Nick Clegg: Why the Liberal Democrats are saying YES! to Fairer Votes

[MrAgmaster]

Your are f*cking lyer. Your Camrons B*tch and if the party stands a chance you should leave the header ship and let somone else do it. The party had a chance for once and you blew it now we won't have another chance for years.

[karlvorderman]

There is some interesting analysis of Nick Clegg and the Liberal Conservatives in the book 'Alone And Asleep' by Oh Sam Bin Laden.

[ReichWOLF141]

And when honest parties with good intentions and high moral standards like the British National Party are silenced. The whole Democratic system is completely corrupt and wrong. Democracy is insane mob-rule which promotes the complete degeneration of Humanity. There is so much human-filth in Britain and across the world right now and ultimately, Liberalism would be the death of Britain! The world is need of total Purification! Britain needs a National Socialist Party!

[asubjectiveopinion]

It would appear that, despite the opinion of the political class, the British electorate are not morons.

It would seem that everyone I have spoken with was aware that AV was just PR horseshit dreamt up by Cameron and Clegg in an attempt to save face during Clegg's protracted period of capitulation.

No-one wanted AV, not the people, not the political class and not the LibDems.

Ironically even safe-seats can't save the LibDems now, they'll just be a memory after the next election.

Good riddance.

[BREDATOR1]

I wish Clegg had a 'sensible head' like wurrzell gummage!.. but alas in the liberal cupboard there isn't one ..shame...

[BREDATOR1]

The AV will change our long democracy of 200 years forever , once you vote this will be a massive change to our voting system ... please be carefull how you vote...

[cdcdbangbang]

I think it's a bit telling that the NO2AV channel doesn't let you comment. Because, obviously I'd want to vote on the side of a bunch of people who don't even respect my free speech.

COPY & PASTE to NO2AV VIDEOS!

VOYE YES TO AV TOMORROW.

[Andyhgn53k]

I have always voted Conservative - Yes to AV because I would have loved to have chosen Cons 1st Lib Dems 2nd Green 3rd...............Labour 1millionth LOL!

You have got my vote Nick - You and David work well together long may it continue and by the way DO THE RIGHT THING WITH GARY MCKINNON - Don't you think his family have suffered enough!!

Regards

Andy (ufo witness)

[josephdorrell]

It is interesting to note however, if you ran two elections (one FPTP and one AV) in each constituency and with the same candidates, in most constituencies the result would be the same under AV and FPTP. But in cases where AV and FPTP give different winners, the majority will always prefer the candidate elected under AV!!

Think about that for a mo...

[josephdorrell]

I think the central point of contention that DansinJim and 2edsajdmsa are fighting over is the type of support that the votes give the candidates.

FPTP elects the most popular candidate from a field, the one with most direct support, even if this does not constitute a majority.

AV elects the most preferred candidate from a field, one that the majority prefer to any other candidate.

[DancinJim]

People, please ignore the fools who try to sell you this AV system. Essentially, it means that what people really vote for (your original, only vote) means nothing, unless the party gets over 50% of the vote. After that, it's utterly random, decided by the second, third and fourth choices of WASTED VOTES. People must be held accountable for their decisions. If you make a choice, you should stick to it. Recycling votes is a recipe for disaster.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim This is simply not true. With the new (hopefully) system people get to list candidates in order of their preferred choice. If their first choice doesn't have 50% or more the last choice is ticked off and that vote passed onto the next choice until one has 50%

Theres nothing random about it at all! The people choose who they want with AV, not who they don't want with this current system where someone with 70% voting against them govern the constituency.

Vote YES

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa It is absolutely true and you are a liar if you deny it. Of course it is random - as the party that gets the most votes does not win. Sorry, but whichever way you try to spin it, if 40% of the nation vote for one party, 30% vote for another and the remaining percentage vote for other smaller parties, then clearly the winner is the one with the most votes. To deny them that and force it to go to 'scored sounds' is to go against the idea of one man one vote. No second chances.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim Its not random at all. Because the people are still voting for who they want, they just have multiple options. Please explain how its random, people aren't just going down a list and checking 1, 2 and 3, they're making decisions on who they want. Its just another way of voting that the rest of the world has used for decades, last I checked they were all fine.

