It is time Clarke, Major, Hurd, Heseltine , Lamont and the rest of the Tories apologised for the Conservatives malicious treatment of mortgage payers during the 1990s when John Major bragged that “If it isn’t hurting it isn’t working”.
See John Major Black Wednesday on You Tube. The Tories ruined thousands of innocent people and small businesses in a disastrous attempt to drag us into the Euro.
General, general, general. Actually its far more simple than the problems fptp present so that was a lie. From a philosophical standpoint its actually better to experiment when the facts are out of our grasp if we want to have any chance in becoming a better society. Screw you Ken and all the rest of you selfish prats who think this is a game reserved for left brain 'superiors' and thanks for supporting the act of burying your head in the sand... I'll see how far that gets me.
To be honest, I didn't have anything against NOtoAV until it started spreading BULLSHIT and started using DIRTY ADVERTISING. the number of embarassingly stupid leaflets ive gotten through my door with nick cleggs picture plastered on the cover, as if that affects anything, and then this whole baby and soldier poster business? WE GAVE £400 MILLION TO PAKISTAN IN AID, WE CAN AFFORD £160 TO IMPROVE OUR OWN COUNTRY!
There's a number of misleading statements in this video. Yes the australians want to change their voting, but crucially NOT to fptp; instead to a form of AV closer to the one in this referendum.
Secondly its not at all complicated; you rank candidates in order of preference, and if you don't have a preference, don't rank any. simple. Thirdly he implies 1st preference candidates will rank as much as 5th; which will only apply if (the 5th) a)they aren't eliminated b)they get majority i.e >50%.
@mistermordancy thats partially correct, us Australians will never willingly give up our right to preference candidates, as pointed out but Antony Green sometimes having optional preferences is just more practical because in 2007 I believe the now PM had 26 other candidates running against her and the voters had to preference them all as it is we have a 90 potential senators to choose from elected by STV-PV.
What a load of crap. Australians want to ditch AV... that's clearly a lie. I know most Australians (including myself) are quite happy with the AV system.
As for Fiji using the system, they haven't had a democratic government since the military came in in 2006. This is pure arrogance, think the NO vote should go back and research their facts before spinning more dribble!
@Hornsbylad the survey that the NO campaign is using was made by a conservative think tank just after PM Gillard formed government and was made up mainly of Liberal and National voters, in other words its about as accurate as a FOX News report
At last this idiot says something right...maybe his only time he has thought clearly. and probably like the rest of us he doesn't understand it , what a great system!...
I'm sorry to see Ken Clarke backing the current unfair voting system. He was one of few Tories that I had any respect for, yet he would clearly prefer to retain an unfair voting system than risk losing the Power that this outdated system has given the Tories and their banker friends
I am not bothering to watch this video. The reason Ken Clarke is voting no to AV is because he is an idiot. This has been confirmed by independent tests.
In the up-coming UK referendum, be sure to vote YES to AV. It is not right that you are encouraged to vote tactically, instead of for who you really want. AV allowes you to vote for both, with your preference being for who YOU REALLY WANT. It is also not right that parties gain power WITHOUT having 50% of the peoples vote. AV can help smaller parties and THROWS OUT extremeist like the BNP. So vote YES to fairer votes. Vote YES to AV. Thumb up to get the truth out there.
Imagine there are three candidates, A, B and C. After the first count, A and B receive 47% each whilst C received just 6%. So C is eliminated and the C voters now get a second chance and all vote for B - who wins. But if ALL the second votes were examined, you find that because party A hates B and Party B hates A, they all voted for candidate C. Candidate C received 94% of the second vote but candidate B is the winner with just 53%.
AV means that some people may get 2 votes whilst others only get 1 vote.
The TUC members got 1vote through the union and another through the polling booth. It's unfair and the ONLY reason that Labour got the wrong Miliband as leader.
AV proposes that because my first choice doesn't get the lowest vote at first count, my second vote is ignored. But the person whose first vote receives the lowest count gets a second vote. Where's fairness in that?
@cactustactics - do you work in a DIY store, or maybe a supermarket?
I know we're not voting in the Labour leadership election. My point is that those voters who've had their first choice eliminated than have the right to cast their 2nd preference which could enable a 2nd preference to take the lead.
@Enerjee So why did you bring up TUC members voting in the Labour leadership elections, saying they got 2 votes?
If your 1st preference is in the lead you cast your vote for your 1st preference. Perhaps you'd like to cast it for your 2nd preference instead, for some reason?
@ToryThatcherite what does scale have to do with anything? If FPTP is a better and fairer system then they wouldn't bother using runoff voting at all - they could just do a single FPTP election with the membership. 198,844 voted in the last Tory leadership election, that's about triple the average constituency size. Why didn't they just use FPTP to choose from all the candidates, which is apparently the best way of electing *our* constituency representatives?
@ToryThatcherite Well at least they don't use FPTP! The tory way of doing things (having looked at it) appears to use a kind of AV/PR to whittle the folk standing to the point where only two members are left and the party can vote, using FPTP (which is appropriate in a 2 horse race). Obviously not a suitable system for a general election but AV is - vote yes to AV on Thursday.
I disagree with the No2AV campaign and just about everything that the Tories stand for but at least this video, unlike just about every other No2AV video on youtube, has left comments open and allows debate. nothing makes me mistrust the Tories more than not being able to respond to their propaganda.
@ToryThatcherite And why are they different? Why do they use runoff elections at all? Why not have a single FPTP election at the beginning if they're so much better and fairer?
But he's got our best interests at heart - he recommends the First Past the Post system - that guarantees the Labour/Conservative cartel and that pretty much every other democracy has dropped because of it's weaknesses.
And he represents the tobacco industry who's drugs turn their customers into addicts then kill them - what a nice man!
- or at least a nice smile and a shark's fin down the middle of his back.
Vote Yes to AV - democracy should not be a closed shop.
@shumble32 "every other democracy"... except america and india, the biggest democracies on earth, both use FPTP... in fact so does every major democracy that isn't in europe... and you know whats interesting about UK and US democracy? Unlike european ones, they've never fallen to dictatorship. and what? you mean the tobacco industry which the labour party allowed to continue advertising at the races? AV only helps extremists voters have more say.
@TheJinkedful - sorry, when I said dropped I should have said modified.
Some say that the UK and US system is just a serial dictatorship where the two big parties take turns at being in power. For me and every other voter who isn't satisfied with the Hobson's choice of Tory or Labour there is no democracy - every vote I've ever cast has been waisted.
You may now say that I'm advocating PR not AV but AV would be a step along the way to better representation.
@shumble32 - with the UK's FPTP system there fundamental change can take place. The Welfare State and the NHS would not have been implemented by Labour in 1948 in the way it had been under AV or PR (some would say that's a bad thing). The Tory party would not have been able to have implemented the privatisation programme in the 1980s either.
Under a PR system it's less common for parties to be able change much at all for fear of losing power when making unpopular but necessary decisions.
AV leads to dictatorship? Could you explain your thinking behind that?
Apart from your false assumption that I'm a partisan of the Labour party - your point that it's tobacco policy is just as bad as that of the Tories is a perfect illustration of how FPTP has stifled change in this country.
@TheJinkedful - and you get to say who's "extreme" and who isn't? - many people would say the invasion of Iraq was pretty extreme. So perhaps we should change the system so Labour votes are discounted too?
AV will start to break up the cosy unspoken agreement between the Labour and Conservative parties to duopolise British politics.
@TheJinkedful Name me a European dictator who wasn't put there by a coup d'etat, revolution or installed by a foreign power - someone who was actually elected to power, apart from Hitler. And the current German system is specifically set up to safeguard democracy from any recurrence of totalitarianism - and they still use proportional representation. FPTP has no inherent protections, at all - it doesn't even require a minimum level of support. Anyone could sweep to power with a minority vote
Good old Ken Clarke - the trusted elder statesman - the tobacco lobbyist.
Tells us that AV is too complicated - ordinary, stupid people, like ourselves, would get confused by having to put the numbers 1, 2 and 3 in the boxes next to the candidates on a voting form.
@ToryThatcherite Oh and why do the Conservatives use a series of individual run-off rounds exactly (which is basically what AV is, done all at once)? Why don't they just use a straight-up FPTP election from the beginning, like we have to use when we elect OUR representatives, like they want us to continue to use? Why do they use AV-style runoff elections if they're so fair and FPTP is so much better?
Oh dear, how very dissapointing. I used to like Clarke, but what he said he is practically Cameron PR. Fuck the Tories, vote YES and force them to lose seats!
To think I actually used to quite like and trust this man. Spouting nonsense like this, he's no better than Cameron or any of the others willing to lie with a smile to the public.
Some people describe Ken Clarke as an intelligent politician - yet he finds it "complicated" to write the numbers 1, 2, 3 on a ballot paper. The reason most major countries don't use AV is because they have Proportional Representation. If you're intelligent and believe in democracy vote YES to AV
@sovietunion19221992 I suggest that you reread the facts about the Alternative Vote. For example, did you know that under the current system a government can get elected whilst representing just 30% or less of the popular vote. AV means that every MP has to represent at least 50% of their constituency, meaning that when they stand up in parliament they will actually represent us and listen to us.
