this country is extremely retarded, the anti av augments were just a bunch of deterrent propaganda to keep the only 2 ideological views possible in power.
Good job Britain, now we'll waste away more of our Parliaments with the incumbent party ruling everything. Doesn't matter if you vote for the Lib Dems, you'll sit there and be told that, unfortunately, your leader wasn't elected even though more people wanted to vote for them.
Yay, Great British Democracy prevails once again!111!
the biggest damn problem with the campaign, CALLING IT AV.
Call it instant runoff voting, or preferential vote. It has worked in Australia for over 80 years. The only reason you could hate this is that you are only being kept in your seat because your opponents are split enough in their votes that even though you have less than 50% of the popular vote, you received the most direct votes.
So because we didn't vote your way you deem it necessary to question our intelligence? And people wonder why the Left is collapsing across Europe with bullshit like that.
@Bastiat90 Yeah that's pretty much how it works. I'm sorry, I tried really hard to find intelligent reasons to vote "no to AV" but found nothing. The only reasons I could see for voting No were that people had been fed lies or skewed statistics about how AV works or simply hadn't put in the effort to understand it and were scared of the unknown.
Perhaps it was rejected because AV is a stupid system to elect a member of parliament. So is FPTP, but as I despise all politicians I'd rather not elect any of them
@Bastiat90 Saying something is stupid isn't really providing a good argument. Besides, I would have thought that people who thought both methods were equally stupid wouldn't have voted at all. If you hate politicians, AV was our best chance for any kind of change. It would have been a great opportunity to vote for everyone apart from the politicians you hated. If you genuinely hate all politicians regardless of their policies then I don't know why you're discussing politics at all.
No, most of the Yes majority probably just prefer the baseless advangtage that this system gives to Labour and Conservatives over having a voting system that is demonstrably more responsive and more democratic
I think that in addition much of the anti-AV majority in the referendum probably preferred the baseless advangtage that this system gives to Labour and Conservatives (assuming those are their individual alignments) over having a voting system that is demonstrably more responsive and more democratic
@brigbjones We didn't get this either. Over 54% of us voted no. If a national vote on the same system were to happen in the US, it wouldn't pass too. This is the biggest reason against direct democracy-dipshits know too little about AV and the current system.
@ProtestantsRUs its not that hard to your head around all you do is rank your candidates from 1 to whatever and the votes are then counted its a simple as that and as an Australian who has used several different forms of the same system I know all the ins and outs of it and yes it can even elect multiple members its rare for the system to be used that way but it can work
@ProtestantsRUs its not that hard to your head around all you do is rank your candidates from 1 to whatever and the votes are then counted its a simple as that and as an Australian who has used several different forms of the same system I know all the ins and outs of it and yes it can even elect multiple members its rare for the system to be used that way but it can work
@nikanj no she was not elected PM, she was elected as the Member for Lalor, she's only the PM because she leads the Labor Party, we don't elect our leader you know that, you moronic Liberal.
Yes that is true. Does correcting errors in throw away comments on the internet make you feel like a superior person. If so carry on I guess, if it makes to happy and doesn't harm me then why not?
@nikanj I apologise that was slightly underhanded of me however, just because you don't like her doesn't mean everyone else doesn't as well, if we wanted to get technical had 1999 election been held using FPTP Kim Beazley would've won in a landslide.
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] ;-)
infact i'd be all for AV if it changed one simple premise - when there is a tie or no single party has 50% of the votes, why don't they just add ALL the other preference votes from ALL parties concerned (and yes those parties in contention included) and see if any party achieves 50% or indeed just who comes out on top, for if 50% not achieved what will AV propose? a fruitless coalition of sorts or what? even then I don't like it as I feel parties will compete for each others affection not public
@rugbyboy198127 Well, first off, under AV you CAN'T win unless you get 50% or more, the candidate with the lowest amount is dropped until there are only two left, which means that one MuSt have more votes than the other(unless its a completely even split, which would be exceptionally rare).
Also, if you took ALL the preferences from ALL parties involved you would truly have a case where people are voting more than once rather than a single transferable vote.
@ndgreenaway not really...You don't HAVE to put any preference beyond the first choice if you don't want to. Additional preferences are entirely optional. In fact, if you love FPTP so much that you would want to do it even if AV were the voting system, you could still vote like you would in FPTP and just put down one candidate and have your ballot junked when your guy is knocked out of the running.
This system is so far superior and every country that uses it loves it, and even the political parties themselves use it to chose their own leaders.. I can't believe any country uses first past the post system, it seems so unfair. Thank goodness I'm Irish, we can be sure that the government, good or bad, at least represents perfectly the feelings of the majority of the population.
@therabbithat I think people are after single transferable vote in the long run - infact I feel duped by this offer of AV - who decided to offer us AV alone and not the other forms of proportional representation?the public sussed the simple flaw with the AV system,that being the fact that in the event of a tie or no party achieving50%first say goes to the other preferences of voters whose party had the LOWEST votes,then next LOWEST and so on until one party has50%!so fringe voters get two votes!
@rugbyboy198127 No, they don't. One man explained it the transferable vote concept very well: "If I ask you to buy me a Mars but a Mars is not available and I suggest you buy a Twix instead, I will not receive two bars of chocolate. A transferred vote is not a multiple vote." The preference system is merely a way of allowing a voter to state, on their ballot, "Well, if the guy I really want wasn't available, I'd vote for this bloke instead. and If he wasn't running I' go for this guy." and so on
@Bluehero345 hmmm i find the chocolate analogy silly and not fit... i still don't like the idea that the likelihood is that in the event of no one party achieving 50%, one round (or at most two) of second preferences will produce a winner thus drawing upon fringe voters' preferences foremost on average.... why should the LEAST popular views take precedent over the majority? if you can explain/justify that, i'll listen... i'm not in favour of STV either as i feel i breaks link between mp & voter!
@rugbyboy198127 Don't see how its silly or not fit....its accurate. AV works the same way that a series of runoff elections would: If a candidate is required to have a minimum % of the vote to win, and no candidate achieves that amount, what do you do? Hold a runoff. How does a runoff work? You drop the least popular candidates and everyone votes again. In that case, the "extremists" still "determine the election".
@Bluehero345 I just don't like the part about dropping the least popular candidate first, then the next etc, as at a guess I would imagine that only one/two rounds of elimination would be necessary to determine a winner (ie to achieve 50%) therefore the "crazies" will have an unfair proportion of the vote etc, i believe the extreme views shouldn't determine an election! also if one party has say 46% and next nearest only 20% why shouldn't they govern - they're clear winners! cheers good debating
@Bluehero345 thanks for the information,i'm getting a clearer picture of how it all actually works and am grateful for the good nature of our debate,still i don't like the chocolate analogy and still not convinced about AV-I much prefer the idea of a straight forward STV but can't figure out how that would work in practice,how to have STV and not break link between mp and constituent?i think very important that a voter can punish local mp at the ballot box,i'd even like primaries to select them!
@therabbithat cont... so some voters' votes will count twice, nevermind the fact that it will be 'fringe' voters such as those who vote bnp or green etc - it'll create back-room competition between partys, all sorts of alliances and the dirty deals will escalate and corruption inevitable... it's not that i like the current system (although fairer now that the constituencies are the same population), i'm also against this nonsense coalition, would have preferred a minority government instead...
The Tories played it exceptionally well; making it look like AV is incomprehensible and a step BACK from PR, using buzz words like 'undemocratic' and suggesting that AV will help the BNP get into a position of power. AV was completely misrepresented and people who voted on the back of the No to AV campaign are imbeciles.
But the fact is, most people voted no to AV because they didn't understand it, didn't care, and applied the 'When in doubt, stick with the status quo' law.
@vos474747 Nonsense. I was loosely in favour of AV when the referendum was announced - but after reading NEUTRAL explanations of the proposals I decided to vote no. I didn't see the No broadcast (who DID? Appart from AV supporters...) and the YES campaign made me feel more strongly about voting against it! You'd probably find that most of those who didn't fully understand the system, or didn't research it, did not bother to vote at all. Those of us who did understand made sure we did vote.
