+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 162
General Chat Thread, Why you should vote YES to AV on Thursday: in General; Some good arguments off the BBC site: 1. AV makes MPs work harder It can't be right or fair that ...
  1. #1

    tech_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    That little bit in the middle of Little Old England
    Posts
    8,131
    Thank Post
    1,907
    Thanked 1,342 Times in 741 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    395

    Why you should vote YES to AV on Thursday:

    Some good arguments off the BBC site:

    1. AV makes MPs work harder
    It can't be right or fair that with the current system MPs can get elected on fewer than three out of ten votes. The Alternative Vote raises the bar. All MPs would have to aim to get more than 50% of the vote, and so will have to work harder to win - and keep - our support. They'll have to speak to more voters and reach out to the wider community. That's bad news for complacent MPs - and extremists.
    2. AV cuts safe seats
    While many of us have to worry about our jobs the old system means most politicians don't have to. Most seats are currently so "safe" that their incumbents don't have to worry about re-election. It's no wonder MPs seem remote and unresponsive when their elections are a foregone conclusion. AV reduces the number of safe seats - and "safe" MPs will have to up their game, because they will no longer be able to enjoy "jobs for life" with minority support.
    3. AV is a simple upgrade
    When politics was a two-horse race in the 1950s the old system worked. But as voters have embraced more parties it's easier for MPs to get in with a handful of votes. AV keeps what is best about our current system - the link between an MP serving their local constituency - and improves on it. Your ballot paper is unchanged, hung parliaments are no more likely, but every MP will have to do more to secure majority support. It's a small but necessary change.
    4. AV make votes count
    The old system has given MPs license to ignore millions of voters across the country. Parties and politicians just target the few swing voters they need to win, with the last election decided by fewer than 460,000 voters - just 1.6% of the electorate.
    AV means you will have more chance of deciding who speaks in your name in Westminster. Just rank the candidates 1,2,3… and you can show your support to anyone you think is up to the job. Then if your favourite candidate can't make it, you can still have a say. There's no longer any need to vote tactically, and more voters in more seats will help decide our elections.
    5. AV is our one chance for change
    This is the first time we have been given a say on changing the way we do politics in this country. We may not get asked again. On Thursday the choice is simple: if you're happy with business as usual at Westminster, vote No. If you want to change politics for the better, vote Yes.

  2. 9 Thanks to tech_guy:

    CyberNerd (3rd May 2011), jcollings (3rd May 2011), localzuk (3rd May 2011), LosOjos (3rd May 2011), Rydra (11th May 2011), SimpleSi (4th May 2011), Soulfish (3rd May 2011), sparkeh (4th May 2011), webman (4th May 2011)

  3. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    633
    Thank Post
    266
    Thanked 51 Times in 43 Posts
    Rep Power
    40
    well said

  4. #3

    JJonas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Walsham, Norfolk
    Posts
    3,068
    Thank Post
    379
    Thanked 428 Times in 317 Posts
    Rep Power
    361
    purely for the sake of balance Why you should vote No. (also from the BBC site)

    1. AV is unfair

    Under the AV system, some people would get their vote counted more times than others. For generations, elections in the UK have been based on the fundamental principle of 'one person, one vote'. AV would undermine all that by allowing the supporters of fringe parties to have their second, third or fourth choices counted - while supporters of the mainstream candidates would only get their vote counted once.

    2. AV is not widely used

    AV is only used by three countries in the world - Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea - and even they don't like it. In Australia, av hasn't made their MPs work any harder, got rid of 'safe' seats, or stopped negative campaigning. By contrast, our first-past-the-post voting system has been copied around the globe. It is used by 2.4 billion people, making it the most widely used system in the world.

    3. AV is expensive

    AV would end up costing our country an estimated 250m. This referendum alone is costing us 91m and AV would be a more costly way of running elections. Australia's elections under AV cost three times more than ours do. When preferential voting systems were introduced in Scotland and London, expensive vote counting machines were bought in at a cost of millions. That's without even counting the need for more polling stations and election staff because av ballots take longer to complete.

