Let's say that after other candidates have dropped, there are 3 left: a conservative (36%), a liberal (33%)and a centrist (31%).
Most of the liberal voters would rate the centrist higher than the conservative, and most of the conservative voters would rate the centrist higher than the liberal.
However, the centrist has the least "high" votes, and, as I understand it, would drop out at this point, putting either the conservative or the liberal in the lead. Isn't that a problem?
@als510 my country (Australia), PNG and Fiji use a form of it so do some US cities to elect their mayor, most of the major UK cities to elect their mayor, Canada's Conservatives and I'm pretty sure the Liberal Party does too, also so do the three main parties in the UK. It seems odd to me that David Cameron would oppose a system which technically allowed him to become the Leader of the Conservative Party because after the first count he was not leading David Davis was.
@Caesarslegion1 You do realize that UKIP was one of the largest supporters of AV BECAUSE it helps prevent the spoiler effect, allowing more people to vote for who they want without enabling a candidate they don't like to get into office. As such, people that don't vote UKIP because they don't want Labour in power(so vote with the Tories) can vote UKIP and put the Labour party as their last choice. It would help UKIP grow, not eliminate them.
@snowstorm80 Because its a matter of idealism vs. pragmatism: PR would be fantastic, but there isn't enough support for it to get approved. AV isn't as good, but its achievable in the short term, and makes PR more feasible in the long term.
Thank god comonsense prevailed .And as usual even though we have a strong left wing agenda, that most normal people do not see , Our strong English morals win through!... against their anti- English views..
@BREDATOR1 Those who would deliberately lie to the British people purely for short-term pure-self-interest are in fact enemies of this nation. They are those who outrightly, knowingly and systematically lied about AV.
1. "AV isn't 1-person-1-vote" - LIE. Everybody has an EQUAL vote under AV, not so in FPTP.
2. "AV would lead to more hung parliaments" - LIE. By guaranteeing only majority-preferred candidates, it leads to LESS hung parliaments.
@MrPhartiphukborlz i doubt we'd of had a refferendom under a labour coalition they would of just enforced it! labours motto is do as we say because we are right! labour didnt even see fit to allow a refferendom on EU mebership
@evergonge If you are correct, and Labour would not have offered an AV referendum (where as the Tories did) then the public are even more correct for voting no....why should the Lib dems make anything from betraying their voters for this referendum and making countless more people out of work. No to AV. Yes to giving Nick Clegg a kicking… Confidence in the British voting system restored
05/05/11 is a very shameful day... in 100 years time, people will look back at this and think that britain was made up of idots... and they'd be right!
I honestly think the British public has missed a trick here. It was a chance to have some money spent on us instead this will now go towards war machines, let's face it, there have been cuts made everywhere and this was something for the benefit of the people. A 42% turn out is a disgrace, our children were off school for the day and not half cared to turn up.
@irishgodfatherchris I don't see why we should be, we can be accused of apathy and confusion over party politics perhaps but the result of the referendum was pretty damn unanimous. Yes I'm sure some people did fall for the lies spread by the No campaign and I'm sure some took it as a chance to bash Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg over the head, but all six million of them? No the vast majority of people obviously decided that there was nothing to gain and that was their democratic right to do so.
@mahoneyj2 Take a few deep breaths and relax, for your information the BNP was against the AV system and campaigned for keeping the FPTP system. This seems to be common knowledge to some but to others it seems that the belief is that the BNP wanted AV, they did not. The Greens and UKIP did but the BNP did not. It's funny how people get so worked up over what the BNP can or can't do, they won't get power under any system unless the country faced some sort of race war so relax and carry on.
The No to AV campaign has won overwhelmingly by about six million votes it looks like. The people have spoken, well the ones who could be bothered to vote have spoken anyway.
All I can say is this country is full of stupid arseholes. If you don't want electoral reform, why not go back the whole hog and take away the women's vote, and maybe the vote for the rest of the plebs... And let those with the longest knives and biggest guns rule over us how ever they want, and pay F-all notice to the majority of populus... Thick as sh@t this nation. Don't deserve a democracy... And we certainly haven't got one
Thanks ... Feel better for getting that off my chest.
All I can say is this country is full of stupid arseholes. If you don't want electoral reform, why not go back the whole hog and take away the women's vote, and maybe the vote for the rest of the plebs... And let those with the longest knives and biggest guns rule over us how ever they want, and pay F-all notice to the majority of populus... Thick as sh@t this nation. Don't deserve a democracy... And we certainly haven't got one
Thanks ... Feel better for getting that off my chest.
All I can say is this country is full of stupid arseholes. If you don't want electoral reform, why not go back the whole hog and take away the women's vote, and maybe the vote for the rest of the plebs... And let those with the longest knives and biggest guns rule over us how ever they want, and pay F-all notice to the majority of populus... Thick as sh@t this nation. Don't deserve a democracy... And we certainly haven't got one
Thanks ... Feel better for getting that off my chest.
All I can say is this country is full of stupid arseholes. If you don't want electoral reform, why not go back the whole hog and take away the women's vote, and maybe the vote for the rest of the plebs... And let those with the longest knives and biggest guns rule over us how ever they want, and pay F-all notice to the majority of populus... Thick as sh@t this nation. Don't deserve a democracy... And we certainly haven't got one
Thanks ... Feel better for getting that off my chest.
@abh88abh People cannot have it both ways though, they cannot whinge and moan about hung parliaments and parties getting into power that they don't like when at the same time they demonstrate ridiculous voting patterns by not actually voting for the party they like, in so-called 'tactical voting', or worse by not voting at all! A democracy requires personal responsibility from all people to voice their opinions and excusing those who can't be arsed to do so makes a joke of the whole system.
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 If a poll doesn't accommodate their views, nothing is to be resented of people who vote tactically (since tactical swing holds more deterministic weight than ineffectual statements), or just don't bother until it does. The system IS a joke. Voting merely for its own sake is insane. A Democracy requires the popular right to make informed uncoerced decisions to determine their future - Consistent with a bit of abstention if it saves from compulsion to act in a poll you object to.
What this country needs is compulsory voting like they have in Australia, the voter turnout year after year is quite frankly embarrassing especially for a country that prides itself on it's democratic values. Everyone moans about the system and wonders why FPTP doesn't work very well, has anyone actually stopped to think that perhaps it would work out fairer if people actually bothered to vote?! FPTP or AV either way it doesn't matter because people in this country don't seem to give a shit.
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 FPTP would be even less representative with compulsory voting. Compulsory voting is an oxymoron. The biggest barrier a people could have to self-determination, also known as democracy, is having the capacity of their principle means, the vote, diluted by uninformed reluctant voters acting on habit, whimsy, snap judgements and propaganda. If somebody doesn't want to vote, that's their right, and it flies in the face of democracy to promote voting by coercion.
Even though it looks as though the yes to AV campaign has lost I don't think it matters what system of voting is in place in the UK not when the British public can't be bothered to get off their fat arses and vote. Yet another woeful turnout by the electorate and no doubt the AV campaigners will say "Ah but if people actually felt like their vote meant something they would be bothered to vote." Whilst this may well be true it seems like we'll never know now.
@toby14483 Haha exactly! My friend lives in the UK and told me he had to vote and i was like for what? then I came here to find out and was like this makes no sense! All I can say is I hope he voted no too.
This is a scam, i think AV is a big bunch of crap.
It gives chance not to the one you voted no.1 but to the others.
You dont know if the verifiers will choose the "number 2" selection on the losing papers .
As far as i am concerned Pass The Post is waaaaaay simplier and it costs less to pay the people who work on counting the votes and the winner is the fking winner and that's all.
@mahoneyj2 You have no argument saying why they are is shit. Your not mentioning any other parties, so i presume you love the BNP and all the other extremist parties.
AV is by far a much more fairer system, the tories hate the idea because they won't be many peoples second choice, Labour voters would probably have Lib Dems as second choice and Lib dem voters would probably have abour as second choice.
@toxophilist2009 Then only vote for one person. you dont have to vote for more than just one. All the AV is for, is that you chose who you really want in but if they dont get in you put down who you would rather have instead. It means that everyones vote actualy goes towards who wins.
HAhahagh Please do not vote. you obviously don't have a real interest in politics.
with AV your vote will only be 'transfered' if
1. you put a number next to that party
2. your first choice didn't get in
in FPTP, you literally DO vote for someone else. Eg- everyone in the UK might love the Respect party, and HATE the BNP. but everyone knows that with FPTP, it's basically a decision between labour and tory (maybe lib dem, at least as a coalition) so it's not a real democracy
so wait if like a main party and vote for them, they most likely will not get eliminated and so i still have one vote, but people who voted for the elimnated parites get 2? What's fair about that? Where is my Second Preference???? Why am I getting a less fairer vote for supporting a main party i like? hmmmm, back to the drawing board....
@urwordagainstmine If your party's still in the running then you still get to vote for your first choice, and they're likely to end up winning by picking up other people's votes. Those other people can't vote for their favourites anymore, so they have to compromise and go with one of the remaining candidates. As soon as someone has over half the people supporting them they win, and it's all over. Easy!
@cactustactics Yes but the point i am trying to get across is that most AV video support the idea that "If you prefer one candidate to another you can put down one other candadate so that the one you dislike has less of a chance of winning" (or that's how I have preceived this) this seems slightly unfair on a voter who prefers a main party most likely not to get elimnated, they do not have the same second chance as the people who voted for minority group, it seems unfair my first choice...
@urwordagainstmine The core idea is that people need over 50% of votes (the support of the majority) to win. If someone gets that on 1st preferences,great! They win.If not,they need other people to come on board & add support,saying 'yeah,out of the remaining candidates I think this is the best choice'.Those who voted for the smaller parties don't have an advantage- their 1st choice is out, they have to compromise.The main party voters aren't at a disadvantage, their candidates are likely to win
@JoeBLOG5 The point is not that the process is too complicated to understand and participate. It's the fact that the analyses one must use to demonstrate how the arguments for AV are bullshit, are very dry and in parts beyond the compulsory maths curriculum, yet very very significant. AV is a perverse faux progressive system that just obscures the problems of FPTP.
Range voting and proportionality,? Yes please.
But AV? - Fuck off. Get back to the drawing board.
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.