@RichieStrongTea I agree almost completely with what you said there, but I have to say I voted for AV (which I'll be the first to admit is flawed) as a vote against FPTP (which is, IMO, much more flawed). The consequence of the public rejecting AV is that politicians have now gone around proclaiming that they public voted against electoral reform per se (i.e. we rejected any kind of change) which means we wont have the FPTP vs PR debate for years to come. The health of our democracy suffers.
@RichieStrongTea A "neutral" explanation of AV is de-facto a wrong one, because any OBJECTIVE explanation of AV is invariably pro-AV.
"Neutral" and OBJECTIVE are vastly different notions.
AV simply gives a 2-horse FPTP winner. FPTP can deliver an MP that would lose in 2-horse race with EACH of the other candidates. If you would let EVERY person vote in a 2-horse race (thus being truly 1-person-1-vote) between the likely most-favourite candidates, then AV is the only logical option.
@RichieStrongTea And before you presume I'm not objective - would you call neutrality on racism objective? Of course not. There is logically and objectively no benefit from racism. By your logic, this correct statement would destroy itself because it is inherently "anti-racism", and thus not "neutral".
Do you understand what I'm saying?
The truth is never, ever "neutral" between disagreeing parties. It is absolute. Disagreement proves that one or more or all parties are factually wrong.
Why cant people debate this topic without it turning into slander and personal insults? We never had a sensible national debate on this; instead we got a slag-fest, full of deceit and flawed half-arguements (from both sides). I'm as pis*ed as anyone right now but theres no point thrashing it out on here. The bigger man is the one who doesnt bother replying, and moves on.
@mastermind570 yes but you do realise tht most of the parties tht arent consrrvative agree on major issues. We now get more hung parliaments because conservatives are the only ones who disagree in respect to all the other parties
@JacqSiir It has something to do with minorities when people KEEP talking about the BNP, I think people need to realize that every party in the country, whether in government or locked out of the democratic process undemocratically is a minority.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How much did he get paid to do this. It's vague in detail. It doesn't say that it favours the parties with weak stands on certain matters because they don't want to get on the wrong side of any voters. If AV was introduced all parties would be exactly the same because no one would want to stick their necks out incase they lose any votes whether it be 1st choice or just 3rd or 4th.
Why am i an insult! They died to give me a right to choose to vote, and who to vote for, and what to vote for, and i thank them very much for that.
I'm sorry if i offended you, and i probably shouldn't have joked about Fry being paid. However i thought it would have been alright saying my understanding of AV, but clearly i was wrong.
AV sounds like betting on horses haha 'all our votes count' yeah for someone we put as fifth!?! FIFTH - they aren't going to be anything like what we want. This country is unbelievable - WE NEED AN ARAB UPRISING OF OUR OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you dont believe in candidate number 5 you dont vote for him
You only vote for the candidates you believe in
In the cat analogy for the other video if there were lizards holding a bunch of votes (Say 10%) and the lizard gets knocked out then 90% of the remaining voted would be split among cats and dogs
@DaysDX This democracy isnt very democratic then because the lizards didnt vote for either the cats or the dogs - neither will be representing the interests of the lizards and at the next election neither really need to canvass the lizards either as they will probably just get 10% to be split amongst them both.
AV isn't like that. You get select alternate candidates in the event that your favourite doesn't get in. It allows you to stop your least favourite getting in.
@DeityFSM The Queen doesn't vote because it would be unconstitutional...plus I hear Her Majesty wanted to vote for one of the smaller parties so her vote would effectively be thrown into the bin anyway :D
I'm Irish and I'm Proud to say the British are RETARDED. In Ireland we have PR. To vote For less democracy feel sad for the British. How can you go into the voting booth and actually vote for less democracy? I think the people who voted no can all burn in hell. I understand about feelings towards Nick Clegg and centre joining right wing, when they should of joined left wing, but t vote no on a steeping-stone to PR is the reason why Ireland and now Scotland are breaking from the UK.
So, it seems approx 30% voted to keep FPP, approx 15% voted for AV and the remaining 55% voted against both of them...maybe hoping to see some form of democracy in this surprisingly undemocratic country.
Lol i'm not sure whether the fact 55% didn't vote means they actually disliked both. I'm sure there are people who voted who didn't care too much, and there were plenty of people who didn't vote and didn't cared, not that they didn't want either.
@Samthemanpla Well, it seems logical that had the referendum had been between PR and FPTP then far more would have turned out. We were given a referendum to choose between both of these poor systems because the government knew it had a good chance of winning. The majority of the electorate did not vote for FPTP in the referendum, which is yet another fail for democracy in this country.
@Denyernator Oh shut up! It was a democratic vote and the majority have said 'No;' deal with it. AV is the worse of the two systems for anyone who has bothered to research it.
@thomasmc14 Yes, so 59% rejected both choices in the only way you can in this country - choosing not to support either because they are both hugely undemocratic compared to PR.
@trecool9992 Because she was able to concentrate the vote in enough areas to win the seats required to form a government (she actually got 43% of the vote btw). Labour are lucky that we used FPTP in that election otherwise they'd have been smashed.
@Denyernator It's worse because it'll be more complicated, leading to more spoiled ballots. Aside from that, there is the issue of people not having to have more than 1 candidate, which opens up the very real possibility of being elected with still less than 50%. Not to mention tactical voting - if all Labour supporters put Liberals second then the most popular [first] choice would be ignored in favour of a second choice. If this system is so great then explain why only 3 nations use it.
@DeityFSM Because we like to pretend we are democratic whilst keeping the nasty little parties out and the two main parties in...in a particularly undemocratic fashion :-D
@angloengland I believe, everywhere, there should be a limit to the political spectrum, as in radical parties should be banned; like BNP, Sinn Féin,DUP. Only parties to the centre should be aloud.
@DeityFSM I honestly believe all political parties should be banned as the members first loyalty to the party and not the people they should be representing. The BNP have a nationalist agenda, the Labour party have a non-nationalist agenda - I see little difference. We either have a democracy where we can vote for whoever we want and we are all represented, or we keep the undemocratic system we have now that strangely rewards Sinn Fein for blowing people up but persecutes the BNP for not....
How come Northern Ireland who have a form of AV voted against it themselves for the UK!
If the people who use it for their own elections don't like it, how can we argue against it when we haven't touched it yet. I don't think FPTP is brilliant but it's better than AV.
@thomasmc14 think of each time someone is knocked off, there is a new election. the peoples knocked off votes want there second pref before anyone else. The first vote sticks with the other candidates because the voter prefers them to have the vote than the other parties(Hence first pref). It's not about "who the people want" but "who the majority they prefer" to be elected. The reason only 3 countries have it is because most other countries have PR, of which AV was a stepping stone towards .
@DeityFSM 1) I know how the system works 2) Why did they have to make it compulsory for people in Australia to rank ALL candidates? Could it be because they didn't understand the system/didn't want all the options? 3) Most countries use FPTP - look at the former colonies and what they use; for the most part it will be FPTP. FPTP is a much better system than AV.
@thomasmc14 India use FPTP because they have suck a huge population which is poor and so can't afford the PR system. ( the British stool all their wealth) In their Upper house, the colleges use the PR system, as they are smaller and it can be afforded.
@thomasmc14 More complicated, if you're retarded. And your example of someone putting Labour first and LD second is stupid. The LD vote would only be counted if Labour got the fewest votes.
@Denyernator It wasn't stupid if you have an IQ above 50. In an area where Conservatives fight Liberal Democrats for the seat all the votes that were for the Labour Party would be given to Lib Dems, and even though the Conservatives could be the most popular first choice, they'd lose overall, which is just stupid.
