The basic difference in results between preferential (AV) and FPTP is FPTP elects the most popular candidate, and AV elects the least unpopular candidate. In the majority of cases, they will be the same candidate, but sometimes in AV it will go to the second or even third most popular.
The major parties will generally get still get more seats than they get percentage of the vote. If you want the percentage of the vote to correspond to the number of seats, you need proportional.
Utterly false to claim that IRV (aka Alternative Vote) does away with the need to vote tactically. Check out the Electology web site for statistical proof.
How sad it is that this didn't pass. A brief look at the NO2AV channel shows that they only have misdirection and pseudo-moral objections to offer to confused voters. They say votes are wasted, but votes are ALREADY wasted with FPTP. Seriously, FPTP has ALL of the flaws that IRV/AV has.
@neilan15 The cats vote for cats and the dogs vote for dogs. There are as many dog parties as cat parties but the dog candidate in this video represents the OVERALL dog vote. The cats wouldn't vote for a dog any more than a socialist would vote for a fascist
AV is an occult symbol that symbolises the seal of saturn,masonic emblem,..its basically evil that is being used to manipulate minds...w.b.yeats the golden dawn elitist,crowley friend wrote a book AVision...so dont be taken in by this shit..there is more to it than meets the eye...there is a saturn demon called 'AVE'...Hence we get the word 'SAVE'...jesus saves and all that bullshit,..you're being led down the garden path or stairway to heaven[saturn] ;-)..........
@masonfreeparty Hon, AV was made for the sake of democracy. Not so you could come up with insane conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with anything.
And what's with all the boo-hooing about Cameron forming a government with less than 40% of the vote? Blair got even less in 2005 and got a majority - was that fair? Since most of you complaining about Cameron are Labour supporters, you probably don't mind when flaws in the voting system suit you. Hell, even in Labour's 1997 landslide they still only got 42%. By your logic 68% voted 'against' Labour but they still managed a massive majority, but it's alright when it's your party who wins.
So if voters in the UK are so easily led by lies and propaganda from the right wing newspapers, why didn't the Conservatives win 70% of the vote at the election? Could AV's massive loss have something to do with the fact that it was a shit voting system and the people who campaigned for it didn't even want it in the first place but had to make do with it? Miserable little compromise indeed. Stop being such sore losers. The Yes campaign was shocking and the AV system itself is just bollocks.
@TheInnocentExile there are plenty of people who were under the impression that my country (Australia) wanted to go back to FPTP which is a lie and the populace swallowed it hook, line and sinker, as well as the cost 250 million was a lie, the BNP would win seats (wrong they don't have a broad enough support base), what Preferential voting does is prevent vote splitting, tactical voting and it forces the winner to have 50% of the vote, how can you support FPTP when it is clearly inferior
@irishgodfatherchris No it doesnt't. Tactical voting sky-rockets under AV. Political parties would print voting cards instructing you which parties to vote for, for one. AV doesn't give a candidate 50% of the vote - the last 10% is just grudging acceptance. Many test-elections under AV didn't even reach 50%! One lie that came out of the Yes campaign was that it would make my MP work harder, which was a load of vacuous bollocks. I prefer 'one man one vote' which worked, not 'one man 4 votes'.
@TheInnocentExile you still have one vote what part of that don't you get, you just preference others just in case your first choice loses. And I was referring to the system that we use federally here which is full preferential, how to vote cards are not tactical voting on the voters part, its merely a campaign strategy (for example Labor here preferences the Greens who don't expressly preference Labor but most Green voters do preference them)
@irishgodfatherchris It's completely tactical. Voting cards are tactical by nature. You pick several parties to vote for and exclude one, voting against that party. It's unfair. Elections are about voting FOR parties, not against them. Therefore any bollocks about "oh 68% against Cameron" is toss. To people who say that, who should be in government instead? Labour? They got even less. What this video fails to address is all left wing parties aren't just 'cats'. Politics is more complex than that
@TheInnocentExile voting against the party happens all the time in your country, that can't happen here you can only direct preferences away, how can you find it acceptable to have a system where somehow 40% of the vote can equate to 70% of the seats, that just doesn't happen here, if a party got 40% here they would lose horribly
This just depresses me. Too many people afraid of change or unable to think for themselves. My blaming finger is squared directly on the aging populace and the older generation since they cannot stand change and, unfortunately, represent a large amount of the population. If only there was something we could do to show how badly the public have failed themselves.
such a shame I rather like the thought of cats being able to vote and now they never can. Am sure AV would have passed if the cats had been allowed to vote.
@MahsaKaerra - more "liberal and progressive"? The UK is already an extremely (some would say too much) liberal country. It's fairly progressive too - though I'd concede that with such a strong and successful history to reminisce over, it can sometimes suffer from being sluggishly conservative. However, without the brakes on liberalism that the Roman Catholic church puts on a lot of countries in Europe, the UK enjoys rational and modern Protestant thinking.
Britain's history is partly why it is so conservative and opposed to change. The idea that if we stick to what we did when we became an empire, everything should be just fine
Europe is a better place IMO, not only for the more proportionally elected parliament, but it is also more technologically adveanced, having high speed rail networks nearly 20 years before Britain, and a higher percentage of energy output from renewable sources, Britain is barely ahead of eastern Europe
I don't think the Vatican has so much influence these days. Religion may still be a deciding issue in Northern Ireland's politics, but not on the rest of the continent.
The former Soviet Union has had more impact on social and political development across europe throughout the last 100 years than the Pope could ever hope to achieve in the next 100.
Though... Nobody expects the Spanish Iinquisition. : P
I love this video! Very clever indeed, yet I still believe that it is making the three cat candidates, which I presume are representing the three main political parties, are very similar. In fact, they are very different.
The No to AV campaign have committed knowing and deliberate political fraud, and must face worse consequences than any financial fraudster has, since they are enemies of this nation.
reform happens when the majority of people are hungry for it. it probably is not good to force progress on people who are not even ready for it.
i will now move forward and try harder to stand up and be counted. i will purchase liberal newspapers and give them to others when i've finished reading them. maybe if we all do a little bit, then we will get to see (& celebrate) the end of FPTP in our lifetimes.
@Tomid You've read the situation wrongly . The people were outrightly, knowingly and systematically lied to purely for the campaigners' own short-term pure-self-interests.
