• Alternative Vote poll - yes or no?

    1304774814
    Peachy keen [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Colonel
    • Posts: 283
    • Joined: 25 Sep 2009

     I don't want to quote your massive post again BashfulBabe, but I agree entirely.

    1304779396
    Booties [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1099
    • Joined: 9 Dec 2010

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    BashfulBabe wrote:

    x X x wrote:

    Erm.. I don't see why people have to automatically assume a person that voted "No" was influenced by the propaganda and "naive".

    Oh, I'm sure not all were, but enough of a chunk were that we can't know if the lies of the No crowd didn't ultimately change the outcome.  Enough people are naive, as shown by those quoting the misinformation that was spread, that it's hard to believe that the swing wasn't down to those who swallowed the shit.

    This - as I said in my first post - if people want to vote No because they've researched it and believe in it then, well who am I to tell them that's wrong! They have the right to vote who they want.

    However a hell of a lot of people voted off the back of those bloody leaflets which had lies all over them - the polls showed a huge % of people were going to vote Yes before those leaflets were released and yet we ended up with a small amount of people voting Yes - the leaflets did majorly effect the results unfortunately and the leaflets were based on lies.

    Adx


    This ^

    If you voted no for a reason, fair enough. People that voted no just because "their family has always been conservative" and they feel they have to support them... People that voted no because they hate Clegg, people that were swayed by the no campaign's "AV will be more expensive" leaflets even though the parties spent hundreds on the campaign... I have no respect for them. 

    I believe personally that AV would have been a step towards a better change. If it really didn't work, we could have switched back... However Cameron is now waltzing around saying that the PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN and that we want to STICK WITH FPTP, reading wrongly into a lot of votes (we want change but not AV) and also ignoring the voices of the 6mil people who wanted AV of course. Not to mention the people that didn't vote because they couldn't get there, or thought voting would be futile. 

    Did anyone notice that all the stereotypically posh and clever places voted yes? o.O
    Central Edinburgh, posh(er) bit of Glasgow, Islington, Camden, Cambridge, Oxford... 

    1304804631
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1641
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    BashfulBabe wrote:

    Wilk: if you have ten people voting, and 3 go for A, 2 for B, 2 for C, 1 for D and 1 for E, then A would win under FPTP, despite only having the support of 30% of the people

    This is what I called disingenuous earlier. More people wanted A than any other candidate: 50% more people voted for A  than voted for B: 50% more people voted for A than voted for C and so on! Any1 can use figures in an argument.

    W

    1304806444
    naughtyrider [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major
    • Posts: 157
    • Joined: 12 Mar 2008

    my brain is a bit mushy at the moment but not quite sure what your point is Wilkibo

    1304807578
    SweetSubmission [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 858
    • Joined: 7 Sep 2009

    Wilkibo wrote:

    BashfulBabe wrote:

    Wilk: if you have ten people voting, and 3 go for A, 2 for B, 2 for C, 1 for D and 1 for E, then A would win under FPTP, despite only having the support of 30% of the people

    This is what I called disingenuous earlier. More people wanted A than any other candidate: 50% more people voted for A  than voted for B: 50% more people voted for A than voted for C and so on! Any1 can use figures in an argument.

    W

     

    But Wikibo, 70% of people voted against A - imagine A was a far right nationalist party, and B, C, D and E were all relatively leftist and liberal. 70% of people have voted left, against the ideas of A, but because their vote was split, A and their far right agenda wins. It shouldn't matter that A had more votes than any other single candidate, the important point should be that only a minority voted for them.

    SS xx

    1304809637
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1641
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    But, SS, 70% did not vote against A: 70% simply did not vote for him! The system simply does not allow u to vote against anybody! May I just say u seem 2 b advocating liberal totalitarianism: u r allowed to hold any view so long it is liberal! We (at least should) live in a "democracy" which means all views however abhorent they may b 2 u & I personally are equally valid.

    W

    1304810293
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6979
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    Wilkibo wrote:

    But, SS, 70% did not vote against A: 70% simply did not vote for him! The system simply does not allow u to vote against anybody! May I just say u seem 2 b advocating liberal totalitarianism: u r allowed to hold any view so long it is liberal! We (at least should) live in a "democracy" which means all views however abhorent they may b 2 u & I personally are equally valid.