@thomasmc14 but they'd only be the most popular choice for around a third of the voters. Why should the other 2 thirds be ruled by who 1 third voted for? It's like a choice between Cake, Jelly, Ice Cream or Dog poo for desert. You love cake, you'd be happy with jelly or ice cream so any of these will do - You definitely don't want dog poo. The voters who have a sweet tooth are split over the 3 choices...... leaving the MINORITY who want dog poo as the winners - everyone gets dogpoo for desert.
@DeityFSM Once you understand politics like I do then you can speak. Until such time, get on my level. Oh, and it's nice to see that you managed to outwit your carers; well done you.
Explain? What more is there to be explained? I'll try my best.
I was making fun of your deluded intellect, based entirely on following people you think are intellectual, and then going on to call others with different opinions "idiots" with a worthless comment where you admitted you couldn't think of anything to say to back it up. I also patronised you because I thought you might be used to it, being a Stephen Fry fan. I look forward to your oh, so snappy comeback.
@kalvaza Steven Fry fan? I'm not a Steven Fry fan, I like him, of course, but I wouldn't call myself a 'fan'. I don't really see much point in trying to knock some sense into a person who obviously won't give up, so I might as well stop wasting my time and be glad the majorty of people voted 'Yes' to AV, I've nothing to be annoyed about really, so throw whichever cheesy insults you can think of, why would a person who knows they're right change their mind to something which they know is wrong?
@kalvaza Well, we know who didn't study speech marks in English! So you're suggesting that you are a fan of everybody you like? You're suggesting the majority of people voted 'No' to AV, you're suggesting - oh wait, we'll skip that one shall we, just so we don't embarrass you too much, I am kind at heart, you know. See - why do you bother arguing on YouTube with somebody who is obviousy right? Do you seriously have nothing better to do - oh wait, you don't, you're a Torie!
@kalvaza Whew... irony at it's finest. Loving the way you bullshit common sense and come up with absolutely nothing yourself. Go on, don't just come back with "LULZ BULLSHIT LULZ" and give me some real reason as to why you believe the majority of the general public were wrong when they voted 'Yes' to AV.
Wow. I don't even have to try any more. In all my misspent time where I should be working when I wind up Youtube commenters, I don't think I've ever had someone visibly break down like this.
@kalvaza Well, would you belive it, it's YET another naff attempt at an insult, despite the fact I've asked you to give me a reason why the majority of the general public were wrong to vote 'Yes' to AV on 5th May 2011. I'll give you one last chance to prove your point, if you choose not to, or more likely, can't, because you know it's wrong, I will thank you in advance for proving my point.
@SnappyPenguins " I've asked you to give me a reason why the majority of the general public were wrong to vote 'Yes' " No wonder Kalvaza is confused - the majority (of those who took part) voted NO, not YES! So what's the question?
@RichieStrongTea Just visit this article and view the comments. wwwDOTthisislondonDOTcoDOTuk/standard/article-23942358-why-london-should-say-no-to-av.do
Starting a childish argument or insult contest doesn't add anything to the conversation.
@SnappyPenguins I have done so. 6 comments - that was all. How can that be called a "majority"?#
"Starting a childish argument or insult contest doesn't add anything to the conversation" What's that got to do with me? I haven't done either of those things...
Curiosity got the better of me and I checked your Youtube page. I was somewhat relieved to know that you are indeed a young man, and a sexually frustrated one by the sound of one of your uploads. Although your last reply suggested you wanted to hear more from me, I feel a bit bad for teasing you now since there must be so many doing the same. Rest assured this will be my last comment towards you, and you may reply with a victory speech. I hope I'm mentioned. Enjoy Thorpe Park. x
@mastermind570 u knw what u just aid makes no sense, strong government would be the only result from this. As more people would be in favour of any government tht does get in power tht is far stronger than ur idea of "strong" government
@DomhnallX50 a strong government, as defined by the peelite sections of our constitution (yes we kind of have one) is a government which actually has enough of a majority to pass new legislation when need be (through the use of party whips etc) and is really why the design for our balance of power, splitting up the executive, judiciary and legislature. I would rather have ANY govt which was strong rather than hung-parliament which spends all day procrastinating!!
if i wasn't positive about my yes vote yesterday, i am now 100% sure. if you cannot be swayed by the opinion of someone who is possibly one of the most socially and academically intelligent men in england, who will you listen to?
@DeityFSM Well, Labour screwed the economy, let millions of non-European immigrants into Britain and rewarded the lazy with benefits, but all that being said, most people have short memories and will probably vote the idiots back in at the next election haha
@angloengland Fuck Blair Labour. They're Conservative Shit. I'd be left-centre in Britain (I voted Sinn Féin and labour in Ireland in February in Cork South Central.) I'd vote lib-dems or some other left party, but not right-wing racist scum Labour.
@DeityFSM I honestly dont have a problem with Labour, Conservative, BNP, Lib Dems, Sinn Fein or even some future pro-Muslim party, I just think that if 5% of the country vote for a particular party then they should have 5% of parliament. I also think that if turnout for any election drops below 50% then an automatic referendum on the electoral process should ensue with all options (like PR) to replace it being available and not just the ones that suit whoever is in power at the time.
@DeityFSM I don't really understand this comment. I thought it was a joke, but you're Irish, so you aren't mocking your own people, but you are attempting to mock British people with a heap of spelling and grammar mistakes. Not really sure where you were going with this one.
if you will look in the british constitution you will see that it says that the requirements of the voting system in place is to deliver a strong government, something which is just not possible using the middle-ground-av systems.
If you want to get things done in a country you need a strong (majority) government, ever wonder how they INVENTED the fptp system in the first place? or why?.... probably not, (not labour or conserv fan by the way)
@mastermind570 Which constitution? (we have no specific constitution, which one of the couple of documents are you talking about). I supported the no vote btw, so I am not against your point, I'm just asking.
@wyterabitt oh not really sure, if you look up peelite strong government it should find the anser for you (this is peelite vs whig parts of our constitution). Just remember learning it in politics class really, as as I replied to someone else above, I'd rather hava strong government, able to pass legislation any day (even if they were'nt my 4th fave ;) ) over a hung/weak parliament which procrastinates (argues) all day, waste of time (& £), I didn;t even vote in the end, oh well =]
The AV system is much fairer - why should a party with only 34% of the vote represent 100% of the people? It is better than the current system because it creates a more effective democracy - the three principles of democracy are participation, representation and accountability. With people voting for more than just one party (if they so desire) by ranking them, parties are forced to become more accountable and representative for a wider range of people.
Mid. Life. Crisis. Hair. I like Steven Fry but he's not the arbiter of the people because kids can enjoy his work and think they're intellectual. His status as a 'national treasure' is undeserved. DESPITE THIS, I agree with the sentiments here.
ok just some figures to point out the current system is used by over 60 countries across the globe, the AV system is used by just 3; one of which is under a military coup at the moment and another actually made not voteing a criminal offence due to poor turnouts for voting due to how unpopular it is. so thats 60 countries vs 3 where only one is a sucess...ish.
@dambust232 Chanel 4 News FactCheck blog puts the number of FPTP countries at 50, but points out that 41 are current or former British Colonies. Yes, you're right that a large swaithe of the rest of the world uses FPTP- but thats largely due to our influence! While a fair few countries have successfully switched away from FPTP (which we left them) to other systems, there are virtually no instances of anyone switching back to it... & no other country in Europe uses FPTP!
@dambust232 Also, with regards to the quality of the democracies- if you look at the Economist Intelligence Unit's most recent democracy index, of the 10 top ranking countries, only 1 (Canada) uses FPTP. Only 1 (but it is higher ranked- Australia) uses AV (8/10 use PR, a system we've not been offered). I actually dont rate AV but our current system is a joke. e.g. In the 2010 election, 49% of people in Essex voted Con. But Con got 95% of the seats. Thats why Cameron wants a No vote- its crooked!
@FullSpeedForever and believe me, Canada just got rolled, bowled, and arseholed by FPTP, allowing the far right to take a parliamentary majority with only 39% of the vote.