As a result the expenses scandal, the banking crisis & the deficit would all have been avoided
@thekeirwilkins - I'm not sure it's true that a party can be elected on "30% or less of the popular vote". The Conservatives only got 36% of the vote and there was a Hung Parliament which has resulted in a Coalition government. So I don't think it's true to say that under FPTP the party with the largest amount of votes wins every time.
@thekeirwilkins You say an MP has to represent at least 50% of their constituency under AV - since when is a collection of second and third preferences suitable to show a 'majority' backing for a candidate?
@thoneyborne Because if nobody gets 50% of the first preferences, nobody has won outright. The one with the fewest votes drops out and everyone is asked 'ok out of the remaining candidates, who do you prefer?' Obviously if your preference is still in the running you go with them, anyone whose preference just dropped out has to go with one of the available candidates. This goes on until someone has over 50% - over half (the majority) of people have said 'I prefer this candidate over the others'
@thoneyborne An election is between BNP, Consevatives and Labour. lets say you vote BNP in an election in FPTP. Your vote is useless. in AV, you have an opional choice in which you get to choose between conservatives or labour. You really don't want any party, but you deffo don't want labour. so you vote conservatives second. when BNP is knocked out, your vote moves on to the new election, An Election between conservatives and labour. your vote move to this new election in the conservatives.
@DeityFSM - the problem with your example is there's not a "new election" after the 1st votes have been counted. If one voted BNP under AV with Tory as their 2nd preference then that would still be a 2nd pref. The voter has no chance to see who was eliminated before his 2nd pref vote is counted and he might wish to change his vote, but it's already been cast and will be counted as a new 1st pref.
The French Presidential FPTP Run Off system has a 2nd election featuring the 2 leading parties.
@Enerjee thats why you should prepare days beforehand who you'd prefer in preference. check the web on each candadate. Go right down the list till the end 1,2,3...,8,9,10. by doing this you secure that the last preference doesn't get the seat with your vote. by the way, if your 1st pref is eliminated and the 2nd pref is already gone, your vote moves onto 3rd pref, so your vote works with each election.
@DeityFSM - I might prepare "days beforehand" who I'd prefer and "check the web on each candidate" and so might you. However, most people wouldn't and couldn't be bothered.
It would become a kind of "X-Factor" beauty contest making a mockery of the system producing distorted results as happened in the ill-advised and thought out TV debates amongst the 3 main party leaders - Clegg was the most telegenic and so he picked up the most votes.
@thoneyborne the labour votes and conservative votes from the original election are still there. they prefer these candidates (in contrasted to retarded Cameron saying that the voters want there vote to move on in the conservatives, when the fat is people who vote for the conservatives want him first choice, and so stick with him in this new election.) the formula is: (number of valad first prefernce votes divided by number of seats + 1) +1.
@thoneyborne the formula is equal to 1/2 of votes+1 in all of AV elections. the winning party between conservatives and labour in this second so called election, is the winner. So as you can see, AV isn't proportion, as in the amount of seats per constituency , but gives your vote proportion in trying to elect one seat.
@thoneyborne it does this by moving your BNP vote to second choice, if you had to choose one. conservative's and labour's votes for the other candidates are still counted for their FIRST CHOICE, which the labs and conserve's voters wish or prefer. This is why AV is more democratic than FPTP
@thoneyborne Because it would mean that a majority of constituents at least have to prefer said MP!
Also, AV fulfils the Condorcet loser criterion, meaning that any party that would lose a head to head vote against every other candidate, can not win. For example, the SNP would not be able to win because the majority of people - unionists - would prefer every unionist party to them, but under FPTP fringe parties like the SNP can and do win, just because all of the opposition votes are split.
@sovietunion19221992 - then you are confused. AV is clearly more representative and that is why the major parties feel the need to protect their entrenched position by telling you that it's too complicated (when it isn't) and and too expensive (which it isn't)
Maybe fringe parties and single issue parties SHOULD be more represented in Parliament! The country isn't split into 'Labour' thinkers and 'Conservative' thinkers anymore. People for the most part feel disenfranchised hence the woefully low turnout. In my opinion AV will actually lead to a further watering down of the mainstream parties' politics to win those precious second and third preferences making them even more opportunistic than they are already. Sure we need reform, but this isn't it.
@Schniddo - I totally agree that AV isn't the change we need and is a smoke screen that'llmake things worse. It's being dishonestly promoted by the "Yes" campaign in order to create further dissatisfaction with AV and force further change to a PR system. The system that we have creates broad-church parties of Left and Right whose programmes can then voted for. If the electorate's unhappy once elected then they can be voted out at the next election. With PR the electorate has less power.
@Enerjee The Yes campaign is not promoting dishonestly whereas the no campaign very much is - which would pointless for them if this is all indeed a conspiracy to get PR.
@littlejack2233 - but it's well documented that the Liberal Democrats want proportional representation and not AV. Many people vote LibDem solely because of that policy. Now that they're in a Coalition/power sharing government with the Tories they've had to "compromise" (the hallmark of Coalitions) by settling for electoral reform not by stating their real wish of PR, but by for something they don't really believe in (AV).
This is the real dishonesty of the Yes campaign as AV is not PR !
@Enerjee Nobody is saying it's PR, at all? They're saying it's a step towards PR if that's what the public want, and a No vote means we'll never be offered the chance to vote for reform again?
Yeah coalitions compromise, that's the whole idea - I'm glad the Libs are a tempering presence, imagine if the Tories were running completely unchecked right now. I'm glad we get the option of AV instead of no option at all. I'm glad that a party with a minority of votes isn't 100% in power. This is bad?
@Enerjee There isn't really anyone that wants AV. However, this is the best we're going to get in terms of democratic electoral reform because it would cost the guys in power too much to change. They spread their lies and ride on conservatism to keep the status quo.
Compromise is how governments should work. The alternative is having enough MPs to basically dictate our laws, and very few people vote for a party liking every single manifesto policy that party has.
@littlejack2233 - If there isn't really anyone who wants AV then that makes a mockery of the referendum.
I don't believe the almost ubiquitous concept that this referendum is the last chance we'll get to vote on electoral reform. Should there be a Hung Parliament next time then it's highly likely that it will be a condition of any Coalition agreement.
In your second paragraph you almost convince me that fear of PR is unfounded. Well done !
@littlejack2233 - If there isn't really anyone who wants AV then that makes a mockery of the referendum.
I don't believe the almost ubiquitous concept that this referendum is the last chance we'll get to vote on electoral reform. Should there be a Hung Parliament next time then it's highly likely that it will be a condition of any Coalition agreement.
In your second paragraph you almost convince me that fear of PR is unfounded. Well done !
Is Mr Clarke making the argument that simply having more interest in a party means your vote counts more? Why would a third preference count less than a first preference. Also when have Conservatives cared what 'foreigners' thought? AV is certainly better than FPTP. Iran uses FPTP does that make FPTP automatically worse than AV?
Go back to your Jazz records and selling fags to third world children.
"In coalitions it's the MPs who choose the compromised policies without the electorate being able to vote on them."
As opposed to single party governments, where it's the MP's that get to choose what policies they implement or don't, without the electorate being able to vote on them.
Whatever government you have, it is the MP's who propose and vote on policy in parliament. There isn't a single government that hasn't been accused of broken promises, or only enact policy from a manifesto.
@Bangell99 Maybe. You just can't tell. And especially we have no idea how it would play out in many years down the line. If UKIP build a strong vote, vote splitting will start hurting the Tories/Right. Anyone want to bet they'll suddenly be in favour of reform if that happens?
@Dark0Storm - you could be right. UKIP support AV as they realise that they could well be many people's second preference amongst Conservative and Labour supporters which could challenge the Liberal Democrats as the third largest party.
It's complicated? No, it's really simple, it takes no time to explain and you shouldn't be patronising your electorate.
What I don't get is how the fuck you thinks it's ok to claim AV is bad because only four countries use it. That's an appeal to popularity and is a huge logical fallacy!
If you're in favour of electoral form for God's sake vote yes to AV because otherwise politicians will use the outcome of this referendum to say "everything is completely fine and doesn't need fixing"
@irishgodfatherchris I know they do, it's a twisted statistic. But even so, you can't claim that something is bad because it's unpopular is an argumentum ad populum - an argument based on popularity and that is a logical fallacy. Just because something is unpopular.
Many of the arguments against the AV rely on skin-deep knee-jerk reactionary logic which sound impressive but don't stand up to a modicum of scrutiny.
@engineroomapocalypse Why not make your own mind up based on an objective assessment of the system and how it will benefit you, instead of worrying about what a certain politician or celebrity thinks?
@cactustactics I've considered it deeply and wouldnt mind some sort of evolution in the voting system as it keeps the main political powers in place and excludes other parties. However, I have grown to utterly distrust the Socialist Politician. So seeing Milliband's ugly face next to the Yes campaign was enough to seal it for me. If he's for it I am against it.