Make a grown up argument against what you oppose, not a bigoted snub of your opponent. All 5 arguments in this video crumble under scrutiny. AV is no improvement. It obscures what's wrong the system, & is riddled with additional pathologies that make it degenerate, either by it's process or by tactical realisation, back to plurality, reinforcing a 2-party system. It is aggressively rejected by political science, & it isn't a lateral segue to any desirable system.
@abh88abh oh shut the fuck up you little bitch - no arguments in this video fall at all, you're simply a right-wing dick who knows his patyt wont stand a chance under AV so you bitch about it - 2 party system my ass, it would help ALL other parties become stronger and rid us of the 2 party system - please get a fucking education and come back when you have a clue about what you're ranting about
@Mosley2 A Utilty Autonomist, liking SNP at mo', but in Wales Plaid & Green will have to do, supports range voting in a purpose proportional format: Right, indeed. AV reinforces a two-party system by indeterminism & tactical pathology. You clearly aint performed sufficient game analysis (Engineering degrees have much maths) or bothered to note but one real example, to think otherwise. I beg you, get an education, & a grip, & return once you've more clue & less irritable-piss-tard-ism endemic.
@abh88abh Hey cry baby, shut the fuck up, your first past the post system is what is flawed not AV, with AV a party with just 34% of the vote can win, even though that clealry means 66% DIDN'T vote for them, that ISN'T democracy, democracy is 51% rule. So how about you actually RESEARCH AV rather than believing the crap the NO campaign are spreading, such as "AV will lead to more coalitions" which is a complete LIE as it woudll END them because you'd keep counting counts until a party had 51%
Nowt I said has been said by the embarrassing official No Campaign. 'Tis you who's clearly swallowed the faux progressive cack of a certain other campaign. I hate FPTP, but having investigated AV, in great detail, mathematically and philosophically, I've noted it's non-monotonicity & tactical degeneration. Yet you ask me to research, while not even knowing a difference between a constituency & parliament? I despair. What a charming little wanker. Don't worry, you'll lose 'it' one day.
@abh88abh "Nowt"? please use real English. "'Tis"? You're not Shakespear so please, modern English.
You haven't done a single piece of calculation you fat lying bastard otherwise you'd see that you arre wrong as 34% of the vote is NOT 51% and therefore NOT democracy. And as for the "one man one vote" shit, did you forget that you get up to 7 choices in local elections? Hmm, guess so, fair?
The "chaming little wanker" here is you you sad bastard, how about going back to school for maths? "It"?
@Mosley2 Pedantry is the resort if you fancy a break from debate. For each 1 view adopted, mean>1 is rejected, so any 1 MP doing his job inescapably contradicts >½ of voters. ½+1 representation is mythical, & a worryingly reductive angle on Democracy. ∑(AB/AB/AC/BC/BC/BC/BC/CA/CA)→ 55% A>B, 67% B>C, 67% C>A. A wins AV while absolute loser by Borda, Bucklin, Coombs & Condorcet (check). Mal-quoted 1 person 1 vote notion I agree is silly. *Options - Semantics? MEng? Despiration? ...Aye, Concision.
@Mosley2 Democracy is popular autonomy. Majority rule (which is only 51% if you have a 100 seat parliament, which we don't) is one interpretation, simple in the pejorative sense. And most AV supporters agree it's the wrong idea. Best consensus, a la qualified majorities, and non-partisan revision, make for better democracy. It's not about winners & loser, it's about consent & utility.
Anyway, glad to see a politer tone, and let's both hope some decent electoral reforms come soon enough.
Can anyone here please explain to me why the AV system would be beneficial to parties like UKIP and the Green Party but not the BNP? They are all similar sized fringe parties but I hear that both UKIP and the Greens are voting for AV but the BNP are against it. Just wondering why this is the case.
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 Basically AV's about representing people's real preferences - you can vote for who you actually support as well as ranking other parties you like, instead of having to vote for either Labour or the Tories so you don't feel your vote is 'wasted'. Apart from basically being more democratic the idea is that parties like the Greens and UKIP actually have a lot of support that's lost through tactical voting, and would make gains as people realise they're more viable options
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 The BNP on the other hand aren't that popular,since they have very divisive policies and opinions, and they're very unlikely to get the majority support (over 50%) needed to win.Basically over half of the voters would need to say 'we prefer the BNP over all the other parties in the running'- not likely to happen, whereas more mainstream small parties could get that support.Under the current system there's no minimum vote required to win, and the BNP could get in with a minority
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 AV means that 'tactical voting' will no longer drive the elections, as people won't having to worry about 'wasting' their vote by not voting for the strongest candidate against the their least favourite. I guess in some areas, where people had not previously voted for them because they didn't want their vote to be a wasted, they'll turn out to be very popular. However, the BNP are very right-wing, and AV will probably ultimately benefit the popular left-wing parties most.
@insanityisagift The tactical vote will still happen ... with people using their 2nd vote tactically.... Knowing that if they vote for unpopular parties that know-one wants, their vote is likely to be counted for a second time.
@MrPhartiphukborlz Agree. AV gives a second vote to those who vote for the most unpopular, unsuitable parties. Even this referendum could be considered unfair on the basis that people who do not want change are less likely to bother vote than those who do. The present system is fine. I think Nick Clegg has done more than enough, without changing our voting system to one which suits him too. Vote No
@3rdWorldBritain Yup.. AV gives people who vote for unpopular parties a second vote. Would people want the Greens, UKIP, or Lib Dems in power if an economic crisis hits? Then why reward voters who vote for them? Note... the AV referendum is a key part of the Coalition agreement. Why reward Nick Clegg... He has done enough damage without a system that benefits his party... FPTP or 2nd or 3rd PTP? hmmm
AV lets morons who vote for the very least popular parties have a 2nd vote counted!!! A yes vote will give Nick Clegg what he wants too... I noticed he is already preparing to play the victim for when the 'no' verdict is returned.
Wow well this just cleared things up for me immensely. I've been reading everything I can get my hands on to understand this (without getting bogged too deep in political jargon) and I grasped it but now I understand. Really helpful video.
@sarahdoodles Except for the fact that it's arguments are bullshit. Visit the relevant pages via the site map on electology d*t org (especially sl*sh majority), and see how it really works. All electoral systems have a reasonable sounding argument at the fore, but all 5 points made in this video are not to be taken at face value.
@abh88abh Oh I can see that the five point argument at the end was basically a load of rubbish. Ending tactical voting how? But it did make everything more clear.
I have never said all votes in AV are equal because they are not. Under AV some people only get 1 vote (preference) counted whereas others get 2, 3 or 4 preferences etc... counted. That isn't fair.
That is the position I have always maintained - don't try to claim otherwise.
PR = Proportional representation - 1 person gets 1 vote and all parties get the number of MPs in proportion to their vote. Everyone gets 1 preference.
AV doesn't end tactical voting, it won't make MPs work harder or be any better etc.... The system is more complicated as we all know.
But most of all it doesn't treat all voters equally - some only ever get 1 vote counted whereas others will get their 2nd, 3rd, 4th preferences taken into account....
It destroys the 1 person 1 vote principle
I want reform in the shape of PR but AV doesn't do that. It's even worse than FPTP.
@mat5379 PR allows other preferences to be stated, and some systems (AV+) create two types of MP, very unfair. Surely this contradicts the bullshit you previously stated (i.e. All votes are equal in AV) I hope your a professional propagandist, because its said when normal people peddle untruths. Rethink your actions sir.
End to tactical voting? LOL, yeeeaaaa.... right ;] make a clearer explanation next time this is just a dumbed down water version to try and get morons to vote AV.
This bullshit theory just gives smaller more radical parties a better chance of getting into power.
Lucky for us it's a referendum and the government can just dismiss it anyways ;]
Did anyone else listen to the BBC Today programme this morning with John Humphreys' evident biased questioning of David Cameron about the AV referendum? The PM clearly knew more about how AV worked than did JH. Not often do you hear JH floundering but he did so here and, like many Yes supporters, displayed his ignorance of how AV will actually work.
Seldom have I praise for Cameron but I shall be voting NO with him on Thursday!
The No Campaign is built on misinformation and duplicity, for instance: “AV could mean the person coming third will win”. This is nonsense, FPTP and AV are two separate systems and that statement is clearly designed to muddle them as one. A person who wins under AV rules will be the winner irrespective of what may have occurred under FPTP - the question is which is the most fair system.
When I first came across AV I thought it a system that would punish the Labour party in some way - Camerons desperation for a NO vote woke me up!! AV would HALT FOREVER the Tories dominance of British politics, and benefit Labour, making it a more accountable, broader party. What an opportunity!! A NO VOTE is a TORY vote. Make no mistake about it. I wish people would stop haggling over the working of the two systems, and grasp this opportunity!
@abh88abh There are problems with both systems - neither are perfect. AV is fairer though - it is hard to argue against that. The Tories have THEIR self interest at heart to maintain the existing system - their self interest is NO, along with the BNP. What more convincing argument is there to vote YES!
@georgiegirlize Both systems are utter shit, you're right. And I'll admit, it is not easy to argue that AV is worse: not easy, but correct nonetheless. The pathologies of AV are much drier to describe than the faux enlightened cack that convinces people to support it. I used to think it'd be better, but the more I look at it (barring the embarrassing official no campaign) the more I'm resolute it is not a positive change. Visit electology d*t org to see a few of said pathologies.
@georgiegirlize That's disgusting. Total votes in the last election - Conservatives 11million, Labour 9million. You should never want to have a system which ignores the majority! Accept the verdict of the country. FPTP reflects the swings of the country. With AV you will have less landslide moments 1983, 1997 . I am No 2 AV because it will be bad for our democracy. It will have the Libdems disproportionally in power in permant coalitions for evermore.
@KingCharlesI AV has nothing to do with the overall makeup of parliament - it's simply about electing your local MP. Most MPs received only 30% of the vote, which is ignoring the majority by default. Did the other 70% think this was the best candidate? Was there a candidate over half would agree on? FPTP doesn't consider the majority at all. AV does, that's the whole point of it.
@cactustactics Voting is not merely about expressing a preference for your local MP. Our votes make up a government. The overall will of the nation is what is important. People vote for Conservative party, not, often, for John Smith to be their MP; so banging on about getting a candidate to work harder is redundant. If the majority ina constituency vote for the ideas and ideology of the party. That is their choice! ONE PERSON ONE VOTE = SUPPORT. 2nd/3rd preferences should not decide victory!