Those who would do that are in fact enemies of this nation.
Even though quite a few No supporters (even on this video) were saying "No to AV, yes to PR", and many were thinking along the lines of "F**k you Nick Clegg". The No campaign leaders are already parading the notion that all of the 'No' votes were votes in favor keeping FPTP. Is it likely that they will accept a call for any kind of future change with that attitude?
We'll be stuck with the same old BS red/blue ping-pong for the next century or more. Well done British public, you've failed.
BREAKING NEWS: 800,000,000 babies kept alive by the extra money from people voting 'no' to a system that would cost millions of pounds somehow by writing '1, 2, 3,' instead of 'X' with a pencil on a piece of paper...
You forgot to mention the countless soldiers who would be going into action without body armour as a result of the referendum. Even though they've been doing this since we first went into Afghanistan.
AV must cost so much, we've been saving up since about 2003 just to host it
@MahsaKaerra At least now the BNP will get less power. They publicly backed 'no' and FPTP to trick us, but we saw through that! The leaflet told us so!
It's typical of any failed argument that "the people only rejected it because they are stupid / ignorant / uninformed / lied to... they'd believe as I do if only they could understand!"
I understand AV perfectly. And I never saw one single part of either campaign until after the election - no TV broadcasts, leaflets, news reports, nothing. Nobody influenced me. I assessed AVs merits and decided it was unfair. It's that simple.
@Parrotguy1999 Usually I am a gracious loser, but I can't do it on this occasion. You said I'm anti-democratic, you may be surprised to learn you're not far wrong. Democracy is not about being correct, it's about appealing to the popular vote. No2AV was supported by popular tabloids The Sun, Daily Mail and The Express. Bastions of responsible, impartial, correct reporting, I think not. There are several other significant reasons why No2AV won. Anti-Clegg and "if in doubt, vote no", to name two.
@Tomid Well I can respect that point of view, certainly. Democracy is an awful form of government - as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried."
Democracy's one and only virtue is that everything else is even worse.
The biggest mistake made by the LibDems was to have the referendum held on the day of the local and other regional elections. They should have chosen a unique referendum date preferably towards the end of this parliament when the economy would probably have been in better shape.
@purplesheeps2 I prefer Political Philosophy to simple Politics. In Political Philosophy you have to win arguments. In Politics you only have to win elections. YES2AV arguments rape those of NO2AV, and yet NO2AV raped YES2AV in the referendum. Of course, Cameron received about 35% of the vote when he was elected. I supposed he got 'raped' too.
@Parrotguy1999, you're a bit of an idiot really, aren't you? I could tell you why most of the arguments against AV were wrong, weird or both, but you wouldn't listen because you're a Tory. FPTP is 'good enough' for Tories, but it's very, very bad for the rest of us. And because it's bad for us, that makes it even better for you because it makes your vote worth more. If I vote for an independent also-ran, I will effectively waste my vote. Therefore, FPTP does not represent one person, one vote.
@Tomid My idiocy or lack of isn't really relevant. Attack the ideas, if you can, not the person.
And no, actually, I'm not a tory. Never have been.
As for the idea that you waste your vote just because you lose... really? You think any vote that doesn't win is a waste of time? How very anti democratic of you.
Reform Cat gets my first preference vote, but if we're sticking with FPTP then I'll vote tactically for He-Man's Battle Cat instead, as he is more likely to beat that damn lazy dog.
David Cameron said the people of Britain are too stupid to understand AV. Turns out he was correct about something!
When I heard there was to be a referendum on AV, I was certain that YES would win. After all, AV is better than FPTP, and therefore the electorate will vote for it. How wrong I was. I'm boycotting all future elections while FPTP is still in place. We had a chance to improve the system and we decided that we didn't want to. It beggars belief. At least it has shown us that our education system is inadequate...
@Slossius1983 Better to spoil your ballot paper than to boycott - if you just don't vote you become part of the "uninterested" statistic, whereas spoiling your ballot shows you can be bothered to show up, you just hate their politics. And they count the spoiled ballots, so they know how many people show up and protest.
Financial fraudsters go to jail. Political fraudsters (those in the No campaign who deliberately lied) must face worse consequences than financial fraudsters, because the consequences of what they do are worse, and to an entire nation.
@midnightcrow That's the thing about the anti-FPTP argument, though. There's a subtle unsupported assumption in it : that a vote for one candidate is a vote against another.
In a FPTP election if 39% vote Dog and three cats get about 20% each, it's stated that "61% voted against Dog". But the British public mostly just don't think that way; they vote for who they want, and don't care about the rest.
That's why AV is bad - it encourages the negative "Anybody but Dog!" mentality.
@Parrotguy1999 - I remember the leadership election in 1990 when Thatcher was eliminated , Michael Heseltine, John Major and Douglas Hurd stood for the position. There was an "Anyone but Heseltine" campaign and John Major benefited from Hurd splitting Heseltine's votes.
@midnightcrow But that's the point - British people do not want a system in which we decide who we DON'T want. We want a system in which we vote for who we DO want. The Yes campaign failed in part because it went on about this negative "the one you don't want won't win!" idea. That's why we booted AV and anything like it into the dustbin of history.
@simonjtinsley - but it wasn't an election between Dog and Casual Cat. It was an election among Dog, Distracted Cat, Casual Cat and Moderate Cat. Dog won with 39% because Casual Cat was joined by two others that split the vote. With FPTP it's necessary to form a coalition before the election, not after. If there were a system that allowed multiple parties to form two opposing coalitions then that would be progress.
@Lairlimoges The fact that other people stand shouldn't mean we pick the candidate that would lose in a two-way fight. That's a system at fault and precisely why FPTP is worse than AV. People prefer casual cat to dog, as you can see by the fact that 61 people would vote for casual cat and 39 for dog, and FPTP picks the loser as the winner, not AV.
Your point about coalitions is odd, too - since AV is picking a single winner from a single seat, just like FPTP. There's no coalitions here.
@simonjtinsley In that other election, Casual Cat should win. But in THIS election only 22% wanted Casual Cat to win, whereas 39% wanted Dog to. 39 beats 22 in my mind.
@Tomid Of course it would be absolutely fine. Anybody can stand - one dog, two dogs, fifty dogs, what does it matter?