@tezcatbus Theres the British legacy, still kicking good people in the groin from accross the generations. Not sure what to say other than sorry you inherited a backwards voting system from us! :-/ If its any consolation, take comfort from the fact that we've just voted to keep FPTP and effectively 'rolled, bowled and arseholed' ourselves (like your phrase there btw!). There is at least some karma in that, I suppose
@FullSpeedForever the princible of the current system is one person one vote, which is very fair if you think about it. the AV system acts with one person 5 votes, one person 4 votes, one person 3 votes etc. how is it fair that one person will only get theyre vote counted once while another 5 times. also how is a system thats been around for over 200 years be crooked surely someone would have picked up on this by now.
@nemo2e4 oh this is just what we need another idiot saying that first passed the post is against blacks and women. you just lost the arguement with that stupid remark. shut up you moron.
@dambust232 Crikey, that's some misapprehension you're labouring under there.
If I'd written "Go to the moon? Who has gone to the moon?" would you think I was calling you a spaceman?
If rhetoric and parody is not to your taste, try this: You have been lied to and you have believed those lies. Under AV votes are NOT counted more than once; NO voting machines are required; fringe parties ARE eliminated; the result is MORE representative than the current system. Is that clearer?
@dambust232 I agree one vote per person is fair. AV does technically give one person only one vote (again see Factcheck blog for an explanation) but I'm not a strong advocate of AV anyway. But FPTP does very blatently favour two leading parties (see 'Duverger's Law' in political science). One more example case: in 1983, 26% of the public vote went to SDL/Lib. Labour got 28%. Labour got 209 seats, SDP/Lib got 23. FPTP is at *best* dodgy- unfortunately people either dont know, dont care, or both!
AV is a cop out by the conservatives who know full well it'll get shot down by the public especially after their rather snide No campaign, we need a better option to achieve PR in this country as the present system only works in a two party system. If a county votes 8,000 for Labour, 4,000 for lib dem, 2,000 for other parties and 10,000 for the Conservatives you end up with a Right wing MP when the majority voted for a Left or centre Left party and candidate, in no way is that democracy
It worries me how many people will blindly do what Stephen Fry tells them to. Why? Is it because worshipping him will make you feel like an intellectual? I thought there was atheism for that sort of thing.
@kalvaza He explains why to vote Yes in the above video! He's not just saying 'vote yes', he's saying 'vote yes, and heres why...'. So no, people arent blindly following him to feel like intellectuals- their agreeing (or not) with his coherent arguement. Where's yours?
You mean, were is my wooly argument to match his? As an obvious Fry fan that you are, surely even you feel a bit patronised by this uncharacteristically poor explanation from him?
welp, I've never voted and didnt really care, but the amount of leaflets I've had through the mail insulting my intelligence by lying about the AV system mad me mad enough to go and vote for it, whatever it is.
this country is extremely retarded, the anti av augments were just a bunch of deterrent propaganda to keep the only 2 ideological views possible in power.
dalektaliban 2 weeks ago
Good job Britain, now we'll waste away more of our Parliaments with the incumbent party ruling everything. Doesn't matter if you vote for the Lib Dems, you'll sit there and be told that, unfortunately, your leader wasn't elected even though more people wanted to vote for them.
Yay, Great British Democracy prevails once again!111!
Grawpify 1 month ago
The AV campaign, both Yes/No was terrible... just shows how stupid this country really is when they can't understand something as simple as this.
haz464 1 month ago
the biggest damn problem with the campaign, CALLING IT AV.
Call it instant runoff voting, or preferential vote. It has worked in Australia for over 80 years. The only reason you could hate this is that you are only being kept in your seat because your opponents are split enough in their votes that even though you have less than 50% of the popular vote, you received the most direct votes.
alphamone 2 months ago
damn being reminded of this just depresses me. I don't think I'll ever trust the UK to vote on anything sensibly again.
mooxim 2 months ago 3
So because we didn't vote your way you deem it necessary to question our intelligence? And people wonder why the Left is collapsing across Europe with bullshit like that.
Bastiat90 2 months ago
@Bastiat90 Yeah that's pretty much how it works. I'm sorry, I tried really hard to find intelligent reasons to vote "no to AV" but found nothing. The only reasons I could see for voting No were that people had been fed lies or skewed statistics about how AV works or simply hadn't put in the effort to understand it and were scared of the unknown.
mooxim 2 months ago
Perhaps it was rejected because AV is a stupid system to elect a member of parliament. So is FPTP, but as I despise all politicians I'd rather not elect any of them
Bastiat90 2 months ago
@Bastiat90 Saying something is stupid isn't really providing a good argument. Besides, I would have thought that people who thought both methods were equally stupid wouldn't have voted at all. If you hate politicians, AV was our best chance for any kind of change. It would have been a great opportunity to vote for everyone apart from the politicians you hated. If you genuinely hate all politicians regardless of their policies then I don't know why you're discussing politics at all.
mooxim 2 months ago
PR was my best chance, because no party will ever have lone rule again. Belgium did fine with a government for over a year.
To hate politicians does not necessarily indicate a hatred of politics, merely its machinations.
Bastiat90 2 months ago
I voted yes and was very dissapointed as to how many people I spoke to who voted "no" because they didn't know what AV was. Fucking idiots.
tommart123 3 months ago
@tommart123 were they a victim of if you hear a lie enough times sooner or later you'll accept it as truth
irishgodfatherchris 3 months ago
Comment removed
Combatechist 3 months ago
I bet most people in England didn't vote 'Yes' as they had no idea how AV worked.
1458 5 months ago 2
@1458 they voted no because of the smear campaign that linked AV to Nick Clegg, one of the most hated politicians in the country.
kensei85 4 months ago
@kensei85 Oh ok. Not as much as Nick Griffin.
1458 4 months ago
Comment removed
kensei85 4 months ago
@kensei85 I always get them mixed up too. (Just their names not anything else.)
1458 4 months ago
@1458 yeah easily confused because both those Nicks are dicks!
kensei85 4 months ago
@1458
No, most of the Yes majority probably just prefer the baseless advangtage that this system gives to Labour and Conservatives over having a voting system that is demonstrably more responsive and more democratic
Daniel0112358 4 months ago
@1458
I think that in addition much of the anti-AV majority in the referendum probably preferred the baseless advangtage that this system gives to Labour and Conservatives (assuming those are their individual alignments) over having a voting system that is demonstrably more responsive and more democratic
Daniel0112358 4 months ago
man i wish we could get this here in the states!
brigbjones 5 months ago
@brigbjones We didn't get this either. Over 54% of us voted no. If a national vote on the same system were to happen in the US, it wouldn't pass too. This is the biggest reason against direct democracy-dipshits know too little about AV and the current system.
bh3ader 5 months ago
Good job it flopped enormously. We don't need a more complicated system than we have already.
ProtestantsRUs 5 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs its not that hard to your head around all you do is rank your candidates from 1 to whatever and the votes are then counted its a simple as that and as an Australian who has used several different forms of the same system I know all the ins and outs of it and yes it can even elect multiple members its rare for the system to be used that way but it can work
irishgodfatherchris 5 months ago
@ProtestantsRUs its not that hard to your head around all you do is rank your candidates from 1 to whatever and the votes are then counted its a simple as that and as an Australian who has used several different forms of the same system I know all the ins and outs of it and yes it can even elect multiple members its rare for the system to be used that way but it can work
irishgodfatherchris 5 months ago
it's dumb how this didn't happen in the end
stupid england
philophos 5 months ago
Now why the hell didn't more people listen to this before voting?
hellboyslittlebro 6 months ago
Don't do it Britain. Australia uses a similar system and a ginger (we call them rangas) was elected PM!
nikanj 7 months ago
@nikanj no she was not elected PM, she was elected as the Member for Lalor, she's only the PM because she leads the Labor Party, we don't elect our leader you know that, you moronic Liberal.
irishgodfatherchris 6 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris
Yes that is true. Does correcting errors in throw away comments on the internet make you feel like a superior person. If so carry on I guess, if it makes to happy and doesn't harm me then why not?
nikanj 6 months ago
@nikanj I apologise that was slightly underhanded of me however, just because you don't like her doesn't mean everyone else doesn't as well, if we wanted to get technical had 1999 election been held using FPTP Kim Beazley would've won in a landslide.
irishgodfatherchris 6 months ago
@masonfreeparty
Ha.