    W

    SS gave the example of A being far right and B and C being far left. Hence a vote for B or C was a vote against the far right views of candidate A/

    We don't currently live in a democracy - it's misguided to think any one has a real say. The options are Tory or New Labour - they're the same thing.

    Adx

    1304810296
    naughtyrider [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major
    • Posts: 157
    • Joined: 12 Mar 2008

    I agree in a democracy all views should be equally valid and I would add that parliament should be representative of all those differing views......at the moment parliament does not have true representation of all views which is why I was wanting change to the voting system so that other views have a better chance to be represented in parliament

    1304810574
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1641
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    SS gave the example of A being far right and B and C being far left. Hence a vote for B or C was a vote against the far right views of candidate A

    Adx

    But as I pointed out u don't vote against anybody! That's not the way the system works. The above is ur interpretation of how A got in!

    W

    1304810655
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6979
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    Wilkibo wrote:

    Alicia D'amore wrote:

    SS gave the example of A being far right and B and C being far left. Hence a vote for B or C was a vote against the far right views of candidate A

    Adx

    But as I pointed out u don't vote against anybody! That's not the way the system works. The above is ur interpretation of how A got in!

    W

    Just because a vote is not literally against someone doesn't mean it can't be classed as a vote against.

    Although of course you can't count it as that because so many people have to vote tactically ;)

    Adx

    1304810971
    Wilkibo [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 1641
    • Joined: 10 Nov 2010

    But my point is that it is u who is classing it as a vote against. I also disagree with ur assertion that "so many people have to vote tactically" I agree that many people feel that they have 2 vote tactically which is not the same thing!

    W

    1304811286
    Alicia D'amore [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 6979
    • Joined: 2 Feb 2008

    Wilkibo wrote:

    But my point is that it is u who is classing it as a vote against. I also disagree with ur assertion that "so many people have to vote tactically" I agree that many people feel that they have 2 vote tactically which is not the same thing!

    W

    It is fact, though, that very few people have votes that count.

    I can assert that because the fact of the matter is, our prime minister - got a third of all the votes. Meaning when two thirds of the people who voted cast their vote - their vote didn't count.

    Whether people have to vote tactically (I believe there's no real choice personally) or whether they only feel they have to - the fact of the matter is, we don't currently have a democracy.

    As I said before - the two major parties who realistically are our only choices are the same as each other in effect. There is no real choice there.

    Adx

    1304813153
    Mr Monster [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1913
    • Joined: 15 Sep 2010

    We get a limited choice in our elections. Of the people we are allowed to vote for, we get a single vote which we have to use to best effect. If there is one candidate that stands out as being the best, that's who we should vote for.

    However, if there are two reasonably good candidates, and a third opposing one who differs on every policy, the people trying to decide between two candidates they like equally leave the field wide open for the third-best candidate to win!

    Assume the vote's split 30/30/40 -if there was one opponent to the third candidate the split would be 60/40, and a clear win for the popular policies. That's what tactical voting aims to replicate - people vote for their second or third choice if they think others will as well, purely to stop the reasonably popular minority parties getting through. The trouble is that people are less likely to get an outcome they're happy with if they actually tll the truth and vote for the person they think is the best! It's crazy!

    With AV (not the best system anyway) at least you get to rank all your choices so you can be sure that if your first choice is eliminated the "tactical" element is taken care of officially.

    The point about AV was that it was our ONLY chance to change the  hideously unfair system we've got at the moment...and we blew it. The reasons don't really matter at this stage. There's no "we'll learn from our mistakes and do it better next time". There won't be a "next time".

    That's it. We've had it.

    1304824236
    sexy7 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Captain
    • Posts: 64
    • Joined: 27 Aug 2009

    I didn't vote about the AV proposal becuase I am not British but I must say that I can't believe how amateurish the voting process is in this country. It is so open to fraud. I went to the polling station with my wife two days ago and I was shocked to see that you can vote without producing an ID. Basically, you turn up with a polling card and you can cast your vote. If I was to share a house with other flatmates, i could steal their card when it arrives through the letterbox (not even in an envelope of course, so that anybody knows what it is). I could easily vote for somebody else. I found it incredible. Another proof that ID cards are a necessity.

