AV aint simple. The mock election we held at School which I helped the counting of votes for we used AV and got severely confused. The country said NO for the better. One person should mean one vote
@midgiemarsh it is one vote you moron, how hard is it to preference, here at my school we use Preferential voting to elect multiple members and it took less than 1 hour to find the winners
On an issue that required the public to have some learned knowledge to know where they stood, all the apolitical thick majority were frightened by wild nonsense scare stories on the No side and in the tabloids. The campaign was not resourced with a fair parity for the Yes side. Breaking the precedent from 1975 only the Noes got a mailshot to every home financed. Yes got no chance to refute the Noes factual claims to all who they reached. So was a totally corrupted illegit referendum run on lies
It's such a stupid analogy, it isn't like Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and BNP offer 'beer' and the Tories offer 'coffee' as Snow implies, if they were so similar they would merge into one party. The reason they don't is that they're as far from each other as they are from the Tories. Ergo, one unalternating vote still makes sense.
It's fucking shameful that we have to sell people their own democracy with celebrity endorsements and fucking slogans. I hate what society has become.
yes, because that's exactly how decisions are made in groups of young people....... . the whole AV scenario is rendered moot by the fact there is absolutely no difference between our main political parties asides from the verbal chicanery used to secure your vote.. and after that, they will do what they want. regardless, life is too short for politics, read philosophy :-)
@jinura, can do that after AV. If you show that you are interested in change, change will occur. However, if FPTP wins, the government will believe people DO NOT want change, thus PR won't be an option.
@jinura LibDems had to concede in negotiations with the Tories, I believe. They agreed on a public vote for AV, then the Tories decided to spread lies about it.
Aha, they still ended up choosing alcohol. The characteristic of this country as a 'boozing nation' is embedded in every aspect of British society, including politics. But politics isn't really about choosing what to drink. What difference does it make if you all eventually choose alcohol regardless of the selecting system? How can you run a country properly, being drunk all the time? :-P
All the talk about voter preferences is ironic given that we're only being given the choice between two systems. What about those of us who think both systems are crap? What are we supposed to vote for?
@dataflow14 Well maybe but then again maybe that's just wishful thinking. I'm appalled at the lies I've seen paraded by the NO camp but then AV just doesn't seem 'better' to me, just change for change's sake. To say an MP would have 50% of the vote under AV when that percentage could be made up of second or third choices sounds like spin to me. If you're happy for your third choice to represent you it sounds like you don't really give much of a toss in the first place.
@MarrsAttax There are certainly better systems - agreed - but the crunch is "there is NO worse system than FPTP (other than a total loss of democracy )"
There's only 2 choices tomorrow. If PR was a 3rd then I think many would choose it - but they can't!
The best feature of AV in my view is it gets rid of having to use tactical voting - and if you accept that then you most have 2 choices already (remember most people would only choose perhaps 2 or 3 preferences - or even only one)
@MarrsAttax If you don't want your 3rd choice, then only nominate two choices. People seems obsessed with the idea that they have to nominate all the way down - which simply isn't true. If you wouldn't feel comfortable supporting a particular party, don't give them a number - simple.
@GGdown if everyone does that then we're left with FPTP again. That or the MP gets in on the second choice of a few ditherers who voted for a no hope and possibly extremist candidate for number one.
@MarrsAttax Better to be represented by your third choice than by someone who you wouldn't have placed anywhere at all on your preference list, or for your vote to not count for anything.
(Better still to be represented by your first choice of course but if there aren't enough people in your constituency who think like you then you are stuck until we get proportional representation and minority views can be more fully represented.)
@bbham You could still end up being represented by someone not on your list. And is it really better to be represented by your third choice? Doesn't that just give a sheen of legitimacy to someone you wouldn't have voted for with FPTP? This referendum is bollocks. It's like someone giving you the choice of nothing for dinner or some shit on toast, with the vague promise of jam sometime in the future.
@MarrsAttax But of course in FPTP many people also get represented by someone not on their "list" (i.e. by someone they didn't vote for). Yes, it's better to be represented by your second or third choice than to be represented by someone you don't want in any way at all. The best thing about AV is that it allows you to express your real view rather than voting for a party you don't like because the party you really want "can't win here".
@MarrsAttax Well I just voted No and my wife voted Yes, thus rendering the entire process completely pointless. At least I had a nice walk. Yay for democracy!
The No to AV campaign was blatant lies and propaganda and we should report it to OFCOM. The Yes campaign is truthful yet really shitty and ineffective because some stupid twat is in charge of it probably
I find it difficult to believe that a neighbourhood with several local pubs would only have one coffee shop. Why doesn't the coffee shop vote split between Starbucks, Cafe Nero etc.?
AV also makes it easier to challenge politicians in safe seats, we shouldn't forget that. Under FPTP, if an independent Labour ran against official Labour, the vote would be split and the conservative would get in on a minority vote. Under AV, you can challenge career politicians that have been dumped on you by the party machine. A vote for Yes means a chance to take back democracy from our complacent political establishment.
Is there really no consequence between choosing Tory or Labour? Is it just like choosing colours, or flavours of ice cream? A matter of preference? Or will you ACTAULLY decide NOT to vote Labour first and Tory 2nd, or vica versa and actually be making a COMPROMISE for the LibDems 2nd?.
Can you see the difference?
AV is a system of generating extra compromise votes for the compromise party (LibDems) when used for parliament. It's not like choosing between Pubs.
Why oh why did the yes campaign not start like this? The nonsense about "working harder for you votes" isn't why AV was proposed and isn't even necessarily true.