The current system is undemocratic, in your example, the winner is someone 60% voted against, and thats not fair.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa You've used the word random twice. Again, trying to move things to an area you want to discuss. I am not doing it. I have not said it's random, I've said it's unfair and certain people get to re-choose their vote, depending on if they waste their first one or not. In my example, the MAJORITY wins. 60 of the people didn't vote against a party, they voted for other parties. The party with the most votes won. There's no getting away from it.

[DancinJim]

@DancinJim Out of the interests of honesty, I just realised I did say it was utterly random. I'm not liar, as you can see. However, if you look at it in the context or people's second, third and fourth choices being recycles once their first choice is out, that is random. People's second, third and fourth choices generally will be random, seeing as the party their heart was in was their first choice. The rest are random selections that they don't really want.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim My dictionary defines random as "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective". This is not an adequate description of a group of people who use their brains to put down who they want in order.

There is simply nothing random about it.

There are also no "recycles", peoples 2nd 3rd 4th etc choices are just that, their next choices.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa Exactly. It has no specific pattern. People have one party they want to elect. When told to make two other choices, they are faced with a situation where they don't care. Nobody wants their second choice in power. They want their first choice. Hence the one man one vote concept.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim There you go again, you're still making the 'random' argument without using the word itself. It does have a specific pattern because people mark them down according to their personal politics. How hard a concept is that to understand?

Obviously no one wants their second choice in power, or else they would put them in 1st. Its just a different system where people get more of a say in who is elected, its a more precise way of doing it, it allows the public to make more finite choice

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa You're blagging. So few people actually have a second choice. Almost everyone votes for who they want in power. They don't vote for a second best, because second best just isn't good enough. They have one vote - they cast that vote in favour of the party they support. That's it. End of story.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim Also I have to reiterate, you're not forced to list preferences under AV. If you still want to vote FPTP you can do so by putting a "1" instead of an "X". The system just allows you to go deeper (still in your ONE vote, you aren't voting multiple times) and to speak your mind in a clearer fashion through the ballot paper.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa Irrelevant point. Infact it actually helps my arguement - as the fact that nobody is forced to vote for second and third positions means that there is no way of keeping any consistency in the voting! This AV system is flawed beyond all belief!

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim It was YOU who used the word random, in your original response to me

"Of course it is random - as the party that gets the most votes does not win"

People do not get to go back to "re-choose" their vote, it is all done in the one sitting, in the same time it takes for you to vote now.

FPTP is unfair because it creats a situation where a minority decides who rules

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa You're an idiot. I rectified my own error 2 hours before you posted this comment. Just goes to show how you really haven't read anything properly, as you have your own agenda. I admitted my mistake, but then went on to argue another point. People clearly do get to re-choose their vote, as they can premeditate a second and third choice! Therefore they get to pre-empt what happens if their first vote (their only legitimate first choice) fails. Unfair to the extreme.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim Your rectification didn't do anything but solidify your position that you think candidates will be elected randomly. So far you haven't given me any reason to believe you think anything other than this.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa You fail to see why I called you an idiot - calling someone on something they have already addressed honestly is not a classy thing to do. The system is random, as I stated, re-choosing votes is rather random, seeing as people vote for who they want to win, not who they don't want to win. It's all up in the air after than. People have a party they like, they vote for said party. The rest is utterly random.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim 40% is not a majority, my dictionary defines majority as "The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total". The 40% group of people are the preponderate, not the majority.

Its unfair for someone to lead when sometimes as much as 75% did not want them to be their MP. Thats wrong, its unfair and its unfit for a multi party system such as ours.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa I just want to elaborate on what I just said: "People's second, third and fourth choices generally will be random, seeing as the party their heart was in was their first choice. The rest are random selections that they don't really want."

The fact that people only really want the party they choose, not the second, third, fourth choice, etc. means that this system isn't fair at all - as it is still not reflecting what people want - as they had a first choice that they didn't get.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim Of course their 1st party was the one they'd like to govern, hence it being their 1st choice. But what AV does is give them options. For instance I would vote 1 LibDem, but assuming they did not win (which they probably wouldn't) I then get to put my next choice, which would probably be the Green party.