You moronic conspirency bullshit amuses me.
ThaMrNacho 7 months ago
as an australian i find it both humorous, puzzling and worrying that people think this is somehow a bad and complicated system
its a hell of a lot fairer than first past the post
PianoManFromJapan 7 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 8 months ago
@masonfreeparty
AV also means audio-visual, better chuck out all your televisions and computers.
alphamone 2 months ago
It's fairer yeah, but it sure ain't simple to understand, it's very complicated doesn't make it wrong as such but AV is NOT simple
rogerswift1983 9 months ago
@rogerswift1983 how difficult is it to number candidates numerically in order, not very
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
how about pushing power away from the national level. ..
why should the national govt decide issues that could easily be decided by the local people.
100CommonCents 9 months ago
infact i'd be all for AV if it changed one simple premise - when there is a tie or no single party has 50% of the votes, why don't they just add ALL the other preference votes from ALL parties concerned (and yes those parties in contention included) and see if any party achieves 50% or indeed just who comes out on top, for if 50% not achieved what will AV propose? a fruitless coalition of sorts or what? even then I don't like it as I feel parties will compete for each others affection not public
rugbyboy198127 9 months ago
@rugbyboy198127 Well, first off, under AV you CAN'T win unless you get 50% or more, the candidate with the lowest amount is dropped until there are only two left, which means that one MuSt have more votes than the other(unless its a completely even split, which would be exceptionally rare).
Also, if you took ALL the preferences from ALL parties involved you would truly have a case where people are voting more than once rather than a single transferable vote.
Bluehero345 9 months ago
It wud also mean id be voting for someone whos policys i disagree with...av was a shit idea glad its dead and gone
ndgreenaway 9 months ago
@ndgreenaway not really...You don't HAVE to put any preference beyond the first choice if you don't want to. Additional preferences are entirely optional. In fact, if you love FPTP so much that you would want to do it even if AV were the voting system, you could still vote like you would in FPTP and just put down one candidate and have your ballot junked when your guy is knocked out of the running.
Bluehero345 9 months ago
Too late, glad this bullshit system didn't make it :D
TheGenderBender100 9 months ago
This system is so far superior and every country that uses it loves it, and even the political parties themselves use it to chose their own leaders.. I can't believe any country uses first past the post system, it seems so unfair. Thank goodness I'm Irish, we can be sure that the government, good or bad, at least represents perfectly the feelings of the majority of the population.
therabbithat 9 months ago
@therabbithat I think people are after single transferable vote in the long run - infact I feel duped by this offer of AV - who decided to offer us AV alone and not the other forms of proportional representation?the public sussed the simple flaw with the AV system,that being the fact that in the event of a tie or no party achieving50%first say goes to the other preferences of voters whose party had the LOWEST votes,then next LOWEST and so on until one party has50%!so fringe voters get two votes!
rugbyboy198127 9 months ago
@rugbyboy198127 No, they don't. One man explained it the transferable vote concept very well: "If I ask you to buy me a Mars but a Mars is not available and I suggest you buy a Twix instead, I will not receive two bars of chocolate. A transferred vote is not a multiple vote." The preference system is merely a way of allowing a voter to state, on their ballot, "Well, if the guy I really want wasn't available, I'd vote for this bloke instead. and If he wasn't running I' go for this guy." and so on
Bluehero345 9 months ago
@Bluehero345 hmmm i find the chocolate analogy silly and not fit... i still don't like the idea that the likelihood is that in the event of no one party achieving 50%, one round (or at most two) of second preferences will produce a winner thus drawing upon fringe voters' preferences foremost on average.... why should the LEAST popular views take precedent over the majority? if you can explain/justify that, i'll listen... i'm not in favour of STV either as i feel i breaks link between mp & voter!
rugbyboy198127 9 months ago
@rugbyboy198127 Don't see how its silly or not fit....its accurate. AV works the same way that a series of runoff elections would: If a candidate is required to have a minimum % of the vote to win, and no candidate achieves that amount, what do you do? Hold a runoff. How does a runoff work? You drop the least popular candidates and everyone votes again. In that case, the "extremists" still "determine the election".
Bluehero345 9 months ago
@Bluehero345 I just don't like the part about dropping the least popular candidate first, then the next etc, as at a guess I would imagine that only one/two rounds of elimination would be necessary to determine a winner (ie to achieve 50%) therefore the "crazies" will have an unfair proportion of the vote etc, i believe the extreme views shouldn't determine an election! also if one party has say 46% and next nearest only 20% why shouldn't they govern - they're clear winners! cheers good debating
rugbyboy198127 9 months ago
@Bluehero345 thanks for the information,i'm getting a clearer picture of how it all actually works and am grateful for the good nature of our debate,still i don't like the chocolate analogy and still not convinced about AV-I much prefer the idea of a straight forward STV but can't figure out how that would work in practice,how to have STV and not break link between mp and constituent?i think very important that a voter can punish local mp at the ballot box,i'd even like primaries to select them!
rugbyboy198127 9 months ago
@therabbithat cont... so some voters' votes will count twice, nevermind the fact that it will be 'fringe' voters such as those who vote bnp or green etc - it'll create back-room competition between partys, all sorts of alliances and the dirty deals will escalate and corruption inevitable... it's not that i like the current system (although fairer now that the constituencies are the same population), i'm also against this nonsense coalition, would have preferred a minority government instead...
rugbyboy198127 9 months ago
Wow, I'm surprised this didn't pass. It's a smart system.
budap001 9 months ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
@budap001 Well, I'm not surprised this didn't pass. It's a smart system.
weiss0nicht 3 months ago
The Tories played it exceptionally well; making it look like AV is incomprehensible and a step BACK from PR, using buzz words like 'undemocratic' and suggesting that AV will help the BNP get into a position of power. AV was completely misrepresented and people who voted on the back of the No to AV campaign are imbeciles.
But the fact is, most people voted no to AV because they didn't understand it, didn't care, and applied the 'When in doubt, stick with the status quo' law.
vos474747 10 months ago
@vos474747 Nonsense. I was loosely in favour of AV when the referendum was announced - but after reading NEUTRAL explanations of the proposals I decided to vote no. I didn't see the No broadcast (who DID? Appart from AV supporters...) and the YES campaign made me feel more strongly about voting against it! You'd probably find that most of those who didn't fully understand the system, or didn't research it, did not bother to vote at all. Those of us who did understand made sure we did vote.
RichieStrongTea 10 months ago
@RichieStrongTea I agree almost completely with what you said there, but I have to say I voted for AV (which I'll be the first to admit is flawed) as a vote against FPTP (which is, IMO, much more flawed). The consequence of the public rejecting AV is that politicians have now gone around proclaiming that they public voted against electoral reform per se (i.e. we rejected any kind of change) which means we wont have the FPTP vs PR debate for years to come. The health of our democracy suffers.
FullSpeedForever 9 months ago
@RichieStrongTea A "neutral" explanation of AV is de-facto a wrong one, because any OBJECTIVE explanation of AV is invariably pro-AV.
"Neutral" and OBJECTIVE are vastly different notions.
AV simply gives a 2-horse FPTP winner. FPTP can deliver an MP that would lose in 2-horse race with EACH of the other candidates. If you would let EVERY person vote in a 2-horse race (thus being truly 1-person-1-vote) between the likely most-favourite candidates, then AV is the only logical option.
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
@RichieStrongTea And before you presume I'm not objective - would you call neutrality on racism objective? Of course not. There is logically and objectively no benefit from racism. By your logic, this correct statement would destroy itself because it is inherently "anti-racism", and thus not "neutral".