This is why AV was proposed and why it is better than FPTP. It's too late though.
The same type of AV isn't used to elect the leader of the Conservative Party. The first round is restricted to Tory MPs and the second round sees the whole membership vote on the two most popular candidates. For Snow's analogy to work the electorate would have to be restricted to a fraction of the population before the rest of us got to vote on whoever was left. #No2AV
@RonanSh This scenario is equivalent to having 3 Labour candidates and a Tory to choose from. It does not equate to a real life AV situation. It is a cleverly contrived video which is clearly designed to mislead. Yes the majority are pub goers, but there are only really two choices: pub or coffee. When you boil it down to the two choices, FPTP does not produce a coffee outcome.
@jimjamyahha Er, no... it's like having 3 left-of-centre parties, and one right-wing party.... like, say, Labour, Green, and Lib-Dem versus the Tories.... which is a common set-up in many constituencies. Substitute 'pub' for left-of-centre, and 'coffee' for right-of-centre, and the metaphor works perfectly
@futurefair It's nothing to do with 'progressive majorities' - it's the simple, undeniable fact that in a political system with more than two parties FPTP simply doesn't work.... AV reflects the fact that voters preferences are more complex than 'red v blue'
Oh dear. Ignoring the fact that no-one ever has conversations like the ludicrous 'example' in the film, there are just too many lies in that video. The Tories don't use AV in their leadership elections, neither do mayor elections and his three facts at the end are just wrong. MPs don't work on a day to day basis on party lines, AV won't solve the problem of safe seats, and it only gives you more say if your first preference is for extremist or fringe parties.
No lies. Dan Snow says that a system 'like it' is used. He says MPs will work harder for the vote, which is true. He says it will cut safe seats, not eliminate them. And it gives everyone equal say, unlike in FPTP.
Are you being disingenuous on purpose (i.e. misleading, just like the No campaign)?
@tomuk1984 No lies. Dan Snow says that a system 'like it' is used. He says MPs will work harder for the vote, which is true. He says it will cut safe seats, not eliminate them. And it gives everyone equal say, unlike in FPTP.
Are you being disingenuous on purpose (i.e. misleading, just like the No campaign)?
@tomuk1984@tomuk1984 Please tell me how it is possible for David Cameron to have lost the first vote, but still come out on top? The 'loser winning' as the No2AV likes to put it.
Their system isn't explicity AV, because they have rounds instead of preferences, but it is without a doubt closer to AV than FPTP, and if it had been FPTP, Cameron would not be leader of the Tories.
@ICaptainMidnightI I wouldn't claim that FPTP is a good system, but AV isn't an improvement. The merits of the Tory approach is that it takes place over multiple rounds, something that the current AV proposal doesn't do. I've got no problem in principle with preferential voting, just not AV.
@tomuk1984 AV simulates the rounds, based on the assumption that your preferences between candidates aren't likely to change in the time it takes to conclude the election. Why would you want to change your preferences between rounds? There are only two possibilities: either you hadn't thought it through enough and have changed your mind (fair enough, but a bit silly) or you are trying to vote tactically to decrease the chances of someone you don't like getting in. Hence AV is actually BETTER.
@tomuk1984 It's oversimplification rather than dishonesty. Mayoral elections are done with a preferential system, but one that only allows you two preferences rather than any number. The Tories use a run-off system, which is basically the same as AV but allows you to change your mind (and vote tactically) in between rounds. Both are very similar indeed to AV, and much closer by far to AV than to FPTP.
@tomuk1984 when you say 'it only gives you more say if your first preference is for extremist or fringe parties' are you including the liberal democrats? And do you realize how many people you are talking about?
@roseannafrascona No, I don't think the Lib Dems are a fringe or extremist party. However I have no problem in saying that I don't think people whose first preference is Loony or BNP should have the determining vote in our elections.
@tomuk1984 All of the votes are the determining votes. None count more than any other, so basically you don't think people who vote BNP or Loony should be able to vote.
@tomuk1984 So they can vote for the BNP, just not Labour or Cons? You're an idiot. Nobodies vote is counted any more than another persons. As it is basically a series of rounds, with you voting for your highest preference each time, everybody votes the same amount of times.
Having AV would help prevent the disenfranchisement which causes people to vote for the BNP in the first place. Most votes for them are protest votes, I wonder fucking why.
@ICaptainMidnightI There's no evidence whatsoever that AV will increase political participation. I suspect the opposite will be true - AV will result in bland middle of the road politicians (just look at the labour leadership election) rather than individuals with any ideological conviction and that will only compound our disillusionment with politics.
@tomuk1984 Well the cons are consistently denying any ideology on their part, and the LibDems have inverted theirs, so I don't see how that's not happening already.
I think AV would allow more parties to take risks, because people aren't going to feel that voting for a previously unpopular party will be a 'wasted vote'...which 70% were in the 2005 election.
Suppose that the perfect party for you emerged, you think this party has all the right policies, not just for you, but for everyone. The problem? They are new, while they have experienced politicians behind them, people aren't going to vote for a newcomer in FPTP. They wouldn't stand a chance, and so the perfect party would disappear even if most people wanted them, and it would be better for the country.
AV just gives the chance of fringe voters to make a useful input into the election process. Their vote has no greater value than than any other vote cast - and remember their vote could just as easy end on a losing candidate.
These trendy yoofs are rubbish, what happened to the more 'mature' folks in Dan Snow's previous, practically identical video? They were much better. This is ageism in action! Shame on you, Dan Snow :P
AV is not about choosing between different venues etc...! It's about giving voters a extra 'compromise' vote so they give it to the compromise choice, the LibDems, who have a policy for everyone and will become a permanent Kingmaker!