This DOES reflect what the people want because the people are still doing the voting.

Furthermore you can still vote FPTP by just putting 1 and leaving it at that. We get choice

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa You seem to be missing the point - we already have choices - they are the various governments. We vote for ONE, who we want to elect. That is our choice. This new system says we can have multiple choices, should our first choice not succeed. That is unfair, as it gives a recycled vote to those who voted for a party who didn't get in. Essentially it is mollycoddling the voters, allowing them first, second, third, fourth chances. The whole idea is you make a choice, you stick to it.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim My dear sir it is you who seems to be missing the point.

AV does nothing more than give you more choices. Its a system that will always create a majority government with a real mandate from the British people (30% is not a mandate).

You say recycled, I say preferences. Preferences just give you more choices, you aren't locked into voting 1, you can list them in order of your preferred candidates. Theres nothing unfair about it, FPTP is unfair.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa Well, clearly you have missed the point again, because you stated that which is part of the unfairness. Nobody deserves more choices. We have one choice, because there is only one party we vote for. Our first-choice party. Those secondary vote are unfair, because nobody should be allowed to change their mind - it's a choice we make as adults at the time of voting. A second-choice vote is illegitimate, as there is no real support behind it. The party we support is our first choice.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim It is NOT changing your mind. It has nothing to do with changing your mind because you make the decision then and there. You make the assumption that FPTP is the only legitimate way to cast votes, look around you pal, most countries do it and none of them have moved back to FPTP

Its still one man one vote, just instead of putting 1 X you list your preferences.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa Secondly, mandates go out the window if you have AV, because unless a party gets over 50% of the vote straight off, they have no mandate either. How you can pretend it is fairer that recycled votes decide, rather than the original majority (mandate or no mandate) is preposterous. These people had a choice, they voted for a party that lost the election. If they get to move their vote, it is devaluing the entire concept of one man one vote.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim You're just going through your points without actually addressing what I've said. Who's recycling now?

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa You've said nothing of importance, hence why I keep hitting home the points which render your arguements useless.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim Now, onto the allegations of lying.

I've addressed those allegations, now will you please address mine of the No campaign? What about them saying it will lead to more hung parliaments (funny that our current system lead to one...) or that it will cost £250 million.

You need to address liars in your own corner before you start making (retarded) claims of lying on the other side.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa It will cost £250 million. Admittedly some of that money is for the referendum, but that is something you can blame the Lib Dems for, as it was in their manifesto to have a referendum on voting and they fought for it. But the rest of it is money that could be saved. I believe £90 million out of that £250 million is the amount in question.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim The 250 million number is made up. There will be no fancy voting machine, all we need for AV is the voter and a pencil. I know we can't post links here due to youtube rules, but PM me any evidence of this 250 million number. It is fictional.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa It isn't fictional at all - even the YES to AV supporters acknowledged the figure on Question Time last Thursday. It will cost £250 million in total, including the referendum. About £90 million from that total will be money spent not on the referendum. So after this unneeded referendum which costs us, there's still roughly an extra £90 million to pay.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim Well now you're just fibbing. No one on the Yes campaign has said any such thing because it simply isn't true. I'm involved on the ground in the Yes campaign, the 250 million number is absolute nonsense.

The AV referendum will be taking place along side the Local elections. The elections will cost the standard amount they always do. The AV referendum will cost no more than an extra piece of paper. There are NO electronic machines.

You've been lied to by the No campaign.

[2edsajdmsa]

@2edsajdmsa Again, show me the evidence for the 250 million number. Don't reply with "well it will because they said it will", articulate with evidence why you think it will cost 250 million, and I will show you why you are wrong.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa I already used the 'you're just fibbing' line. Get your own. How unoriginal. You lie through your teeth here, as even politicians involved in the yes campaign acknowledge the costs, however they try to pretend that it is all for the referendum, which is false. It is not all for the referendum. Approximately £90 million is on extra costs.