If it splits the vote then so what? If people want to vote for different dogs then the vote *should* be split. I object to the idea that one candidate can "steal" votes from another - it implies that he or she has some sort of inbuilt "right" to those votes.
@Parrotguy1999 Why should Dog be elected when the electorate prefer a different candidate to them (indeed 61-39 in favour of Casual Cat)? Why should the loser of a two way fight lose merely because a couple of similar candidates stand?
@simonjtinsley It's not true that the electorate preferred *A* different candidate to them. Those preferences, to the extent that they are preferences at all, are for a BUNCH of other candidates, not A candidate.
That's the hidden assumption that is the AV lie; that anybody who doesn't vote dog wants "anybody but dog".
@Parrotguy1999 AV does NOT imply "that anybody who doesn't vote dog wants "anybody but dog" ". AV INHERENTLY DISCOVERS whether people want dog or not. So it is very possible they WOULD vote for dog in a 2-horse race anyway, thus making dog the winner. Or not.
@simonjtinsley Because that's what is fair. You get less votes, so YOU LOSE! :) "Oh but other candidates took my votes" is a childish tantrum from a loser, nothing more, nothing less.
@Parrotguy1999 so your telling us that its fair that a candidate can win with a simple plurality of the vote, in PNG a candidate won in FPTP with 11% of the vote, thats just dumb, thats one of the many reasons why here is Australia we changed our federal voting system to Preferential Voting in 1919, because it forced the winning candidate (providing they had an opponent) to have over 50% of the vote.
EVERYBODY'S votes get counted in each round of voting
Voters for major parties would get their votes resubmitted and recounted in round 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 100, and so on, just as much as voters for minor parties do. They do not get thrown out, discarded, or ignored. Their vote is effectively resubmitted for the same candidate
If a supporter of a minor party got "four votes", or 4000, then so too would a supporter of a major party
Because if you have just one vote and the other candidate gets just a few more, that vote counts for nowt. With AV your other choices can be taken into consideration - your opinion is guaranteed to count.
Yes, if it's disastrous in the UK it's even more disastrous here in the colonies. A "low" voter turnout for us is about 60%. I fail to see how this leads to more "happy kittehs" if new parties are systematically eliminated. It's just the two-party system -- all you have to do to win is be big to start with.
This is a joke. If it's not rep by pop, it's only democratic in a restricted and castrated sense. We select representatives, not a president -- there is no alternative to rep by pop.
@RedDaVincy - the Labour was a small party that eventually broke through within the FPTP system and replaced the Liberal party to become the main Opposition back in the 1920s.
I don't believe we do elect representatives. If we did MPs would merely do what the people wanted. We elect delegates who make decisions based on what they think is the best for the country. It could be argued that democracy is a force which the people need to be protected from.
I wish more people had seen this. I think a lot of people voted 'no' simply because they didn't understand what AV was. I'd tried to explain it to several people over the last week.
40% of England turned up to vote, that means 60% of people would like to go back to the feudal system.
2/3 people voted no (approx) which means 2/3 people don't care that rich MPs have had their hand in the public wallet and would rather see LESS choice.
AV is something that only last summer everyone wanted.
Clearly everyman that died in wars to vote is stupid
@anarchyfever - Scotland is a constituent country of the UK (for the moment) and the UK is a member "state" of the EU. There's nothing to prevent you from relocating to one of those countries where they use a PR system to elect their parliaments. You could try Greece, Portugal, Ireland or even Spain. However, it might be better for you opt for an EU country that is fairing better economically such as Germany or the Netherlands. Sweden and Denmark don't have the Euro, but much higher taxes.
It's all well and good if it's democracy and people voted and that was the result, but there was a 30% swing to no because of a leaflet of unarguable lies and a "voting AV kills babies" poster.
AV lost to slander and lies. I wouldn't mind a loss if the population genuinely disliked AV, but the No campaign did such a successful smear campaign we never stood a chance...
@MahsaKaerra - don't get too disheartened. Labour will be out of power for a while and the party will suffer splits that will form smaller parties with electoral reform as an agenda. They'll form a left of centre Alliance, gain power and introduce the Single Transferable Vote.
Or, just as likely, the Yellow team will split into two - half will join the Reds and form the Pink team whilst the other half will join the Blue team and form the Green team.
I'm glad that the "No" campaign won, however, not by such a large margin. The turnout appears to only have been 42% and that's a terrible example to set for democracy. Had there been a larger turn out maybe the margin would have been narrower.
I'm also pleased with the win because the uploader of this video was stifling debate from those who suggested that AV was not everything that the "Yes" campaign claimed it to be, by blocking such posters.
@Lairlimoges You're right! This video is totally biased. It's clearly ignoring the totally fair leaflets I've been receiving, claiming that voting for AV means voting for BNP.
@Lairlimoges I am too glad that no won, but if there was 100% vote I feel that the gap would have been wider. There were 3 groups before the vote, Yes to Av, no to av, and the neutral. All the av supporters turned up, as did the no av supporters and the result was a landslide. But the neutrals would probably stick by fptp, because people fear change
@NavsPoliticalVideos - The multi-round version of AV isn't AV. The Tory party elects a leader by FPTP after MPs have used an exhaustive ballot (not AV) to shortlist. In 2005, David Davis's vote went DOWN in the second ballot, something that's impossible under AV.
Run-off balloting (Tory leader, French President, most mayors in the US) is not AV. It's better than AV and FPTP, if you can afford the time.
@Lairlimoges Let me ask you, if David Davies is your FAVOURITE in round 1, why would he still not be your favourite in Round 2? He would.
Runoff simply allows "vote-changing" of swingey, indecisive voters. The end result (winner) is almost always the same as AV. AV is simply instant-runoff, asking people to simply make up their minds, of preference, at the start. AV and runoff are CLOSE relatives, both entirely DISTANT from FPTP.
@NavsPoliticalVideos yes, but they did use a 'cousin' of AV (or so I have heard it being described), so not exactly the same system. swings and roundabouts, lets leave it at that. we don't want anyone getting hurt, bye.
I don't support any system that marginalises minority parties. But AV really takes the cake in its redistribution of their votes to the big wigs. Reeks of political racism.