@engineroomapocalypse Wait, so you've considered it, you're in favour of reform and you want to give more voice to other parties and less guaranteed power to the big parties... but you're going to go against all that because you don't like a guy who also supports it? That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Honestly I don't even know why he supports it since most of Labour don't, but it shouldn't matter - it's about the best choice for the voting public in who represents us
@cactustactics - Ed Milliband supports it partly because it's the AV system that allowed him to wrench victory for the leadership from his brother. It would look conspicuously hypocritical of him to reject AV when he unexpectedly won his position using second preferences against his brother's first preferences. David Cameron also beat David Davis in their leadership contest using AV, however, Cameron is seen as the better leader whereas Ed Milliband is seen as far weaker than David Milliband.
@Enerjee Well being elected to a final two-way election under an AV system doesn't seem to be stopping Cameron from campaigning against it, so I don't think they're concerned about how their internal elections appear to the public.
Either way, none of us should care about who specifically likes or doesn't like AV, only about their reasons and whether they apply to our own thinking. This is about our ability to elect people to represent us, that's all people should be concerned with
@engineroomapocalypse - if the No camp wins there will be an evolution in the voting system and it will be an improved FPTP. The Coalition will do this by equalising the population of constituencies (ending the anomaly that meant that it took 26000 votes to elect a Labour MP, 44000 a Tory MP, and a huge 96000 a Liberal Democrat MP in the 2005 election). The Coalition's also going to reduce the amount of constituencies from 650 to 600.
AV's a knee jerk and will make allow 2nd bests to win.
@Enerjee And that 'evolution' in the voting system you're talking about is a gerrymandering of constituencies to allow the Conservatives to automatically win more seats (if they have 90% support in one constituency then drop some into a nearby one to top up the Tory vote) and to also reduce local representation by eliminating some MPs. It's nothing but a power grab and nothing about democracy
@cactustactics - how can it be gerrymandering if constituencies are more equalised in population? Surely, the fact that the present system is biased towards Labour means that it's already been gerrymandered. The Liberal Democrats are made up generally of the "don't knows", whereas UKIP and other smaller parties do have an agenda that eventually influences manifestos of the two larger parties.
@engineroomapocalypse that is a ridiculous reason for disagreeing.. actually decide for yourself why you don't want it. whether you say yes or no to AV should be based on whether you think its fair, democratic and/or in your best interest.
unfortunately at the moment these kind of ignorant comments seem to be a popular choice among No to AV voters
How Can Politicians campaign to deny taxpayers the right to vote for their representatives - in the same way they vote for their party leaders?! Fix up. fix up. YES TO AV!
AV 'can' be more disproportional, a bit, and it 'can' be more proportional, a bit. But FPTP is already very disproportional.
A bit more than very or a bit less than very disproportional is neither here nor there, and a nuts reason to vote NO. The Jenkins report actually suggested AV, plus a small proportional top up. Basically it concluded AV was a better way to elect a constituency MP.
The problem with AV is that is even more unfair than FPTP is alleged to be. Many people vote right wing (Conservative) and always will. Many vote left wing (Labour) and always will. A few vote don't know (LibDem). With AV many Conservative and Labour voters will put LibDem as their second preference. That will ensure that the LibDems will pick up a considerable number of votes that could result in the third party calling the shots - undemocratic !
@Enerjee what a strange argument. First you say AV is unfair (which is based on it sometimes being a bit less proportional). Then you claim that coalitions, which are almost guaranteed under proportionality, are undemocratic (which is rubbish, everything is agreed between the people we elect to do exactly that. Our constitution does NOT include us voting on a government, however much the two big historical winners would like us to think... the MP's choose a PM, government, and policy, not us)
@Dark0Storm - I was saying that AV is more unfair than FPTP, which makes it really strange how proponents of electoral reform want it. Surely they'd want a more proportional system. However, most AV supporters are only voting for it because they want PR eventually.
In coalitions it's the MPs who choose the compromised policies without the electorate being able to vote on them.
@Enerjee It can be less fair on a parliamentary level, but then given the NO side are arguing for single party governments, and the fact more people are not voting Lab/Con, I'd have thought they'd like it. The only way to maintain single party governments under those circumstance is for parliament to become less and less proportional. AV can also be a little more proportional too. A little more or less prop. is here nor there, but it is, however, a lot better at a constituency level.
@Enerjee But it's the electorate who vote for those MPs in the first place, with the intention that those MPs will work in their best interests. That's what representative democracy is, you elect someone to work on your behalf. AV will allow people to actually vote for MPs who DO represent their best interests.
Single party governments break promises all the time, at least if you have an MP you support then you have a voice in government
@cactustactics - I don't really believe that we vote in and MP to represent us. We vote them in and allow them to delegate as best they see fit. AV and PR will cause them to be even less representative.
@Enerjee You don't understand, what I'm saying is that's how representative democracy works (as opposed to direct democracy where WE actually vote, like this referendum and electing our representatives). So the goal in a representative democracy is to have an MP who at least the majority feel will take their position and look out for their interests. Under FPTP we regularly have winners who don't even have that support - they're less representative of the majority from the outset.
If this FOOL tells you vote No Vote YES Clark is a real scum bag look at the Tory party history they sacked him then dug him up again VOTE YES do not trust this man,.Look it up if you do not take my word. Ken Clarke = slimy toad
@Enerjee My point is quite sensible would you take advice from Nick Griffin on immigration or Hitler on population control my guess is no. So why would you listen to Clarke on AV he is a slimy person with no credit to his name. If he is the best the Tories have then they are in a worse mess than I thought. There is no need to try and patronise me with cheap comments. I have a good point and is was indeed well thought out.
@colcfc123 - your first post was loaded with insults, rude and childish comments adding nothing to the debate.
To advice from Nick Griffin and Hitler my answer would be "Yes" as they would have added their views to the debate. Ken Clarke is a very wise and credible politician. He's pro EU/Euro going against the grain of his party indicating that he is a man of principle. I don't agree with him on that, but on this issue I do. As Chancellor he created a surplus that Labour wasted - FACT.
@Enerjee Your reply to my first post was patronising and cheap adding nothing to the debate. Now lets move on. Ken Clarke in my mind is far from wise as Chancellor he was average at best surplus created by cuts if I remember the Ambulance workers went on strike NHS cuts Lawson was the man who created most savings if my memory serves me well. If you would take advice from Griffin and enjoy debate then surely AV would be good for you as it encourages debate and democracy
@digger65uk I was going to write a considered response, but on reflection I think a more suitable response as a member of this country, the same as you, is to ask you to FOAD.
@smilingvirus - under our system we actually vote for "coalition" of either right (Tory) or left (Labour) parties. Each party is a broad church of opinion. With AV the electorate votes for one or more parties that can result in winning parties putting together a coalition that no one actually voted for.
@SuperDavidleslie - that's a very short-sighted view of politics. The Conservatives encourage people to work hard and reap the benefits of their labour by rewarding hard work. They want to see people getting on and progressing.
As opposed to the aims of Social Democracy that penalises those who work hard and takes more of their money giving it to those who don't want to progress. Socialism's a noble cause - it's how much of it that's the debate.
@SuperDavidleslie You are living in the past young lad. Enjoy sitting by your PC all day on benefits and wanking. Thanks for letting 4 million immigrants into my country.
AV doesn't change the fact we still elect one candidate per constituency, and it doesn't change how government is formed. I'm surprised to see Ken claiming something which is untrue. We don't vote for a Government, we never have. The Prime Minister and the Government are agreed by the MP's in parliament. We have no control over how many MP's are elected from each party, as we have no say outside our constituency. Our vote for our MP is critical, and FPTP is a bad way to elect them.
@Enerjee He's for it, I actually think his reasons are genuine. He said it'll make them work a bit harder, but more importantly will open up the political landscape and allow better dialogue across parties and their supporters. I think that's a pretty mature response, especially from someone in a party that stands to keep on unfairly gaining from the current system by being one of the two who have a large number of constituencies where they are historically one of the 'two horses' that can win.
Ken Clark is one of the most respected and honest politicians , I have ever met. People should listen to what he has to say, I currently live in Germany and what an absolute abortion of a parliament it is , with no overall majorities and continuous coalitions there are never any decisive decisions made. Say NO to AV
@raymonddaviesmbe could be worse, you could have governments who routinely ignore the wishes of their electorate, introduce incredibly unpopular poll taxes and start illegal wars. They say we have strong governments, but really we just have governments who don't have to worry about their accountability.
@Dark0Storm - you'll remember though that the Poll Tax was defeated through the downfall of Thatcher. Blair was a different case in that he wanted to make a name for himself. Labour was defeated in 2010 and is out of government totally for the time being - hopefully for at least 20 years. With AV and certainly PR those regime changes would not have happened.