A bit of history - in 1931 Churchill said "AV results in the most worthless candidates getting the most worthless votes". i.e. A Party like the LibDems who promise WHATEVER they can to EVERYONE - and then get into power and do 'What they think is best'.
Vote for AV, save the lib dems from annihilation, trap this country in an endless cycle of tony blairs... destroy any chance of those damend radicals winning elections! radicals like Aneurin bevan, tony benn, harold wilson shouldn't be allowed power! the bland middle 50% of the electorate should have all the power, all the time. We don't need to have a system where change is a reality. We need endless, grey coalitions. Brilliant. You fucking idiots.
But the coffee drinkers second preference might be for the Red Lion (where they do a decent cappuccino), but the, Crown lovin', extremists get more of a say than they do. So the mainstream pubs will have to compromise themselves to attract extremists - say putting in slot machines, as favoured by the Crown & Anchor-ists.
Great- shows where FPTP falls down when it allows winners who the majority of voters didn't vote for. Also shows that people rank what they want or like in order of preference all the time. Why shouldn't elections be any different. Well done Dan Snow & everyone else involved with this video!
Absolute rubbish, the simple system for friends is compromise, coffee first, or pick a decent pub that sells coffee.
For a voting system AV is not fair, it just means people can keep voting in an election until the most popular candidate is beaten by the third fourth or fifth most popular candidate.
@TonyHolden132 Although at the moment people get elected that the majority of the population don't want. Just look at the current Conservative & Lib Dem government, nobody wanted it. The current system is simply not fair as it does not reflect what the majority want.
@Tanith0709 actually it does represent exactly what the majority wanted otherwise it wouldn't be a majority government, it's just they didn't get what they expected. The coalition government is what happens when the vote is split, and we will see more of it under AV.
Very Misleading video. They don't have four choices, they have three of one choice and one of another. It is not representative of they way AV would work. Shame on Dan Snow.
@jimjamyahha But that's exactle the problem with FPTP - it counts every single option as seperate even when they're obviously similar. So you could have two labour candidate (as has happened where there's been an unofficial candidate) or two very similar eurosceptic candidates but FPTP counts them as entirely different. With AV, the system will ensure that votes are redistributed to represent people's real wishes.
@nathankw all candidates 'are' separate, the idea is you either pick the party or candidate whose views are closest to your own. What the pro AV supporters seem to want is a system in which they can keep voting for candidates until they get the result they want.
@TonyHolden132 No - they want the a system in which the candidate that the majority want is elected. With FPTP a candidate can win even though they'd lose a one-to-one election against every single other candidate. That's unfair.
@nathankw your logic is wrong, or you haven't stated your case very well. With FPTP everyone votes for the candidate they prefer, the candidate with the most votes wins. With AV people may well get a candidate winning who is second third or fourth preference for a lot of people, they aren't really the candidate most people want elected if that is the case, otherwise they would have won in FPTP.
@TonyHolden132 no, that's not quite right, though I see where you're coming from. Under fptp, whoever got the most votes wins, yes, but you're muddling your useage of "prefer" and "want elected". Imagine under av lab beats con and ukip on first preferences, but loses to the cons on second preferences. That is because most people "prefer" the cons to labs in that constituency. some people "want elected" the ukip candidate, but in a straight fight between lab and con, they would "prefer" con
@Calliclesiastes Actually. no, I'm not muddling anything. It's just the change in context between the FPTP system and the AV system. Think of it as the difference between on the nose and a three way bet.
@futurefair It's got nothing to do with the Tories being "evil", as you put it. It's got everything to do with recognising that most people aren't ardent supporters of one party.
@cmatcmextra Actually, most people are ardent supporters of one party or other, otherwise the party system would have collapsed long ago. The real problem now is that most parties are trying to sit in the centre and denying the electorate a true selection of different policies to choose from.
@TonyHolden132 You've clearly never seen a Lib Dem election leaflet. Odds are, the core support of the Conservatives and Labour is only about 20% of the voters. The rest are floating voters, or, most likely, tactical voters.
@TinTower I put all election leaflets in the bin, I automatically assume they are full of half truths, if not outright lies. Candidates have to earn my vote. I will be interested on where you got your figures from, please provide a link to the statistics.
Well, for over 40 years the fact that the the Tories have never secured a majority of the popular vote hasn't managed to keep them out either, so go figure.
Maybe it's time for a voting system that reflects people's actual political choices a little more accurately? You know, since the Tory filth scuppered any chances of an actual PR system being on the referendum? :-)
@JulianG75 It's probably has more than 300 views. YouTube freezes the view count of videos which are instantly popular at ~300 views to investigate the possibility of viewing fraud (ie, people reloading the same video again and again).
@kevinjdavis It's not strictly AV in the sense of everyone putting down their preferences in advance, but it's about as close as you're going to get in a two minute campaign video.
Good to see the campaign starting to campaign positively, rather than the previous negative campaigning which comes across as obnoxious and petty. Just because the referendum is held under FPTP rules, doesn't mean we have to join the NO campaign in using FPTP campaigning techniques.
Far better than our awful first broadcast. About time we actually started focussing on the voting system instead of playing to populism with half-truths about expenses and so forth.
I can't see how this system is supposedly complicated? Fairly basic to be honest.
5786Dan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What we really need is PR.