A move towards NDP in Canada , But still it did us no good as the conservatives held approx 40% and got a majority govt, sad really.. this animation was the perfect model for our Canadian problems
It's used to elect party leaders as they're all similar candidates, as in the model you used involving 3 cats and a dog. In a general election, however, the candidates are not so similar.
The basic difference in results between preferential (AV) and FPTP is FPTP elects the most popular candidate, and AV elects the least unpopular candidate. In the majority of cases, they will be the same candidate, but sometimes in AV it will go to the second or even third most popular.
The major parties will generally get still get more seats than they get percentage of the vote. If you want the percentage of the vote to correspond to the number of seats, you need proportional.
coqmuncher 1 week ago
I wasn't allowed to vote becasue I was on holiday
NowhereBeats 1 week ago
Utterly false to claim that IRV (aka Alternative Vote) does away with the need to vote tactically. Check out the Electology web site for statistical proof.
thebrokenladder 2 weeks ago
How sad it is that this didn't pass. A brief look at the NO2AV channel shows that they only have misdirection and pseudo-moral objections to offer to confused voters. They say votes are wasted, but votes are ALREADY wasted with FPTP. Seriously, FPTP has ALL of the flaws that IRV/AV has.
capefeather 4 weeks ago
So AV id great because it got Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Ed Miliband elected to leaders of their party?
AV isn't looking too good. Either that or each part is full of even worse twats than all of those.
Treblaine 1 month ago
Still kind of fed up that my postcode and where I live decides who I vote for. A Labour voter in a very safe Conservative seat- is not fun.
JezSpice 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
Why do I get the impression that the whole cat and dog metaphor was just so they could say 'the country will go to the dogs.'?
bbmonkey14 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos 2
I hate Clegg. And I STILL say this should have passed the referendum. Yes, I'm butthurt. Yes, I live in a safe seat. It could have worked.
LoneDragoon90 1 month ago
I really really hope i don't use the example of 'cats' in my exam tomorrow - very helpful though!
MrMassivechinjammo 1 month ago
battle cat for pm xD
killerkityisbackman 2 months ago
This is possilby the best thing that I have done in revising for my exam in January.
bbmonkey14 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos 2
Odd responses on this video once more.
mspinney203 2 months ago
wait wait wait, so there are people that DONT live in america? im confused...
Madpolis7 3 months ago
I vote that those cats are shipped to my current location so that we may become better friends
schumacherenator 5 months ago
So none of the cats voted for the dog party at all? That makes this fascinating video a false dichotomy, thanks.
neilan15 8 months ago
@neilan15 The cats vote for cats and the dogs vote for dogs. There are as many dog parties as cat parties but the dog candidate in this video represents the OVERALL dog vote. The cats wouldn't vote for a dog any more than a socialist would vote for a fascist
midnightcrow 8 months ago 18
as much as i hate AV that was a great vid. keep up good work!
saddoproductions 8 months ago
Thumbs up for fedepepedepep.
snubmaster 8 months ago 2
AV is an occult symbol that symbolises the seal of saturn,masonic emblem,..its basically evil that is being used to manipulate minds...w.b.yeats the golden dawn elitist,crowley friend wrote a book AVision...so dont be taken in by this shit..there is more to it than meets the eye...there is a saturn demon called 'AVE'...Hence we get the word 'SAVE'...jesus saves and all that bullshit,..you're being led down the garden path or stairway to heaven[saturn] ;-)..........
masonfreeparty 9 months ago
@masonfreeparty
1+4=5
Therefore, ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!
Madpolis7 3 months ago
@Madpolis7 6+5=11 4+7=11 GOLDEN DAWN initiation rituals...hence 11 is so important to the occult elite...
masonfreeparty 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@masonfreeparty Hon, AV was made for the sake of democracy. Not so you could come up with insane conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with anything.
Madpolis7 3 months ago
The narrator's voice is very annoying
Trund27 9 months ago
And what's with all the boo-hooing about Cameron forming a government with less than 40% of the vote? Blair got even less in 2005 and got a majority - was that fair? Since most of you complaining about Cameron are Labour supporters, you probably don't mind when flaws in the voting system suit you. Hell, even in Labour's 1997 landslide they still only got 42%. By your logic 68% voted 'against' Labour but they still managed a massive majority, but it's alright when it's your party who wins.
TheInnocentExile 9 months ago
@TheInnocentExile no it wasn't fair thats why Preferential voting works
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
So if voters in the UK are so easily led by lies and propaganda from the right wing newspapers, why didn't the Conservatives win 70% of the vote at the election? Could AV's massive loss have something to do with the fact that it was a shit voting system and the people who campaigned for it didn't even want it in the first place but had to make do with it? Miserable little compromise indeed. Stop being such sore losers. The Yes campaign was shocking and the AV system itself is just bollocks.
TheInnocentExile 9 months ago
@TheInnocentExile there are plenty of people who were under the impression that my country (Australia) wanted to go back to FPTP which is a lie and the populace swallowed it hook, line and sinker, as well as the cost 250 million was a lie, the BNP would win seats (wrong they don't have a broad enough support base), what Preferential voting does is prevent vote splitting, tactical voting and it forces the winner to have 50% of the vote, how can you support FPTP when it is clearly inferior
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris No it doesnt't. Tactical voting sky-rockets under AV. Political parties would print voting cards instructing you which parties to vote for, for one. AV doesn't give a candidate 50% of the vote - the last 10% is just grudging acceptance. Many test-elections under AV didn't even reach 50%! One lie that came out of the Yes campaign was that it would make my MP work harder, which was a load of vacuous bollocks. I prefer 'one man one vote' which worked, not 'one man 4 votes'.
TheInnocentExile 9 months ago
@TheInnocentExile you still have one vote what part of that don't you get, you just preference others just in case your first choice loses. And I was referring to the system that we use federally here which is full preferential, how to vote cards are not tactical voting on the voters part, its merely a campaign strategy (for example Labor here preferences the Greens who don't expressly preference Labor but most Green voters do preference them)
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris It's completely tactical. Voting cards are tactical by nature. You pick several parties to vote for and exclude one, voting against that party. It's unfair. Elections are about voting FOR parties, not against them. Therefore any bollocks about "oh 68% against Cameron" is toss. To people who say that, who should be in government instead? Labour? They got even less. What this video fails to address is all left wing parties aren't just 'cats'. Politics is more complex than that
TheInnocentExile 9 months ago
@TheInnocentExile voting against the party happens all the time in your country, that can't happen here you can only direct preferences away, how can you find it acceptable to have a system where somehow 40% of the vote can equate to 70% of the seats, that just doesn't happen here, if a party got 40% here they would lose horribly
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
This just depresses me. Too many people afraid of change or unable to think for themselves. My blaming finger is squared directly on the aging populace and the older generation since they cannot stand change and, unfortunately, represent a large amount of the population. If only there was something we could do to show how badly the public have failed themselves.