@Enerjee I'm sorry, I don't remember either of them ever being voted out by the voters. The argument that FPTP is easier to remove unpopular governments is a crock. With AV it's possible those regimes may not have existed (although it was quite two party back then). Under PR they certainly wouldn't have because none of them ever had a majority of the votes. A coalition under PR is by far a less damaging option for a country's government.
@Dark0Storm - you have a point about coalitions under PR being less damaging. Some would argue that they don't actually achieve anything either - how boring.
@raymonddaviesmbe - exactly. With FPTP you get clear and decisive government which can take action and actually change things. Under AV and other systems (especially PR) no party ever really wins resulting in a diluted government which cannot have the power or the courage to change anything. It makes sense for the largest party (the one that receives the most votes) to form the government.
Forgive the supporters of AV, for they know not what they do.
@raymonddaviesmbe mate Germany uses the Hare-Niemeyer system (we call it the Hare-Clark system here and the ACT uses it) essentially what it is is FPTP coupled with party-list voting, ie. about 1/3 if I'm not mistaken of the Bundestag represent electorates whilst the other seats are distributed based on the percentage of votes the party received in each state. here in Australia we use Preferential Voting for the last 93 years and its worked just fine with only 2 hung parlianments.
AV is so close as to make no odds to the system that got David Cameron elected as leader of the Conservative party - allowing him to overtake David Davies with the support of people who voted for fringe candidates like... Ken Clarke!
One of the things I've enjoyed most about working on the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign is the volunteers. Volunteers from all walks of life, and all political backgrounds. Not just Conservatives, but everyone from the Greens to UKIP and the LibDems and Labour as well. And even people who aren't normally involved in politics at all. Everyone coming together to work for this small but significant improvement to our democracy.
@somnolentsurfer - but AV doesn't offer "fairer votes". It's less fair than FPTP as it treats voters' second and third preference votes with the same value as their first preference !
@Enerjee Nonsense. Second preferences aren't even counted until a first preference is eliminated. By your logic, Ken Clarke and Liam Fox's supporters in the 2005 Conservative leaders elections should have had their votes count for less.
@somnolentsurfer - second preferences under AV are already cast before the result of the first ones are counted. It doesn't take into account people's reevaluation of the situation that exists after first preferences and many would often wish to change their second preference in that case should theirs be eliminated. The second and third preferences are, I repeat, given equal value to first preferences.
@Enerjee It doesn't make it any more true just because you repeat it. First Past the Post is broken and totally discredited system. Alternative Vote is better in almost every conceivable way. Go and spend a few days reading the voting systems pages on Wikipedia and come back when you've educated yourself.
@Enerjee that makes it fairer though, if people could see other people's first preferences they could vote tactically simply to take advantage. Under AV all preferences are given at once, the voter's assessment of who they support most and who they'd prefer after that, and who they don't. Nobody gains an informational advantage and the ability to change the course of the election partway through.
@mat5379 so 57% of people in Sydney want to ditch it... or at least 57% of people who were bothered enough by the system to respond to a poll asking if they wanted to change it do. Knowing how those sorts of polls tend to attract attention and end up representing, I'm honestly surprised it was only 57%
No - it wasn't 57% of people who "were bothered" to vote - the poll was a random survey carried out by independent pollsters using a sample of 2000 or so. And yes, that sample is more than enough to provide a fairly accurate opinion of the population as a whole.
Some of the "fringe parties" are quite sensible and if lots of people want to vote for them they should have a voice (come to think of it if lots of people vote for them where does he get off calling them "fringe"). It is disigenuous to paint AV as being an untested system. What he didn't say was how wide spread other PR examples are including STV which is very similar and is used in various places including Ireland and India.
I'm a modern Conservative with a lot of liberal ideals, and who likes the AV system! They say it isn't good for the Party, but maybe that's because we have been one single party for too long. Maybe we need to think about splitting up to be more representative of people's views. I'm a bit tired of chatting with Thatcher-ites who won't give up talking about her first of all, and I also don't like that my next best choice is either Labour or Lib Dem... so let's get on the road to a new world!!
@MrBlackPoplar I might just add that most of the Thatcher-ites I speak to also don't "believe in climate change" (whatever that's supposed to mean - how can you not believe in something that is constantly happening?), and find the 'common man' despicable. That kinds of explains why so many people are completely closed off to the Conservatives. I'm a passionate Conservative - hopefully a bit like David Cameron (except for his bad traits - whatever they may be! Ha ha.).
well done Ken Clarke a great chancellor and fantastic justice secretary
ukipwarrior 6 months ago
bullshit
liam7988 7 months ago
what an old afriad man ofcourse he don't want the system it's more fair and balanced and not at all complicated system
it is quite easy to figure out there are many videos that explains how this works in plain english
pailmaster 7 months ago
It is time Clarke, Major, Hurd, Heseltine , Lamont and the rest of the Tories apologised for the Conservatives malicious treatment of mortgage payers during the 1990s when John Major bragged that “If it isn’t hurting it isn’t working”.
See John Major Black Wednesday on You Tube. The Tories ruined thousands of innocent people and small businesses in a disastrous attempt to drag us into the Euro.
makedoandmend2 8 months ago
Disgusting lies. The conservative party disgusts me.
Fladoodle11 9 months ago
@Fladoodle11 you should see how bad the conservatives are in my country (Australia)
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris Oh God, I dread to think O.o
Fladoodle11 9 months ago
@Fladoodle11 well don't, its bad enough actually living here listening to his pointless rhetoric
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
This is bullshit.
The truth is that, if AV comes into effect, Tories will have less chance at being in power.
This is also the guy who said that rapists should get reduced sentences.
Yeah, great way to earn public appeal, Kenny.
Tomorrow's headline: Oh my god! They killed Kenny! You saints!
Ferklemus 9 months ago
General, general, general. Actually its far more simple than the problems fptp present so that was a lie. From a philosophical standpoint its actually better to experiment when the facts are out of our grasp if we want to have any chance in becoming a better society. Screw you Ken and all the rest of you selfish prats who think this is a game reserved for left brain 'superiors' and thanks for supporting the act of burying your head in the sand... I'll see how far that gets me.
Dolphidood 10 months ago
To be honest, I didn't have anything against NOtoAV until it started spreading BULLSHIT and started using DIRTY ADVERTISING. the number of embarassingly stupid leaflets ive gotten through my door with nick cleggs picture plastered on the cover, as if that affects anything, and then this whole baby and soldier poster business? WE GAVE £400 MILLION TO PAKISTAN IN AID, WE CAN AFFORD £160 TO IMPROVE OUR OWN COUNTRY!
likeastarbaby 10 months ago
Quite honestly this is all crap
WistrelChianti 10 months ago
There's a number of misleading statements in this video. Yes the australians want to change their voting, but crucially NOT to fptp; instead to a form of AV closer to the one in this referendum.
Secondly its not at all complicated; you rank candidates in order of preference, and if you don't have a preference, don't rank any. simple. Thirdly he implies 1st preference candidates will rank as much as 5th; which will only apply if (the 5th) a)they aren't eliminated b)they get majority i.e >50%.
mistermordancy 10 months ago
@mistermordancy thats partially correct, us Australians will never willingly give up our right to preference candidates, as pointed out but Antony Green sometimes having optional preferences is just more practical because in 2007 I believe the now PM had 26 other candidates running against her and the voters had to preference them all as it is we have a 90 potential senators to choose from elected by STV-PV.
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
AV WILL NOT COST 250 MILLION.
AV WILL NOT MEAN MORE COALITIONS.
THESE ARE FACTS. THE RIGHT WING LEADERS ARE TRYING TO SAVE THEMSELVES.
VOTE YES TO DAMAGE CAMERON AND THE TORIES.
AV WILL LOSE THE TORIES SEATS IN FUTURE ELECTIONS.
ToaJoe 10 months ago
What a load of crap. Australians want to ditch AV... that's clearly a lie. I know most Australians (including myself) are quite happy with the AV system.
As for Fiji using the system, they haven't had a democratic government since the military came in in 2006. This is pure arrogance, think the NO vote should go back and research their facts before spinning more dribble!
Hornsbylad 10 months ago
@Hornsbylad the survey that the NO campaign is using was made by a conservative think tank just after PM Gillard formed government and was made up mainly of Liberal and National voters, in other words its about as accurate as a FOX News report
irishgodfatherchris 10 months ago
@Hornsbylad - Now our Aussies cousins know how slimy our politicians can be.
SickPuppyBeatz 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
At last this idiot says something right...maybe his only time he has thought clearly. and probably like the rest of us he doesn't understand it , what a great system!...
BREDATOR1 10 months ago
I'm sorry to see Ken Clarke backing the current unfair voting system. He was one of few Tories that I had any respect for, yet he would clearly prefer to retain an unfair voting system than risk losing the Power that this outdated system has given the Tories and their banker friends
paulgrahammorris 10 months ago
I am not bothering to watch this video. The reason Ken Clarke is voting no to AV is because he is an idiot. This has been confirmed by independent tests.
delphinius2 10 months ago 2
I'd like ken Clarke to explain why his face so closely resembles his scrotum.