@KingCharlesI Whether you're voting for a party or an MP (and I agree we shouldn't have to cast one vote for both, but that's how it is) it doesn't matter - a winner is chosen and that seat goes to their party, and that's decided by the voters. Unfortunately under the current system it's often decided by a minority of voters. Would you be happy with an extremist party winning with 20% of the vote? Is that a fair way to decide who the majority of people want to be represented by?
@cactustactics That's an argument against democracy!The British people are not extremist! Also the nature of our party system, means that both mainstream parties are coalitions of themselves, both have left, right and centerist. That could not happen as FPTP preserves the voting system as a credible decision. AV asks you to willy-nilly vote for everyone, and at the end of the day you won't know which one of your 'votes' actually was counted.
@KingCharlesI No the British people are not extremist,yet under FPTP an extremist party could easily win with a fraction of the vote, if the rest of the vote is split between other parties.The majority wouldn't want that extremist to win,but that isn't considered under FPTP.That's the fatal flaw of the system,it allows the absolute least favourite candidate to win- this is impossible under AV. This risk is what forces people to vote tactically for one of the main parties instead of who they want
@cactustactics You haven't studied history! When have an extremist party got into Parliament? Its sad you're scaremongering. Look in safe seats AV will change nothing (good). In marginal seats - a three way fight FPTP is the fairest way. The winner truly wins there because its a close fight! Also, under AV the candidate you want could in fact harm them when votes are redistrubed.
No one likes AV. Campaign in what you believe in; be that PR or the status quo.
@KingCharlesI I'm not scaremongering - I'm asking if you would be happy with an extremist party winning a seat with 20% of the vote? It's entirely *possible* under FPTP:
BNP: 20%
Con: 19%
Lab: 19.5%
Lib: 18.5%
Green: 10%
UKIP: 9%
Other: 4%
Would you say 'well the other 80% don't want them but no matter, they truly won because it was a close fight'? Because that's exactly what you're saying now. That 80% could very easily vote that way, for their honest preference, and end up punished for it
@cactustactics My argument is; that is a silly case. You're living in an textbook!Facists, or crazy parties have never come close to winning an election in the real world. This is the advantage of FPTP. The British people are pragmatic and never vote for these fringe people. We are not suddenly going to become ideological and extreme.
FPTP is used all over the world - its one of our great exports!
@KingCharlesI My point is that if you were being consistent you would agree that a BNP win in that situation,with 20% of the vote,would be a great result,the true winner in a close fight and the best representative of the voters.The fact you're dancing around & refusing to even give an answer makes it obvious you don't really think that would be a fair result,even though it's a legitimate win under FPTP.You only support it when you like the results- FPTP provides no protection against extremism
@cactustactics FPTP is the fairest system. It is not perfect, but it is the best for forming a government. Changing the voting system is not the most important reform for our politics. Right to recall, open primaries, MP selection to committees not whips, and house of lords reform would do us better in the long run.
The latest YouGov poll shows a 20 point lead to the NO side. We are happy with putting a cross in a box. The winner should take his seat and once elected MPs represent everyone!
@KingCharlesI Cool, so just say that you'd be happy with that BNP win in that hypothetical scenario please? I'm not asking you to say you support the BNP or that they're likely to win in real life or anything like that - I'm asking you to say that in the scenario I drew up, that legitimate FPTP result is completely fair and democratic like all FPTP results. Why are you so reluctant to say that FPTP returns a fair winner even if it happens to be an extremist candidate? Why are you running away?
@KingCharlesI So just to be clear, what you're saying is you're perfectly fine with the BNP winning an election with 20% of the vote, when the vast majority of people would put them dead last as their choice to represent them, and you think this is a fair and representative result and a shining example of democracy at work.
Ok, thanks for making that clear! I don't know how you're able to support such a system, regardless of who it actually elects, but some of us have higher hopes for democracy
@cactustactics You must be a BNP voter as you seem to love them so much. AV is an appauling system; it would make landslides even larger. It deprives the princple of one person one vote which people fought and died for. AV can deprive victory from the winning candidate; undermining effort. AVs effect on parliament is unclear; but more hung parliaments, broken promises and irrelevent manifestos will be more likely. If you can live with this? Reject a good system for a parliament of 2nd choices...
@KingCharlesI Apart from all the stuff that's been chanted and debunked over and over and over, you're honestly trying to claim that war veterans fought and died for the First Past the Post system? People dying in the mud in the Somme, thinking to themselves '...this... this is for all those parties who get in on a minority of the vote... even though most people don't want them...'
That's pretty pathetic, man. And I've heard some pathetic stuff the past few weeks, believe me
@cactustactics All votes should be of equal value & counted once. People died for freedom and liberal British values. Giving the influence to minority of fringe party voters to influence the outcome of an election is UNFAIR. Those over 65 overwhelming support the NO side. A Change is not valuable if its one for the worse. FPTP is not the root of all evil as you would like to suggest.
Accept it, the public and most politicans do not like AV. Why pretend you want this? AV is a poor 2nd choice.
@KingCharlesI Like when the 20% minority of fringe voters in my example influence the outcome of the election by winning it outright under FPTP? I agree, that is incredibly unfair. It's a terrible system, that's why the entire world is moving away from FPTP, and nobody ever goes back to it. That's why the major parties don't use it for their leadership elections, except when they've used runoff voting to whittle it down to a 2-way, guaranteed majority win race. That's why AV is outright better.
@cactustactics If a candidate win a marginal seat that candidate convinced the most people. That is fair! Australia wants to get rid of AV. AV is not used when electing party leaders. AV is not proportional and not useful for electing candidates from different parties. It will displace MPs who have the majority of votes. FPTP is simple. It works. At the end of the day, who your MP is is not a live changing event. The balance and colour of government is. AV will corrupt politics & for what?
@KingCharlesI nice of you to use my country as an example because you actually knew the facts you'd know that the survey that the no campaign use was made by a known conservative think tank surveying Liberal and National voters straight after Labor formed government
@abh88abh I'm not scaremongering - I'm using a clear example to show a completely legitimate FPTP result where a minority winner absolutely does not have the support of the majority, and inviting FPTP fans to say if they still think it's an acceptable result. If people are being consistent then they'll say yes - either a minority win is an acceptable result or it's not, it shouldn't matter who the winner is. Either FPTP produces objectively fair results, or it doesn't. It's a simple question
@cactustactics Scaremongering: selectively or falsely reporting matters that may cause people to react in a way which suits your agenda. Example: describing an objectionable example of a FPTP election to get people to vote for AV when AV can produce exactly the same scenario. AV degenerates to FPTP. So AV will reinstate all of the problems FPTP has. Factoid.
@abh88abh It's a hypothetical scenario. If people are consistent with their support for FPTP's minority winners, they would have no problem with that result. The fact people are absolutely refusing to look at that hypothetical & say 'why yes if this did happen that would be a fair and acceptable result' speaks volumes. Either you support the system and its results or you don't.
I like how you described that perfectly legitimate win under FPTP as 'objectionable'. Why do you object to it exactly?
@cactustactics That comment is just absurd. You dismissed my example, then say I'm inconsistent because I don't try to defend the indefensible. I'll try one last time to get this across; you're free (silly) to disagree, but please register:
FPTP is shit, but AV is no better. It will *not* get rid of *any* problem because of tactical degeneration. & it's bilaterally non-montone (>33%), indeterministic (divisively), & great at obscuring its own ills. Both are objectionable, AV very slightly more.
In the up-coming UK referendum, be sure to vote YES to AV. It is not right that you are encouraged to vote tactically, instead of for who you really want. AV allowes you to vote for both, with your preference being for who YOU REALLY WANT. It is also not right that parties gain power WITHOUT having 50% of the peoples vote. AV can help smaller parties and THROWS OUT extremeist like the BNP. So vote YES to fairer votes. Vote YES to AV. Thumb up to get the truth out there.
@PurpleGhost I'm pretty sure a couple of Provinces use it, but lets be honest here, neither Ignatieff or Harper or even Duceppe would want to change the system, Layton would though.
@irishgodfatherchris - I'm pretty sure they don't - Though it IS used by our parties internally to decide leadership, and THAT'S something.
- In provinces, it would have already set a president that we don't have. As proportional representation was met with suspicion and confusion, and turned down, this system which would further eliminate age old political traditions which plague us, would likely meet those same feelings in Canada, only more pronounced. I wish we were REALLY ready for change.
@irishgodfatherchris - Continued thoughts - And you are most assuredly right about those those three not seeming to want any change. Harper especially. I hated the most, the fact that the conservatives almost exclusively ran smear campaigns to convince people to vote for them, and yet still won. Ignatieff lost my respect when he allowed his party to use the same tactic (smear campaigning) against Jack Layton, & I don't like Jack (I voted NDP anyways, lesser of three evils) but that goes too far.
@PurpleGhost Layton may now at least get his voice a bit better now that he's the Opposition Leader, yes despite being Australian I have been playing close attention to the election and was surprised as most outsiders were when the polls said that NDP was going to outdo the Liberals I scoffed at them to be honest and take it from someone that if I had the chance I'd vote NDP I am after all a member of the Australian Labor Party.
@irishgodfatherchris - Quebec going NDP is what allowed for this, but against a majority government, uhg, it's going to do him little good.
I was more surprised by Ontario and the maritimes overwhelming conservative leanings. The maritimes are likely voting in that manner due to religious reasons (which is disgusting if you ask me - religion does NOT belong in politics - I think politicians should be forced to hide their religious leanings.)
@PurpleGhost yeah I can't believe that Duceppe and Ignatieff both lost their seats, but yes the NDP gains in Quebec is ultimately not going to help Layton, but given the fact that NDP is likely to improve their position over the next few years, I reckon Layton will stand a really good chance of beating the Conservatives next election.
@PurpleGhost the voters turned off the Liberal Party which was good but they didn't do the same with the Conservatives, Its times like now that I wish Canada had a Senate like ours, that way the PM cannot pass every piece of legislation without negotiating with other parties
@irishgodfatherchris - We're a bit foolish like that, people buy into the idea of strength through leadership; smear campaigns look 'strong'.