MrFivefivefivesix 9 months ago
So did AV win on the 5th?
HonestDiscussioner 9 months ago
such a shame I rather like the thought of cats being able to vote and now they never can. Am sure AV would have passed if the cats had been allowed to vote.
JezSpice 9 months ago
Ha Ha Brilliant !!
1familydayout 9 months ago
I just watched this video for the cats.
ykv999 9 months ago 2
Damn xenophobic cat voters.
canerowkid 9 months ago
I hate cats,
Diazreta 9 months ago
owned.
theQub3 9 months ago
Incredibly biased towards the broken system of AV but still hilarious.
Electroguy1996 9 months ago
U serious?
BIDMAS11 10 months ago
Unfortunately, it turned out that it wasn't cats who were eligible to vote but in fact sheep.
meesterlowe 10 months ago 42
Remember, REFORM CAT is on facebook: (delete spaces) facebook.com / ReformCat
midnightcrow 10 months ago 4
@ThePvtPeaceful look my cat is there at 0:00 ! :D lol
SCHEDTER 10 months ago
Why would anyone vote for a less effective system? the results show how retarded uk citizens are..
k1114n 10 months ago
I am glad this stupid system failed.
anagittigana 10 months ago
@anagittigana
Good for you I guess, we will be stuck with an even worse one for many more decades now.
The No result is a very convincing argument for me to migrate away from the UK, to a more liberal and progressive country, maybe Europe or Australia
MahsaKaerra 10 months ago
@MahsaKaerra - more "liberal and progressive"? The UK is already an extremely (some would say too much) liberal country. It's fairly progressive too - though I'd concede that with such a strong and successful history to reminisce over, it can sometimes suffer from being sluggishly conservative. However, without the brakes on liberalism that the Roman Catholic church puts on a lot of countries in Europe, the UK enjoys rational and modern Protestant thinking.
Lairlimoges 9 months ago
@Lairlimoges
Britain's history is partly why it is so conservative and opposed to change. The idea that if we stick to what we did when we became an empire, everything should be just fine
Europe is a better place IMO, not only for the more proportionally elected parliament, but it is also more technologically adveanced, having high speed rail networks nearly 20 years before Britain, and a higher percentage of energy output from renewable sources, Britain is barely ahead of eastern Europe
MahsaKaerra 9 months ago
@Lairlimoges
I don't think the Vatican has so much influence these days. Religion may still be a deciding issue in Northern Ireland's politics, but not on the rest of the continent.
The former Soviet Union has had more impact on social and political development across europe throughout the last 100 years than the Pope could ever hope to achieve in the next 100.
Though... Nobody expects the Spanish Iinquisition. : P
MahsaKaerra 9 months ago
Battle Cat for PM!!!!!
directandtomypoint 10 months ago
That sounds like a really horrible system.
Ravenkliff 10 months ago
I love this video! Very clever indeed, yet I still believe that it is making the three cat candidates, which I presume are representing the three main political parties, are very similar. In fact, they are very different.
TheCinemaAdvertising 10 months ago
Just a shame the dog's campaign consisted of saying it was confusing and slagging off the inept cat's name
capmodesty 10 months ago
Vote no
joffROKZ 10 months ago
@joffROKZ A bit late, mate.
redback3 10 months ago
The No to AV campaign have committed knowing and deliberate political fraud, and must face worse consequences than any financial fraudster has, since they are enemies of this nation.
TheNavigateur 10 months ago
Financial fraudsters go to jail. Deliberate political fraudsters, who cause worse consequences, must therefore face worse penalties.
TheNavigateur 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
reform happens when the majority of people are hungry for it. it probably is not good to force progress on people who are not even ready for it.
i will now move forward and try harder to stand up and be counted. i will purchase liberal newspapers and give them to others when i've finished reading them. maybe if we all do a little bit, then we will get to see (& celebrate) the end of FPTP in our lifetimes.
Tomid 10 months ago
@Tomid You've read the situation wrongly . The people were outrightly, knowingly and systematically lied to purely for the campaigners' own short-term pure-self-interests.
Those who would do that are in fact enemies of this nation.
TheNavigateur 10 months ago
Comment removed
Tomid 10 months ago
Even though quite a few No supporters (even on this video) were saying "No to AV, yes to PR", and many were thinking along the lines of "F**k you Nick Clegg". The No campaign leaders are already parading the notion that all of the 'No' votes were votes in favor keeping FPTP. Is it likely that they will accept a call for any kind of future change with that attitude?
We'll be stuck with the same old BS red/blue ping-pong for the next century or more. Well done British public, you've failed.
MahsaKaerra 10 months ago 41
BREAKING NEWS: 800,000,000 babies kept alive by the extra money from people voting 'no' to a system that would cost millions of pounds somehow by writing '1, 2, 3,' instead of 'X' with a pencil on a piece of paper...
Oscy 10 months ago 4
@Oscy
You forgot to mention the countless soldiers who would be going into action without body armour as a result of the referendum. Even though they've been doing this since we first went into Afghanistan.
AV must cost so much, we've been saving up since about 2003 just to host it
MahsaKaerra 10 months ago 2
@MahsaKaerra At least now the BNP will get less power. They publicly backed 'no' and FPTP to trick us, but we saw through that! The leaflet told us so!
Oscy 10 months ago
No basement cat?
Flamesofthunder 10 months ago
It's typical of any failed argument that "the people only rejected it because they are stupid / ignorant / uninformed / lied to... they'd believe as I do if only they could understand!"