RockRedShooter 10 months ago 2
@RockRedShooter I'll take yoiur word for it, I'd prefer not to investigate.
goatmanjohn 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the up-coming UK referendum, be sure to vote YES to AV. It is not right that you are encouraged to vote tactically, instead of for who you really want. AV allowes you to vote for both, with your preference being for who YOU REALLY WANT. It is also not right that parties gain power WITHOUT having 50% of the peoples vote. AV can help smaller parties and THROWS OUT extremeist like the BNP. So vote YES to fairer votes. Vote YES to AV. Thumb up to get the truth out there.
radbot1 10 months ago
Watch "The Dirty Little Secret about the Alternative Vote System" on You Tube for an example of why AV is faulty.
Enerjee 10 months ago
Imagine there are three candidates, A, B and C. After the first count, A and B receive 47% each whilst C received just 6%. So C is eliminated and the C voters now get a second chance and all vote for B - who wins. But if ALL the second votes were examined, you find that because party A hates B and Party B hates A, they all voted for candidate C. Candidate C received 94% of the second vote but candidate B is the winner with just 53%.
Enerjee 10 months ago
AV means that some people may get 2 votes whilst others only get 1 vote.
The TUC members got 1vote through the union and another through the polling booth. It's unfair and the ONLY reason that Labour got the wrong Miliband as leader.
AV proposes that because my first choice doesn't get the lowest vote at first count, my second vote is ignored. But the person whose first vote receives the lowest count gets a second vote. Where's fairness in that?
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee You get one vote with AV. We're not voting in the Labour leadership election, however they do things. Happy to help!
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics - do you work in a DIY store, or maybe a supermarket?
I know we're not voting in the Labour leadership election. My point is that those voters who've had their first choice eliminated than have the right to cast their 2nd preference which could enable a 2nd preference to take the lead.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee So why did you bring up TUC members voting in the Labour leadership elections, saying they got 2 votes?
If your 1st preference is in the lead you cast your vote for your 1st preference. Perhaps you'd like to cast it for your 2nd preference instead, for some reason?
cactustactics 10 months ago
@ToryThatcherite what does scale have to do with anything? If FPTP is a better and fairer system then they wouldn't bother using runoff voting at all - they could just do a single FPTP election with the membership. 198,844 voted in the last Tory leadership election, that's about triple the average constituency size. Why didn't they just use FPTP to choose from all the candidates, which is apparently the best way of electing *our* constituency representatives?
cactustactics 10 months ago
@ToryThatcherite Well at least they don't use FPTP! The tory way of doing things (having looked at it) appears to use a kind of AV/PR to whittle the folk standing to the point where only two members are left and the party can vote, using FPTP (which is appropriate in a 2 horse race). Obviously not a suitable system for a general election but AV is - vote yes to AV on Thursday.
Magnus247 10 months ago
I disagree with the No2AV campaign and just about everything that the Tories stand for but at least this video, unlike just about every other No2AV video on youtube, has left comments open and allows debate. nothing makes me mistrust the Tories more than not being able to respond to their propaganda.
Magnus247 10 months ago
@ToryThatcherite And why are they different? Why do they use runoff elections at all? Why not have a single FPTP election at the beginning if they're so much better and fairer?
cactustactics 10 months ago
@ToryThatcherite - If FPTP is so good why don't the Cons or the Labs use exactly the same system to elect leaders?
shumble32 10 months ago
But he's got our best interests at heart - he recommends the First Past the Post system - that guarantees the Labour/Conservative cartel and that pretty much every other democracy has dropped because of it's weaknesses.
And he represents the tobacco industry who's drugs turn their customers into addicts then kill them - what a nice man!
- or at least a nice smile and a shark's fin down the middle of his back.
Vote Yes to AV - democracy should not be a closed shop.
shumble32 10 months ago
@shumble32 "every other democracy"... except america and india, the biggest democracies on earth, both use FPTP... in fact so does every major democracy that isn't in europe... and you know whats interesting about UK and US democracy? Unlike european ones, they've never fallen to dictatorship. and what? you mean the tobacco industry which the labour party allowed to continue advertising at the races? AV only helps extremists voters have more say.
TheJinkedful 10 months ago
@TheJinkedful - sorry, when I said dropped I should have said modified.
Some say that the UK and US system is just a serial dictatorship where the two big parties take turns at being in power. For me and every other voter who isn't satisfied with the Hobson's choice of Tory or Labour there is no democracy - every vote I've ever cast has been waisted.
You may now say that I'm advocating PR not AV but AV would be a step along the way to better representation.
shumble32 10 months ago
@shumble32 - with the UK's FPTP system there fundamental change can take place. The Welfare State and the NHS would not have been implemented by Labour in 1948 in the way it had been under AV or PR (some would say that's a bad thing). The Tory party would not have been able to have implemented the privatisation programme in the 1980s either.
Under a PR system it's less common for parties to be able change much at all for fear of losing power when making unpopular but necessary decisions.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@TheJinkedful
AV leads to dictatorship? Could you explain your thinking behind that?
Apart from your false assumption that I'm a partisan of the Labour party - your point that it's tobacco policy is just as bad as that of the Tories is a perfect illustration of how FPTP has stifled change in this country.
shumble32 10 months ago
@TheJinkedful - and you get to say who's "extreme" and who isn't? - many people would say the invasion of Iraq was pretty extreme. So perhaps we should change the system so Labour votes are discounted too?
AV will start to break up the cosy unspoken agreement between the Labour and Conservative parties to duopolise British politics.
shumble32 10 months ago
@TheJinkedful Name me a European dictator who wasn't put there by a coup d'etat, revolution or installed by a foreign power - someone who was actually elected to power, apart from Hitler. And the current German system is specifically set up to safeguard democracy from any recurrence of totalitarianism - and they still use proportional representation. FPTP has no inherent protections, at all - it doesn't even require a minimum level of support. Anyone could sweep to power with a minority vote
cactustactics 10 months ago
Good old Ken Clarke - the trusted elder statesman - the tobacco lobbyist.
Tells us that AV is too complicated - ordinary, stupid people, like ourselves, would get confused by having to put the numbers 1, 2 and 3 in the boxes next to the candidates on a voting form.
shumble32 10 months ago
@ToryThatcherite Oh and why do the Conservatives use a series of individual run-off rounds exactly (which is basically what AV is, done all at once)? Why don't they just use a straight-up FPTP election from the beginning, like we have to use when we elect OUR representatives, like they want us to continue to use? Why do they use AV-style runoff elections if they're so fair and FPTP is so much better?
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics 'so unfair' that should be.
cactustactics 10 months ago
But AV is used to Elect Tory party leaders . . . see youtube.com/user/Magnus247#p/a/u/0/BS30pgrpjOo
Magnus247 10 months ago
WHY CAN'T WE BE GREAT ALONG WITH FIJI AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Gazareth2000 10 months ago
Oh dear, how very dissapointing. I used to like Clarke, but what he said he is practically Cameron PR. Fuck the Tories, vote YES and force them to lose seats!
TheLiberalKnight 10 months ago
To think I actually used to quite like and trust this man. Spouting nonsense like this, he's no better than Cameron or any of the others willing to lie with a smile to the public.
ShutterBug10lol 10 months ago
ridiculous. anyone who votes 'no' to AV either doesn't understand it, or is scared of losing.
klakkaros 10 months ago
Some people describe Ken Clarke as an intelligent politician - yet he finds it "complicated" to write the numbers 1, 2, 3 on a ballot paper. The reason most major countries don't use AV is because they have Proportional Representation. If you're intelligent and believe in democracy vote YES to AV
TimConroy66 10 months ago
I do agree that AV should not be used. It is not clearly representative.
sovietunion19221992 10 months ago
@sovietunion19221992 I suggest that you reread the facts about the Alternative Vote. For example, did you know that under the current system a government can get elected whilst representing just 30% or less of the popular vote. AV means that every MP has to represent at least 50% of their constituency, meaning that when they stand up in parliament they will actually represent us and listen to us.
As a result the expenses scandal, the banking crisis & the deficit would all have been avoided
thekeirwilkins 10 months ago
@thekeirwilkins Not strictly true either but certainly no ill can come of making MPs actually appeal to us!
littlejack2233 10 months ago
@thekeirwilkins - I'm not sure it's true that a party can be elected on "30% or less of the popular vote". The Conservatives only got 36% of the vote and there was a Hung Parliament which has resulted in a Coalition government. So I don't think it's true to say that under FPTP the party with the largest amount of votes wins every time.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@thekeirwilkins You say an MP has to represent at least 50% of their constituency under AV - since when is a collection of second and third preferences suitable to show a 'majority' backing for a candidate?
thoneyborne 10 months ago
@thoneyborne Because if nobody gets 50% of the first preferences, nobody has won outright. The one with the fewest votes drops out and everyone is asked 'ok out of the remaining candidates, who do you prefer?' Obviously if your preference is still in the running you go with them, anyone whose preference just dropped out has to go with one of the available candidates. This goes on until someone has over 50% - over half (the majority) of people have said 'I prefer this candidate over the others'
cactustactics 10 months ago
@thoneyborne An election is between BNP, Consevatives and Labour. lets say you vote BNP in an election in FPTP. Your vote is useless. in AV, you have an opional choice in which you get to choose between conservatives or labour. You really don't want any party, but you deffo don't want labour. so you vote conservatives second. when BNP is knocked out, your vote moves on to the new election, An Election between conservatives and labour. your vote move to this new election in the conservatives.