Do you understand what I'm saying?
The truth is never, ever "neutral" between disagreeing parties. It is absolute. Disagreement proves that one or more or all parties are factually wrong.
TheNavigateur 9 months ago
Why cant people debate this topic without it turning into slander and personal insults? We never had a sensible national debate on this; instead we got a slag-fest, full of deceit and flawed half-arguements (from both sides). I'm as pis*ed as anyone right now but theres no point thrashing it out on here. The bigger man is the one who doesnt bother replying, and moves on.
FullSpeedForever 10 months ago 27
@mastermind570 yes but you do realise tht most of the parties tht arent consrrvative agree on major issues. We now get more hung parliaments because conservatives are the only ones who disagree in respect to all the other parties
DomhnallX50 10 months ago
Everyone in a minority like AV because all the people in majorities are happy because all the split left votes (NDP and Libs) help them win seats
DaysDX 10 months ago
@DaysDX This has nothing to do with minorities...
JacqSiir 10 months ago
@JacqSiir It has something to do with minorities when people KEEP talking about the BNP, I think people need to realize that every party in the country, whether in government or locked out of the democratic process undemocratically is a minority.
angloengland 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How much did he get paid to do this. It's vague in detail. It doesn't say that it favours the parties with weak stands on certain matters because they don't want to get on the wrong side of any voters. If AV was introduced all parties would be exactly the same because no one would want to stick their necks out incase they lose any votes whether it be 1st choice or just 3rd or 4th.
Samthemanpla 10 months ago
@Samthemanpla He got paid Zero, Zilch, nada. And what you say isn't true.
midnightcrow 10 months ago 24
@Samthemanpla Your an insult to every soldier that died so you could vote
anarchyfever 10 months ago
@anarchyfever
Why am i an insult! They died to give me a right to choose to vote, and who to vote for, and what to vote for, and i thank them very much for that.
I'm sorry if i offended you, and i probably shouldn't have joked about Fry being paid. However i thought it would have been alright saying my understanding of AV, but clearly i was wrong.
Samthemanpla 10 months ago
AV sounds like betting on horses haha 'all our votes count' yeah for someone we put as fifth!?! FIFTH - they aren't going to be anything like what we want. This country is unbelievable - WE NEED AN ARAB UPRISING OF OUR OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
angloengland 10 months ago
@angloengland
if you dont believe in candidate number 5 you dont vote for him
You only vote for the candidates you believe in
In the cat analogy for the other video if there were lizards holding a bunch of votes (Say 10%) and the lizard gets knocked out then 90% of the remaining voted would be split among cats and dogs
DaysDX 10 months ago
@DaysDX This democracy isnt very democratic then because the lizards didnt vote for either the cats or the dogs - neither will be representing the interests of the lizards and at the next election neither really need to canvass the lizards either as they will probably just get 10% to be split amongst them both.
angloengland 10 months ago
@angloengland
AV isn't like that. You get select alternate candidates in the event that your favourite doesn't get in. It allows you to stop your least favourite getting in.
rage735 10 months ago
@rage735 Hmmm well, either way, it isnt democratic - its another system designed to keep those already in power...in power :D
angloengland 10 months ago
Thanks to Stephen Fry I voted "NO" by postal vote. Thank you Mr Fry.
iksmezrgw 10 months ago
hey, in Britain, can and does the Queen Vote?
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM The Queen doesn't vote because it would be unconstitutional...plus I hear Her Majesty wanted to vote for one of the smaller parties so her vote would effectively be thrown into the bin anyway :D
angloengland 10 months ago
"This is a once in a lifetime chance." - Sadly, I think we blew it. Sorry Stephen.
SpareHandOne 10 months ago
I'm Irish and I'm Proud to say the British are RETARDED. In Ireland we have PR. To vote For less democracy feel sad for the British. How can you go into the voting booth and actually vote for less democracy? I think the people who voted no can all burn in hell. I understand about feelings towards Nick Clegg and centre joining right wing, when they should of joined left wing, but t vote no on a steeping-stone to PR is the reason why Ireland and now Scotland are breaking from the UK.
DeityFSM 10 months ago
So, it seems approx 30% voted to keep FPP, approx 15% voted for AV and the remaining 55% voted against both of them...maybe hoping to see some form of democracy in this surprisingly undemocratic country.
angloengland 10 months ago
@angloengland I hope you're right but.. where are you getting these figures from?!
FullSpeedForever 10 months ago
@FullSpeedForever Well I read the turnout ranged from 50% in Scotland to 35% in London (independent)
angloengland 10 months ago
@angloengland
Lol i'm not sure whether the fact 55% didn't vote means they actually disliked both. I'm sure there are people who voted who didn't care too much, and there were plenty of people who didn't vote and didn't cared, not that they didn't want either.
Samthemanpla 10 months ago
@Samthemanpla Well, it seems logical that had the referendum had been between PR and FPTP then far more would have turned out. We were given a referendum to choose between both of these poor systems because the government knew it had a good chance of winning. The majority of the electorate did not vote for FPTP in the referendum, which is yet another fail for democracy in this country.
angloengland 10 months ago
Well done, UK, you've let my generation down and missed out on a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Denyernator 10 months ago
@Denyernator Oh shut up! It was a democratic vote and the majority have said 'No;' deal with it. AV is the worse of the two systems for anyone who has bothered to research it.
thomasmc14 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 Well, the majority actually voted against them both, but I know what you mean ;-)
angloengland 10 months ago
@angloengland The 59% didn't actually vote. Out of the 41% who did, 69% said 'No'. But good eye.
thomasmc14 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 Yes, so 59% rejected both choices in the only way you can in this country - choosing not to support either because they are both hugely undemocratic compared to PR.
angloengland 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 Failing to see how Thatcher getting in on ~35% vote is evidence of a good voting system.
trecool9992 10 months ago
@trecool9992 Because she was able to concentrate the vote in enough areas to win the seats required to form a government (she actually got 43% of the vote btw). Labour are lucky that we used FPTP in that election otherwise they'd have been smashed.
thomasmc14 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 On what grounds is it worse? How can you call this a democracy if an MP can get elected when the majority votes against him/her?
Denyernator 10 months ago
@Denyernator It's worse because it'll be more complicated, leading to more spoiled ballots. Aside from that, there is the issue of people not having to have more than 1 candidate, which opens up the very real possibility of being elected with still less than 50%. Not to mention tactical voting - if all Labour supporters put Liberals second then the most popular [first] choice would be ignored in favour of a second choice. If this system is so great then explain why only 3 nations use it.
thomasmc14 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 How come UK is the only place in Western Europe that uses FPTP?
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM Because we like to pretend we are democratic whilst keeping the nasty little parties out and the two main parties in...in a particularly undemocratic fashion :-D
angloengland 10 months ago
@angloengland I believe, everywhere, there should be a limit to the political spectrum, as in radical parties should be banned; like BNP, Sinn Féin,DUP. Only parties to the centre should be aloud.
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM I honestly believe all political parties should be banned as the members first loyalty to the party and not the people they should be representing. The BNP have a nationalist agenda, the Labour party have a non-nationalist agenda - I see little difference. We either have a democracy where we can vote for whoever we want and we are all represented, or we keep the undemocratic system we have now that strangely rewards Sinn Fein for blowing people up but persecutes the BNP for not....
angloengland 10 months ago
@DeityFSM Maybe the BNP need a paramilitary arm and some Semtex then they will be invited into power sharing haha
angloengland 10 months ago
@DeityFSM
How come Northern Ireland who have a form of AV voted against it themselves for the UK!
If the people who use it for their own elections don't like it, how can we argue against it when we haven't touched it yet. I don't think FPTP is brilliant but it's better than AV.