RM6721 4 months ago
dan snow is a twat
theonlyantony 7 months ago
twat
theonlyantony 7 months ago
AV aint simple. The mock election we held at School which I helped the counting of votes for we used AV and got severely confused. The country said NO for the better. One person should mean one vote
midgiemarsh 8 months ago
@midgiemarsh it is one vote you moron, how hard is it to preference, here at my school we use Preferential voting to elect multiple members and it took less than 1 hour to find the winners
irishgodfatherchris 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On an issue that required the public to have some learned knowledge to know where they stood, all the apolitical thick majority were frightened by wild nonsense scare stories on the No side and in the tabloids. The campaign was not resourced with a fair parity for the Yes side. Breaking the precedent from 1975 only the Noes got a mailshot to every home financed. Yes got no chance to refute the Noes factual claims to all who they reached. So was a totally corrupted illegit referendum run on lies
maurice 10 months ago
I love coffee so I vote NO to AV. ;)
RobertNicholls 10 months ago
It's such a stupid analogy, it isn't like Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and BNP offer 'beer' and the Tories offer 'coffee' as Snow implies, if they were so similar they would merge into one party. The reason they don't is that they're as far from each other as they are from the Tories. Ergo, one unalternating vote still makes sense.
StraitKnopfler 10 months ago
A depressing result for too many reasons.
BrianTheGoldfish 10 months ago 3
I did vote yes, but this country is filled with idiots who can't count.
pvtkjoe117 10 months ago 5
Just use party list system, like most of the democratic world.
JaSprite 10 months ago
It's fucking shameful that we have to sell people their own democracy with celebrity endorsements and fucking slogans. I hate what society has become.
WubwubDubstep 10 months ago
yes, because that's exactly how decisions are made in groups of young people....... . the whole AV scenario is rendered moot by the fact there is absolutely no difference between our main political parties asides from the verbal chicanery used to secure your vote.. and after that, they will do what they want. regardless, life is too short for politics, read philosophy :-)
moshun 10 months ago 2
Black guy's "What about the coffee" at 0:49 made me spit juice onto my keyboard.
Wilf126 10 months ago 3
0:37-0:47 - there's a simple solution to this debate... PUBCRAWLLLLLLL :D
TheAmicableMammal 10 months ago 2
Upvote: reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/h4odo/uk_good_luck_with_voting_reform_the_international/
gnatinator 10 months ago
Not something i feel strongly about cause they're all cunts.
Relux 10 months ago
Seems legit.
scottmarshall456 10 months ago
I agree with YES but I'm sure they'll do coffee at the pub youth of today.
FacePimpd 10 months ago
16 Torys disliked this
iR0bbie 10 months ago
@iR0bbie 62% of the voting public are voting against AV if the polls are to be believed. The tories got 35% of the vote.
I'm a labour party member and I voted against AV, don't be so judgemental.
rac000n 10 months ago
Sorry, but none of these systems seem fair - what about a nationwide proportional represantation?
jinura 10 months ago
@jinura, can do that after AV. If you show that you are interested in change, change will occur. However, if FPTP wins, the government will believe people DO NOT want change, thus PR won't be an option.
So AV now, dump FPTP, PR later.
MicroHive 10 months ago
@jinura LibDems had to concede in negotiations with the Tories, I believe. They agreed on a public vote for AV, then the Tories decided to spread lies about it.
Coalition will be fun after this.
Widgetas 10 months ago 2
Some people dont realise that you can get coffee at the red lion. Fools!
LEWMED29 10 months ago 3
@LEWMED29 Are you kidding? Have you tried their coffee. It's like drinking quicksand!
;-)
eaterofleafmould 10 months ago
Aha, they still ended up choosing alcohol. The characteristic of this country as a 'boozing nation' is embedded in every aspect of British society, including politics. But politics isn't really about choosing what to drink. What difference does it make if you all eventually choose alcohol regardless of the selecting system? How can you run a country properly, being drunk all the time? :-P
youyu1006 10 months ago
I want this in America!
mistaspot1 10 months ago
They all looked so happy at the pub, and that's why you should vote yes to AV.
Wait.. what??
But no seriously vote yes to AV.
Tinteskou 10 months ago
WAY-AYE TO AV!
MrAnywhatever 10 months ago
This is a terrible terrible explanation. Why not have 4 pubs, and be realistic about it. MOST people didn't want to goto that particular Pub!
WitnessToChange 10 months ago
@WitnessToChange It's a coffee shop for a reason.
If coffee = left wing
and the various pubs = right wing parties
It works perfectly, and illustrates why AV is a better system.
Just because there are more 'pubs' than 'coffee shops' on offer, doesn't the majority should go for something they didn't even want to do.
ICaptainMidnightI 10 months ago
SUCH a good video. describes AV perfectly, clearly and no tory can argue against it without looking like a massive bell.
omblae 10 months ago
All the talk about voter preferences is ironic given that we're only being given the choice between two systems. What about those of us who think both systems are crap? What are we supposed to vote for?
MarrsAttax 10 months ago
@MarrsAttax vote YES
this referendum is under Cameron's terms & your comment is a perfect illustration of what he wanted people to feel
vote for progress, rather than sticking with the awful system we have at the moment
if we end up with a 'no' vote, it will be used as a reason agains voting reform for generations to come
"we asked the people in 2011, and they didn't want a new system"
which from your comment, and public opinion, is completely untrue
vote YES for a step in the right direction
x
RonanSh 10 months ago
@MarrsAttax
Fair comment - but a "NO" vote means you wont get a chance for long time to come (a lifetime for many)
A "YES" vote a least gets things moving in the right direction i.e. better democracy
dataflow14 10 months ago
@dataflow14 Well maybe but then again maybe that's just wishful thinking. I'm appalled at the lies I've seen paraded by the NO camp but then AV just doesn't seem 'better' to me, just change for change's sake. To say an MP would have 50% of the vote under AV when that percentage could be made up of second or third choices sounds like spin to me. If you're happy for your third choice to represent you it sounds like you don't really give much of a toss in the first place.