In instances like these, I begin to wish we had more direct-democracy as well.
Having just looked through the wiki on the Australian senate - I agree, that would be saving our asses in cases like these.
Technically our governor general is suppose to be capable of doing something as well, only in this case, the PM gets to pick a new one, what bloody luck.
@PurpleGhost well the problem is, is that Harper is the only person actually capable or somewhat moderating the Tories so if the GG dismisses him, he'd be forced to choose another Tory MP rather than a NDP MP and risk an election
@irishgodfatherchris - Not sure where this line of thought is coming from... (Did you accidentally reply to me instead of someone else?) Yes, of course they would pick another Con MP, anything else would be against their own personal best interests, and we both know they'd never go against those, even if something would be better for Canada.
I'm not sure that I do agree, that Harper would be the only one to keep the party cohesive, I think there are other Con moderates who would step up.
@irishgodfatherchris - Continued thoughts - I'm kind of glad to hear that you followed it; I am sorry to say I haven't exactly done the same for your country (I listened at the time, but I don't seem to remember much.)
You probably wouldn't be so surprised about the NDP swing in, if you had a personal taste of some of the political climate here. Most random people I've talked to, said they didn't want to vote at all, they are disgusted with all of it, and that attitude is hurting all of us.
Evergonge. To be frank I don't understand many of your "points". If you think you have a "good intellect" then carry on with your motormouth gibberish. Also, for the record,
I am neither a bully, a "finatic" nor do I vote Labour-just fair minded and a realist.
The Liberal party promised us proportional representation, so that every vote we cast would be counted and we would get a parliament that truly reflected the desires of the electorate.
The Alternative Vote is a farce and a betrayal of this pledge. It’s no more democratic than the First Past The Post system. I live in a safe Conservative seat but have voted Liberal for 38 years .
My vote has never counted for anything, and under the AV system, it still won’t count for anything.
@evergonge. A.V. does not have 100%support from Labour because - just as you have a spelling problem and an inability to stick to the point being argued- many Labour supporters have a problem understanding the arithmetic and logic of A.V. and what it's all about. Some are being brainwashed by such as yourself into believing in confusion and complication which does not exist.
@golsno147 if you can understand my point then my spelling is good enough! but like every labour finatic you try to bully people where ever you see a weakness GOOD SPELLING DOES NOT MEAN GOOD INTELLECT it means your anal enough to check casual online banter
@evergonge. Your response to my comment is political muckraking and has
nothing to do with Conservatives' knowledge that A.V. will lose them more seats to Labour than Labour would lose to them if implemented. Why, when accepted without criticism by Cameron as the best system for electing party leaders is it not fair for us?. Voters are not fooled by his rolled up sleeves "ordinary guy" image and pretentions. He is a ruthless career opportunist and conman supporting his self interest.
@golsno147 and AV has 100% support from labour? not everything that gives labour power is morally right ellecting a leader should be about what you want! not what you don't want!!!! but thats labour always focusing on negitives!! there's parts of the country that would put the monster raving looney party ahead of labour and areas that would do the same with the conservatives! if the AV referdom was about just that rather than party dogma you wouldnt even consider voting for AV as well you know!!
1. MPs need not substantive support, just lower preference tactical votes.
2. Tried by Australia, who hate it.
3. Still tactical voting, but by interpretation, not determination.
4. I actually agree, but there's a flip-side to that coin: stimulating obscure centrism.
5. Same choice. Real Indeterminism.
There are some alright arguments both for and against AV, I just wish each campaign would stop bullshitting and maybe consider using them. Either way won't change British politics one bit.
@abh88abh also we will se a rise of independants who will openly seel coalition with the major partys on obscure issues! and also major partys will premote and encourage some indepandants basicly giving them the luxuryfielding 2 candidates!! combine that will a bland kind of one size fits all policys marks the death of democracy in the UK! IF WE GET AV ALL WE WILL BE VOTING ON IS THE NAME OF THE CURRENT GOVERMENT and we wont even get that as the likelyhood is that it will be a coalition
@evergonge I know we're on same side, but must refine the argument. Multi-party system is no problem if it reflects what voters want. You can't justify skewing opinions just to make majorities. Thing is, said skewing is no less true to AV than FPTP. AV won't 'proportional-ise', just arbitrarily distort. PR would prompt things like enhanced majorities and executive rounds to make multi-party governance accountable. AV definitely won't. It'll create what's best be described as a '3rd party state'.
@abh88abh What's a 'lower preference tactical vote' if not an expression of support? Why put someone as a lower preference unless you actually do support them over the ones you didn't rank? That's the whole idea- if it does come down to a race between those lower preferences, people get to say 'well in that case I'd vote for this candidate'.Only if nobody gets over 50% of the vote before that
And Australia don't hate it- they've had AV for almost a century, all we've seen is 1 commissioned poll
@cactustactics In purely positive polls, of opinions that, quite rationally, feature negatives; tactical voting persists as people mark frankly fake support (for the least objectionable last resorts) to keep disliked candidates out. AV beats FPTP in enabling you to confidently put a sincere first preference in, but then just reinterprets it to be a tactical vote anyway. The results are just as insincere. -1 to 3 Range voting would properly accommodate how people think, and end tactical votes.
@abh88abh Why is voting for 'the least objectionable last resorts to keep disliked candidates out' suddenly 'fake support' exactly? It's support for that 'least objectionable' candidate over the disliked ones, taken into account only if it comes down to a race between them. This is exactly the kind of voting FPTP encourages (requires even), as your *only* option. Under AV you're not voting tactically, because you're not changing your vote - you're giving your opinion, in case it's considered
@cactustactics Tactical voting in FPTP (which, btw, I'm not really defending. I'm just trying to dispel the mythical capacity AV has to improve it) is discretionary. Voters are compelled to do it, but their vote is a deterministic instruction. In AV, you can put as sincere a first preference as you like, it'll only be redistributed to tactical status. Tactical votes aren't avoided, they're exacted. It doesn't solve any of the folly of FPTP. It's a dysfunctional sidestep.
this is an excellent video, really helped me understand av for my modern studies prelim thank you!
LVYxx 5 days ago
I have a question.
Let's say that after other candidates have dropped, there are 3 left: a conservative (36%), a liberal (33%)and a centrist (31%).
Most of the liberal voters would rate the centrist higher than the conservative, and most of the conservative voters would rate the centrist higher than the liberal.
However, the centrist has the least "high" votes, and, as I understand it, would drop out at this point, putting either the conservative or the liberal in the lead. Isn't that a problem?
meskalurator 1 month ago
Who won in the end?
Greetings from Mexico
als510 5 months ago
@als510 unfortunately the referendum failed mainly due to the no to AV lies
irishgodfatherchris 5 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris My God, that is so bloody sad =(
Please keep on trying. ¿Do any other countries have already the AV system? It really seems like the right thing to do...
als510 5 months ago
@als510 my country (Australia), PNG and Fiji use a form of it so do some US cities to elect their mayor, most of the major UK cities to elect their mayor, Canada's Conservatives and I'm pretty sure the Liberal Party does too, also so do the three main parties in the UK. It seems odd to me that David Cameron would oppose a system which technically allowed him to become the Leader of the Conservative Party because after the first count he was not leading David Davis was.
irishgodfatherchris 5 months ago
Its such a shame, it would of been closer to a true democracy, and bastards like the BNP and UKIP would be eliminated
Caesarslegion1 9 months ago
@Caesarslegion1 You do realize that UKIP was one of the largest supporters of AV BECAUSE it helps prevent the spoiler effect, allowing more people to vote for who they want without enabling a candidate they don't like to get into office. As such, people that don't vote UKIP because they don't want Labour in power(so vote with the Tories) can vote UKIP and put the Labour party as their last choice. It would help UKIP grow, not eliminate them.
Bluehero345 9 months ago
Type in 'minsminons alternative vote' on google for a good summary of why you should have voted yestoAV
minsminions 9 months ago
woow...thanks who ever made this video...needed it for citizenship class tanks xx :P
livieblair1971 9 months ago
Why the fuck didnt smeg push for PR the fairest system and just what this country needs now hes an even bigger smeg
snowstorm80 9 months ago
@snowstorm80 because the Alternative Vote was the only option Cameron gave him
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@snowstorm80 Because its a matter of idealism vs. pragmatism: PR would be fantastic, but there isn't enough support for it to get approved. AV isn't as good, but its achievable in the short term, and makes PR more feasible in the long term.
Bluehero345 9 months ago
Thank god comonsense prevailed .And as usual even though we have a strong left wing agenda, that most normal people do not see , Our strong English morals win through!... against their anti- English views..
BREDATOR1 9 months ago
@BREDATOR1 Those who would deliberately lie to the British people purely for short-term pure-self-interest are in fact enemies of this nation. They are those who outrightly, knowingly and systematically lied about AV.
1. "AV isn't 1-person-1-vote" - LIE. Everybody has an EQUAL vote under AV, not so in FPTP.
2. "AV would lead to more hung parliaments" - LIE. By guaranteeing only majority-preferred candidates, it leads to LESS hung parliaments.
3. "AV'll cost £250m" - LIE.
All deliberate.
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
YAY NO2AV failed,,, woot woot FPTP FTW...
paulspydar 9 months ago
I wonder if the yes vote would have prevailed under a coalition with Labour?... Oh the irony.
My confidence and faith in Joe Smith has returned.. Well done voters
MrPhartiphukborlz 9 months ago
@MrPhartiphukborlz i doubt we'd of had a refferendom under a labour coalition they would of just enforced it! labours motto is do as we say because we are right! labour didnt even see fit to allow a refferendom on EU mebership
evergonge 9 months ago
@evergonge If you are correct, and Labour would not have offered an AV referendum (where as the Tories did) then the public are even more correct for voting no....why should the Lib dems make anything from betraying their voters for this referendum and making countless more people out of work. No to AV. Yes to giving Nick Clegg a kicking… Confidence in the British voting system restored
MrPhartiphukborlz 9 months ago
05/05/11 is a very shameful day... in 100 years time, people will look back at this and think that britain was made up of idots... and they'd be right!
velocityeleven 9 months ago
In Australia since 1922 and the sky hasn't fallen in ... yet.