Samthemanpla 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 think of each time someone is knocked off, there is a new election. the peoples knocked off votes want there second pref before anyone else. The first vote sticks with the other candidates because the voter prefers them to have the vote than the other parties(Hence first pref). It's not about "who the people want" but "who the majority they prefer" to be elected. The reason only 3 countries have it is because most other countries have PR, of which AV was a stepping stone towards .
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM 1) I know how the system works 2) Why did they have to make it compulsory for people in Australia to rank ALL candidates? Could it be because they didn't understand the system/didn't want all the options? 3) Most countries use FPTP - look at the former colonies and what they use; for the most part it will be FPTP. FPTP is a much better system than AV.
thomasmc14 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 India use FPTP because they have suck a huge population which is poor and so can't afford the PR system. ( the British stool all their wealth) In their Upper house, the colleges use the PR system, as they are smaller and it can be afforded.
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 More complicated, if you're retarded. And your example of someone putting Labour first and LD second is stupid. The LD vote would only be counted if Labour got the fewest votes.
Denyernator 10 months ago
@Denyernator It wasn't stupid if you have an IQ above 50. In an area where Conservatives fight Liberal Democrats for the seat all the votes that were for the Labour Party would be given to Lib Dems, and even though the Conservatives could be the most popular first choice, they'd lose overall, which is just stupid.
thomasmc14 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 That's called tactical voting, well done. We have that with the current system.
Denyernator 10 months ago
@Denyernator You're a modern day Einstein. Obviously it's around now but it's much less effective in a FPTP system than AV.
thomasmc14 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 You're pathetic. Resorting to personal insults now, are you? I'm done talking to you.
Denyernator 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 but they'd only be the most popular choice for around a third of the voters. Why should the other 2 thirds be ruled by who 1 third voted for? It's like a choice between Cake, Jelly, Ice Cream or Dog poo for desert. You love cake, you'd be happy with jelly or ice cream so any of these will do - You definitely don't want dog poo. The voters who have a sweet tooth are split over the 3 choices...... leaving the MINORITY who want dog poo as the winners - everyone gets dogpoo for desert.
frognsausage 10 months ago
@thomasmc14 RETARD
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM Once you understand politics like I do then you can speak. Until such time, get on my level. Oh, and it's nice to see that you managed to outwit your carers; well done you.
thomasmc14 10 months ago
Well, this worked.
bilsim 10 months ago
32 people are so stupid I can't even think of a cheesy comment to say.
SnappyPenguins 10 months ago
@SnappyPenguins
Any cheesy comment for the overall vote? None? Sit yourself down then, there's a good chap.
kalvaza 10 months ago
@kalvaza Could you explain that last comment? Are you one of the twerps who voted 'No' or am I horribly mistaken?
SnappyPenguins 10 months ago
@SnappyPenguins
Explain? What more is there to be explained? I'll try my best.
I was making fun of your deluded intellect, based entirely on following people you think are intellectual, and then going on to call others with different opinions "idiots" with a worthless comment where you admitted you couldn't think of anything to say to back it up. I also patronised you because I thought you might be used to it, being a Stephen Fry fan. I look forward to your oh, so snappy comeback.
kalvaza 10 months ago
@kalvaza Steven Fry fan? I'm not a Steven Fry fan, I like him, of course, but I wouldn't call myself a 'fan'. I don't really see much point in trying to knock some sense into a person who obviously won't give up, so I might as well stop wasting my time and be glad the majorty of people voted 'Yes' to AV, I've nothing to be annoyed about really, so throw whichever cheesy insults you can think of, why would a person who knows they're right change their mind to something which they know is wrong?
SnappyPenguins 10 months ago
@SnappyPenguins
"I like Stephen Fry. I'm not a fan."
"The majority voted 'Yes' to AV."
"I take my opinion as what's right, and everybody else is wrong, which is why I've changed the meaning of the slang term 'cheesy'."
Please, I need more replies from you. This is hilarious.
kalvaza 10 months ago
@kalvaza Well, we know who didn't study speech marks in English! So you're suggesting that you are a fan of everybody you like? You're suggesting the majority of people voted 'No' to AV, you're suggesting - oh wait, we'll skip that one shall we, just so we don't embarrass you too much, I am kind at heart, you know. See - why do you bother arguing on YouTube with somebody who is obviousy right? Do you seriously have nothing better to do - oh wait, you don't, you're a Torie!
SnappyPenguins 10 months ago
@SnappyPenguins
Knew you'd be back! :P I wasn't disappointed with your ramblings. Your delusions of grandeur and your wild assumptions aren't showing any bounds.
kalvaza 10 months ago
@kalvaza Whew... irony at it's finest. Loving the way you bullshit common sense and come up with absolutely nothing yourself. Go on, don't just come back with "LULZ BULLSHIT LULZ" and give me some real reason as to why you believe the majority of the general public were wrong when they voted 'Yes' to AV.
SnappyPenguins 10 months ago
@SnappyPenguins
Wow. I don't even have to try any more. In all my misspent time where I should be working when I wind up Youtube commenters, I don't think I've ever had someone visibly break down like this.
kalvaza 10 months ago
@kalvaza Nope, I didn't think you'd be able to come up with anything either.
SnappyPenguins 10 months ago
@SnappyPenguins
Are you feeling okay?
kalvaza 10 months ago
@kalvaza Well, would you belive it, it's YET another naff attempt at an insult, despite the fact I've asked you to give me a reason why the majority of the general public were wrong to vote 'Yes' to AV on 5th May 2011. I'll give you one last chance to prove your point, if you choose not to, or more likely, can't, because you know it's wrong, I will thank you in advance for proving my point.
SnappyPenguins 10 months ago
@SnappyPenguins " I've asked you to give me a reason why the majority of the general public were wrong to vote 'Yes' " No wonder Kalvaza is confused - the majority (of those who took part) voted NO, not YES! So what's the question?
RichieStrongTea 10 months ago
@RichieStrongTea Just visit this article and view the comments. wwwDOTthisislondonDOTcoDOTuk/standard/article-23942358-why-london-should-say-no-to-av.do
Starting a childish argument or insult contest doesn't add anything to the conversation.
SnappyPenguins 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SnappyPenguins I have done so. 6 comments - that was all. How can that be called a "majority"?#
"Starting a childish argument or insult contest doesn't add anything to the conversation" What's that got to do with me? I haven't done either of those things...
RichieStrongTea 9 months ago
@SnappyPenguins
Curiosity got the better of me and I checked your Youtube page. I was somewhat relieved to know that you are indeed a young man, and a sexually frustrated one by the sound of one of your uploads. Although your last reply suggested you wanted to hear more from me, I feel a bit bad for teasing you now since there must be so many doing the same. Rest assured this will be my last comment towards you, and you may reply with a victory speech. I hope I'm mentioned. Enjoy Thorpe Park. x
kalvaza 9 months ago
@mastermind570 u knw what u just aid makes no sense, strong government would be the only result from this. As more people would be in favour of any government tht does get in power tht is far stronger than ur idea of "strong" government
DomhnallX50 10 months ago
@DomhnallX50 a strong government, as defined by the peelite sections of our constitution (yes we kind of have one) is a government which actually has enough of a majority to pass new legislation when need be (through the use of party whips etc) and is really why the design for our balance of power, splitting up the executive, judiciary and legislature. I would rather have ANY govt which was strong rather than hung-parliament which spends all day procrastinating!!
mastermind570 10 months ago
if i wasn't positive about my yes vote yesterday, i am now 100% sure. if you cannot be swayed by the opinion of someone who is possibly one of the most socially and academically intelligent men in england, who will you listen to?
likeastarbaby 10 months ago
@likeastarbaby
maybe just proves that the whole system is just completely useless?
duffer35 10 months ago
@duffer35 What?
likeastarbaby 10 months ago
@likeastarbaby
well, if you cant be swayed to something by the cleverest person then maybe it just shows how bad AV actually is
duffer35 10 months ago
@duffer35 Lol no, it shows that the majority of British citizens are lazy, stupid or easily misled. Which one are you?