    4. AV hands more power to politicians

    AV is a politicians' fix and will do nothing to fix our broken politics. By boosting the number of Lib Dem MPs, AV makes hung parliaments more likely - leading to more broken promises, more back-room deals, and more power in the hands of politicians rather than the voters. If AV was the answer to the expenses scandal, why didn't we hear about it at the time and why are Members of the European Parliament abusing their expenses even though they're elected under a different system?

    5. AV supporters are sceptical

    Even the Yes campaign think av isn't good enough for our country. Those people telling you it is the best thing since sliced bread have spent years pointing out its flaws. Nick Clegg dismissed it as "a miserable little compromise" while Chris Huhne said "there would continue to be safe seats where the MP will effectively have a job for life". But now they've all changed their tune. AV remains unfair, obscure and expensive and would be bad for our country. That's why people should vote No.

  5. 4 Thanks to JJonas:

    Gatt (3rd May 2011), Rydra (11th May 2011), superfletch (3rd May 2011), teejay (3rd May 2011)

  6. #4

    tech_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    That little bit in the middle of Little Old England
    Posts
    8,131
    Thank Post
    1,907
    Thanked 1,342 Times in 741 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    395
    And there's another reason for voting YES on Thursday - Cameron wants you to vote NO......

  7. 3 Thanks to tech_guy:

    jcollings (3rd May 2011), LeMarchand (3rd May 2011), PICNIC (4th May 2011)

  8. #5

    TechMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    3,282
    Thank Post
    225
    Thanked 403 Times in 300 Posts
    Rep Power
    161
    The thing that annoys me about that article is that no thought has gone into it, they have just copied and pasted the guff going around. Like the safe seats, a fair portion of those all ready have over 50% of the vote so they are safe still. The only way this might change is if those are made up of tactical votes. I also don't see how it will make them work harder, they do what they do.

    Don't even get me started on the No reasons!!!

    The best reason is to help confused cats

  9. Thanks to TechMonkey from:

    JJonas (3rd May 2011)

  10. #6

    TechMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    3,282
    Thank Post
    225
    Thanked 403 Times in 300 Posts
    Rep Power
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by JJonas View Post
    purely for the sake of balance Why you should vote No. (also from the BBC site)

    1. AV is unfair

    Under the AV system, some people would get their vote counted more times than others. For generations, elections in the UK have been based on the fundamental principle of 'one person, one vote'. AV would undermine all that by allowing the supporters of fringe parties to have their second, third or fourth choices counted - while supporters of the mainstream candidates would only get their vote counted once.

    2. AV is not widely used

    AV is only used by three countries in the world - Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea - and even they don't like it. In Australia, av hasn't made their MPs work any harder, got rid of 'safe' seats, or stopped negative campaigning. By contrast, our first-past-the-post voting system has been copied around the globe. It is used by 2.4 billion people, making it the most widely used system in the world.

    3. AV is expensive

    AV would end up costing our country an estimated 250m. This referendum alone is costing us 91m and AV would be a more costly way of running elections. Australia's elections under AV cost three times more than ours do. When preferential voting systems were introduced in Scotland and London, expensive vote counting machines were bought in at a cost of millions. That's without even counting the need for more polling stations and election staff because av ballots take longer to complete.

    4. AV hands more power to politicians

    AV is a politicians' fix and will do nothing to fix our broken politics. By boosting the number of Lib Dem MPs, AV makes hung parliaments more likely - leading to more broken promises, more back-room deals, and more power in the hands of politicians rather than the voters. If AV was the answer to the expenses scandal, why didn't we hear about it at the time and why are Members of the European Parliament abusing their expenses even though they're elected under a different system?

    5. AV supporters are sceptical

    Even the Yes campaign think av isn't good enough for our country. Those people telling you it is the best thing since sliced bread have spent years pointing out its flaws. Nick Clegg dismissed it as "a miserable little compromise" while Chris Huhne said "there would continue to be safe seats where the MP will effectively have a job for life". But now they've all changed their tune. AV remains unfair, obscure and expensive and would be bad for our country. That's why people should vote No.

    ARGGGGHHHHHHHH, you did it!!! You let the cat out of the bag!!!!!

