Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

The video was helpful but I think I prefer it the way we have it in Holland; if a party doesn't have the majority of the votes it has to team up with other parties. I thought all other countries did this but apparently not. It seems a lot more democratic imo because the government actually has 51% of the 1st votes of all of the voters and not the 2nd or 3d. Of course you can have your party forming a coalition with a party you do not like (Like we currently have with the Christian democrats and the populist anti-Muslim party) I prefer it over a system where only large parties can rule the country.

I probably misunderstood something though, because I thought in England there are 2 parties ruling the country now, so how can they have nay of the two voting systems that are explained in the video?

Basically we have it like that. The main criticism of this is it results in a lot of under-the-table dealing and so-forth that goes on out of the public eye meaning the masses don't know what could have been or what has been stopped and the public doesn't trust it's government at the best of times.

Both parties think their way will work and the others probably wont, and both are trying to get their way put in so they make trades (you can do this if we can do this. We don't want that, but maybe if you take it back a bit? etc). The problem is a lot of things in the world don't really work like that, if you take the middle ground you stand a good chance of not being hard enough or being too hard.

Best I can tell, the UKs economy is based around labour making people happy and fucking the economy up, and the Tories making people unhappy but fixing the economy, which means Labour get back in power who rinse and repeat. The economy just got a little too fucked up this time so the cuts are worse than usual.

[Dutchling]

In the Netherlands each vote is counted separately for the parliament and only the senate is chosen indirectly, as they are chosen by the States Provinials who are directly chosen by the 'people'.
This does lead to some, awkward things though. As far as I know we are the only country in the world with an Animal Party, and they actually have 1 2 of 150 seats in the parliament >.>

[olemars]

Reason 4: The political dividing lines between parties in the UK are blurred enough as it is - there is little that seems to distinguish them. So much so infact that the current coalition is formed between traditionally polar opposites. If the voting system changes from "most votes wins" to "become the least objectionable" then I worry that politiicans will try and stand for even less, and insead have even more "beige", "on the fence" opinions in order to build a broad base of followers without actually standing for anything, lookng to build up a large number of 2nd or 3rd preference votes. I suppose you could argue that in the current system a politician could try the same idea, but they would have a lot more to gain in an AV system by not holding stong opinions. The way I see it with FPTP a politician has more to gain having a discernable opinion one way or another which would appeal to a sector of voters - somthing which may hurt them under an AV system where this opinon could sway 2nd and 3rd choices.

I don't really see much difference between FPTP and AV in this respect. It could make candidates hedge their bets more, but it might also make districts less entrenched for a specific party and force the local politicians to actually fight for their seat on the bench for once.

Whilst the BBC has done some very good explaining of the AV system and how it should produce similar results to FPTP (one with crisp flavours which showed prawn cocktail is most popular... (?!?) and one with choc bars), there is a scene in Auf Wiedersehn Pet where the paint colour for thier dorm is chosen using AV. After aruging if blue, green or red would be best, it ends up yellow, but noone actually "likes" yellow, no-one voted yellow as first preference, everyone in the dorm thought that yellow was ok...

If almost all think yellow is an acceptable but not ideal choice, one third think red is an excellent choice and two thirds think red is a horrible choice, is yellow necessarily the wrong choice?

Best I can tell, the UKs economy is based around labour making people happy and fucking the economy up, and the Tories making people unhappy but fixing the economy, which means Labour get back in power who rinse and repeat. The economy just got a little too fucked up this time so the cuts are worse than usual.

What I like to think of as the one-party bipolar system. The good thing about coalition governments is that they can mitigate the crazy U-turns, but it helps if the coalition members actually agree on some things apart from a common dislike of the opposition.

[Starver]

ose most in the change make the change.
5. Under AV everyone's vote counts for the same, it essentially works by having a series of elections without the cost of holding each individual election. At the end of each election the votes are counted up if one person got 50%+1 they win, otherwise another election is "held" immediately after with the least popular candidate eliminated.