Steptile1 9 months ago
@Steptile1 actually we used it the election prior to that in 1919
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
has it sunk thru yur thick skulls yet
Broatch6 9 months ago
"Shut down extremism"
If the people want an extremist party in power then it is their democratic right to vote for that party.
itreallyisgrant 9 months ago
That is the dumbest idea ever. Thank god it got shot down. #1 is number 1 too bad for fourth place. there's a reason for that; they suck.
ruddgirl 9 months ago
no no no! love the sound of that word ha ha ha! lets have a refferendom on the EU while the british public are in the habbit of saying NO!
evergonge 9 months ago
I honestly think the British public has missed a trick here. It was a chance to have some money spent on us instead this will now go towards war machines, let's face it, there have been cuts made everywhere and this was something for the benefit of the people. A 42% turn out is a disgrace, our children were off school for the day and not half cared to turn up.
happydaiz82 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris I don't see why we should be, we can be accused of apathy and confusion over party politics perhaps but the result of the referendum was pretty damn unanimous. Yes I'm sure some people did fall for the lies spread by the No campaign and I'm sure some took it as a chance to bash Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg over the head, but all six million of them? No the vast majority of people obviously decided that there was nothing to gain and that was their democratic right to do so.
MrSEGAMegadrive1 9 months ago
Well done UK you are now the laughing stock of the Western World
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris Yes 2nd to America.
happydaiz82 9 months ago
@mahoneyj2 Take a few deep breaths and relax, for your information the BNP was against the AV system and campaigned for keeping the FPTP system. This seems to be common knowledge to some but to others it seems that the belief is that the BNP wanted AV, they did not. The Greens and UKIP did but the BNP did not. It's funny how people get so worked up over what the BNP can or can't do, they won't get power under any system unless the country faced some sort of race war so relax and carry on.
MrSEGAMegadrive1 9 months ago
The No to AV campaign has won overwhelmingly by about six million votes it looks like. The people have spoken, well the ones who could be bothered to vote have spoken anyway.
MrSEGAMegadrive1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All I can say is this country is full of stupid arseholes. If you don't want electoral reform, why not go back the whole hog and take away the women's vote, and maybe the vote for the rest of the plebs... And let those with the longest knives and biggest guns rule over us how ever they want, and pay F-all notice to the majority of populus... Thick as sh@t this nation. Don't deserve a democracy... And we certainly haven't got one
Thanks ... Feel better for getting that off my chest.
Chivlingtonbicuspid1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All I can say is this country is full of stupid arseholes. If you don't want electoral reform, why not go back the whole hog and take away the women's vote, and maybe the vote for the rest of the plebs... And let those with the longest knives and biggest guns rule over us how ever they want, and pay F-all notice to the majority of populus... Thick as sh@t this nation. Don't deserve a democracy... And we certainly haven't got one
Thanks ... Feel better for getting that off my chest.
Chivlingtonbicuspid1 9 months ago
All I can say is this country is full of stupid arseholes. If you don't want electoral reform, why not go back the whole hog and take away the women's vote, and maybe the vote for the rest of the plebs... And let those with the longest knives and biggest guns rule over us how ever they want, and pay F-all notice to the majority of populus... Thick as sh@t this nation. Don't deserve a democracy... And we certainly haven't got one
Thanks ... Feel better for getting that off my chest.
Chivlingtonbicuspid1 9 months ago
All I can say is this country is full of stupid arseholes. If you don't want electoral reform, why not go back the whole hog and take away the women's vote, and maybe the vote for the rest of the plebs... And let those with the longest knives and biggest guns rule over us how ever they want, and pay F-all notice to the majority of populus... Thick as sh@t this nation. Don't deserve a democracy... And we certainly haven't got one
Thanks ... Feel better for getting that off my chest.
Chivlingtonbicuspid1 9 months ago
@abh88abh People cannot have it both ways though, they cannot whinge and moan about hung parliaments and parties getting into power that they don't like when at the same time they demonstrate ridiculous voting patterns by not actually voting for the party they like, in so-called 'tactical voting', or worse by not voting at all! A democracy requires personal responsibility from all people to voice their opinions and excusing those who can't be arsed to do so makes a joke of the whole system.
MrSEGAMegadrive1 9 months ago
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 If a poll doesn't accommodate their views, nothing is to be resented of people who vote tactically (since tactical swing holds more deterministic weight than ineffectual statements), or just don't bother until it does. The system IS a joke. Voting merely for its own sake is insane. A Democracy requires the popular right to make informed uncoerced decisions to determine their future - Consistent with a bit of abstention if it saves from compulsion to act in a poll you object to.
abh88abh 9 months ago
What this country needs is compulsory voting like they have in Australia, the voter turnout year after year is quite frankly embarrassing especially for a country that prides itself on it's democratic values. Everyone moans about the system and wonders why FPTP doesn't work very well, has anyone actually stopped to think that perhaps it would work out fairer if people actually bothered to vote?! FPTP or AV either way it doesn't matter because people in this country don't seem to give a shit.
MrSEGAMegadrive1 9 months ago
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 FPTP would be even less representative with compulsory voting. Compulsory voting is an oxymoron. The biggest barrier a people could have to self-determination, also known as democracy, is having the capacity of their principle means, the vote, diluted by uninformed reluctant voters acting on habit, whimsy, snap judgements and propaganda. If somebody doesn't want to vote, that's their right, and it flies in the face of democracy to promote voting by coercion.
abh88abh 9 months ago
Even though it looks as though the yes to AV campaign has lost I don't think it matters what system of voting is in place in the UK not when the British public can't be bothered to get off their fat arses and vote. Yet another woeful turnout by the electorate and no doubt the AV campaigners will say "Ah but if people actually felt like their vote meant something they would be bothered to vote." Whilst this may well be true it seems like we'll never know now.
MrSEGAMegadrive1 9 months ago
Why should the people that support the least popular parties have the deciding votes? Seems crazy. That is why I voted NO.
toby14483 9 months ago
@toby14483 Haha exactly! My friend lives in the UK and told me he had to vote and i was like for what? then I came here to find out and was like this makes no sense! All I can say is I hope he voted no too.
ruddgirl 9 months ago
it only gives a chance to the parties you dont want if you are dum emouth to give them a number. you can leave the ones you dont want blank
Jo36cl 9 months ago
This is a scam, i think AV is a big bunch of crap.
It gives chance not to the one you voted no.1 but to the others.
You dont know if the verifiers will choose the "number 2" selection on the losing papers .
As far as i am concerned Pass The Post is waaaaaay simplier and it costs less to pay the people who work on counting the votes and the winner is the fking winner and that's all.
andreiradu1945 9 months ago
Reasons I voted yes:
1. To piss off the conservatives
2. So that my vote might actually mean something
urbanspaceman1 9 months ago
this is exactly how my school does student council and honor council elections.... nobody objects.
DrNHand1994 9 months ago
1-less bold politicians, more false promises and diluted manifestos
2-more tactical voting
3-unneccessary cost
4-disproportionate power to minority parties (larger parties want their support)
5-second to fifth choices have same weighting as others first choices
reasons why i voted no
SteelCaviar 9 months ago
It's Cinco De Mayo Bitches!!!!!!!
xxGizmo05xx 9 months ago
AV is shit. Labour is shit. Lib dem is shit.
This video is shit.
mahoneyj2 9 months ago
@mahoneyj2 You have no argument saying why they are is shit. Your not mentioning any other parties, so i presume you love the BNP and all the other extremist parties.
frazzz1170 9 months ago
Comment removed
mahoneyj2 9 months ago
AV is by far a much more fairer system, the tories hate the idea because they won't be many peoples second choice, Labour voters would probably have Lib Dems as second choice and Lib dem voters would probably have abour as second choice.
Theaverable 9 months ago
I don't want my vote transfered to someone I DIDN'T vote for so I voted no.
toxophilist2009 9 months ago
@toxophilist2009 Then only vote for one person. you dont have to vote for more than just one. All the AV is for, is that you chose who you really want in but if they dont get in you put down who you would rather have instead. It means that everyones vote actualy goes towards who wins.
alicew1989 9 months ago
@alicew1989 I obviously misunderstood the AV system, thank you for putting me right. That's what I will do come voting.
toxophilist2009 9 months ago
@toxophilist2009
HAhahagh Please do not vote. you obviously don't have a real interest in politics.
with AV your vote will only be 'transfered' if
1. you put a number next to that party
2. your first choice didn't get in
in FPTP, you literally DO vote for someone else. Eg- everyone in the UK might love the Respect party, and HATE the BNP. but everyone knows that with FPTP, it's basically a decision between labour and tory (maybe lib dem, at least as a coalition) so it's not a real democracy
flegolas 9 months ago
It's funny how the Conservative's election campaign stated "Vote for Change" and yet when a change in voting system is proposed they are against it.
ctinax 9 months ago
so wait if like a main party and vote for them, they most likely will not get eliminated and so i still have one vote, but people who voted for the elimnated parites get 2? What's fair about that? Where is my Second Preference???? Why am I getting a less fairer vote for supporting a main party i like? hmmmm, back to the drawing board....
urwordagainstmine 9 months ago
@urwordagainstmine If your party's still in the running then you still get to vote for your first choice, and they're likely to end up winning by picking up other people's votes. Those other people can't vote for their favourites anymore, so they have to compromise and go with one of the remaining candidates. As soon as someone has over half the people supporting them they win, and it's all over. Easy!
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Yes but the point i am trying to get across is that most AV video support the idea that "If you prefer one candidate to another you can put down one other candadate so that the one you dislike has less of a chance of winning" (or that's how I have preceived this) this seems slightly unfair on a voter who prefers a main party most likely not to get elimnated, they do not have the same second chance as the people who voted for minority group, it seems unfair my first choice...
urwordagainstmine 9 months ago
@urwordagainstmine The core idea is that people need over 50% of votes (the support of the majority) to win. If someone gets that on 1st preferences,great! They win.If not,they need other people to come on board & add support,saying 'yeah,out of the remaining candidates I think this is the best choice'.Those who voted for the smaller parties don't have an advantage- their 1st choice is out, they have to compromise.The main party voters aren't at a disadvantage, their candidates are likely to win
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics ...preferance gets cancelled out by someone's second, third or even fourth choice.
urwordagainstmine 9 months ago
@JoeBLOG5 The point is not that the process is too complicated to understand and participate. It's the fact that the analyses one must use to demonstrate how the arguments for AV are bullshit, are very dry and in parts beyond the compulsory maths curriculum, yet very very significant. AV is a perverse faux progressive system that just obscures the problems of FPTP.