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM - the problem with your example is there's not a "new election" after the 1st votes have been counted. If one voted BNP under AV with Tory as their 2nd preference then that would still be a 2nd pref. The voter has no chance to see who was eliminated before his 2nd pref vote is counted and he might wish to change his vote, but it's already been cast and will be counted as a new 1st pref.
The French Presidential FPTP Run Off system has a 2nd election featuring the 2 leading parties.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee thats why you should prepare days beforehand who you'd prefer in preference. check the web on each candadate. Go right down the list till the end 1,2,3...,8,9,10. by doing this you secure that the last preference doesn't get the seat with your vote. by the way, if your 1st pref is eliminated and the 2nd pref is already gone, your vote moves onto 3rd pref, so your vote works with each election.
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@DeityFSM - I might prepare "days beforehand" who I'd prefer and "check the web on each candidate" and so might you. However, most people wouldn't and couldn't be bothered.
It would become a kind of "X-Factor" beauty contest making a mockery of the system producing distorted results as happened in the ill-advised and thought out TV debates amongst the 3 main party leaders - Clegg was the most telegenic and so he picked up the most votes.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@thoneyborne the labour votes and conservative votes from the original election are still there. they prefer these candidates (in contrasted to retarded Cameron saying that the voters want there vote to move on in the conservatives, when the fat is people who vote for the conservatives want him first choice, and so stick with him in this new election.) the formula is: (number of valad first prefernce votes divided by number of seats + 1) +1.
DeityFSM 10 months ago
Comment removed
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@thoneyborne the formula is equal to 1/2 of votes+1 in all of AV elections. the winning party between conservatives and labour in this second so called election, is the winner. So as you can see, AV isn't proportion, as in the amount of seats per constituency , but gives your vote proportion in trying to elect one seat.
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@thoneyborne it does this by moving your BNP vote to second choice, if you had to choose one. conservative's and labour's votes for the other candidates are still counted for their FIRST CHOICE, which the labs and conserve's voters wish or prefer. This is why AV is more democratic than FPTP
DeityFSM 10 months ago
@thoneyborne Because it would mean that a majority of constituents at least have to prefer said MP!
Also, AV fulfils the Condorcet loser criterion, meaning that any party that would lose a head to head vote against every other candidate, can not win. For example, the SNP would not be able to win because the majority of people - unionists - would prefer every unionist party to them, but under FPTP fringe parties like the SNP can and do win, just because all of the opposition votes are split.
thekeirwilkins 10 months ago
@sovietunion19221992 Compared to FPTP?
littlejack2233 10 months ago
@sovietunion19221992 - then you are confused. AV is clearly more representative and that is why the major parties feel the need to protect their entrenched position by telling you that it's too complicated (when it isn't) and and too expensive (which it isn't)
shumble32 10 months ago
I can explain why Ken Clarke is voting no to AV in much less than two minutes. It's because he's a Tory cunt.
Zetapimpkin 10 months ago 2
Maybe fringe parties and single issue parties SHOULD be more represented in Parliament! The country isn't split into 'Labour' thinkers and 'Conservative' thinkers anymore. People for the most part feel disenfranchised hence the woefully low turnout. In my opinion AV will actually lead to a further watering down of the mainstream parties' politics to win those precious second and third preferences making them even more opportunistic than they are already. Sure we need reform, but this isn't it.
Schniddo 10 months ago
@Schniddo - I totally agree that AV isn't the change we need and is a smoke screen that'llmake things worse. It's being dishonestly promoted by the "Yes" campaign in order to create further dissatisfaction with AV and force further change to a PR system. The system that we have creates broad-church parties of Left and Right whose programmes can then voted for. If the electorate's unhappy once elected then they can be voted out at the next election. With PR the electorate has less power.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee The Yes campaign is not promoting dishonestly whereas the no campaign very much is - which would pointless for them if this is all indeed a conspiracy to get PR.
littlejack2233 10 months ago
@littlejack2233 - but it's well documented that the Liberal Democrats want proportional representation and not AV. Many people vote LibDem solely because of that policy. Now that they're in a Coalition/power sharing government with the Tories they've had to "compromise" (the hallmark of Coalitions) by settling for electoral reform not by stating their real wish of PR, but by for something they don't really believe in (AV).
This is the real dishonesty of the Yes campaign as AV is not PR !
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee Nobody is saying it's PR, at all? They're saying it's a step towards PR if that's what the public want, and a No vote means we'll never be offered the chance to vote for reform again?
Yeah coalitions compromise, that's the whole idea - I'm glad the Libs are a tempering presence, imagine if the Tories were running completely unchecked right now. I'm glad we get the option of AV instead of no option at all. I'm glad that a party with a minority of votes isn't 100% in power. This is bad?
cactustactics 10 months ago
@Enerjee There isn't really anyone that wants AV. However, this is the best we're going to get in terms of democratic electoral reform because it would cost the guys in power too much to change. They spread their lies and ride on conservatism to keep the status quo.
Compromise is how governments should work. The alternative is having enough MPs to basically dictate our laws, and very few people vote for a party liking every single manifesto policy that party has.
littlejack2233 10 months ago
@littlejack2233 I want AV.
You're assuming AV and PR are seperate systems. Just because we might want PR, however, doesn't mean we don't want AV as well. The two work together.
molewizard 10 months ago
@littlejack2233 Should rephrase, the two CAN work together.
molewizard 10 months ago
@littlejack2233 - If there isn't really anyone who wants AV then that makes a mockery of the referendum.
I don't believe the almost ubiquitous concept that this referendum is the last chance we'll get to vote on electoral reform. Should there be a Hung Parliament next time then it's highly likely that it will be a condition of any Coalition agreement.
In your second paragraph you almost convince me that fear of PR is unfounded. Well done !
Enerjee 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@littlejack2233 - If there isn't really anyone who wants AV then that makes a mockery of the referendum.
I don't believe the almost ubiquitous concept that this referendum is the last chance we'll get to vote on electoral reform. Should there be a Hung Parliament next time then it's highly likely that it will be a condition of any Coalition agreement.
In your second paragraph you almost convince me that fear of PR is unfounded. Well done !
Enerjee 10 months ago
Is Mr Clarke making the argument that simply having more interest in a party means your vote counts more? Why would a third preference count less than a first preference. Also when have Conservatives cared what 'foreigners' thought? AV is certainly better than FPTP. Iran uses FPTP does that make FPTP automatically worse than AV?
Go back to your Jazz records and selling fags to third world children.
ckerton1 10 months ago
He doesn't really add anything to the argument does he? Only more "falsehoods"
ruhitchcock 10 months ago
Fuck You. That's the only response he deserves.
1Mperios 10 months ago
"In coalitions it's the MPs who choose the compromised policies without the electorate being able to vote on them."
As opposed to single party governments, where it's the MP's that get to choose what policies they implement or don't, without the electorate being able to vote on them.
Whatever government you have, it is the MP's who propose and vote on policy in parliament. There isn't a single government that hasn't been accused of broken promises, or only enact policy from a manifesto.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
I'll explain why Ken Clarke is voting "No" to AV - because it gets less votes for the Conservatives.
Bangell99 10 months ago 2
@Bangell99 Maybe. You just can't tell. And especially we have no idea how it would play out in many years down the line. If UKIP build a strong vote, vote splitting will start hurting the Tories/Right. Anyone want to bet they'll suddenly be in favour of reform if that happens?
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@Dark0Storm - you could be right. UKIP support AV as they realise that they could well be many people's second preference amongst Conservative and Labour supporters which could challenge the Liberal Democrats as the third largest party.
Enerjee 10 months ago
ken clarke i have great respect for you, but this video is hugely dishonest.
abcunix 10 months ago
1:25 Citation needed
murdochious 10 months ago
If Tories and Labour both say no then it's obvious the right answer is HELL YES.
The only reason they're opposing it is because they know it's the start of the end of their duopolistic stranglehold on British politics.
kensei85 10 months ago
It's complicated? No, it's really simple, it takes no time to explain and you shouldn't be patronising your electorate.
What I don't get is how the fuck you thinks it's ok to claim AV is bad because only four countries use it. That's an appeal to popularity and is a huge logical fallacy!
If you're in favour of electoral form for God's sake vote yes to AV because otherwise politicians will use the outcome of this referendum to say "everything is completely fine and doesn't need fixing"
jonnydarkmusic 10 months ago
@jonnydarkmusic many countries use Preferential voting just not on the level that your referring to.
irishgodfatherchris 10 months ago
@irishgodfatherchris I know they do, it's a twisted statistic. But even so, you can't claim that something is bad because it's unpopular is an argumentum ad populum - an argument based on popularity and that is a logical fallacy. Just because something is unpopular.