I understand AV perfectly. And I never saw one single part of either campaign until after the election - no TV broadcasts, leaflets, news reports, nothing. Nobody influenced me. I assessed AVs merits and decided it was unfair. It's that simple.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 Usually I am a gracious loser, but I can't do it on this occasion. You said I'm anti-democratic, you may be surprised to learn you're not far wrong. Democracy is not about being correct, it's about appealing to the popular vote. No2AV was supported by popular tabloids The Sun, Daily Mail and The Express. Bastions of responsible, impartial, correct reporting, I think not. There are several other significant reasons why No2AV won. Anti-Clegg and "if in doubt, vote no", to name two.
Tomid 10 months ago
@Tomid Well I can respect that point of view, certainly. Democracy is an awful form of government - as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried."
Democracy's one and only virtue is that everything else is even worse.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
Comment removed
Tomid 10 months ago
Too bad reform cat won't be standing any time soon. On the other hand, he would probably split the liberal vote.
psychswot 10 months ago
The biggest mistake made by the LibDems was to have the referendum held on the day of the local and other regional elections. They should have chosen a unique referendum date preferably towards the end of this parliament when the economy would probably have been in better shape.
It was a major mis-judgement.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
AV got RAPED!!!
purplesheeps2 10 months ago
@purplesheeps2 I prefer Political Philosophy to simple Politics. In Political Philosophy you have to win arguments. In Politics you only have to win elections. YES2AV arguments rape those of NO2AV, and yet NO2AV raped YES2AV in the referendum. Of course, Cameron received about 35% of the vote when he was elected. I supposed he got 'raped' too.
Slossius1983 10 months ago 2
@Parrotguy1999, you're a bit of an idiot really, aren't you? I could tell you why most of the arguments against AV were wrong, weird or both, but you wouldn't listen because you're a Tory. FPTP is 'good enough' for Tories, but it's very, very bad for the rest of us. And because it's bad for us, that makes it even better for you because it makes your vote worth more. If I vote for an independent also-ran, I will effectively waste my vote. Therefore, FPTP does not represent one person, one vote.
Tomid 10 months ago
@Tomid My idiocy or lack of isn't really relevant. Attack the ideas, if you can, not the person.
And no, actually, I'm not a tory. Never have been.
As for the idea that you waste your vote just because you lose... really? You think any vote that doesn't win is a waste of time? How very anti democratic of you.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Parrotguy1999 Sorry I called you an idiot. I'm just really frustrated by all this.
Tomid 10 months ago
Great video! If only more people saw this before May 5th. An opportunity wasted for Britain.
coimbre23 10 months ago 2
Reform Cat gets my first preference vote, but if we're sticking with FPTP then I'll vote tactically for He-Man's Battle Cat instead, as he is more likely to beat that damn lazy dog.
David Cameron said the people of Britain are too stupid to understand AV. Turns out he was correct about something!
Tomid 10 months ago
When I heard there was to be a referendum on AV, I was certain that YES would win. After all, AV is better than FPTP, and therefore the electorate will vote for it. How wrong I was. I'm boycotting all future elections while FPTP is still in place. We had a chance to improve the system and we decided that we didn't want to. It beggars belief. At least it has shown us that our education system is inadequate...
Slossius1983 10 months ago 8
@Slossius1983
Don't boycott them, just fill the ballot sheet in an AV way every time you vote. That's what I'm going to do.
MahsaKaerra 10 months ago 2
@Slossius1983 Better to spoil your ballot paper than to boycott - if you just don't vote you become part of the "uninterested" statistic, whereas spoiling your ballot shows you can be bothered to show up, you just hate their politics. And they count the spoiled ballots, so they know how many people show up and protest.
ArtyGirl109 10 months ago
@ArtyGirl109 That's a good idea. I'll write a description of what I want on the ballot, and number the boxes AV-style.
Slossius1983 10 months ago
@Slossius1983 I think I'll probably do the same...
ArtyGirl109 10 months ago
Financial fraudsters go to jail. Political fraudsters (those in the No campaign who deliberately lied) must face worse consequences than financial fraudsters, because the consequences of what they do are worse, and to an entire nation.
NavsPoliticalVideos 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
22% want Casual Cat... 39% want Dog.
Result : Casual Cat wins.
Making losers into winners indeed.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 61% absolutely DID NOT WANT DOG, but don't mind casual cat. FPTP: making losers into winners indeed
midnightcrow 10 months ago 19
@midnightcrow That's the thing about the anti-FPTP argument, though. There's a subtle unsupported assumption in it : that a vote for one candidate is a vote against another.
In a FPTP election if 39% vote Dog and three cats get about 20% each, it's stated that "61% voted against Dog". But the British public mostly just don't think that way; they vote for who they want, and don't care about the rest.
That's why AV is bad - it encourages the negative "Anybody but Dog!" mentality.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 - I remember the leadership election in 1990 when Thatcher was eliminated , Michael Heseltine, John Major and Douglas Hurd stood for the position. There was an "Anyone but Heseltine" campaign and John Major benefited from Hurd splitting Heseltine's votes.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
@Lairlimoges Perhaps so, but the British people ON THE WHOLE do not vote that way.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 It's the other way around, guy.
NavsPoliticalVideos 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 "But the British public mostly just don't think that way"
Would you care to quantify that?
fartybraindeath 10 months ago
@fartybraindeath Sure thing. 32.1% in favour, 67.9% against. The only quantity that matters.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@midnightcrow But that's the point - British people do not want a system in which we decide who we DON'T want. We want a system in which we vote for who we DO want. The Yes campaign failed in part because it went on about this negative "the one you don't want won't win!" idea. That's why we booted AV and anything like it into the dustbin of history.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 In an election between Casual Cat and Dog, the electorate would pick Casual Cat with 61% of the vote.
Who should win the election, Casual Cat or Dog?
simonjtinsley 10 months ago 2
@simonjtinsley - but it wasn't an election between Dog and Casual Cat. It was an election among Dog, Distracted Cat, Casual Cat and Moderate Cat. Dog won with 39% because Casual Cat was joined by two others that split the vote. With FPTP it's necessary to form a coalition before the election, not after. If there were a system that allowed multiple parties to form two opposing coalitions then that would be progress.
There may be a need for reform, but AV isn't it.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
@Lairlimoges The fact that other people stand shouldn't mean we pick the candidate that would lose in a two-way fight. That's a system at fault and precisely why FPTP is worse than AV. People prefer casual cat to dog, as you can see by the fact that 61 people would vote for casual cat and 39 for dog, and FPTP picks the loser as the winner, not AV.