MarrsAttax 10 months ago
@MarrsAttax There are certainly better systems - agreed - but the crunch is "there is NO worse system than FPTP (other than a total loss of democracy )"
There's only 2 choices tomorrow. If PR was a 3rd then I think many would choose it - but they can't!
The best feature of AV in my view is it gets rid of having to use tactical voting - and if you accept that then you most have 2 choices already (remember most people would only choose perhaps 2 or 3 preferences - or even only one)
dataflow14 10 months ago
@MarrsAttax If you don't want your 3rd choice, then only nominate two choices. People seems obsessed with the idea that they have to nominate all the way down - which simply isn't true. If you wouldn't feel comfortable supporting a particular party, don't give them a number - simple.
GGdown 10 months ago
@GGdown if everyone does that then we're left with FPTP again. That or the MP gets in on the second choice of a few ditherers who voted for a no hope and possibly extremist candidate for number one.
MarrsAttax 10 months ago
@MarrsAttax Better to be represented by your third choice than by someone who you wouldn't have placed anywhere at all on your preference list, or for your vote to not count for anything.
(Better still to be represented by your first choice of course but if there aren't enough people in your constituency who think like you then you are stuck until we get proportional representation and minority views can be more fully represented.)
bbham 10 months ago
@bbham You could still end up being represented by someone not on your list. And is it really better to be represented by your third choice? Doesn't that just give a sheen of legitimacy to someone you wouldn't have voted for with FPTP? This referendum is bollocks. It's like someone giving you the choice of nothing for dinner or some shit on toast, with the vague promise of jam sometime in the future.
MarrsAttax 10 months ago
@MarrsAttax But of course in FPTP many people also get represented by someone not on their "list" (i.e. by someone they didn't vote for). Yes, it's better to be represented by your second or third choice than to be represented by someone you don't want in any way at all. The best thing about AV is that it allows you to express your real view rather than voting for a party you don't like because the party you really want "can't win here".
bbham 10 months ago
@MarrsAttax Well I just voted No and my wife voted Yes, thus rendering the entire process completely pointless. At least I had a nice walk. Yay for democracy!
MarrsAttax 10 months ago
AV is a system of generating extra compromise votes for the compromise party (LibDems) when used for parliament. It's not like choosing between Pubs!
thehangbag 10 months ago
what about da coffee
heyguy1231 10 months ago
The No to AV campaign was blatant lies and propaganda and we should report it to OFCOM. The Yes campaign is truthful yet really shitty and ineffective because some stupid twat is in charge of it probably
heyguy1231 10 months ago
I thought Dan Snow was alright until I watched this video.
Now I think he is a bit of a muppet.
chrismair 10 months ago
I find it difficult to believe that a neighbourhood with several local pubs would only have one coffee shop. Why doesn't the coffee shop vote split between Starbucks, Cafe Nero etc.?
mikebushby 10 months ago
@mikebushby
Because it's an analogy, and traditionally the left has been more divided than the right,
Restayvien 10 months ago
common sense would have been to go to the coffee shop lol
123eldest 10 months ago
who's that fit foul careerist? she's got my vote x
imaginaryfriendships 10 months ago
Dan Snow and beer: how can you argue against two of the greatest things England has to offer?!
acidfairyy 10 months ago
YES A GOOD BROADCAST
BenjyT27 10 months ago
This is far better than the first broadcast. Shame you guys have squandered the momentum so badly.
DanielJeffery26 10 months ago 3
AV also makes it easier to challenge politicians in safe seats, we shouldn't forget that. Under FPTP, if an independent Labour ran against official Labour, the vote would be split and the conservative would get in on a minority vote. Under AV, you can challenge career politicians that have been dumped on you by the party machine. A vote for Yes means a chance to take back democracy from our complacent political establishment.
tomrees8 10 months ago
Is there really no consequence between choosing Tory or Labour? Is it just like choosing colours, or flavours of ice cream? A matter of preference? Or will you ACTAULLY decide NOT to vote Labour first and Tory 2nd, or vica versa and actually be making a COMPROMISE for the LibDems 2nd?.
Can you see the difference?
AV is a system of generating extra compromise votes for the compromise party (LibDems) when used for parliament. It's not like choosing between Pubs.
thehangbag 10 months ago
If AV doesn't work, why do the Tories use it to elect a party leader?
ericstaltz 10 months ago
@ericstaltz They don't. They hold an exhaustive ballot among MPs then a FPTP run-off between the two leading candidates.
mikebushby 10 months ago
Why oh why did the yes campaign not start like this? The nonsense about "working harder for you votes" isn't why AV was proposed and isn't even necessarily true.
This is why AV was proposed and why it is better than FPTP. It's too late though.
almostjustshaun 10 months ago 3
Way to go, Dan!