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa Funny that we have a coalition now? Yes, it is. Because it's the first in ages. Funny that we haven't had one sooner. That's because this FPTP system doesn't generally produce coalitions, unlike AV.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim AV is used in most countries now, including my home country Australia (I'm a dual citizen). We have used it for decades and have only had one hung parliament, the most recent one. The first since the 1940's in fact.

AV creates hung parliaments rarely

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa Well the statistics in general point to it creating them.

[2edsajdmsa]

@DancinJim Show me the statistics then

[DancinJim]

@2edsajdmsa Not my statistics. The ones we are being quotes by various government members. If you haven't already come across them, then you probably haven't looked into this matter enough.

[JD1010101110]

@smilingvirus

Your an Idiot, at least with FPTP there could be another labour government which gives us a shot as country at saving the NHS. all AV will give is a permanent tory lib coalition.

[cactustactics]

@JD1010101110 Only if nobody votes Labour. AV is only about electing your MPs, and it will help Labour gain votes in areas where the Tories usually win but the majority prefer Labour (but don't vote tactically) - it reflects the preference of the voters instead of letting parties coast in on safe seats.

Lib Dem voters are more likely to put Labour as a second preference in my opinion, either way you're not likely to see an entrenchment of the current government (delivered to us by FPTP btw)

[JD1010101110]

The man in this video is the sole reason i'm voting no, no thanks to a permanent con-dem coalition

[lemonsaresocoollike]

They should've disabled the voting option on this video...

[lemonsaresocoollike]

@lemonsaresocoollike That's what the NO campaign did.... otherwise it's not a level playing field, is it?

[hoppytherabbit1]

I see no need to listen to Clegg on AV any more. Come the next election the Lib Dems will be no more. Who would vote for them ever again ?

[Guesswhokk]

If AV where introduced before 2010 election, Lib + Labour would have a bigger majority (public representation) than compared to todays Lib + Tory using FPTP?

[Guesswhokk]

goto voterpowerdotorgdotuk

In my area, they show AV is fairer than FPTP!

[charlieiscool1000]

Yes of cource clegg will go on about how the same old crap when he is part of the problem the three main parties are all the same old talk but do nothing new. and AV may even force the lib dems out of third place to being fourth so i dunno why hes supporting it lol.

[LDN235]

YES TO AV!!!!!!!!!!!

[skeletorphd]

This campaign needs more legs though. People need to be told the reality and not be bombarded with the "it's too complicated" and "too expensive" people who are far louder right now.

It's only more expensive IF there is no clear winner.

Make some more noise Cleggy-boy!!! All those ciggys are messing with your voice box!

In the meantime, i'm off for a ciggy!

[skeletorphd]

AV is just first past the post, but clearer.

What's the issue?

It just means politicians will have to engage more with the electorate & work harder. I say VOTE AV, I agree with Nick!

[Xanaseb]

Oh, and I also agree with hoppythrabbit, he has the right to say what he wants.

Liberalism=freedom (of speech in this case)

[Xanaseb]

well I back progress, reform and change as well

[hoppytherabbit1]

Why have you removed my comment? So much for freedom of speech !

[MrAVmonkey]

A lot of people are very angry with Nick Clegg for taking the Lib Dems into coalition with the Tories but  that issue should be completely separate as what Nick Clegg says about this referendum is absolutely correct - you may not agree with anything else he says but don't let that cloud your judgement on AV - this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to change our voting system to a better, fairer and more democratic one let's make sure that we take it - vote YES to AV on Thursday May 5th.

[hoppytherabbit1]

@MrAVmonkey AV won't make any difference. The 3 main partys will only get to be in power and none of them are to be trusted or any good as they have one interest, looking after thier own interests. As the lib dems have already proved. ConDems been abusing disabled people, forcing them off benifits into a life of poverty. ATOS medicals are rigged so they cannot get the benifits they need. You lot should be ashamed to even be in government. Try picking on the bankers instead of the poor people.

[grungeface87]

Vote yes.

[Ulfhedjinn]

Looks like a no campaigner didn't like this video.