P.s. obvious troll is obvious
likeastarbaby 10 months ago
@likeastarbaby 7 uot of 10 pritish beople are retared. Plane and Simpel
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM Its higher than that where I live!! :D
angloengland 10 months ago
@angloengland sad
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM Well, Labour screwed the economy, let millions of non-European immigrants into Britain and rewarded the lazy with benefits, but all that being said, most people have short memories and will probably vote the idiots back in at the next election haha
angloengland 10 months ago
@angloengland Fuck Blair Labour. They're Conservative Shit. I'd be left-centre in Britain (I voted Sinn Féin and labour in Ireland in February in Cork South Central.) I'd vote lib-dems or some other left party, but not right-wing racist scum Labour.
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM I honestly dont have a problem with Labour, Conservative, BNP, Lib Dems, Sinn Fein or even some future pro-Muslim party, I just think that if 5% of the country vote for a particular party then they should have 5% of parliament. I also think that if turnout for any election drops below 50% then an automatic referendum on the electoral process should ensue with all options (like PR) to replace it being available and not just the ones that suit whoever is in power at the time.
angloengland 10 months ago
@DeityFSM I don't really understand this comment. I thought it was a joke, but you're Irish, so you aren't mocking your own people, but you are attempting to mock British people with a heap of spelling and grammar mistakes. Not really sure where you were going with this one.
likeastarbaby 10 months ago
if you will look in the british constitution you will see that it says that the requirements of the voting system in place is to deliver a strong government, something which is just not possible using the middle-ground-av systems.
If you want to get things done in a country you need a strong (majority) government, ever wonder how they INVENTED the fptp system in the first place? or why?.... probably not, (not labour or conserv fan by the way)
hung parliament every year benefits no-one!
mastermind570 10 months ago
@mastermind570 Which constitution? (we have no specific constitution, which one of the couple of documents are you talking about). I supported the no vote btw, so I am not against your point, I'm just asking.
wyterabitt 10 months ago
@wyterabitt oh not really sure, if you look up peelite strong government it should find the anser for you (this is peelite vs whig parts of our constitution). Just remember learning it in politics class really, as as I replied to someone else above, I'd rather hava strong government, able to pass legislation any day (even if they were'nt my 4th fave ;) ) over a hung/weak parliament which procrastinates (argues) all day, waste of time (& £), I didn;t even vote in the end, oh well =]
mastermind570 10 months ago
The AV system is much fairer - why should a party with only 34% of the vote represent 100% of the people? It is better than the current system because it creates a more effective democracy - the three principles of democracy are participation, representation and accountability. With people voting for more than just one party (if they so desire) by ranking them, parties are forced to become more accountable and representative for a wider range of people.
JemimaTheDuck 10 months ago
Mid. Life. Crisis. Hair. I like Steven Fry but he's not the arbiter of the people because kids can enjoy his work and think they're intellectual. His status as a 'national treasure' is undeserved. DESPITE THIS, I agree with the sentiments here.
bassben04 10 months ago
ok just some figures to point out the current system is used by over 60 countries across the globe, the AV system is used by just 3; one of which is under a military coup at the moment and another actually made not voteing a criminal offence due to poor turnouts for voting due to how unpopular it is. so thats 60 countries vs 3 where only one is a sucess...ish.
dambust232 10 months ago
@dambust232 Chanel 4 News FactCheck blog puts the number of FPTP countries at 50, but points out that 41 are current or former British Colonies. Yes, you're right that a large swaithe of the rest of the world uses FPTP- but thats largely due to our influence! While a fair few countries have successfully switched away from FPTP (which we left them) to other systems, there are virtually no instances of anyone switching back to it... & no other country in Europe uses FPTP!
FullSpeedForever 10 months ago
@dambust232 Also, with regards to the quality of the democracies- if you look at the Economist Intelligence Unit's most recent democracy index, of the 10 top ranking countries, only 1 (Canada) uses FPTP. Only 1 (but it is higher ranked- Australia) uses AV (8/10 use PR, a system we've not been offered). I actually dont rate AV but our current system is a joke. e.g. In the 2010 election, 49% of people in Essex voted Con. But Con got 95% of the seats. Thats why Cameron wants a No vote- its crooked!
FullSpeedForever 10 months ago
@FullSpeedForever and believe me, Canada just got rolled, bowled, and arseholed by FPTP, allowing the far right to take a parliamentary majority with only 39% of the vote.
tezcatbus 10 months ago
@tezcatbus Theres the British legacy, still kicking good people in the groin from accross the generations. Not sure what to say other than sorry you inherited a backwards voting system from us! :-/ If its any consolation, take comfort from the fact that we've just voted to keep FPTP and effectively 'rolled, bowled and arseholed' ourselves (like your phrase there btw!). There is at least some karma in that, I suppose
FullSpeedForever 10 months ago
@FullSpeedForever the princible of the current system is one person one vote, which is very fair if you think about it. the AV system acts with one person 5 votes, one person 4 votes, one person 3 votes etc. how is it fair that one person will only get theyre vote counted once while another 5 times. also how is a system thats been around for over 200 years be crooked surely someone would have picked up on this by now.
dambust232 10 months ago
@dambust232 You have been lied to. All votes are counted the same number of times.
As for "200 years": You'd be the type arguing "Give votes to women? Who has given votes to women?" "Abolish slavery? Who has abolished slavery?"
nemo2e4 10 months ago
@nemo2e4 oh this is just what we need another idiot saying that first passed the post is against blacks and women. you just lost the arguement with that stupid remark. shut up you moron.
dambust232 9 months ago
Comment removed
nemo2e4 9 months ago
@dambust232 Crikey, that's some misapprehension you're labouring under there.
If I'd written "Go to the moon? Who has gone to the moon?" would you think I was calling you a spaceman?
If rhetoric and parody is not to your taste, try this: You have been lied to and you have believed those lies. Under AV votes are NOT counted more than once; NO voting machines are required; fringe parties ARE eliminated; the result is MORE representative than the current system. Is that clearer?
nemo2e4 9 months ago
@dambust232 I agree one vote per person is fair. AV does technically give one person only one vote (again see Factcheck blog for an explanation) but I'm not a strong advocate of AV anyway. But FPTP does very blatently favour two leading parties (see 'Duverger's Law' in political science). One more example case: in 1983, 26% of the public vote went to SDL/Lib. Labour got 28%. Labour got 209 seats, SDP/Lib got 23. FPTP is at *best* dodgy- unfortunately people either dont know, dont care, or both!
FullSpeedForever 10 months ago
AV is a cop out by the conservatives who know full well it'll get shot down by the public especially after their rather snide No campaign, we need a better option to achieve PR in this country as the present system only works in a two party system. If a county votes 8,000 for Labour, 4,000 for lib dem, 2,000 for other parties and 10,000 for the Conservatives you end up with a Right wing MP when the majority voted for a Left or centre Left party and candidate, in no way is that democracy
mutley2209 10 months ago
It worries me how many people will blindly do what Stephen Fry tells them to. Why? Is it because worshipping him will make you feel like an intellectual? I thought there was atheism for that sort of thing.
kalvaza 10 months ago
@kalvaza He explains why to vote Yes in the above video! He's not just saying 'vote yes', he's saying 'vote yes, and heres why...'. So no, people arent blindly following him to feel like intellectuals- their agreeing (or not) with his coherent arguement. Where's yours?
FullSpeedForever 10 months ago
@FullSpeedForever
You mean, were is my wooly argument to match his? As an obvious Fry fan that you are, surely even you feel a bit patronised by this uncharacteristically poor explanation from him?
kalvaza 10 months ago
I just voted Yes for AV.
WorldFrontlineMedia 10 months ago 7
At the risk of lowering the politcal tone somewhat, Fry's getting fat again!
TDogthe3rd 10 months ago
welp, I've never voted and didnt really care, but the amount of leaflets I've had through the mail insulting my intelligence by lying about the AV system mad me mad enough to go and vote for it, whatever it is.
Sykskar 10 months ago