:)
Let's say YES on Thursday!!
snowykay 10 months ago
The same type of AV isn't used to elect the leader of the Conservative Party. The first round is restricted to Tory MPs and the second round sees the whole membership vote on the two most popular candidates. For Snow's analogy to work the electorate would have to be restricted to a fraction of the population before the rest of us got to vote on whoever was left. #No2AV
AndrewJohnWalls 10 months ago
vote for av- drink beer :)
RusNad 10 months ago
Did the coffee drinkers want to go to Starbucks, Coffee Republic or Costa? Why were they not asked?
futurefair 10 months ago
@futurefair Wouldn't have made a difference - they were still a minority against pub-goers
RonanSh 10 months ago
@RonanSh This scenario is equivalent to having 3 Labour candidates and a Tory to choose from. It does not equate to a real life AV situation. It is a cleverly contrived video which is clearly designed to mislead. Yes the majority are pub goers, but there are only really two choices: pub or coffee. When you boil it down to the two choices, FPTP does not produce a coffee outcome.
jimjamyahha 10 months ago
@jimjamyahha Er, no... it's like having 3 left-of-centre parties, and one right-wing party.... like, say, Labour, Green, and Lib-Dem versus the Tories.... which is a common set-up in many constituencies. Substitute 'pub' for left-of-centre, and 'coffee' for right-of-centre, and the metaphor works perfectly
jamiebetts2007 10 months ago 2
@jamiebetts2007 The "progressive majority" argument again. It's garbage. From today's poll. Labour voters support #no2av by 60% to 40%
futurefair 10 months ago
@futurefair It's nothing to do with 'progressive majorities' - it's the simple, undeniable fact that in a political system with more than two parties FPTP simply doesn't work.... AV reflects the fact that voters preferences are more complex than 'red v blue'
jamiebetts2007 10 months ago 14
Dat Brunette suggesting pub... fap fap fap
REUPmorpha 10 months ago
But you can coffee at the pub aswell!
wibbers01 10 months ago
those coffee drinking SWINE
KingdomEnfilade 10 months ago
Oh dear. Ignoring the fact that no-one ever has conversations like the ludicrous 'example' in the film, there are just too many lies in that video. The Tories don't use AV in their leadership elections, neither do mayor elections and his three facts at the end are just wrong. MPs don't work on a day to day basis on party lines, AV won't solve the problem of safe seats, and it only gives you more say if your first preference is for extremist or fringe parties.
tomuk1984 10 months ago
@tomuk1984
No lies. Dan Snow says that a system 'like it' is used. He says MPs will work harder for the vote, which is true. He says it will cut safe seats, not eliminate them. And it gives everyone equal say, unlike in FPTP.
Are you being disingenuous on purpose (i.e. misleading, just like the No campaign)?
robbie2346 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomuk1984 No lies. Dan Snow says that a system 'like it' is used. He says MPs will work harder for the vote, which is true. He says it will cut safe seats, not eliminate them. And it gives everyone equal say, unlike in FPTP.
Are you being disingenuous on purpose (i.e. misleading, just like the No campaign)?
robbie2346 10 months ago
@tomuk1984 @tomuk1984 Please tell me how it is possible for David Cameron to have lost the first vote, but still come out on top? The 'loser winning' as the No2AV likes to put it.
Their system isn't explicity AV, because they have rounds instead of preferences, but it is without a doubt closer to AV than FPTP, and if it had been FPTP, Cameron would not be leader of the Tories.
ICaptainMidnightI 10 months ago 4
@ICaptainMidnightI I wouldn't claim that FPTP is a good system, but AV isn't an improvement. The merits of the Tory approach is that it takes place over multiple rounds, something that the current AV proposal doesn't do. I've got no problem in principle with preferential voting, just not AV.
tomuk1984 10 months ago
@tomuk1984 AV simulates the rounds, based on the assumption that your preferences between candidates aren't likely to change in the time it takes to conclude the election. Why would you want to change your preferences between rounds? There are only two possibilities: either you hadn't thought it through enough and have changed your mind (fair enough, but a bit silly) or you are trying to vote tactically to decrease the chances of someone you don't like getting in. Hence AV is actually BETTER.
Nihilarity 10 months ago 9
@tomuk1984 It's oversimplification rather than dishonesty. Mayoral elections are done with a preferential system, but one that only allows you two preferences rather than any number. The Tories use a run-off system, which is basically the same as AV but allows you to change your mind (and vote tactically) in between rounds. Both are very similar indeed to AV, and much closer by far to AV than to FPTP.
Nihilarity 10 months ago 2
@tomuk1984 when you say 'it only gives you more say if your first preference is for extremist or fringe parties' are you including the liberal democrats? And do you realize how many people you are talking about?
roseannafrascona 10 months ago
@roseannafrascona Or, even, Labour or the Conservatives. The Lib Dems came first or second in 300 constituencies last May.
TinTower 10 months ago
@roseannafrascona No, I don't think the Lib Dems are a fringe or extremist party. However I have no problem in saying that I don't think people whose first preference is Loony or BNP should have the determining vote in our elections.
tomuk1984 10 months ago
@tomuk1984 All of the votes are the determining votes. None count more than any other, so basically you don't think people who vote BNP or Loony should be able to vote.
ICaptainMidnightI 10 months ago
@ICaptainMidnightI I think their vote should be counted once, not multiple times.
tomuk1984 10 months ago
@tomuk1984 So they can vote for the BNP, just not Labour or Cons? You're an idiot. Nobodies vote is counted any more than another persons. As it is basically a series of rounds, with you voting for your highest preference each time, everybody votes the same amount of times.
Having AV would help prevent the disenfranchisement which causes people to vote for the BNP in the first place. Most votes for them are protest votes, I wonder fucking why.
ICaptainMidnightI 10 months ago
@ICaptainMidnightI There's no evidence whatsoever that AV will increase political participation. I suspect the opposite will be true - AV will result in bland middle of the road politicians (just look at the labour leadership election) rather than individuals with any ideological conviction and that will only compound our disillusionment with politics.
tomuk1984 10 months ago
@tomuk1984 Well the cons are consistently denying any ideology on their part, and the LibDems have inverted theirs, so I don't see how that's not happening already.