Your point about coalitions is odd, too - since AV is picking a single winner from a single seat, just like FPTP. There's no coalitions here.
simonjtinsley 10 months ago
@simonjtinsley In that other election, Casual Cat should win. But in THIS election only 22% wanted Casual Cat to win, whereas 39% wanted Dog to. 39 beats 22 in my mind.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 and if there were 2 dogs sharing the dog-vote equally, effectively stealing victory from each other, that would be okay, would it?
Tomid 10 months ago
@Tomid Of course it would be absolutely fine. Anybody can stand - one dog, two dogs, fifty dogs, what does it matter?
If it splits the vote then so what? If people want to vote for different dogs then the vote *should* be split. I object to the idea that one candidate can "steal" votes from another - it implies that he or she has some sort of inbuilt "right" to those votes.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 Why should Dog be elected when the electorate prefer a different candidate to them (indeed 61-39 in favour of Casual Cat)? Why should the loser of a two way fight lose merely because a couple of similar candidates stand?
simonjtinsley 10 months ago
@simonjtinsley It's not true that the electorate preferred *A* different candidate to them. Those preferences, to the extent that they are preferences at all, are for a BUNCH of other candidates, not A candidate.
That's the hidden assumption that is the AV lie; that anybody who doesn't vote dog wants "anybody but dog".
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 AV does NOT imply "that anybody who doesn't vote dog wants "anybody but dog" ". AV INHERENTLY DISCOVERS whether people want dog or not. So it is very possible they WOULD vote for dog in a 2-horse race anyway, thus making dog the winner. Or not.
AV = 2-horse FPTP.
TheNavigateur 10 months ago
@simonjtinsley Because that's what is fair. You get less votes, so YOU LOSE! :) "Oh but other candidates took my votes" is a childish tantrum from a loser, nothing more, nothing less.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 so your telling us that its fair that a candidate can win with a simple plurality of the vote, in PNG a candidate won in FPTP with 11% of the vote, thats just dumb, thats one of the many reasons why here is Australia we changed our federal voting system to Preferential Voting in 1919, because it forced the winning candidate (providing they had an opponent) to have over 50% of the vote.
irishgodfatherchris 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999
But more people put Casual Cat into second place than they put Dog. Overall, CC was more acceptable to people.
WeeFaolan 10 months ago
@WeeFaolan I don't see why people should be able to put anybody in second place at all. "One man, four votes" - what kind of idea is that?!
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999
It's been said once, It's been said a 1000 times.
EVERYBODY'S votes get counted in each round of voting
Voters for major parties would get their votes resubmitted and recounted in round 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 100, and so on, just as much as voters for minor parties do. They do not get thrown out, discarded, or ignored. Their vote is effectively resubmitted for the same candidate
If a supporter of a minor party got "four votes", or 4000, then so too would a supporter of a major party
MahsaKaerra 10 months ago
@WeeFaolan
Because if you have just one vote and the other candidate gets just a few more, that vote counts for nowt. With AV your other choices can be taken into consideration - your opinion is guaranteed to count.
WeeFaolan 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 In an election between Dog and Casual Cat, Casual Cat would win with 61% of the vote.
FPTP makes winners into losers, and vice versa, by virtue of who else stands.
simonjtinsley 10 months ago
@Parrotguy1999 You were obviously born in 1999...
MwalkerMuppet 10 months ago
@MwalkerMuppet You're thirty years off, mate. I was born a few weeks before Armstrong walked on the moon.
Parrotguy1999 10 months ago
Yes, if it's disastrous in the UK it's even more disastrous here in the colonies. A "low" voter turnout for us is about 60%. I fail to see how this leads to more "happy kittehs" if new parties are systematically eliminated. It's just the two-party system -- all you have to do to win is be big to start with.
This is a joke. If it's not rep by pop, it's only democratic in a restricted and castrated sense. We select representatives, not a president -- there is no alternative to rep by pop.
RedDaVincy 10 months ago
@RedDaVincy - the Labour was a small party that eventually broke through within the FPTP system and replaced the Liberal party to become the main Opposition back in the 1920s.
I don't believe we do elect representatives. If we did MPs would merely do what the people wanted. We elect delegates who make decisions based on what they think is the best for the country. It could be argued that democracy is a force which the people need to be protected from.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha UNLUCKY 'Yes' vote people.
You got owned, big time.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kozzy06 10 months ago
@Kozzy06
Thumbs down.
Now can you give intelligent criticism?
MahsaKaerra 10 months ago
@Kozzy06 Actually YOU got owned because now the MPs can loot your wallet without any troublesome voters trying to kick them out of power
anarchyfever 10 months ago
12 million people should've seen this video :(
Itylsi 10 months ago 4
I wish more people had seen this. I think a lot of people voted 'no' simply because they didn't understand what AV was. I'd tried to explain it to several people over the last week.
sianchild 10 months ago 36
@sianchild AV is really simple. i think people voted no because they don't see a problem with the current system so why change.
Gracey488 10 months ago
@sianchild don't fool yourself. no voting system will improve politics. the problem lies squarely with the voters.
UnconformistSheep 10 months ago
40% of England turned up to vote, that means 60% of people would like to go back to the feudal system.
2/3 people voted no (approx) which means 2/3 people don't care that rich MPs have had their hand in the public wallet and would rather see LESS choice.
AV is something that only last summer everyone wanted.
Clearly everyman that died in wars to vote is stupid
England is dead, I'm moving to Scotland.
anarchyfever 10 months ago
@anarchyfever - Scotland is a constituent country of the UK (for the moment) and the UK is a member "state" of the EU. There's nothing to prevent you from relocating to one of those countries where they use a PR system to elect their parliaments. You could try Greece, Portugal, Ireland or even Spain. However, it might be better for you opt for an EU country that is fairing better economically such as Germany or the Netherlands. Sweden and Denmark don't have the Euro, but much higher taxes.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
@Lairlimoges I was more referring to the fact labor got its ass kicked in the Scot election, however I'm planning to move from the island as a whole
anarchyfever 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anarchyfever
You spelled 'Labour' incorrectly, please don't embarrass yourself again.