Range voting and proportionality,? Yes please.
But AV? - Fuck off. Get back to the drawing board.
abh88abh 9 months ago
This should be the official one. Not the silly coffee + beer bullshit thought up by some autist
heyguy1231 9 months ago
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!
VOTE YES TO AV TOMORROW.
cdcdbangbang 9 months ago
@cactustactics Ah I see, so that's why the BNP are voting no. Thanks for clearing this up for me, I was a tad confused.
MrSEGAMegadrive1 9 months ago
30 voting no (either because they don't understand how it works even with this video pointing it out or because they're a right-wing idiot)
Mosley2 9 months ago
@Mosley2 Sanctimonious much?
Make a grown up argument against what you oppose, not a bigoted snub of your opponent. All 5 arguments in this video crumble under scrutiny. AV is no improvement. It obscures what's wrong the system, & is riddled with additional pathologies that make it degenerate, either by it's process or by tactical realisation, back to plurality, reinforcing a 2-party system. It is aggressively rejected by political science, & it isn't a lateral segue to any desirable system.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh oh shut the fuck up you little bitch - no arguments in this video fall at all, you're simply a right-wing dick who knows his patyt wont stand a chance under AV so you bitch about it - 2 party system my ass, it would help ALL other parties become stronger and rid us of the 2 party system - please get a fucking education and come back when you have a clue about what you're ranting about
Mosley2 9 months ago
@Mosley2 A Utilty Autonomist, liking SNP at mo', but in Wales Plaid & Green will have to do, supports range voting in a purpose proportional format: Right, indeed. AV reinforces a two-party system by indeterminism & tactical pathology. You clearly aint performed sufficient game analysis (Engineering degrees have much maths) or bothered to note but one real example, to think otherwise. I beg you, get an education, & a grip, & return once you've more clue & less irritable-piss-tard-ism endemic.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh Hey cry baby, shut the fuck up, your first past the post system is what is flawed not AV, with AV a party with just 34% of the vote can win, even though that clealry means 66% DIDN'T vote for them, that ISN'T democracy, democracy is 51% rule. So how about you actually RESEARCH AV rather than believing the crap the NO campaign are spreading, such as "AV will lead to more coalitions" which is a complete LIE as it woudll END them because you'd keep counting counts until a party had 51%
Mosley2 9 months ago
@Mosley2
Nowt I said has been said by the embarrassing official No Campaign. 'Tis you who's clearly swallowed the faux progressive cack of a certain other campaign. I hate FPTP, but having investigated AV, in great detail, mathematically and philosophically, I've noted it's non-monotonicity & tactical degeneration. Yet you ask me to research, while not even knowing a difference between a constituency & parliament? I despair. What a charming little wanker. Don't worry, you'll lose 'it' one day.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh "Nowt"? please use real English. "'Tis"? You're not Shakespear so please, modern English.
You haven't done a single piece of calculation you fat lying bastard otherwise you'd see that you arre wrong as 34% of the vote is NOT 51% and therefore NOT democracy. And as for the "one man one vote" shit, did you forget that you get up to 7 choices in local elections? Hmm, guess so, fair?
The "chaming little wanker" here is you you sad bastard, how about going back to school for maths? "It"?
Mosley2 9 months ago
@Mosley2 Pedantry is the resort if you fancy a break from debate. For each 1 view adopted, mean>1 is rejected, so any 1 MP doing his job inescapably contradicts >½ of voters. ½+1 representation is mythical, & a worryingly reductive angle on Democracy. ∑(AB/AB/AC/BC/BC/BC/BC/CA/CA)→ 55% A>B, 67% B>C, 67% C>A. A wins AV while absolute loser by Borda, Bucklin, Coombs & Condorcet (check). Mal-quoted 1 person 1 vote notion I agree is silly. *Options - Semantics? MEng? Despiration? ...Aye, Concision.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh sorry but i know how the sysdtem works and know its bull (at least you admit the 7 votes fr local is crap)
Mosley2 9 months ago
@Mosley2 And not knowing the difference between 51% and 50%+1 clearly works against you.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh how you got this .... how? simply said democracy is 51% rule, yes 50% +1 works but that wasnt brought up
Mosley2 9 months ago
@Mosley2 Democracy is popular autonomy. Majority rule (which is only 51% if you have a 100 seat parliament, which we don't) is one interpretation, simple in the pejorative sense. And most AV supporters agree it's the wrong idea. Best consensus, a la qualified majorities, and non-partisan revision, make for better democracy. It's not about winners & loser, it's about consent & utility.
Anyway, glad to see a politer tone, and let's both hope some decent electoral reforms come soon enough.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh I reply with the same tone I am given.
Mosley2 9 months ago
Can anyone here please explain to me why the AV system would be beneficial to parties like UKIP and the Green Party but not the BNP? They are all similar sized fringe parties but I hear that both UKIP and the Greens are voting for AV but the BNP are against it. Just wondering why this is the case.
MrSEGAMegadrive1 9 months ago
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 Basically AV's about representing people's real preferences - you can vote for who you actually support as well as ranking other parties you like, instead of having to vote for either Labour or the Tories so you don't feel your vote is 'wasted'. Apart from basically being more democratic the idea is that parties like the Greens and UKIP actually have a lot of support that's lost through tactical voting, and would make gains as people realise they're more viable options
cactustactics 9 months ago
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 The BNP on the other hand aren't that popular,since they have very divisive policies and opinions, and they're very unlikely to get the majority support (over 50%) needed to win.Basically over half of the voters would need to say 'we prefer the BNP over all the other parties in the running'- not likely to happen, whereas more mainstream small parties could get that support.Under the current system there's no minimum vote required to win, and the BNP could get in with a minority
cactustactics 9 months ago
@MrSEGAMegadrive1 AV means that 'tactical voting' will no longer drive the elections, as people won't having to worry about 'wasting' their vote by not voting for the strongest candidate against the their least favourite. I guess in some areas, where people had not previously voted for them because they didn't want their vote to be a wasted, they'll turn out to be very popular. However, the BNP are very right-wing, and AV will probably ultimately benefit the popular left-wing parties most.
insanityisagift 9 months ago
@insanityisagift The tactical vote will still happen ... with people using their 2nd vote tactically.... Knowing that if they vote for unpopular parties that know-one wants, their vote is likely to be counted for a second time.
MrPhartiphukborlz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrPhartiphukborlz Agree. AV gives a second vote to those who vote for the most unpopular, unsuitable parties. Even this referendum could be considered unfair on the basis that people who do not want change are less likely to bother vote than those who do. The present system is fine. I think Nick Clegg has done more than enough, without changing our voting system to one which suits him too. Vote No
3rdWorldBritain 9 months ago 4
@3rdWorldBritain Yup.. AV gives people who vote for unpopular parties a second vote. Would people want the Greens, UKIP, or Lib Dems in power if an economic crisis hits? Then why reward voters who vote for them? Note... the AV referendum is a key part of the Coalition agreement. Why reward Nick Clegg... He has done enough damage without a system that benefits his party... FPTP or 2nd or 3rd PTP? hmmm
MrPhartiphukborlz 9 months ago
@MrPhartiphukborlz Because it's our choice to vote for those parties. That's why they're on the ballot paper.
VOTE YES
WhyYouJelly 9 months ago
AV lets morons who vote for the very least popular parties have a 2nd vote counted!!! A yes vote will give Nick Clegg what he wants too... I noticed he is already preparing to play the victim for when the 'no' verdict is returned.
MrPhartiphukborlz 9 months ago
Wow well this just cleared things up for me immensely. I've been reading everything I can get my hands on to understand this (without getting bogged too deep in political jargon) and I grasped it but now I understand. Really helpful video.
sarahdoodles 9 months ago
@sarahdoodles Except for the fact that it's arguments are bullshit. Visit the relevant pages via the site map on electology d*t org (especially sl*sh majority), and see how it really works. All electoral systems have a reasonable sounding argument at the fore, but all 5 points made in this video are not to be taken at face value.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh Oh I can see that the five point argument at the end was basically a load of rubbish. Ending tactical voting how? But it did make everything more clear.
sarahdoodles 9 months ago
@ ckerton1
I have never said all votes in AV are equal because they are not. Under AV some people only get 1 vote (preference) counted whereas others get 2, 3 or 4 preferences etc... counted. That isn't fair.
That is the position I have always maintained - don't try to claim otherwise.
PR = Proportional representation - 1 person gets 1 vote and all parties get the number of MPs in proportion to their vote. Everyone gets 1 preference.
AV is not PR.
NO to AV.
mat5379 9 months ago
What a load of nonsense!!
AV doesn't end tactical voting, it won't make MPs work harder or be any better etc.... The system is more complicated as we all know.
But most of all it doesn't treat all voters equally - some only ever get 1 vote counted whereas others will get their 2nd, 3rd, 4th preferences taken into account....
It destroys the 1 person 1 vote principle
I want reform in the shape of PR but AV doesn't do that. It's even worse than FPTP.
Please vote NO to AV.
mat5379 9 months ago
@mat5379 PR allows other preferences to be stated, and some systems (AV+) create two types of MP, very unfair. Surely this contradicts the bullshit you previously stated (i.e. All votes are equal in AV) I hope your a professional propagandist, because its said when normal people peddle untruths. Rethink your actions sir.
ckerton1 9 months ago
No to AV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
343guiltyspark154 9 months ago
End to tactical voting? LOL, yeeeaaaa.... right ;] make a clearer explanation next time this is just a dumbed down water version to try and get morons to vote AV.
This bullshit theory just gives smaller more radical parties a better chance of getting into power.
Lucky for us it's a referendum and the government can just dismiss it anyways ;]
AV will not get used.