    1304835582
    sweetlove666 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 4007
    • Joined: 17 Nov 2008

    sexy7 wrote:

    I didn't vote about the AV proposal becuase I am not British but I must say that I can't believe how amateurish the voting process is in this country. It is so open to fraud. I went to the polling station with my wife two days ago and I was shocked to see that you can vote without producing an ID. Basically, you turn up with a polling card and you can cast your vote. If I was to share a house with other flatmates, i could steal their card when it arrives through the letterbox (not even in an envelope of course, so that anybody knows what it is). I could easily vote for somebody else. I found it incredible. Another proof that ID cards are a necessity.

    ID cards are a whole different debate, however i agree with you about the lack of security around voting.

    The uk has a postal vote system that is problematic and there's always fraud where more people are registered at an adress than actually live there, so several postal forms can be sent without any checks. It's happened before in areas of the uk.

    1304856128
    sexy7 [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Captain
    • Posts: 64
    • Joined: 27 Aug 2009

    You are right. ID cards is a separate issue but if you had to produce an ID  with a photo and your address to be allow to cast your vote, it would immediately reduce the risk of fraud.

    1304858710
    BashfulBabe [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1581
    • Joined: 24 Apr 2010

    Indeed.  At mine, you don't even have to produce the card, just give them your name and street if that combo's on the list, they give you the sheets.  And, while the area's small, I'd never seen any of the officials, ever, so it's not a case of "sure we know it's you".  I could have gone back later and given the name and street of any of the people I knew wouldn't be voting, or even wouldn't be voting until after work, and made multiple fraudulant votes.  Granted, I wouldn't, but there are slightly less scrupulous people out there who not only would, but probably do!

    1305034294
    SweetSubmission [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 858
    • Joined: 7 Sep 2009

    Mr Monster wrote:

    We get a limited choice in our elections. Of the people we are allowed to vote for, we get a single vote which we have to use to best effect. If there is one candidate that stands out as being the best, that's who we should vote for.

    However, if there are two reasonably good candidates, and a third opposing one who differs on every policy, the people trying to decide between two candidates they like equally leave the field wide open for the third-best candidate to win!

    Assume the vote's split 30/30/40 -if there was one opponent to the third candidate the split would be 60/40, and a clear win for the popular policies. That's what tactical voting aims to replicate - people vote for their second or third choice if they think others will as well, purely to stop the reasonably popular minority parties getting through. The trouble is that people are less likely to get an outcome they're happy with if they actually tll the truth and vote for the person they think is the best! It's crazy!

    With AV (not the best system anyway) at least you get to rank all your choices so you can be sure that if your first choice is eliminated the "tactical" element is taken care of officially.

    The point about AV was that it was our ONLY chance to change the  hideously unfair system we've got at the moment...and we blew it. The reasons don't really matter at this stage. There's no "we'll learn from our mistakes and do it better next time". There won't be a "next time".

    That's it. We've had it.

     

    This. Beautifully put sir. 

    SS xx

    1305055256
    paradise found [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major
    • Posts: 136
    • Joined: 18 Jan 2010

    SweetSubmission wrote:

    Wilkibo wrote:

    BashfulBabe wrote:

    Wilk: if you have ten people voting, and 3 go for A, 2 for B, 2 for C, 1 for D and 1 for E, then A would win under FPTP, despite only having the support of 30% of the people

    This is what I called disingenuous earlier. More people wanted A than any other candidate: 50% more people voted for A  than voted for B: 50% more people voted for A than voted for C and so on! Any1 can use figures in an argument.

    W

     

    But Wikibo, 70% of people voted against A - imagine A was a far right nationalist party, and B, C, D and E were all relatively leftist and liberal. 70% of people have voted left, against the ideas of A, but because their vote was split, A and their far right agenda wins. It shouldn't matter that A had more votes than any other single candidate, the important point should be that only a minority voted for them.

    SS xx

    By the same argument, in the 1997 general election (a so-called landslide result for Labour) Labour received 43.2%, Conservative 30.7%, Lib Dem 16.8%   Therefore, at least 47.5% voted against Labour who received 43.2% of the vote.   I said at least because I didn't count votes for other parties.

    1305057127
    Booties [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 1099
    • Joined: 9 Dec 2010

    paradise found wrote:

     I said at least because I didn't count votes for other parties.

     I'm totally reading this wrong, I think =/

    -can't understand-

    EDIT: Nevermind, got it xDD

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.