The difference between this and running several times is that in a multi-run election people get to see what votes have happened on the previous round and choose who to vote for in the next one.  Which includes switching their support away from their previous round choice, even if that person was 'safe', the previous time, and towards someone they suddenly feel could use their vote instead.

Whether that's better than a "fixed in stone" ordering is a separate argument.

[ragman le bon]

This may be off topic but I don't think anyone's questioned us having a referendum at all. Apart from Welsh and Scottish devolution in 1997, have we had one since 72/73 for EEC membership? I don't consider a referendum a more democratic method of decision making as the government chooses what question to ask and when to ask it, and potentially if to keep asking it until they get an answer they like (think it happened in Ireland with something). The EEC referendum is a good example, people are still harping on about how they feel betrayed because they voted yes to the EEC, not to the current EU. In other words, once they'd been asked a question once on a subject, they want to carry on being asked about this subject.

Another reason I don't like it is I feel we're being asked to do someone else's job and make a decision that we (the majority of people) are not qualified to or informed enough to make the right decision. I doubt there are many MPs who could do my job, why am I doing their job?
 

[Nilocy]

This may be off topic but I don't think anyone's questioned us having a referendum at all. Apart from Welsh and Scottish devolution in 1997, have we had one since 72/73 for EEC membership? I don't consider a referendum a more democratic method of decision making as the government chooses what question to ask and when to ask it, and potentially if to keep asking it until they get an answer they like (think it happened in Ireland with something). The EEC referendum is a good example, people are still harping on about how they feel betrayed because they voted yes to the EEC, not to the current EU. In other words, once they'd been asked a question once on a subject, they want to carry on being asked about this subject.

Another reason I don't like it is I feel we're being asked to do someone else's job and make a decision that we (the majority of people) are not qualified to or informed enough to make the right decision. I doubt there are many MPs who could do my job, why am I doing their job?
 

So, when you vote for an MP you're surrendering all your responsibility for interacting with the government? I hope not.

[Starver]

This may be off topic but I don't think anyone's questioned us having a referendum at all.

It makes us feel 'included'.  The Yes supporters (at high level) thought they'd be able to swing the decision their way (and, from what I'm hearing, they're doing better at it, because their weasel-words are less obvious than the No lot's weasel-words, in this relatively unbiased observer's opinion), which means that when they get the result they want they can say "You wanted it, we aren't forcing it on you".

The (high-level) No supporters liked the idea because if we say No (as I think they expected would be quite easy to engineer, though I think they've made a bit of a hash of it) it effectively defeats the chance of any changes forever more.  And again "You didn't want it, so you aren't getting it."

The one's caught in the bind were the ones that want not-FPTP, but don't like AV/AVplus.  Perhaps are aiming for PR.  I think a few more of these have gone to the Yes camp (change once... change again?) than stayed with the No camp (Miserable Little Compromise).  I think Yes will win because of this split.  (As well as the No-lot's "people won't understand it!")

As I've said before, it'll take more than a decade of national elections for people to 'get' the new tactical voting systems (not how to vote honestly, which I'd prefer they were all doing in the first place, but how to vote to reinforce their own vote against those trying to reinforce opposing balances in a tactical way).  By which time, the road would have been opened to adopting a new reform (e.g. PR) to take over from AV and the game will change again.  Good luck with that...



But while I think it'll naturally go Yeswards, as a set of totally informal datum marks, from personally (and informally) derived figures, alone, it'd be closely fought between Yes and No, but overwhelmed by apathy.  Among people I know, at least one is planning to write "F**k[1] you Clegg" on their ballot, and I another (not unrelated to the aforementioned person) is going to make a similar disparaging remark aimed at Cameron.  I'm more sure than I was before that I'm going to abstain, but circumstances may change.  And, yes, I know that if 4% of people vote No and 6% of people vote Yes and 90% of people don't even vote, Yes would still win.  But just let the winners try to claim "It's what the people want"...