Many of the arguments against the AV rely on skin-deep knee-jerk reactionary logic which sound impressive but don't stand up to a modicum of scrutiny.
jonnydarkmusic 10 months ago
sorry I must be blinking each time I watch this
I keep missing his reasoning...
x
RonanSh 10 months ago
imgur.com/a/hgmbQ
barbwireboy2 10 months ago
I will vote No simply because Milliband says Vote Yes.
I will do exaclty the opposite that pillock wants
engineroomapocalypse 10 months ago
@engineroomapocalypse Why not make your own mind up based on an objective assessment of the system and how it will benefit you, instead of worrying about what a certain politician or celebrity thinks?
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics I've considered it deeply and wouldnt mind some sort of evolution in the voting system as it keeps the main political powers in place and excludes other parties. However, I have grown to utterly distrust the Socialist Politician. So seeing Milliband's ugly face next to the Yes campaign was enough to seal it for me. If he's for it I am against it.
engineroomapocalypse 10 months ago
@engineroomapocalypse Wait, so you've considered it, you're in favour of reform and you want to give more voice to other parties and less guaranteed power to the big parties... but you're going to go against all that because you don't like a guy who also supports it? That's just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Honestly I don't even know why he supports it since most of Labour don't, but it shouldn't matter - it's about the best choice for the voting public in who represents us
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics - Ed Milliband supports it partly because it's the AV system that allowed him to wrench victory for the leadership from his brother. It would look conspicuously hypocritical of him to reject AV when he unexpectedly won his position using second preferences against his brother's first preferences. David Cameron also beat David Davis in their leadership contest using AV, however, Cameron is seen as the better leader whereas Ed Milliband is seen as far weaker than David Milliband.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee Well being elected to a final two-way election under an AV system doesn't seem to be stopping Cameron from campaigning against it, so I don't think they're concerned about how their internal elections appear to the public.
Either way, none of us should care about who specifically likes or doesn't like AV, only about their reasons and whether they apply to our own thinking. This is about our ability to elect people to represent us, that's all people should be concerned with
cactustactics 10 months ago
@engineroomapocalypse - if the No camp wins there will be an evolution in the voting system and it will be an improved FPTP. The Coalition will do this by equalising the population of constituencies (ending the anomaly that meant that it took 26000 votes to elect a Labour MP, 44000 a Tory MP, and a huge 96000 a Liberal Democrat MP in the 2005 election). The Coalition's also going to reduce the amount of constituencies from 650 to 600.
AV's a knee jerk and will make allow 2nd bests to win.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee And that 'evolution' in the voting system you're talking about is a gerrymandering of constituencies to allow the Conservatives to automatically win more seats (if they have 90% support in one constituency then drop some into a nearby one to top up the Tory vote) and to also reduce local representation by eliminating some MPs. It's nothing but a power grab and nothing about democracy
Cons 36% of vote:47% of seats +31%
Lab 29% of vote:39% of seats +34%
Libs 23% of vote:9% of seats -61%
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics - how can it be gerrymandering if constituencies are more equalised in population? Surely, the fact that the present system is biased towards Labour means that it's already been gerrymandered. The Liberal Democrats are made up generally of the "don't knows", whereas UKIP and other smaller parties do have an agenda that eventually influences manifestos of the two larger parties.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee if its biased toward Labour how is it that the Conservatives have more seats than them, you've already shot your own arguement down
irishgodfatherchris 10 months ago
@engineroomapocalypse that is a ridiculous reason for disagreeing.. actually decide for yourself why you don't want it. whether you say yes or no to AV should be based on whether you think its fair, democratic and/or in your best interest.
unfortunately at the moment these kind of ignorant comments seem to be a popular choice among No to AV voters
MessiHazza 10 months ago
How Can Politicians campaign to deny taxpayers the right to vote for their representatives - in the same way they vote for their party leaders?! Fix up. fix up. YES TO AV!
Meenzp90 10 months ago
AV 'can' be more disproportional, a bit, and it 'can' be more proportional, a bit. But FPTP is already very disproportional.
A bit more than very or a bit less than very disproportional is neither here nor there, and a nuts reason to vote NO. The Jenkins report actually suggested AV, plus a small proportional top up. Basically it concluded AV was a better way to elect a constituency MP.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
The problem with AV is that is even more unfair than FPTP is alleged to be. Many people vote right wing (Conservative) and always will. Many vote left wing (Labour) and always will. A few vote don't know (LibDem). With AV many Conservative and Labour voters will put LibDem as their second preference. That will ensure that the LibDems will pick up a considerable number of votes that could result in the third party calling the shots - undemocratic !
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee what a strange argument. First you say AV is unfair (which is based on it sometimes being a bit less proportional). Then you claim that coalitions, which are almost guaranteed under proportionality, are undemocratic (which is rubbish, everything is agreed between the people we elect to do exactly that. Our constitution does NOT include us voting on a government, however much the two big historical winners would like us to think... the MP's choose a PM, government, and policy, not us)
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@Dark0Storm - I was saying that AV is more unfair than FPTP, which makes it really strange how proponents of electoral reform want it. Surely they'd want a more proportional system. However, most AV supporters are only voting for it because they want PR eventually.
In coalitions it's the MPs who choose the compromised policies without the electorate being able to vote on them.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee It can be less fair on a parliamentary level, but then given the NO side are arguing for single party governments, and the fact more people are not voting Lab/Con, I'd have thought they'd like it. The only way to maintain single party governments under those circumstance is for parliament to become less and less proportional. AV can also be a little more proportional too. A little more or less prop. is here nor there, but it is, however, a lot better at a constituency level.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@Enerjee But it's the electorate who vote for those MPs in the first place, with the intention that those MPs will work in their best interests. That's what representative democracy is, you elect someone to work on your behalf. AV will allow people to actually vote for MPs who DO represent their best interests.
Single party governments break promises all the time, at least if you have an MP you support then you have a voice in government
cactustactics 10 months ago
@cactustactics - I don't really believe that we vote in and MP to represent us. We vote them in and allow them to delegate as best they see fit. AV and PR will cause them to be even less representative.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee You don't understand, what I'm saying is that's how representative democracy works (as opposed to direct democracy where WE actually vote, like this referendum and electing our representatives). So the goal in a representative democracy is to have an MP who at least the majority feel will take their position and look out for their interests. Under FPTP we regularly have winners who don't even have that support - they're less representative of the majority from the outset.
cactustactics 10 months ago
It's stange that the political parties use the AV system to elect their leaders, but they don't want you to use it to vote for your leader.
raynarks 10 months ago
If this FOOL tells you vote No Vote YES Clark is a real scum bag look at the Tory party history they sacked him then dug him up again VOTE YES do not trust this man,.Look it up if you do not take my word. Ken Clarke = slimy toad
colcfc123 10 months ago
@colcfc123 - another rational, sensible, well-thought out statement from you then.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee My point is quite sensible would you take advice from Nick Griffin on immigration or Hitler on population control my guess is no. So why would you listen to Clarke on AV he is a slimy person with no credit to his name. If he is the best the Tories have then they are in a worse mess than I thought. There is no need to try and patronise me with cheap comments. I have a good point and is was indeed well thought out.
colcfc123 10 months ago
@colcfc123 - your first post was loaded with insults, rude and childish comments adding nothing to the debate.
To advice from Nick Griffin and Hitler my answer would be "Yes" as they would have added their views to the debate. Ken Clarke is a very wise and credible politician. He's pro EU/Euro going against the grain of his party indicating that he is a man of principle. I don't agree with him on that, but on this issue I do. As Chancellor he created a surplus that Labour wasted - FACT.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee Your reply to my first post was patronising and cheap adding nothing to the debate. Now lets move on. Ken Clarke in my mind is far from wise as Chancellor he was average at best surplus created by cuts if I remember the Ambulance workers went on strike NHS cuts Lawson was the man who created most savings if my memory serves me well. If you would take advice from Griffin and enjoy debate then surely AV would be good for you as it encourages debate and democracy
colcfc123 10 months ago
The Conservatives are just scared of change.
missgracegallagher 10 months ago
To Hell with the Conservatives!
xxksaoXX 10 months ago
@xxksaoXX Enjoy sitting by your PC all day on benefits and wanking. Thanks for letting 4 million immigrants into my country.
digger65uk 10 months ago
@digger65uk If only I had time to do that! Do not think that just because I hate the conservatives means I do not work, because you would be wrong.
Your country?
xxksaoXX 10 months ago
@digger65uk I was going to write a considered response, but on reflection I think a more suitable response as a member of this country, the same as you, is to ask you to FOAD.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
"I really enjoy campaigning and seeing everyone work hard for political parties!"