I think AV would allow more parties to take risks, because people aren't going to feel that voting for a previously unpopular party will be a 'wasted vote'...which 70% were in the 2005 election.
ICaptainMidnightI 10 months ago
@tomuk1984 I'd add this thought experiment:
Suppose that the perfect party for you emerged, you think this party has all the right policies, not just for you, but for everyone. The problem? They are new, while they have experienced politicians behind them, people aren't going to vote for a newcomer in FPTP. They wouldn't stand a chance, and so the perfect party would disappear even if most people wanted them, and it would be better for the country.
Under AV that party could win.
ICaptainMidnightI 10 months ago
@tomuk1984 you're either spectacularly stupid, or a brilliant troll - i can't quite decide which (maybe both?)
jamielockerby 10 months ago
@tomuk1984
AV just gives the chance of fringe voters to make a useful input into the election process. Their vote has no greater value than than any other vote cast - and remember their vote could just as easy end on a losing candidate.
dataflow14 10 months ago
These trendy yoofs are rubbish, what happened to the more 'mature' folks in Dan Snow's previous, practically identical video? They were much better. This is ageism in action! Shame on you, Dan Snow :P
Nihilarity 10 months ago
0:35 more than two options, surely?
hollium 10 months ago
AV is not about choosing between different venues etc...! It's about giving voters a extra 'compromise' vote so they give it to the compromise choice, the LibDems, who have a policy for everyone and will become a permanent Kingmaker!
A bit of history - in 1931 Churchill said "AV results in the most worthless candidates getting the most worthless votes". i.e. A Party like the LibDems who promise WHATEVER they can to EVERYONE - and then get into power and do 'What they think is best'.
thehangbag 10 months ago
Vote for AV, save the lib dems from annihilation, trap this country in an endless cycle of tony blairs... destroy any chance of those damend radicals winning elections! radicals like Aneurin bevan, tony benn, harold wilson shouldn't be allowed power! the bland middle 50% of the electorate should have all the power, all the time. We don't need to have a system where change is a reality. We need endless, grey coalitions. Brilliant. You fucking idiots.
TheJinkedful 10 months ago
hahaha 0:54
daconor91 10 months ago
But the coffee drinkers second preference might be for the Red Lion (where they do a decent cappuccino), but the, Crown lovin', extremists get more of a say than they do. So the mainstream pubs will have to compromise themselves to attract extremists - say putting in slot machines, as favoured by the Crown & Anchor-ists.
SlapCabbage08 10 months ago
@SlapCabbage08 Yes, the coffee drinkers second preferences are ignored. Isn't AV great?
futurefair 10 months ago
Great- shows where FPTP falls down when it allows winners who the majority of voters didn't vote for. Also shows that people rank what they want or like in order of preference all the time. Why shouldn't elections be any different. Well done Dan Snow & everyone else involved with this video!
tarquindewinter 10 months ago
Pub or coffee? Are you serious? What kind of students are these?!
santana26491 10 months ago
@santana26491 Clearly the sort of students who want to vote Liberal Democrat!
futurefair 10 months ago
There's a story going round that #NO2AV is at 66% in new poll.
futurefair 10 months ago
Absolute rubbish, the simple system for friends is compromise, coffee first, or pick a decent pub that sells coffee.
For a voting system AV is not fair, it just means people can keep voting in an election until the most popular candidate is beaten by the third fourth or fifth most popular candidate.
TonyHolden132 10 months ago
@TonyHolden132 Although at the moment people get elected that the majority of the population don't want. Just look at the current Conservative & Lib Dem government, nobody wanted it. The current system is simply not fair as it does not reflect what the majority want.
Tanith0709 10 months ago
@Tanith0709 actually it does represent exactly what the majority wanted otherwise it wouldn't be a majority government, it's just they didn't get what they expected. The coalition government is what happens when the vote is split, and we will see more of it under AV.
TonyHolden132 10 months ago
Straightforward, honest and to the point, excellent broadcast!
Toml420 10 months ago 3
Very Misleading video. They don't have four choices, they have three of one choice and one of another. It is not representative of they way AV would work. Shame on Dan Snow.
jimjamyahha 10 months ago
@jimjamyahha But that's exactle the problem with FPTP - it counts every single option as seperate even when they're obviously similar. So you could have two labour candidate (as has happened where there's been an unofficial candidate) or two very similar eurosceptic candidates but FPTP counts them as entirely different. With AV, the system will ensure that votes are redistributed to represent people's real wishes.
nathankw 10 months ago 2
@nathankw all candidates 'are' separate, the idea is you either pick the party or candidate whose views are closest to your own. What the pro AV supporters seem to want is a system in which they can keep voting for candidates until they get the result they want.
TonyHolden132 10 months ago
@TonyHolden132 No - they want the a system in which the candidate that the majority want is elected. With FPTP a candidate can win even though they'd lose a one-to-one election against every single other candidate. That's unfair.
nathankw 10 months ago
@nathankw your logic is wrong, or you haven't stated your case very well. With FPTP everyone votes for the candidate they prefer, the candidate with the most votes wins. With AV people may well get a candidate winning who is second third or fourth preference for a lot of people, they aren't really the candidate most people want elected if that is the case, otherwise they would have won in FPTP.
