't think the system is representative-- the candidates you would prefer to support don't have a chance of winning.

 

Every system is going to have winners and losers. If you want to be on the other side of that line, convince more of your neighbors to vote in the manner you would prefer.

 

errr Percentage of votes to seats won is well out of whack.

[Nepenthe]

I didn't think anyone could mount a convincing argument for a "winner takes all" system.

 

Yeah, I still don't think that.

[Darth InSidious]

I think the key question about AV is this: How does it affect the hold of parties over the electoral system? If it strenghtens theri grip, it can only be against the public good. If it does nothing about it, then we must admit it is little more than a cosmetic reform, and like Lords reform, is designed as a sop to distract attention away from the increasing power of politicians who are increasingly not our representatives but our rulers. True political reform in the UK needs to have (broadly) two aims: stripping power away from the front bench/party political machine, and ensuring that there is at all times a viable opposition and balance to Parliament. In short, we need to make us them an them us, and ensure that there is never a single point which immediately gains bipartisan support.

[Nightshape]

General Election

 

^ how is that a fair representation of the will of the people when you have the likes of the lib-dems with 23.0% of the votes, but 8% of the seats, and the Tory(scum) party get 36.1% and 47% of the seats.

 

FPTP is in the interest of the main two parties, may as well live in a dictatorship.