SpideyVids 10 months ago
@anarchyfever Scotland voted no too you idiot.
RobertNicholls 10 months ago
@RobertNicholls You spelled 'to' incorrectly, please don't embarrass yourself again.
anarchyfever 10 months ago
Comment removed
RobertNicholls 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@anarchyfever Actually I didn't. Buy a fucking dictionary.
RobertNicholls 10 months ago
@RobertNicholls Aww did baby get upset.
anarchyfever 10 months ago
@anarchyfever that you're a grammar nazi who doesn't know grammar? Not really, that's your problem.
RobertNicholls 10 months ago
Battle Cat? No way! Keyboard Cat for PM!
luigibarqs 10 months ago
It's official: Britian is an embarrassment.
It's all well and good if it's democracy and people voted and that was the result, but there was a 30% swing to no because of a leaflet of unarguable lies and a "voting AV kills babies" poster.
So, so embarrassed. Almost ashamed to be British.
Oscy 10 months ago 3
well fuck.
Itookthelaw 10 months ago
AV lost to slander and lies. I wouldn't mind a loss if the population genuinely disliked AV, but the No campaign did such a successful smear campaign we never stood a chance...
SuperChickencow 10 months ago 3
Does your cat know how to take a landslide loss?
hcasperk 10 months ago
To bad AV failed. Fools should just give all the power back to the queen and be done with that annoying thing called voting.
SurrealityX 10 months ago 3
i am sad but electoral reform is going to happen. Our day will come!
chocolatecougar 10 months ago
Here's to at least another half a century or Red team/Blue team political pingpong, and all the pleasures in life that brings us.
: (
MahsaKaerra 10 months ago
@MahsaKaerra - don't get too disheartened. Labour will be out of power for a while and the party will suffer splits that will form smaller parties with electoral reform as an agenda. They'll form a left of centre Alliance, gain power and introduce the Single Transferable Vote.
Or, just as likely, the Yellow team will split into two - half will join the Reds and form the Pink team whilst the other half will join the Blue team and form the Green team.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
@Lairlimoges
I'd probably vote for a pink team if there was one though, just for a laugh
MahsaKaerra 10 months ago
I dont own a cat, and if i did it would not care about the vote
TheBRFCBEN 10 months ago
If the yes campaign had swapped Nick Clegg for this, the referendum definitely would have turned out different :(
Shaggynes 10 months ago
I'm glad that the "No" campaign won, however, not by such a large margin. The turnout appears to only have been 42% and that's a terrible example to set for democracy. Had there been a larger turn out maybe the margin would have been narrower.
I'm also pleased with the win because the uploader of this video was stifling debate from those who suggested that AV was not everything that the "Yes" campaign claimed it to be, by blocking such posters.
Save your crowing until after midnight.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
@Lairlimoges You're right! This video is totally biased. It's clearly ignoring the totally fair leaflets I've been receiving, claiming that voting for AV means voting for BNP.
3kliksphilip 10 months ago 4
@Lairlimoges I am too glad that no won, but if there was 100% vote I feel that the gap would have been wider. There were 3 groups before the vote, Yes to Av, no to av, and the neutral. All the av supporters turned up, as did the no av supporters and the result was a landslide. But the neutrals would probably stick by fptp, because people fear change
05marshalljw 10 months ago
I love Eddie Izzard, but he should stick to comedy and speaking French.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
Woof Woof. The Dogs win again.
isleofwight1 10 months ago
its (almost) official. AV failed. stephen fry and his sanctimony will have to be quiet until the next bandwagon comes along.
bicsmokescrack 10 months ago
@bicsmokescrack - Celebrities and Lovies 0 - The People 1.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
You failed your highness, I am a jedi, like my father before me
Lab356 10 months ago
119 dogs did not like this video
Kapapapapan 10 months ago
Noooo, AV is failing! Why wasn't this video playing on TV in the build up?!
NotJames1 10 months ago
@NotJames1 Because of the lack of MONEY. Britain was defrauded.
NavsPoliticalVideos 10 months ago
heh sums it up
gamecrazy312 10 months ago
Where does Ken Clarke fit into all this? He's a jazz cat.
henryhill86 10 months ago
the tories didn't actually use AV to elect Cameron. they used the multi round system. just sayin.
dwjp 10 months ago
@dwjp - that's correct. That was a lie from the "Yes" campaign.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
@dwjp The multi-round system produces the same results as AV.
NavsPoliticalVideos 10 months ago
@NavsPoliticalVideos - The multi-round version of AV isn't AV. The Tory party elects a leader by FPTP after MPs have used an exhaustive ballot (not AV) to shortlist. In 2005, David Davis's vote went DOWN in the second ballot, something that's impossible under AV.
Run-off balloting (Tory leader, French President, most mayors in the US) is not AV. It's better than AV and FPTP, if you can afford the time.
Lairlimoges 10 months ago
@Lairlimoges Let me ask you, if David Davies is your FAVOURITE in round 1, why would he still not be your favourite in Round 2? He would.
Runoff simply allows "vote-changing" of swingey, indecisive voters. The end result (winner) is almost always the same as AV. AV is simply instant-runoff, asking people to simply make up their minds, of preference, at the start. AV and runoff are CLOSE relatives, both entirely DISTANT from FPTP.
NavsPoliticalVideos 10 months ago
@NavsPoliticalVideos yes, but they did use a 'cousin' of AV (or so I have heard it being described), so not exactly the same system. swings and roundabouts, lets leave it at that. we don't want anyone getting hurt, bye.
dwjp 10 months ago
I don't support any system that marginalises minority parties. But AV really takes the cake in its redistribution of their votes to the big wigs. Reeks of political racism.
according2ed 10 months ago
It's Clegg cat that concerns me.
spectrum99122 10 months ago
A move towards NDP in Canada , But still it did us no good as the conservatives held approx 40% and got a majority govt, sad really.. this animation was the perfect model for our Canadian problems
ignatzRat 10 months ago
It's used to elect party leaders as they're all similar candidates, as in the model you used involving 3 cats and a dog. In a general election, however, the candidates are not so similar.
opc200 10 months ago
lol. this is such trash. think dog cat hamster squirril bird tiger rather than cat cat cat dog. thus making this theory obsolete