    1 - It doesn't give someone more than one vote!!! Everyone's vote is counted once but it is like holding lots of rounds of voting all at once. You still only get one vote!!!!
    3 - EXPENSIVE!!!!! MPs are expensive, do we have the option of getting rid of them? And where did this fictional number come from? I know lets say that to carry on with FPTP will cost a Trillion Squillion pounds does that mean AV wins?
    4 - A voting system can't give someone more powers!! We do, we have to give a damn and choose someone rather than blindly tick a box that has the same old logo we always follow next to it.
    5 - Of course they previously said they didn't want AV, everyone wanted PR but those that didn't want it forced a compromise. As for more hung parliaments, we used to have lots of hung parliaments and we still managed to fight a world war or 2 introduce the welfare state and a few other things around the world. FPTP is only suitable in a 2 horse race, once the parties fragment so does the voting meaning people aren't getting what they wanted.

    Right I'm off to beat a car with a branch!

  11. #7

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,529
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by JJonas View Post
    purely for the sake of balance Why you should vote No. (also from the BBC site)

    1. AV is unfair

    Under the AV system, some people would get their vote counted more times than others. For generations, elections in the UK have been based on the fundamental principle of 'one person, one vote'. AV would undermine all that by allowing the supporters of fringe parties to have their second, third or fourth choices counted - while supporters of the mainstream candidates would only get their vote counted once.
    Finding it difficult to see an issue here. The opposite of this is 'if you don't choose the winning party, you are entirely unrepresented in government'...

    2. AV is not widely used

    AV is only used by three countries in the world - Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea - and even they don't like it. In Australia, av hasn't made their MPs work any harder, got rid of 'safe' seats, or stopped negative campaigning. By contrast, our first-past-the-post voting system has been copied around the globe. It is used by 2.4 billion people, making it the most widely used system in the world.
    I'm more interested in quality, not quantity. Fairness, not ease.

    3. AV is expensive

    AV would end up costing our country an estimated 250m. This referendum alone is costing us 91m and AV would be a more costly way of running elections. Australia's elections under AV cost three times more than ours do. When preferential voting systems were introduced in Scotland and London, expensive vote counting machines were bought in at a cost of millions. That's without even counting the need for more polling stations and election staff because av ballots take longer to complete.
    No-one has yet been able to back this up. Australia have been using AV for many years without electronic voting systems. I can see that there'd be a bit more admin overhead, but can't see that it would cost 3 times as much. Bear in mind that Australia is 76m km2, compared to our 244k km2. Geography alone could easily account for extra costs.

    4. AV hands more power to politicians

    AV is a politicians' fix and will do nothing to fix our broken politics. By boosting the number of Lib Dem MPs, AV makes hung parliaments more likely - leading to more broken promises, more back-room deals, and more power in the hands of politicians rather than the voters. If AV was the answer to the expenses scandal, why didn't we hear about it at the time and why are Members of the European Parliament abusing their expenses even though they're elected under a different system?
    We're getting hung parliaments from the current system, AV neither makes hung parliaments more or less possible. I admit, AV is a compromise, as those who wanted change originally said they wanted a PR system, but it is a good step in the right direction, giving more power to the people by allowing more people to be represented in government.

    5. AV supporters are sceptical

    Even the Yes campaign think av isn't good enough for our country. Those people telling you it is the best thing since sliced bread have spent years pointing out its flaws. Nick Clegg dismissed it as "a miserable little compromise" while Chris Huhne said "there would continue to be safe seats where the MP will effectively have a job for life". But now they've all changed their tune. AV remains unfair, obscure and expensive and would be bad for our country. That's why people should vote No.
    If you had a choice between being stabbed, or being poked with a stick, which would you choose...?

  12. 2 Thanks to localzuk:

    sparkeh (4th May 2011), tech_guy (3rd May 2011)

  13. #8

    JJonas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Walsham, Norfolk
    Posts
    3,068
    Thank Post
    379
    Thanked 428 Times in 317 Posts
    Rep Power
    361
    Sorry I only posted to give balance to the discussion, thats democracy for you every party gets to have their say even if you dont like it.