TonyHolden132 10 months ago
@TonyHolden132 no, that's not quite right, though I see where you're coming from. Under fptp, whoever got the most votes wins, yes, but you're muddling your useage of "prefer" and "want elected". Imagine under av lab beats con and ukip on first preferences, but loses to the cons on second preferences. That is because most people "prefer" the cons to labs in that constituency. some people "want elected" the ukip candidate, but in a straight fight between lab and con, they would "prefer" con
Calliclesiastes 10 months ago
@Calliclesiastes Actually. no, I'm not muddling anything. It's just the change in context between the FPTP system and the AV system. Think of it as the difference between on the nose and a three way bet.
TonyHolden132 10 months ago
woah, the incompetant yes campaign are doing something good for once.
They nicked this from something unofficial I saw floating around the internet though.
kakaze 10 months ago
It's not AV.
The first vote was pub v coffee, which was won 6-4. The final vote was also pub v coffee, which was won 6-4.
The confusion in the middle is that no single pub was more popular than coffee, so the choice of pub was decided by eliminating ballot.
Having picked a pub, the result was pub (anchor) 6 - coffee 4
Even more confusing is "why doesn't the anchor sell coffee?"
futurefair 10 months ago
@futurefair There were three elections in this video:
1. Shows that FPTP is fine in a two party system where there is one pub and one coffee shop.
2. Show that FPTP doesn't work where you have lots of similar parties (Labour/Lib Dem for example) and one different one (Torys).
3. Show why AV works under this multi-party system
cmatcmextra 10 months ago 7
@cmatcmextra Ah, the "progressive alliance" needs AV to keep out the Evil Tories, argument.
Another winner.
futurefair 10 months ago
@futurefair
Short-termist political positioning determining constitutional changes. Sounds like a good idea.
hendabomb 10 months ago
@futurefair It's got nothing to do with the Tories being "evil", as you put it. It's got everything to do with recognising that most people aren't ardent supporters of one party.
cmatcmextra 10 months ago
@cmatcmextra Actually, most people are ardent supporters of one party or other, otherwise the party system would have collapsed long ago. The real problem now is that most parties are trying to sit in the centre and denying the electorate a true selection of different policies to choose from.
TonyHolden132 10 months ago
@TonyHolden132 You've clearly never seen a Lib Dem election leaflet. Odds are, the core support of the Conservatives and Labour is only about 20% of the voters. The rest are floating voters, or, most likely, tactical voters.
TinTower 10 months ago
@TinTower I put all election leaflets in the bin, I automatically assume they are full of half truths, if not outright lies. Candidates have to earn my vote. I will be interested on where you got your figures from, please provide a link to the statistics.
TonyHolden132 10 months ago
@futurefair
Well, for over 40 years the fact that the the Tories have never secured a majority of the popular vote hasn't managed to keep them out either, so go figure.
Maybe it's time for a voting system that reflects people's actual political choices a little more accurately? You know, since the Tory filth scuppered any chances of an actual PR system being on the referendum? :-)
ContemptForYou 10 months ago 2
shes hot, to the anchor
BaKer312213 10 months ago
only 306 views? the referendum is in 2 days!!! come on people!
JulianG75 10 months ago
@JulianG75 It's probably has more than 300 views. YouTube freezes the view count of videos which are instantly popular at ~300 views to investigate the possibility of viewing fraud (ie, people reloading the same video again and again).
cmatcmextra 10 months ago
Brilliant. A video that uses a system that isn't AV to explain how fabulous AV is. And people wonder why the Yes campaign is losing.
futurefair 10 months ago
@futurefair it is av
excandersham 10 months ago
FINALLY A GOOD BROADCAST. SHARE IT LIKE A WHORE.
amcellroy 10 months ago 4
Perfectly explains why AV is better than FPTP.
Clear and simple.
supercinos21 10 months ago
Urgh...that wasn't AV though.
kevinjdavis 10 months ago
@kevinjdavis Erm... yes it was. The Anchor was their 2nd preference - meaning The Anchor won.
JordanMillward1 10 months ago
@kevinjdavis It's not strictly AV in the sense of everyone putting down their preferences in advance, but it's about as close as you're going to get in a two minute campaign video.
Good to see the campaign starting to campaign positively, rather than the previous negative campaigning which comes across as obnoxious and petty. Just because the referendum is held under FPTP rules, doesn't mean we have to join the NO campaign in using FPTP campaigning techniques.
AlexOfArdrossan 10 months ago
Brilliant - Just love this video and was hoping the YES camp would use it.
It is so positive and straight forward at getting the message across.
I agree far better than what the scaremongering No's put out.
Well done to those that chose to use it!
peacewinz 10 months ago 3
Comment removed
paulgrahammorris 10 months ago
top vid. Shame the nay sayers want to distract from the issue of fairer voting by dragging party choices and lies into the debate.
dvbdanvinbentley 10 months ago 3
Great video - explains the essence of AV very clearly. Well done!
paulgrahammorris 10 months ago 2
Far better than our awful first broadcast. About time we actually started focussing on the voting system instead of playing to populism with half-truths about expenses and so forth.
simonjtinsley 10 months ago 41
HURRAY! So so so much better than our first broadcast. And a million times better than that awful NO broadcast.
binstig 10 months ago 51
Fantastic!
Finally a broadcast that accurately shows how AV works and demonstrates its true virtues!
Strafio 10 months ago 4
This is a fantastic video! I do believe we, the people, can win this referendum :)
Sunlumo 10 months ago 2
Clear, simple, well put. Well in using Dan Snow. How on earth No to AV went for Blunkett is beyond me...
danleeuk 10 months ago 2
Great video :D
Renoexplainsitall 10 months ago