[1] I know we're all[2] adults here.  I just don't like swearing verbally or otherwise.  For the sake of verisimilitude, however, please accept that bowdlerised version.

[2] Well, a significant amount are, and of those that aren't an overwhelming number are mentally equipped to handle bad language in the manner that was intended (i.e. a direct quote).  The rest can giggle all they want.

So, when you vote for an MP you're surrendering all your responsibility for interacting with the government? I hope not.

This is a good prompt for me to explain one system I have long had in mind.  Everyone has one 'vote'.  They can assign it to someone else, someone they trust to represent their views.  If such a trusted person assigns their vote to someone else (whose views mesh with their own), all 'votes' they have accumulated from others are included alongside their own personal vote to their own trusted person.  If they withhold their vote, they are now the proud possessor of the number of votes that they have accumulated, with which they compare themselves against others of that inclination in a standard most-votes-wins situation.

The administration of these trees is the crux.  It'd have to be computerised.  Which opens up the possibility of this being dynamic, not just once every 3, 4, 5 years.  Perhaps with a restriction on how often often one can change.  (Once a day for someone with their own vote only, once every N (or root(N)?) days for someone with a bunch of them?  If your trusted person has changed their allegiance should one be allowed to change one's own vote?  Definitely you should if they've died or otherwise become illegible.)  Handling "trust rings" (A trusts B, trusts C, trusts A) is another issue, to which I have several solutions, but you've probably stopped reading by now, so I won't go into them, right...

[ragman le bon]

This may be off topic but I don't think anyone's questioned us having a referendum at all. Apart from Welsh and Scottish devolution in 1997, have we had one since 72/73 for EEC membership? I don't consider a referendum a more democratic method of decision making as the government chooses what question to ask and when to ask it, and potentially if to keep asking it until they get an answer they like (think it happened in Ireland with something). The EEC referendum is a good example, people are still harping on about how they feel betrayed because they voted yes to the EEC, not to the current EU. In other words, once they'd been asked a question once on a subject, they want to carry on being asked about this subject.

Another reason I don't like it is I feel we're being asked to do someone else's job and make a decision that we (the majority of people) are not qualified to or informed enough to make the right decision. I doubt there are many MPs who could do my job, why am I doing their job?
 

So, when you vote for an MP you're surrendering all your responsibility for interacting with the government? I hope not.

I hope not too, that's not what I meant. You can write to your MP, go to their surgery, sign petitions, attend protests, chain yourself to things. . .

What I mean is, we're being asked whether or not to start AV now and presumably for ever. What if we change our minds after a couple of elections, will we get another referendum, 'Do you still agree with AV?' (Assuming we vote for it). Has anyone been asked since 1973 about EEC/EC/EU membership? Why don't they ask us if we want capital punishment back, for instance? Or whether we wanted to ban hunting? Or several years later, whether we still want hunting to be banned?

Maybe I just don't like referendums! I don't think it's how we do things. But if I vote on AV, I'll probably vote against it (I know I need to make my mind up soon!)

[Leafsnail]

Why don't they ask us if we want capital punishment back, for instance? Or whether we wanted to ban hunting? Or several years later, whether we still want hunting to be banned?

Well, there doesn't seem to be much demand for either of those.  Especially considering the number of huge miscarriages of justice that have been coming to light recently.

I think the difference with this is that it affects the voting system.  For most reforms, to reverse it you can just vote in a party that supports reversing it - wheras changing the voting system may affect your ability to do so, so it requires a referendum.

[olemars]

I thought it became a referendum because LibDems demanded election system changes if they were to join a coalition, but Cons refused to let it come to parliament directly (Cons will likely lose several seats with AV). Eventually they settled on a referendum as a compromise.

[Yannanth]

.

[Jreengus]

So looks like the result is no. Can't say I'm surprised personally.

[Nilocy]

Yeah, I'm saddened though.

Interesting point, Scotland has the PR system of elections and they produced a majority government (of 9 seats), where as the FPTP system got us a coalition hurr hurr.