EmoHolocaust23 9 months ago
@EmoHolocaust23 completely agreed, tactical voting will only increase with this mindless system
PFloydism 9 months ago
@EmoHolocaust23 How? Your comment was like nats piss its was so watered down.
ckerton1 9 months ago
Did anyone else listen to the BBC Today programme this morning with John Humphreys' evident biased questioning of David Cameron about the AV referendum? The PM clearly knew more about how AV worked than did JH. Not often do you hear JH floundering but he did so here and, like many Yes supporters, displayed his ignorance of how AV will actually work.
Seldom have I praise for Cameron but I shall be voting NO with him on Thursday!
Rambler54321 9 months ago
The No Campaign is built on misinformation and duplicity, for instance: “AV could mean the person coming third will win”. This is nonsense, FPTP and AV are two separate systems and that statement is clearly designed to muddle them as one. A person who wins under AV rules will be the winner irrespective of what may have occurred under FPTP - the question is which is the most fair system.
newagemisfit 9 months ago
When I first came across AV I thought it a system that would punish the Labour party in some way - Camerons desperation for a NO vote woke me up!! AV would HALT FOREVER the Tories dominance of British politics, and benefit Labour, making it a more accountable, broader party. What an opportunity!! A NO VOTE is a TORY vote. Make no mistake about it. I wish people would stop haggling over the working of the two systems, and grasp this opportunity!
georgiegirlize 10 months ago 16
@georgiegirlize That's the single most convincing argument for a YES I've heard.
Academic virtue vs. Self-interest. hmmm....
abh88abh 10 months ago
@abh88abh There are problems with both systems - neither are perfect. AV is fairer though - it is hard to argue against that. The Tories have THEIR self interest at heart to maintain the existing system - their self interest is NO, along with the BNP. What more convincing argument is there to vote YES!
georgiegirlize 9 months ago 10
@georgiegirlize Both systems are utter shit, you're right. And I'll admit, it is not easy to argue that AV is worse: not easy, but correct nonetheless. The pathologies of AV are much drier to describe than the faux enlightened cack that convinces people to support it. I used to think it'd be better, but the more I look at it (barring the embarrassing official no campaign) the more I'm resolute it is not a positive change. Visit electology d*t org to see a few of said pathologies.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@georgiegirlize That's disgusting. Total votes in the last election - Conservatives 11million, Labour 9million. You should never want to have a system which ignores the majority! Accept the verdict of the country. FPTP reflects the swings of the country. With AV you will have less landslide moments 1983, 1997 . I am No 2 AV because it will be bad for our democracy. It will have the Libdems disproportionally in power in permant coalitions for evermore.
Vote No!
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI AV has nothing to do with the overall makeup of parliament - it's simply about electing your local MP. Most MPs received only 30% of the vote, which is ignoring the majority by default. Did the other 70% think this was the best candidate? Was there a candidate over half would agree on? FPTP doesn't consider the majority at all. AV does, that's the whole point of it.
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Voting is not merely about expressing a preference for your local MP. Our votes make up a government. The overall will of the nation is what is important. People vote for Conservative party, not, often, for John Smith to be their MP; so banging on about getting a candidate to work harder is redundant. If the majority ina constituency vote for the ideas and ideology of the party. That is their choice! ONE PERSON ONE VOTE = SUPPORT. 2nd/3rd preferences should not decide victory!
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI Whether you're voting for a party or an MP (and I agree we shouldn't have to cast one vote for both, but that's how it is) it doesn't matter - a winner is chosen and that seat goes to their party, and that's decided by the voters. Unfortunately under the current system it's often decided by a minority of voters. Would you be happy with an extremist party winning with 20% of the vote? Is that a fair way to decide who the majority of people want to be represented by?
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics That's an argument against democracy!The British people are not extremist! Also the nature of our party system, means that both mainstream parties are coalitions of themselves, both have left, right and centerist. That could not happen as FPTP preserves the voting system as a credible decision. AV asks you to willy-nilly vote for everyone, and at the end of the day you won't know which one of your 'votes' actually was counted.
No2AV!
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI No the British people are not extremist,yet under FPTP an extremist party could easily win with a fraction of the vote, if the rest of the vote is split between other parties.The majority wouldn't want that extremist to win,but that isn't considered under FPTP.That's the fatal flaw of the system,it allows the absolute least favourite candidate to win- this is impossible under AV. This risk is what forces people to vote tactically for one of the main parties instead of who they want
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics You haven't studied history! When have an extremist party got into Parliament? Its sad you're scaremongering. Look in safe seats AV will change nothing (good). In marginal seats - a three way fight FPTP is the fairest way. The winner truly wins there because its a close fight! Also, under AV the candidate you want could in fact harm them when votes are redistrubed.
No one likes AV. Campaign in what you believe in; be that PR or the status quo.
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI I'm not scaremongering - I'm asking if you would be happy with an extremist party winning a seat with 20% of the vote? It's entirely *possible* under FPTP:
BNP: 20%
Con: 19%
Lab: 19.5%
Lib: 18.5%
Green: 10%
UKIP: 9%
Other: 4%
Would you say 'well the other 80% don't want them but no matter, they truly won because it was a close fight'? Because that's exactly what you're saying now. That 80% could very easily vote that way, for their honest preference, and end up punished for it
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics My argument is; that is a silly case. You're living in an textbook!Facists, or crazy parties have never come close to winning an election in the real world. This is the advantage of FPTP. The British people are pragmatic and never vote for these fringe people. We are not suddenly going to become ideological and extreme.
FPTP is used all over the world - its one of our great exports!
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI My point is that if you were being consistent you would agree that a BNP win in that situation,with 20% of the vote,would be a great result,the true winner in a close fight and the best representative of the voters.The fact you're dancing around & refusing to even give an answer makes it obvious you don't really think that would be a fair result,even though it's a legitimate win under FPTP.You only support it when you like the results- FPTP provides no protection against extremism
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics FPTP is the fairest system. It is not perfect, but it is the best for forming a government. Changing the voting system is not the most important reform for our politics. Right to recall, open primaries, MP selection to committees not whips, and house of lords reform would do us better in the long run.
The latest YouGov poll shows a 20 point lead to the NO side. We are happy with putting a cross in a box. The winner should take his seat and once elected MPs represent everyone!
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI Cool, so just say that you'd be happy with that BNP win in that hypothetical scenario please? I'm not asking you to say you support the BNP or that they're likely to win in real life or anything like that - I'm asking you to say that in the scenario I drew up, that legitimate FPTP result is completely fair and democratic like all FPTP results. Why are you so reluctant to say that FPTP returns a fair winner even if it happens to be an extremist candidate? Why are you running away?
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics The person with the most votes wins. Yes I support that.
I'm looking forward to the vote tomorrow. And a thrashing for the LibDems : )
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI So just to be clear, what you're saying is you're perfectly fine with the BNP winning an election with 20% of the vote, when the vast majority of people would put them dead last as their choice to represent them, and you think this is a fair and representative result and a shining example of democracy at work.
Ok, thanks for making that clear! I don't know how you're able to support such a system, regardless of who it actually elects, but some of us have higher hopes for democracy
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics You must be a BNP voter as you seem to love them so much. AV is an appauling system; it would make landslides even larger. It deprives the princple of one person one vote which people fought and died for. AV can deprive victory from the winning candidate; undermining effort. AVs effect on parliament is unclear; but more hung parliaments, broken promises and irrelevent manifestos will be more likely. If you can live with this? Reject a good system for a parliament of 2nd choices...
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI Apart from all the stuff that's been chanted and debunked over and over and over, you're honestly trying to claim that war veterans fought and died for the First Past the Post system? People dying in the mud in the Somme, thinking to themselves '...this... this is for all those parties who get in on a minority of the vote... even though most people don't want them...'
That's pretty pathetic, man. And I've heard some pathetic stuff the past few weeks, believe me
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics All votes should be of equal value & counted once. People died for freedom and liberal British values. Giving the influence to minority of fringe party voters to influence the outcome of an election is UNFAIR. Those over 65 overwhelming support the NO side. A Change is not valuable if its one for the worse. FPTP is not the root of all evil as you would like to suggest.
Accept it, the public and most politicans do not like AV. Why pretend you want this? AV is a poor 2nd choice.
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI Like when the 20% minority of fringe voters in my example influence the outcome of the election by winning it outright under FPTP? I agree, that is incredibly unfair. It's a terrible system, that's why the entire world is moving away from FPTP, and nobody ever goes back to it. That's why the major parties don't use it for their leadership elections, except when they've used runoff voting to whittle it down to a 2-way, guaranteed majority win race. That's why AV is outright better.
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics If a candidate win a marginal seat that candidate convinced the most people. That is fair! Australia wants to get rid of AV. AV is not used when electing party leaders. AV is not proportional and not useful for electing candidates from different parties. It will displace MPs who have the majority of votes. FPTP is simple. It works. At the end of the day, who your MP is is not a live changing event. The balance and colour of government is. AV will corrupt politics & for what?
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI nice of you to use my country as an example because you actually knew the facts you'd know that the survey that the no campaign use was made by a known conservative think tank surveying Liberal and National voters straight after Labor formed government
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris Nothing wrong with that! Those Liberal voters were I'm sure very sound! :D
KingCharlesI 9 months ago
@KingCharlesI sound up until they realise that their leader is a known bible-bashing root rat
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@cactustactics You're scaremongering. Don't. There are equally objectionable examples of hypothetical AV elections.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh I'm not scaremongering - I'm using a clear example to show a completely legitimate FPTP result where a minority winner absolutely does not have the support of the majority, and inviting FPTP fans to say if they still think it's an acceptable result. If people are being consistent then they'll say yes - either a minority win is an acceptable result or it's not, it shouldn't matter who the winner is. Either FPTP produces objectively fair results, or it doesn't. It's a simple question
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics Scaremongering: selectively or falsely reporting matters that may cause people to react in a way which suits your agenda. Example: describing an objectionable example of a FPTP election to get people to vote for AV when AV can produce exactly the same scenario. AV degenerates to FPTP. So AV will reinstate all of the problems FPTP has. Factoid.
abh88abh 9 months ago
@abh88abh It's a hypothetical scenario. If people are consistent with their support for FPTP's minority winners, they would have no problem with that result. The fact people are absolutely refusing to look at that hypothetical & say 'why yes if this did happen that would be a fair and acceptable result' speaks volumes. Either you support the system and its results or you don't.