"We should all vote no on this system that would make it necessary for politicians to campaign and work hard to connect with the voters"
The message here is he's cool with voting and swanning around campaigning, so long as he doesn't have to worry about the possibility of losing.
cactustactics 10 months ago
@smilingvirus - under our system we actually vote for "coalition" of either right (Tory) or left (Labour) parties. Each party is a broad church of opinion. With AV the electorate votes for one or more parties that can result in winning parties putting together a coalition that no one actually voted for.
Enerjee 11 months ago
conserative party look after the rich fuck the poor,both the big partys don't want it because it will change the political landscape for good
SuperDavidleslie 11 months ago
@SuperDavidleslie - that's a very short-sighted view of politics. The Conservatives encourage people to work hard and reap the benefits of their labour by rewarding hard work. They want to see people getting on and progressing.
As opposed to the aims of Social Democracy that penalises those who work hard and takes more of their money giving it to those who don't want to progress. Socialism's a noble cause - it's how much of it that's the debate.
A simple explanation, but essentially true.
Enerjee 11 months ago
@SuperDavidleslie You are living in the past young lad. Enjoy sitting by your PC all day on benefits and wanking. Thanks for letting 4 million immigrants into my country.
digger65uk 10 months ago
Ken is a Bilderberg Member.Fuck him and all that he says,Eugenicist get!!!! I used to think he was on our side,but no,he's a sith!!!
stainlesssteelprat 11 months ago
AV doesn't change the fact we still elect one candidate per constituency, and it doesn't change how government is formed. I'm surprised to see Ken claiming something which is untrue. We don't vote for a Government, we never have. The Prime Minister and the Government are agreed by the MP's in parliament. We have no control over how many MP's are elected from each party, as we have no say outside our constituency. Our vote for our MP is critical, and FPTP is a bad way to elect them.
Dark0Storm 11 months ago
bet he still likes salmon and caviar 7 days a week on a fat taxpayers wage eh?
sweetypie000 11 months ago
the only people against AV are the career politicians.
VOTE 'YES' TO AV!!!!
sopranosfan87 11 months ago
@sopranosfan87 - well Ed Milliband is definitely a career politician (straght from the student leaders type) and he's not against it.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee He's for it, I actually think his reasons are genuine. He said it'll make them work a bit harder, but more importantly will open up the political landscape and allow better dialogue across parties and their supporters. I think that's a pretty mature response, especially from someone in a party that stands to keep on unfairly gaining from the current system by being one of the two who have a large number of constituencies where they are historically one of the 'two horses' that can win.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
Ken Clark is one of the most respected and honest politicians , I have ever met. People should listen to what he has to say, I currently live in Germany and what an absolute abortion of a parliament it is , with no overall majorities and continuous coalitions there are never any decisive decisions made. Say NO to AV
raymonddaviesmbe 11 months ago 2
@raymonddaviesmbe could be worse, you could have governments who routinely ignore the wishes of their electorate, introduce incredibly unpopular poll taxes and start illegal wars. They say we have strong governments, but really we just have governments who don't have to worry about their accountability.
Dark0Storm 11 months ago
@Dark0Storm - you'll remember though that the Poll Tax was defeated through the downfall of Thatcher. Blair was a different case in that he wanted to make a name for himself. Labour was defeated in 2010 and is out of government totally for the time being - hopefully for at least 20 years. With AV and certainly PR those regime changes would not have happened.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee I'm sorry, I don't remember either of them ever being voted out by the voters. The argument that FPTP is easier to remove unpopular governments is a crock. With AV it's possible those regimes may not have existed (although it was quite two party back then). Under PR they certainly wouldn't have because none of them ever had a majority of the votes. A coalition under PR is by far a less damaging option for a country's government.
Dark0Storm 10 months ago
@Dark0Storm - you have a point about coalitions under PR being less damaging. Some would argue that they don't actually achieve anything either - how boring.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@raymonddaviesmbe - exactly. With FPTP you get clear and decisive government which can take action and actually change things. Under AV and other systems (especially PR) no party ever really wins resulting in a diluted government which cannot have the power or the courage to change anything. It makes sense for the largest party (the one that receives the most votes) to form the government.
Forgive the supporters of AV, for they know not what they do.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@raymonddaviesmbe Germany doesn't use AV, genius.
AphoticCosmos 10 months ago
@AphoticCosmos they use the STV do they not coupled with the Hare-Niemeyer system
irishgodfatherchris 10 months ago
@raymonddaviesmbe mate Germany uses the Hare-Niemeyer system (we call it the Hare-Clark system here and the ACT uses it) essentially what it is is FPTP coupled with party-list voting, ie. about 1/3 if I'm not mistaken of the Bundestag represent electorates whilst the other seats are distributed based on the percentage of votes the party received in each state. here in Australia we use Preferential Voting for the last 93 years and its worked just fine with only 2 hung parlianments.
irishgodfatherchris 10 months ago
@raymonddaviesmbe - you a scum tory - sounds like it?
Donald6899 10 months ago
AV is so close as to make no odds to the system that got David Cameron elected as leader of the Conservative party - allowing him to overtake David Davies with the support of people who voted for fringe candidates like... Ken Clarke!
somnolentsurfer 11 months ago
@somnolentsurfer much lol
cnmmedic218 11 months ago
One of the things I've enjoyed most about working on the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign is the volunteers. Volunteers from all walks of life, and all political backgrounds. Not just Conservatives, but everyone from the Greens to UKIP and the LibDems and Labour as well. And even people who aren't normally involved in politics at all. Everyone coming together to work for this small but significant improvement to our democracy.
somnolentsurfer 11 months ago
@somnolentsurfer - but AV doesn't offer "fairer votes". It's less fair than FPTP as it treats voters' second and third preference votes with the same value as their first preference !
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee Nonsense. Second preferences aren't even counted until a first preference is eliminated. By your logic, Ken Clarke and Liam Fox's supporters in the 2005 Conservative leaders elections should have had their votes count for less.
somnolentsurfer 10 months ago
@somnolentsurfer - second preferences under AV are already cast before the result of the first ones are counted. It doesn't take into account people's reevaluation of the situation that exists after first preferences and many would often wish to change their second preference in that case should theirs be eliminated. The second and third preferences are, I repeat, given equal value to first preferences.
Enerjee 10 months ago
@Enerjee It doesn't make it any more true just because you repeat it. First Past the Post is broken and totally discredited system. Alternative Vote is better in almost every conceivable way. Go and spend a few days reading the voting systems pages on Wikipedia and come back when you've educated yourself.
somnolentsurfer 10 months ago
@Enerjee that makes it fairer though, if people could see other people's first preferences they could vote tactically simply to take advantage. Under AV all preferences are given at once, the voter's assessment of who they support most and who they'd prefer after that, and who they don't. Nobody gains an informational advantage and the ability to change the course of the election partway through.
cactustactics 10 months ago
Good old Ken, when all else fails just lie! Australians don't want AV! lol.
mrfrostynova 11 months ago
@mrfrostynova
Sorry but Ken isn't lying on this - there was a poll in the Sydney Morning Herald - 57% do want to ditch the system whereas only 37% want to keep it.
Now I completely disagree with Ken normally, I'm a Eurosceptic, but on this he is telling the truth.
mat5379 11 months ago
@mat5379 so 57% of people in Sydney want to ditch it... or at least 57% of people who were bothered enough by the system to respond to a poll asking if they wanted to change it do. Knowing how those sorts of polls tend to attract attention and end up representing, I'm honestly surprised it was only 57%
Dark0Storm 11 months ago
@Dark0Storm
No - it wasn't 57% of people who "were bothered" to vote - the poll was a random survey carried out by independent pollsters using a sample of 2000 or so. And yes, that sample is more than enough to provide a fairly accurate opinion of the population as a whole.
mat5379 11 months ago
Some of the "fringe parties" are quite sensible and if lots of people want to vote for them they should have a voice (come to think of it if lots of people vote for them where does he get off calling them "fringe"). It is disigenuous to paint AV as being an untested system. What he didn't say was how wide spread other PR examples are including STV which is very similar and is used in various places including Ireland and India.
cnmmedic218 11 months ago
I'm a modern Conservative with a lot of liberal ideals, and who likes the AV system! They say it isn't good for the Party, but maybe that's because we have been one single party for too long. Maybe we need to think about splitting up to be more representative of people's views. I'm a bit tired of chatting with Thatcher-ites who won't give up talking about her first of all, and I also don't like that my next best choice is either Labour or Lib Dem... so let's get on the road to a new world!!
MrBlackPoplar 11 months ago
@MrBlackPoplar I might just add that most of the Thatcher-ites I speak to also don't "believe in climate change" (whatever that's supposed to mean - how can you not believe in something that is constantly happening?), and find the 'common man' despicable. That kinds of explains why so many people are completely closed off to the Conservatives. I'm a passionate Conservative - hopefully a bit like David Cameron (except for his bad traits - whatever they may be! Ha ha.).
MrBlackPoplar 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An ARISTOCRAT the leader of a DEMOCRACY
SOCIALISTS accepting peerages
THIS WORLD IS FUCKED UP
FUKUISLAND2011 11 months ago