I know that AV will not bring this but the reform I would like to see is this:
United Kingdom general election, 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Percentage of seats won to actual country wide vote percentage???? Completely nuts!
AV is a step in the right direction, change will be good!
So you are saying that using a fact from a website that doesn't want AV to show a plus for AV is bad?
No, I'm saying if it was on either the yes or no websites it's been erm, 'sponsored' shall we say and so shouldn't be relied on as fact.
I would say that is even more valid as it was on the opposite website. That means before being sponsored the stats were probably higher so the percent up for grabs is higher.
People should not confuse a majority government and majority vote. The No campaign are avoiding some of the figures and the Yes campaign are twisting them. Spin on both sides.
A majority government (which the coalition is) is where the majority of seats are controlled by the government, and this is often forgotten. A majority vote for the governing party (when a single party) is always going to be rare in FPTP.
The only true way that AV will be stopped from having the political backbiting and backdoor deals is to have it as a staged vote. Have the voting run over many rounds, and in each round the one with the lower number of votes is eliminated. I know it sounds a tad X Factor, but it would allow for parties to be more open about when they are picking up sections of the manifesto of others when trying to win votes. It will reduce strategic voting on the day (allowing the groups which people aren't really interested in) to get through.
PR is not an option as far as I am concerned. It will be even messier than coalitions through AV.
As much as I know there is a need for change and that all views need to be considered, there are times when you just have to either accept that someone has to make decisions, or you just accept that it is all political spin and back stabbing ... so why not just go and let the Civil Service get on with keeping the country running without the meddling of politicians. They are not all like Sir Humphrey.
AV could end up with parties having their "main selling points" in order to get the first votes, but then having "catch all" policies in order to get the second and third votes... Would this would be a good thing as all parties would have to appeal to all people, or would this be a bad thing for the exact same reason?
SyCo to run the electoral system? It could work you know.
Well, No it is then...
Judging from the Slaughter of the LibDems.. guessing 1 of 2 things happened:
1) People voted NO because they didn't know enough about it
2) People voted NO because they don't like the LibDems...
Oh well.. we're stuck with FPTP for ever know folks....
Or, the simple fact that the vast majority are perfectly happy with FPTP.
Some people voted No because AV is very complicated and wasnt explained at all well. My brother in law was going to vote no until my sister sat him down and explained exactly how AV works and THEN he understood and voted yes. He is super-intelligent, so if he didnt get it, what hope was there for the rest of us?
Last edited by witch; 8th May 2011 at 10:03 PM.
AV was a nasty little compromise, the Lib Dems fought so hard for what they knew was a floored system just to save face. I'd rather keep FPTP for a few more years until a better system such as PR is introduced, than impliment AV and regret it later.
I liked your post Trapper, up until the last sentence.
PR, well, lets look at Scotland to see how representative that is. With the FPTP section of the vote, there were MSPs voted out because their constituents didn't want them, which is how democracy should work. However, because they had 'influence' in their party, they were also on the candidate list for the PR side of the vote and managed to stay an MSP through that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)