I like how you described that perfectly legitimate win under FPTP as 'objectionable'. Why do you object to it exactly?
cactustactics 9 months ago
@cactustactics That comment is just absurd. You dismissed my example, then say I'm inconsistent because I don't try to defend the indefensible. I'll try one last time to get this across; you're free (silly) to disagree, but please register:
FPTP is shit, but AV is no better. It will *not* get rid of *any* problem because of tactical degeneration. & it's bilaterally non-montone (>33%), indeterministic (divisively), & great at obscuring its own ills. Both are objectionable, AV very slightly more.
abh88abh 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the up-coming UK referendum, be sure to vote YES to AV. It is not right that you are encouraged to vote tactically, instead of for who you really want. AV allowes you to vote for both, with your preference being for who YOU REALLY WANT. It is also not right that parties gain power WITHOUT having 50% of the peoples vote. AV can help smaller parties and THROWS OUT extremeist like the BNP. So vote YES to fairer votes. Vote YES to AV. Thumb up to get the truth out there.
radbot1 10 months ago
I WANT this in Canada!
PurpleGhost 10 months ago
@PurpleGhost I'm pretty sure a couple of Provinces use it, but lets be honest here, neither Ignatieff or Harper or even Duceppe would want to change the system, Layton would though.
irishgodfatherchris 10 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris - I'm pretty sure they don't - Though it IS used by our parties internally to decide leadership, and THAT'S something.
- In provinces, it would have already set a president that we don't have. As proportional representation was met with suspicion and confusion, and turned down, this system which would further eliminate age old political traditions which plague us, would likely meet those same feelings in Canada, only more pronounced. I wish we were REALLY ready for change.
PurpleGhost 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris - Continued thoughts - And you are most assuredly right about those those three not seeming to want any change. Harper especially. I hated the most, the fact that the conservatives almost exclusively ran smear campaigns to convince people to vote for them, and yet still won. Ignatieff lost my respect when he allowed his party to use the same tactic (smear campaigning) against Jack Layton, & I don't like Jack (I voted NDP anyways, lesser of three evils) but that goes too far.
PurpleGhost 9 months ago
@PurpleGhost Layton may now at least get his voice a bit better now that he's the Opposition Leader, yes despite being Australian I have been playing close attention to the election and was surprised as most outsiders were when the polls said that NDP was going to outdo the Liberals I scoffed at them to be honest and take it from someone that if I had the chance I'd vote NDP I am after all a member of the Australian Labor Party.
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris - Quebec going NDP is what allowed for this, but against a majority government, uhg, it's going to do him little good.
I was more surprised by Ontario and the maritimes overwhelming conservative leanings. The maritimes are likely voting in that manner due to religious reasons (which is disgusting if you ask me - religion does NOT belong in politics - I think politicians should be forced to hide their religious leanings.)
But Ontario, oh Ontario, WHAT were you thinking?!
PurpleGhost 9 months ago
@PurpleGhost yeah I can't believe that Duceppe and Ignatieff both lost their seats, but yes the NDP gains in Quebec is ultimately not going to help Layton, but given the fact that NDP is likely to improve their position over the next few years, I reckon Layton will stand a really good chance of beating the Conservatives next election.
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris - I hope you're right. I think he's got the charisma for it.
4 years is a long time though, at least to wait with these asses.
I don't think anyone expected either the liberals or the bloc to loose so badly.
Worst part about Ignatieff losing his seat, and having to resign is that it makes the conservatives look correct. Which they weren't.
They ran nothing but smear on him for two and a half f-ing years. (oh yes, they've been running the anti-Ignatieff adds that bloody long)
PurpleGhost 9 months ago
@PurpleGhost the voters turned off the Liberal Party which was good but they didn't do the same with the Conservatives, Its times like now that I wish Canada had a Senate like ours, that way the PM cannot pass every piece of legislation without negotiating with other parties
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris - We're a bit foolish like that, people buy into the idea of strength through leadership; smear campaigns look 'strong'.
In instances like these, I begin to wish we had more direct-democracy as well.
Having just looked through the wiki on the Australian senate - I agree, that would be saving our asses in cases like these.
Technically our governor general is suppose to be capable of doing something as well, only in this case, the PM gets to pick a new one, what bloody luck.
PurpleGhost 9 months ago
@PurpleGhost well the problem is, is that Harper is the only person actually capable or somewhat moderating the Tories so if the GG dismisses him, he'd be forced to choose another Tory MP rather than a NDP MP and risk an election
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris - Not sure where this line of thought is coming from... (Did you accidentally reply to me instead of someone else?) Yes, of course they would pick another Con MP, anything else would be against their own personal best interests, and we both know they'd never go against those, even if something would be better for Canada.
I'm not sure that I do agree, that Harper would be the only one to keep the party cohesive, I think there are other Con moderates who would step up.
PurpleGhost 9 months ago
@PurpleGhost the Governor-General can choose anyone they wish for PM look on wikipedia for 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris - Continued thoughts - I'm kind of glad to hear that you followed it; I am sorry to say I haven't exactly done the same for your country (I listened at the time, but I don't seem to remember much.)
You probably wouldn't be so surprised about the NDP swing in, if you had a personal taste of some of the political climate here. Most random people I've talked to, said they didn't want to vote at all, they are disgusted with all of it, and that attitude is hurting all of us.
PurpleGhost 9 months ago
Evergonge. To be frank I don't understand many of your "points". If you think you have a "good intellect" then carry on with your motormouth gibberish. Also, for the record,
I am neither a bully, a "finatic" nor do I vote Labour-just fair minded and a realist.
golsno147 10 months ago
The Liberal party promised us proportional representation, so that every vote we cast would be counted and we would get a parliament that truly reflected the desires of the electorate.
The Alternative Vote is a farce and a betrayal of this pledge. It’s no more democratic than the First Past The Post system. I live in a safe Conservative seat but have voted Liberal for 38 years .
My vote has never counted for anything, and under the AV system, it still won’t count for anything.
MrDidz 10 months ago
@evergonge. A.V. does not have 100%support from Labour because - just as you have a spelling problem and an inability to stick to the point being argued- many Labour supporters have a problem understanding the arithmetic and logic of A.V. and what it's all about. Some are being brainwashed by such as yourself into believing in confusion and complication which does not exist.
golsno147 10 months ago
@golsno147 if you can understand my point then my spelling is good enough! but like every labour finatic you try to bully people where ever you see a weakness GOOD SPELLING DOES NOT MEAN GOOD INTELLECT it means your anal enough to check casual online banter
evergonge 10 months ago
@evergonge. Your response to my comment is political muckraking and has
nothing to do with Conservatives' knowledge that A.V. will lose them more seats to Labour than Labour would lose to them if implemented. Why, when accepted without criticism by Cameron as the best system for electing party leaders is it not fair for us?. Voters are not fooled by his rolled up sleeves "ordinary guy" image and pretentions. He is a ruthless career opportunist and conman supporting his self interest.
golsno147 10 months ago
@golsno147 and AV has 100% support from labour? not everything that gives labour power is morally right ellecting a leader should be about what you want! not what you don't want!!!! but thats labour always focusing on negitives!! there's parts of the country that would put the monster raving looney party ahead of labour and areas that would do the same with the conservatives! if the AV referdom was about just that rather than party dogma you wouldnt even consider voting for AV as well you know!!
evergonge 10 months ago
1. MPs need not substantive support, just lower preference tactical votes.
2. Tried by Australia, who hate it.
3. Still tactical voting, but by interpretation, not determination.
4. I actually agree, but there's a flip-side to that coin: stimulating obscure centrism.
5. Same choice. Real Indeterminism.
There are some alright arguments both for and against AV, I just wish each campaign would stop bullshitting and maybe consider using them. Either way won't change British politics one bit.
abh88abh 10 months ago
@abh88abh also we will se a rise of independants who will openly seel coalition with the major partys on obscure issues! and also major partys will premote and encourage some indepandants basicly giving them the luxuryfielding 2 candidates!! combine that will a bland kind of one size fits all policys marks the death of democracy in the UK! IF WE GET AV ALL WE WILL BE VOTING ON IS THE NAME OF THE CURRENT GOVERMENT and we wont even get that as the likelyhood is that it will be a coalition
evergonge 10 months ago
@evergonge I know we're on same side, but must refine the argument. Multi-party system is no problem if it reflects what voters want. You can't justify skewing opinions just to make majorities. Thing is, said skewing is no less true to AV than FPTP. AV won't 'proportional-ise', just arbitrarily distort. PR would prompt things like enhanced majorities and executive rounds to make multi-party governance accountable. AV definitely won't. It'll create what's best be described as a '3rd party state'.
abh88abh 10 months ago
@abh88abh What's a 'lower preference tactical vote' if not an expression of support? Why put someone as a lower preference unless you actually do support them over the ones you didn't rank? That's the whole idea- if it does come down to a race between those lower preferences, people get to say 'well in that case I'd vote for this candidate'.Only if nobody gets over 50% of the vote before that
And Australia don't hate it- they've had AV for almost a century, all we've seen is 1 commissioned poll
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics In purely positive polls, of opinions that, quite rationally, feature negatives; tactical voting persists as people mark frankly fake support (for the least objectionable last resorts) to keep disliked candidates out. AV beats FPTP in enabling you to confidently put a sincere first preference in, but then just reinterprets it to be a tactical vote anyway. The results are just as insincere. -1 to 3 Range voting would properly accommodate how people think, and end tactical votes.
abh88abh 10 months ago
@abh88abh Why is voting for 'the least objectionable last resorts to keep disliked candidates out' suddenly 'fake support' exactly? It's support for that 'least objectionable' candidate over the disliked ones, taken into account only if it comes down to a race between them. This is exactly the kind of voting FPTP encourages (requires even), as your *only* option. Under AV you're not voting tactically, because you're not changing your vote - you're giving your opinion, in case it's considered
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics Tactical voting in FPTP (which, btw, I'm not really defending. I'm just trying to dispel the mythical capacity AV has to improve it) is discretionary. Voters are compelled to do it, but their vote is a deterministic instruction. In AV, you can put as sincere a first preference as you like, it'll only be redistributed to tactical status. Tactical votes aren't avoided, they're exacted. It doesn't solve any of the folly of FPTP. It's a dysfunctional sidestep.
abh88abh 10 months ago