  14. 2 Thanks to JJonas:

    BenABF (4th May 2011), Robz (3rd May 2011)

  15. #9

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,787
    Thank Post
    572
    Thanked 2,154 Times in 982 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    626
    But if it is that good why do only 3 other countries use it (one of which wants to drop it), and it will lead to more coalition govts where the Lib-Dems get to partner up each time. Anyway, given the vast majority vote one way or another, Labour or Conservative and given that both have more experience than fringe parties at governing voters will still list their prime candidat as first, but won't list the other as second, choosing another random candidate over their dislike of the 'opposition'. The current system does work, because the majority gets to decide who governs. That is democracy.

  16. #10

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,787
    Thank Post
    572
    Thanked 2,154 Times in 982 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    626
    We really need that politics froum don't we

  17. #11

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,529
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dos_Box View Post
    But if it is that good why do only 3 other countries use it (one of which wants to drop it), and it will lead to more coalition govts where the Lib-Dems get to partner up each time. Anyway, given the vast majority vote one way or another, Labour or Conservative and given that both have more experience than fringe parties at governing voters will still list their prime candidat as first, but won't list the other as second, choosing another random candidate over their dislike of the 'opposition'. The current system does work, because the majority gets to decide who governs. That is democracy.
    Why do people always vote 'one way or the other'? Is it because they truly believe in their policies? Or is it because people engage in tactical voting, or think their vote would be wasted if they voted the way they really wanted to? I know I've wanted to vote for smaller parties in elections, but have always felt it is useless. This way, I would be able to vote for them, and still have a backup of one of the big parties should it fail to get someone different in.

    Also, what has experience got to do with it? Experience is what keeps on getting us into recessions, wars, and other such fun things.

    The majority does NOT get to decide. We basically have a conservative government, with little bits of Lib Dem in places, and they had far less than 51% of the vote!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dos_Box View Post
    We really need that politics froum don't we
    That sounds scary. Kinda like 'eternal flames will burn in here'...

  18. #12

    JJonas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Walsham, Norfolk
    Posts
    3,068
    Thank Post
    379
    Thanked 428 Times in 317 Posts
    Rep Power
    361

  19. 2 Thanks to JJonas:

    Netman (3rd May 2011), TechMonkey (3rd May 2011)

  20. #13
    Robz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    197
    Thank Post
    143
    Thanked 36 Times in 28 Posts
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by tech_guy View Post
    And there's another reason for voting YES on Thursday - Cameron wants you to vote NO......
    Ed Milliband wants us to vote yes "to kick Cameron", is that really the way we want our political future decided? BTW what voting system was used to get him into the leadership seat?....

  21. #14

    TechMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    South East
    Posts
    3,282
    Thank Post
    225
    Thanked 403 Times in 300 Posts
    Rep Power
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Robz View Post
    Ed Milliband wants us to vote yes "to kick Cameron", is that really the way we want our political future decided? BTW what voting system was used to get him into the leadership seat?....
    That's what really narks me, this shouldn't be a party matter or for political manoeuvring, it shouldn't be to show anyone anything it. It would have taken longer but I think we should have just had a referendum that asked do we need voting reform. That way we can see if there was a want for change or not, it would have been harder to politicise and then we would have had a country response. The way it is now many are voting no as they don't want AV, but they do want reform, voting one way of the other just to show xxx what they think of them or not bothering as it is just a complete bun fight!

  22. #15
    pooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    S Wales
    Posts
    1,128
    Thank Post
    77
    Thanked 118 Times in 99 Posts
    Rep Power
    66
    This is as clear as mud, either way nothing much will change. I'd prefer a "none of the above" box ala Brewsters Millions
    Last edited by pooley; 3rd May 2011 at 04:17 PM.

  23. 2 Thanks to pooley:

    CHR1S (4th May 2011), sted (4th May 2011)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Drinks on Thursday night
    By paulgarratt83 in forum BETT 2014
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th December 2009, 04:50 PM
  2. This Thursday What Are You Doing
    By russdev in forum General Chat
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 9th June 2009, 12:42 PM
  3. Interview Thursday!
    By DevilsAdvocate in forum General Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 24th March 2008, 07:24 PM
  4. Patch Thursday
    By Dos_Box in forum Windows
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12th October 2005, 06:25 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •